Changes

Book of Daniel (view source)

Revision as of 04:54, August 12, 2016

65 bytes removed , 04:54, August 12, 2016

clean up

Line 321: Line 321:

Further evidence of his wisdom was another dream of Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor which he alone was able to interpret, the dream of a mighty tree. The king heard the command given to cut it down, and that "seven times" should "pass over" its stump, which had been left standing. Daniel explained that this portended that in punishment of his pride the monarch would for a while lose his throne, be deprived of his reason, imagine himself an ox (''bo-anthropy'' <ref>'''Boanthropy''' is a type of [[insanity]] or psychological disorder in which a [[human being]] believes himself to be a [[Bovine]] (a cow and/or an ox). "boanthropy"

−

(bō·an′thrə·pē) noun [<NL <Gk. ''boanthrōpos'' <bous bull, ox + ''anthrōpos'' man] [http://www.whatdoesthatmean.com/dictionary/B/boanthropy.html#ixzz3PlKiIP8e What Does That Mean? English Dictionary. B. boanthropy.] Charles Talbut Onions (ed) ''The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary On Historical Principles'' Vol.1 Oxford University Press 1933 page 195</ref>), and live in the open fields, but be again restored to his power, finally convinced of the supreme might and goodness of the Most High. The Prophet exhorted the king to forestall such punishment by atoning for his sins with deeds of mercy ('''''works''''' <ref>"deeds of mercy/works"—Compare [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/4-27.htm Daniel 4:27], [http://biblehub.com/multi/ezekiel/18-21.htm Ezekiel 18:21], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=tobit%2012:9&version=DRA Tobit 12:9a], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1john%203:17-22&version=DRA 1 John 3:17-22], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%202:14-26&version=DRA James 2:14-26] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2025:31-46&version=DRA Matthew 25:31-46]. The [[Book of Tobit]] is rejected as ''obviously'' apocryphal in part because of the text: "For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin". This counsel, the same counsel the Prophet Daniel gave to the king, is condemned as false Catholic doctrine by Protestant teaching, yet the book of Daniel 1–12, which includes chapter 4, is fully accepted by Protestant Christians as the inspired word of God in the Protestant Bible, along with the books of Ezekiel and James, 1 John and Matthew. Jesus himself in Matthew teaches the absolute necessity of good works. See

+

(bō·an′thrə·pē) noun [<NL <Gk. ''boanthrōpos'' <bous bull, ox + ''anthrōpos'' man] [http://www.whatdoesthatmean.com/dictionary/B/boanthropy.html#ixzz3PlKiIP8e What Does That Mean? English Dictionary. B. boanthropy.] Charles Talbut Onions (ed) ''The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary On Historical Principles'' Vol.1 Oxford University Press 1933 page 195</ref>), and live in the open fields, but be again restored to his power, finally convinced of the supreme might and goodness of the Most High. The Prophet exhorted the king to forestall such punishment by atoning for his sins with deeds of mercy ('''''works''''' <ref>"deeds of mercy/works"—Compare [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/4-27.htm Daniel 4:27], [http://biblehub.com/multi/ezekiel/18-21.htm Ezekiel 18:21], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=tobit%2012:9&version=DRA Tobit 12:9a], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1john%203:17-22&version=DRA 1 John 3:17-22], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%202:14-26&version=DRA James 2:14-26] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2025:31-46&version=DRA Matthew 25:31-46]. The Book of Tobit is rejected as ''obviously'' apocryphal in part because of the text: "For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin". This counsel, the same counsel the Prophet Daniel gave to the king, is condemned as false Catholic doctrine by Protestant teaching, yet the book of Daniel 1–12, which includes chapter 4, is fully accepted by Protestant Christians as the inspired word of God in the Protestant Bible, along with the books of Ezekiel and James, 1 John and Matthew. Jesus himself in Matthew teaches the absolute necessity of good works. See

*[http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm Roman Catholic and Orthodox Faith Examined, and The Apocrypha: "Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!"] (bible.ca)

*[http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry: Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible, by Ryan Turner] (carm.org)</ref>); but he did not listen to the word of God taught by the Prophet, and Daniel's prediction was fulfilled to the letter (chapter 4).<ref>For a parallel to this, see Abydenus' account (second century B.C.) quoted in Eusebius ''Præp. Evang.'' IX, xl. [http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_06_book6.htm Eusebius of Caesarea: ''Praeparatio Evangelica'' (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Book 6])</ref>

