Freethought & Rationalism Archive

unknown4 · 03-31-2005, 08:13 PM

Has anyone read the claim that this prophecy referred to the destruction of the second Temple? Josephus (Wars 6.5.4; 6:3,10-15) and perhaps the Jerusalem Talmud (Taanis 4:5), make reference concerning approximately seven years (or one week of years) before the Temple was destroyed, Vespasian made an agreement with the Jewish leaders to let the sacrifices continue. However, approximately 3 and 1/2 years later the Temple came under siege and the sacrifices were abandoned. I got these references off of websites, so I don't know accurate they are.

Since there is the claim that Daniel 9:27 really refers to Antiochus, I'd like to know what is thought. Do you think that perhaps there was some "exagerration" involved to try to fit Daniel 9:27 to the events surrounding 70 AD?

Any help is appreciated.

Ruy Lopez · 04-03-2005, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Has anyone read the claim that this prophecy referred to the destruction of the second Temple?

I don't have a bible right now so I can't check Daniel 9:24-27. But I think I know the passages referred to. If this "claim" had indeed been advanced, it would most likely be by the Christian right. But there is little dividend to be gained from this interpretation because the fundies have already an "exact" explanation of the seven years stuff; it leads to the Messiah's birth supposedly.

The truth lies with Antiochus in all probability. I have read before a very detailed explanation why Daniel was written between 167-164 BCE and not any other time. The reason for the book's composition was to boost the morale of the Jewish people who were caught between the Maccabean revolt and the persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes. Thus Daniel is more of apocalyptic literature than anything else--and a great fiction at that.

The so-called predictions about future coming kingdoms i.e. lion/eagle, bear, leopard, and terrible beast of iron are nothing but a recitation of history with the benefit of hindsight. The Christian right claims that the iron beast is Rome. The Daniel author was actually describing Alexander the Great, an event that was already history in 164 BCE.

Daniel is a good example of biblical predictions proven to be "all wet".

Jim Larmore · 04-04-2005, 07:53 AM

The book of Daniel was CANONIZED by the time the maccabean wars came along. This is confirmed by the fact that this book is part of the books found among the dead sea scrolls found at Qumran. Canonization takes a long time so your late date is extremely suspect. Also its historical that Alexander the Great consulted the book of Daniel when He was conquering the then known world. It is reported that he knew he would be successful against the Persian Empire because of the succession of kingdoms described in the dream of Nebuchshadnezzar that was interpreted by Daniel in Dan 2.

Daniel 9:24-27 is a true and accurate prophecy of the time period placed on the nation of Israel and the 1st advent of the Christ/Messiah. If you take the decree that really counted to re-build and restore Jerusalem it was made by Artaxarxes (ms) in 457 B.C.. I say this because he actually financed the venture which made it possible. All the other decrees didn't put any bucks behind it so they were Satan's attempt to confuse the truth. BTW, Satan is an astute Biblical scholar too. If you take 69 weeks and apply a day for a year it works out perfectly for the beginning of Jesus' ministry.

The selucid Antiochus Epiphanes came to rake havoc on Israel during the Maccabean wars which was long before this time. Biblical skeptics don't like to apply the day for a year on prophecy so if you take the time as actual you don't wind up at any significant historical time at all. Add 490 days to the year 457A.D. and you come to 458A.D. See if you can find anything that happened back then that applys to the messiah the prince or the children of Israel. You certainly won't find Antiochus Epiphanes.

Amaleq13 · 04-04-2005, 09:05 AM

Quote:

If you take 69 weeks and apply a day for a year it works out perfectly for the beginning of Jesus' ministry.

The choice of the start of the ministry obviously follows from the calculations rather than being contained in the prophecy and "fulfilled" by the math.

Jesus was allegedly born many years earlier so that is the obvious point in time when your Messiah actually appeared, therefore, the prophecy is wrong.

Ruy Lopez · 04-04-2005, 09:08 AM

Jim Larmore:

I noticed that you must be a person of faith especially based on what you wrote:

Quote:

Satan's attempt to confuse the truth. BTW, Satan is an astute Biblical scholar too. ........Add 490 days to the year 457A.D. and you come to 458A.D. See if you can find anything that happened back then that applys to the messiah the prince or the children of Israel.

Satan is a non-entity to me as I have no faith in Biblical writers; the messiah, in my understanding, was not in the mind of the author(s) of Daniel. You made a statement of faith.

Given the above, we cannot have a joined discussion because you assume many events, people, and beliefs to be true and I would say you have to prove them to be true--like Satan's existence.

My suggestion then, would be for each of us to lay down our ideas and evidence or at least supporting logic and leave the matter at that.

Here I go then.

Found this website which is apparently maintained by freethinkers or humanists.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/daniel.htm

The portions pertinent to our discussion starts at about the middle of the page "Author and Date of the Book".

Quote:

Many Liberal Christians believe that the book was really written many centuries after Daniel's time, during the Maccabean revolt against the Greek occupying forces in 168-164 BCE. They regard the book as pseudepigraphic - written by an anonymous author or authors and attributed to Daniel. They conclude this for a number of reasons:

The text contains a number of Greek words; yet the Greek occupation of the area did not occur until the 4th century BCE.

One of the musical instruments mentioned in Daniel 3:5 and in subsequent passages did not exist until developed in 2nd century BCE Greece.

Daniel 1:4 refers to the "Chaldeans" as a priestly class in Babylon. This term did not attain this meaning until much later than the 6th century.