Line 442: Line 442:

===Fundamentalist textual analysis===

−

Fundamentalist Protestant Christian believers consistently maintain that God used the Jewish teachers/rabbis as the arbiters of what is to be considered an approved text. They said no to the pre-Christian Jewish rabbinical additions to Daniel translated into Greek in the Septuagint Bible of the Alexandrian Jews. Many fundamentalists agree with their assessment by looking at these additional texts. If one were to ask their opinion, these texts to do not appear to them to be inspired. The Jews, by consensus, accepted Genesis-Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,?...,Ecclesiastes,?... But they did not accept 2 Maccabees, Jubilees, 3 Enoch, additions to Daniel, etc. into their canon. They admit that they accept by faith that God influenced the final canon of the OT as selected by ''the consensus of the Jews after the time of Christ'', which may not be a very useful instrument to "one who does not have faith" (a variation of the logical fallacy of [[No true Scotsman]] "whoever cannot see this lacks faith."). The [[Masoretic Text]] (from A.D. the 8th century) does not include these texts. The fundamentalist will say the LXX did not include them either, although they admit it is true that when Jerome translated the OT he was "forced" (''against his will, they add'') to include the "Apocrypha" in the Vulgate translation. The Masoretic text is clear on this. But what is to be included in the LXX is not, on the face of the available extant manuscript evidence, clear to them. It is useful to compare what Jerome himself wrote.

+

Fundamentalist Protestant Christian believers consistently maintain that God used the Jewish teachers/rabbis as the arbiters of what is to be considered an approved text. They said no to the pre-Christian Jewish rabbinical additions to Daniel translated into Greek in the Septuagint Bible of the Alexandrian Jews. Many fundamentalists agree with their assessment by looking at these additional texts. If one were to ask their opinion, these texts to do not appear to them to be inspired. The Jews, by consensus, accepted Genesis-Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,?...,Ecclesiastes,?... But they did not accept 2 Maccabees, Jubilees, 3 Enoch, additions to Daniel, etc. into their canon. They admit that they accept by faith that God influenced the final canon of the OT as selected by ''the consensus of the Jews after the time of Christ'', which may not be a very useful instrument to "one who does not have faith" (a variation of the logical fallacy of [[No true Scotsman]] "whoever cannot see this lacks faith."). The Masoretic Text (from A.D. the 8th century) does not include these texts. The fundamentalist will say the LXX did not include them either, although they admit it is true that when Jerome translated the OT he was "forced" (''against his will, they add'') to include the "Apocrypha" in the Vulgate translation. The Masoretic text is clear on this. But what is to be included in the LXX is not, on the face of the available extant manuscript evidence, clear to them. It is useful to compare what Jerome himself wrote.

In his reply to Rufinus,<ref>See the following:

Line 496: Line 496:

Regardless of whether it was originally written in Hebrew or not, the fact that the Septuagint Greek text was regarded by the Greek-speaking Jews as scripture and was the main source of Old Testament quotations for Jesus and the NT writers, as can be seen from the extant Greek manuscripts, and the fact that Jesus cited the Greek version of Daniel, is for Catholic and Orthodox Christians a strong indication that it was always regarded by the early 1st century Christians as scripture, including ''Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna,'' and ''Bel and the Dragon'', and was an integral part of the Old Testament of the Greek Bible revered and preserved as inspired sacred scripture by the early Christian Church in the 1st through the 5th centuries.

−

While these texts in Daniel were among the [[deuterocanonicals]] disputed by some Christians and independent Christian scholars, there is no record of discussion or controversy against any person or group seeking to ''add'' them to the scriptures, but only discussions of and by those Christians who sought to have them ''excluded'' from the canon of inspired Old Testament writings.

+

While these texts in Daniel were among the deuterocanonicals disputed by some Christians and independent Christian scholars, there is no record of discussion or controversy against any person or group seeking to ''add'' them to the scriptures, but only discussions of and by those Christians who sought to have them ''excluded'' from the canon of inspired Old Testament writings.

====Treatment in Ancient Versions====

−

It is clear that Origen, the Alexandrine 2nd century biblical scholar (A.D. c. 185-254 ) made a distinct separation between the [[Protocanonicals|protocanonical]] books of the OT and the ~~[[Deuterocanonicals|~~deuterocanonical]] books,<ref>Ellis, E.Earle, Mikra, The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church, Chapter 18, pg.. 661 "While still at Alexandria, and therefore before A.D. 231, the eminent biblical scholar Origen (A.D. c. 185-254) wrote an exposition of Psalm 1 in which he included 'a catalogue of the sacred scriptures of the Old Testament'. He comments that 'there are twenty-two canonical books as the Hebrews tradition them, the same as the number of the letters of their alphabet'. He proceeds to give the titles in Greek, followed by a transliteration of the Hebrew names:" This, however, is evidence only of the usage of the Jews after the time of Christ, and after the beginning of the 3rd century. Origen did not here list the Holy Scriptures of the ''Christian'' Bible.</ref> however he does defend the Septuagint rabbinical additions to Daniel, specifically Susanna.<ref>Origen, ''Ad Africanum'' 9: The Hebrew copies lack the Septuagint readings because the elders "hid from the knowledge of the people" passages that might bring discredit on them, e.g. ''The story of Susanna''. Some of the passages "have been preserved in their non-canonical writings". For an ET of ''Ad Africanum'' cf. Roberts-Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers 4, 386-392.</ref> In this written document of defense he infers that these additions were kept out because of embarrassment of the scholars (elders) who determined which books were to be canonical. Origen's defense is seen by fundamentalists as clearly unjust and plainly opposed to the great care and careful selection of writings considered to be Holy Scriptures. Fundamentalists say the ecclesial process of canonization is greatly exaggerated and misused by scholars who are bent on defaming the Bible, that these scholars make as though it were a council that convened, debated and voted about whether a book was acceptable, discarding some and including others, and that it is unthinkable that the Holy Spirit was guiding them into truth. But they assert instead that in actuality the acceptance and authenticity of a writing was done by the actual author who wrote, then turned the work over to the scribes for preservation as the Word of the LORD.<ref>Exodus 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. Isaiah 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz. Isaiah 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: Jeremiah 30:2 Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book. Ezekiel 43:11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house,... and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.</ref> They assume without question that the shorter version of the Book of Daniel is the original composition and not a later abbreviated form of a longer text written originally by Daniel, which he sealed and turned over to the scribes for preservation, but now lost, whose full message and contents after it was unsealed were originally copied in Aramaic, and have been divinely preserved in Greek translation by devout rabbinical scholars before the time of Christ, and transmitted in the Septuagint Old Testament text of the Greek Bible preserved and revered by Christians from the 1st century to the present day, which the Jews rejected.

+

It is clear that Origen, the Alexandrine 2nd century biblical scholar (A.D. c. 185-254 ) made a distinct separation between the [[Protocanonicals|protocanonical]] books of the OT and the deuterocanonical books,<ref>Ellis, E.Earle, Mikra, The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church, Chapter 18, pg.. 661 "While still at Alexandria, and therefore before A.D. 231, the eminent biblical scholar Origen (A.D. c. 185-254) wrote an exposition of Psalm 1 in which he included 'a catalogue of the sacred scriptures of the Old Testament'. He comments that 'there are twenty-two canonical books as the Hebrews tradition them, the same as the number of the letters of their alphabet'. He proceeds to give the titles in Greek, followed by a transliteration of the Hebrew names:" This, however, is evidence only of the usage of the Jews after the time of Christ, and after the beginning of the 3rd century. Origen did not here list the Holy Scriptures of the ''Christian'' Bible.</ref> however he does defend the Septuagint rabbinical additions to Daniel, specifically Susanna.<ref>Origen, ''Ad Africanum'' 9: The Hebrew copies lack the Septuagint readings because the elders "hid from the knowledge of the people" passages that might bring discredit on them, e.g. ''The story of Susanna''. Some of the passages "have been preserved in their non-canonical writings". For an ET of ''Ad Africanum'' cf. Roberts-Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers 4, 386-392.</ref> In this written document of defense he infers that these additions were kept out because of embarrassment of the scholars (elders) who determined which books were to be canonical. Origen's defense is seen by fundamentalists as clearly unjust and plainly opposed to the great care and careful selection of writings considered to be Holy Scriptures. Fundamentalists say the ecclesial process of canonization is greatly exaggerated and misused by scholars who are bent on defaming the Bible, that these scholars make as though it were a council that convened, debated and voted about whether a book was acceptable, discarding some and including others, and that it is unthinkable that the Holy Spirit was guiding them into truth. But they assert instead that in actuality the acceptance and authenticity of a writing was done by the actual author who wrote, then turned the work over to the scribes for preservation as the Word of the LORD.<ref>Exodus 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. Isaiah 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz. Isaiah 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: Jeremiah 30:2 Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book. Ezekiel 43:11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house,... and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.</ref> They assume without question that the shorter version of the Book of Daniel is the original composition and not a later abbreviated form of a longer text written originally by Daniel, which he sealed and turned over to the scribes for preservation, but now lost, whose full message and contents after it was unsealed were originally copied in Aramaic, and have been divinely preserved in Greek translation by devout rabbinical scholars before the time of Christ, and transmitted in the Septuagint Old Testament text of the Greek Bible preserved and revered by Christians from the 1st century to the present day, which the Jews rejected.

In the Latin Vulgate, a translation of the Septuagint text of ''Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children'' is retained in chapter 3 of Daniel, a translation of the ''Story of Susanna'' was placed after chapter 12, and a translation of the Septuagint text of ''Bel and the Dragon'' is positioned as chapter 14. The books of the Latin Vulgate Old Testament follow the general order of the canon in the Septuagint.

Line 557: Line 557:

W. Sibley Towner (''Harper's Bible Commentary'', p. 696) writes that Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In its current form (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), he says the book must have been given its final form at some time in 167–164 B.C. Towner says this is based on two assumptions: first, that the authors lived near the end of the historical events characterizing Daniel 7–12; and second, that "prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray". Hence, the references to the Temple's desecration and the "abomination that makes desolate" in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events previously known to the author. He insists that the best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The "inaccurate" description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests to him that "the author did not know" of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C.. However, because Towner, as many others, implicitly assumes that the "sea" must be the Mediterranean, he does not advert to the fact that this text [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/11-45.htm 11:45] accurately designated with divine foreknowledge the geographical location of Antiochus' death in Persia as between Mount Zion and the Caspian Sea and "between the seas" of the Mediterranean Sea and the Caspian Sea (the translations vary).<ref name=11:45/> Dr. Towner suggests that the roots of the [[Hagiography|hagiographa]] (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chapters 1–6 may in fact date to an earlier time, but that the entire work was probably given its final shape in 164 B.C..

−

Louis F. Hartman (''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'', vol. 1, page 448) asserts that Jews and Christians, "having lost sight of these ancient modes of writing", until relatively recent years have "erroneously" considered Daniel to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. As chapters 7–12 are written in the first person, he says it was natural for them to assume that Daniel in chapters 1–6 was a truly historical character and that he was the author of the whole book. However, he insists that few modern biblical scholars would now seriously defend such an opinion. Hartman says the arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming. The late Hebrew used in Daniel could hardly have written by an author living in the 6th century, and its Aramaic is certainly later than the Aramaic of the Elephantine papyri dating from the end of the 5th century. He points out that the theological outlook of the author, with "his interest in angelology", "his apocalyptic rather than prophetic vision", and especially "his belief in the resurrection of the dead", points inescapably to a period long after the Babylonian Exile. Hartman says the author's historical perspective, "often hazy for events in the time of the Babylonian and Persian kings but much clearer for the events during the Seleucid Dynasty", is characteristic of the Hellenistic age. Finally, the author's detailed description matching the details of the profanation of the Temple of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 and the following persecution (9:27; 11:30-35), in contrast to his "merely general reference" to the evil end that would surely come to such a wicked man (11:45), indicates a composition date shortly before the death of this king in 164, therefore probably in 165.<ref name=11:45/> Hartman says (''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'', vol. 1, p. 460) that Daniel 14:1-22 is another folk tale of the "Daniel Cycle", a little Jewish "detective story" satire on the crudities of idolatry, although actually it is a caricature of pagan worship. He points out that the offering of food and drink in sacrifice to pagan gods "did not differ substantially from similar offerings made to Yahweh in the Temple". In both cases, a certain amount of the sacrificial offerings went quite legitimately to the priests and their families. However, the Jews of the last pre-Christian centuries were so convinced of the folly of idolatry (see Wisdom 13:1–15:17) that this "unfair ridicule of pagan worship" is understandable. (Compare the human sacrificial practices of [[infanticide]]/[[abortion]] in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=wisdom%2012:2-7&version=DRA Wisdom 12:2-7].) Hartman says the second story in Daniel 14:23-42 is another short story in the "Daniel Cycle", basically a variant of Daniel 6 (the lions' den). Here pagan worship is again satired by Daniel's "blowing up" of the Babylonians' divine serpent (this is Hartman's ridicule of Daniel's inducing in the beast a serious bowel blockage and hemorrhage with rupture to demonstrate beyond all doubt that it was no god). He says that although this was once an independent story, in its present form it has been edited to follow the preceding tale (see verse 28); and he acknowledges that in all the Greek manuscripts, the two stories do appear together, and the LXX of the Jews even prefixes to the former tale the note, "From the prophecy of Habakkuk, son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi." However, neither Hartman nor fundamentalist Christians believe that this explicit pre-Christian rabbinical testimony/certification of authenticity in the LXX constitutes authentic inspired scriptural sanction of the book as being a genuine part of the Book of Daniel. This is the [[fallacy of exclusion]], also called "[[cherry picking]]".

+

Louis F. Hartman (''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'', vol. 1, page 448) asserts that Jews and Christians, "having lost sight of these ancient modes of writing", until relatively recent years have "erroneously" considered Daniel to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. As chapters 7–12 are written in the first person, he says it was natural for them to assume that Daniel in chapters 1–6 was a truly historical character and that he was the author of the whole book. However, he insists that few modern biblical scholars would now seriously defend such an opinion. Hartman says the arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming. The late Hebrew used in Daniel could hardly have written by an author living in the 6th century, and its Aramaic is certainly later than the Aramaic of the Elephantine papyri dating from the end of the 5th century. He points out that the theological outlook of the author, with "his interest in angelology", "his apocalyptic rather than prophetic vision", and especially "his belief in the resurrection of the dead", points inescapably to a period long after the Babylonian Exile. Hartman says the author's historical perspective, "often hazy for events in the time of the Babylonian and Persian kings but much clearer for the events during the Seleucid Dynasty", is characteristic of the Hellenistic age. Finally, the author's detailed description matching the details of the profanation of the Temple of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 and the following persecution (9:27; 11:30-35), in contrast to his "merely general reference" to the evil end that would surely come to such a wicked man (11:45), indicates a composition date shortly before the death of this king in 164, therefore probably in 165.<ref name=11:45/> Hartman says (''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'', vol. 1, p. 460) that Daniel 14:1-22 is another folk tale of the "Daniel Cycle", a little Jewish "detective story" satire on the crudities of idolatry, although actually it is a caricature of pagan worship. He points out that the offering of food and drink in sacrifice to pagan gods "did not differ substantially from similar offerings made to Yahweh in the Temple". In both cases, a certain amount of the sacrificial offerings went quite legitimately to the priests and their families. However, the Jews of the last pre-Christian centuries were so convinced of the folly of idolatry (see Wisdom 13:1–15:17) that this "unfair ridicule of pagan worship" is understandable. (Compare the human sacrificial practices of [[infanticide]]/[[abortion]] in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=wisdom%2012:2-7&version=DRA Wisdom 12:2-7].) Hartman says the second story in Daniel 14:23-42 is another short story in the "Daniel Cycle", basically a variant of Daniel 6 (the lions' den). Here pagan worship is again satired by Daniel's "blowing up" of the Babylonians' divine serpent (this is Hartman's ridicule of Daniel's inducing in the beast a serious bowel blockage and hemorrhage with rupture to demonstrate beyond all doubt that it was no god). He says that although this was once an independent story, in its present form it has been edited to follow the preceding tale (see verse 28); and he acknowledges that in all the Greek manuscripts, the two stories do appear together, and the LXX of the Jews even prefixes to the former tale the note, "From the prophecy of Habakkuk, son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi." However, neither Hartman nor fundamentalist Christians believe that this explicit pre-Christian rabbinical testimony/certification of authenticity in the LXX constitutes authentic inspired scriptural sanction of the book as being a genuine part of the Book of Daniel. This is the fallacy of exclusion, also called "cherry picking".

J. Alberto Soggin (''Introduction to the Old Testament'', p. 408) observes that the first difficulties in the historical classification of the book begin with the deportation of Daniel and his companions, because historians do not in fact know anything of a deportation which took place in the third year of Jehoiakim, in 607 B.C.. Allowing for its possibly basic historicity, he says the event might be connected with the conquest of Syria and Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar II after the battle of Carchemish in 605–4 and his victory over Egypt. Soggin sees King Jehoiakim as taking this occasion to move out of the sphere of Egyptian influence and into that of Babylon (he refers his reader to [http://biblehub.com/multi/2_chronicles/36-5.htm 2 Chronicles 36:5], but his reference is of itself uninformative, vague, does not illustrate his point, and is of itself not complete, a pervasive general characteristic of modern liberal scholarship—see the fuller reference [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2chronicles%2036:1-7&version=KJV 2 Chronicles 36:1-7], and compare this usage to the far more explicit [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2kings%2023:31-24:7&version=KJV 2 Kings 23:31–24:7] which apparently was his intended reference). Complex problems of foreign policy followed, to which Soggin alludes in his discussion of Jeremiah. He points out that until recently this notation in the text of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 36:5 again?)was considered spurious, since there was no external historical point of comparison, but discoveries during the 1950s of various unedited fragments of the ''[[Babylonian Chronicle]]'' have, for historical-critical scholars, unexpectedly made sense of both this passage and 2 Kings 24:1ff. But even admitting the substantial historicity of the events narrated, Soggin emphasizes that there remains the problem of chronology. He finds other elements no less perplexing: in 5:11 Belshazzar is implicitly called the son of Nebuchadnezzar and in 7:1 he appears as king of Babylon. However, according to historical records he was neither one nor the other, but the son of Nabonidus, one of Nebuchadnezzar's successors who came to the throne as the result of a plot. (The only other possibility, according to Soggin, is that "''son of...''" is intended in a generic sense, as "''descendant of...''", a usage which is attested in [[Akkadian language|Akkadian]].) Alternatively, Soggin says the statement that Belshazzar was king may simply be imprecise wording: towards 553 B.C. he was resident in Babylon as a kind of lieutenant-general for the king during his numerous absences, and could therefore have been called king, at least by the people. Again, in 5:31 a certain Darius the Mede appears, who is considered by many readers to be king of Persia after the fall of Babylon. In 9:1 "Darius" appears as son of Xerxes, whereas in 6:29 Cyrus succeeds a "Darius". Soggin affirms that, if we are to be precise, the question arises regarding why Daniel is at the court of the Medes before the Babylonian empire has fallen, "always assuming that we take the term 'Mede' seriously". Soggin says this question has never been answered. He says we must therefore accept that Media in the Book of Daniel is in reality Persia. He does not appear to entertain the real possibility that Cyrus assigned to his own lieutenant and chief commander Darius the whole province of Babylon to govern as a subordinate ruler, and that the Babylonian empire fell when Darius "received" the kingdom. Conservative scholars can point out that he obviously "received the kingdom" from Cyrus (Aramaic '''קְבַל''' ''qĕbal'' "''received''"<ref>KJV says he "''took''" the kingdom. [http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6902&t=NASB Strong's number 6902 '''קְבַל''' ''qĕbal'']</ref>), that Darius is not called "king of the Medes", and therefore Daniel was not "at the court of the Medes before the Babylonian empire has fallen"—compare multiple versions of [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/5-31.htm 5:31]. But the genealogy of the kings of Persia is well known: Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius I Hystaspes, Xerxes. Soggin asks, if the Darius mentioned here was Darius I Hystaspes from the last quarter of the sixth century, king of Persia 521–486 B.C., how old would Daniel be? He says these are features which were already pointed out by the anti-Christian polemicist [[Celsus]] at the end of A.D. the second century. It is evident that they do not believe a prophet of God could live to the age of around 105 (about 17 years old, a "child/youth without blemish" (1:4) in the third year of Jehoiakim 607 B.C. and living to 519 B.C. the first year of Darius I Hystaspes: 607 – 519 = 88 years + 17 = 105 years old).<ref>"about 17 years old". Daniel 1:4 "children" Strong's number 3206 '''ילד ''yeled''''' : The [[King James Version]] of Genesis 21:14 and Daniel 1:4 translates '''ילד ''yeled''''' as "child". According to Strong's Concordance of the Bible ''Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament'' (Strong's number 3206) this word also means "young man", ''a lad''.</ref>

Line 780: Line 780:

[[Apocrypha]]

−

~~[[Deuterocanonicals]]~~

[[Biblical Canon]]

DavidB4-bot

Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt

58,343

edits

Changes

Book of Daniel (view source)

Revision as of 04:54, August 12, 2016

Navigation menu

Search