About 180 BCE, Jeshua ben Sira listed the heroes of the Jewish faith, including "Enoch, Noah and Abraham through to Nehemiah;" 2 Daniel is not mentioned - presumably because Jeshua is unaware of him. This would indicate that the book of Daniel was written after that time.

Chapter 12 discusses the dead being resurrected, judged, and taken to either heaven and hell. At the time of Daniel, the Jews believed that all persons went to Sheol after death. The concept of heaven and hell was introduced centuries later by the Greeks. It did not appear in Israel until the time of the Maccabean revolt.

Daniel 11:31 (and elsewhere) refers to "the abominable thing that causes desolation." This appears to refer to the erection of a statue of Zeus in the Jerusalem temple in 167 BCE, and would indicate that the book was written later than that date.

Daniel 8:14 indicates that worship would cease in the temple in Jerusalem due to the occupying forces for a period of 2,300 days - i.e. 3 years and about 2 months. In the 2nd century, the time interval between the desolation and resumption of sacrifices was precisely 2 years. If we assume that Antiochus suspended sacrifice about 2 months before the desolation, then the match between Daniel and the Maccabean revolt would be perfect.

Prior to Daniel 11:40, the author(s) has been recording past events under the Babylonian, Median, Persian and Greek empires. In Daniel 11:40-45, he really attempts to predict the future. He prophesizes that a king of the south (of the Ptolemaic dynasty) will attack the Greeks in Palestine, under Antiochus. The Greeks will win, will lay spoil to all of northeast Africa, and return to Palestine where Antiochus will die. The end of history will then occur. The author(s) appeared to be a poor psychic because none of these events actually happened. Antiochus did die in 164 BCE, but it was in Persia. Thus, the book was apparently completed before 164.

Many liberal Christians believe that the Book of Daniel is a work of fiction. Fables and myths about a non-existent ancient hero, Daniel's, were passed down orally for centuries, and then finally written down by an unknown author(s), sometime between 167 and 164 BCE. At the end of the book, the author(s) then unsuccessfully attempted to predict the future.

Additionally, I'm now in possession of a Roman Catholic bible, The New American Bible; copyright 1987. Surprisingly, the numerous footnotes in this bible support ALMOST ALL of the interpretation of the abovementioned humanist website. It seems to me that the Catholic exegetes and scholars could not deviate from the findings of secular biblical scholars, without losing face and credibility.

In Dan. 9:24-27, there are two "annointeds" mentioned. The Christian right immediately assumes that the slayed annointed is Jesus. The Catholic Church says no. The slain annointed was the High Priest Onias III who was murdered in 171BCE. The other annointed was either King Cyrus or an earlier high priest Joshua who presided over the rebuilding of the altar of sacrifice after the exile.

Celsus · 04-04-2005, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

The book of Daniel was CANONIZED by the time the maccabean wars came along. This is confirmed by the fact that this book is part of the books found among the dead sea scrolls found at Qumran.

Oh really? You mean that several books of the Apocrypha, the Community Scroll, the Habakkuk pesher, the Genesis Apocryphon, Noah, Jubilees, Enoch, etc. are also canonical?

Quote:

Canonization takes a long time so your late date is extremely suspect.

So long, in fact, that there existed no such thing as a "canon" at the time you wish it to have been. Do you consider the Apocrypha canonical? If so, which books? 1 Enoch? The additions to Daniel? (That would make the book hardly "closed" or canonical, surely?) 4 Ezra? (What about the 74 books reserved for the wise?) If not, then what were some of them doing at Qumran? Shelved in a special section labelled "spurious"?

Quote:

Also its historical that Alexander the Great consulted the book of Daniel when He was conquering the then known world. It is reported that he knew he would be successful against the Persian Empire because of the succession of kingdoms described in the dream of Nebuchshadnezzar that was interpreted by Daniel in Dan 2.

Um, yeah sure.

Joel

Evil Sentient Duck · 04-04-2005, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

Also its historical that Alexander the Great consulted the book of Daniel when He was conquering the then known world. It is reported that he knew he would be successful against the Persian Empire because of the succession of kingdoms described in the dream of Nebuchshadnezzar that was interpreted by Daniel in Dan 2.

What are your sources for this claim?

spin · 04-04-2005, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Sentient Duck

What are your sources for this claim?

Ummm, a dream, I think. Special revelation.

spin

Jim Larmore · 04-04-2005, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

The choice of the start of the ministry obviously follows from the calculations rather than being contained in the prophecy and "fulfilled" by the math.

Jesus was allegedly born many years earlier so that is the obvious point in time when your Messiah actually appeared, therefore, the prophecy is wrong.

The prophecy is not taken to be for His birth but the beginning of His ministry or His baptism. Any Biblical scholar even skeptics accept this.

Ruy Lopez · 04-04-2005, 10:49 AM

I read through this long article by Francis Gigot and it seems to date 1908. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04621b.htm

The article is included in the Catholic encyclopedia. The author presents both the pro-Daniel authorship as well as the anonymous writer(s) circa Antiochus. He presents both vigorously. Being Catholic, I presume, the author had to adhere to the inspired nature of the literature regardless of the Daniel authorship.

It seems to me that the 168-164 BCE date of composition is the stronger side. Gigot does not expressly give his own opinion.

Gigot also mentions that it was Josephus who asserted that Daniel was shown to Alexander the Great. A little later in the article, Gigot cited more recent scholars who debunked Josephus' claim as untrue..

I think the date of Gigot's article is important. Very recent biblical scholarship works are virtually unanimous in supporting the Antiochus date of composition.

03-31-2005, 08:13 PM	#1
unknown4 Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Earth Posts: 80	Daniel 9:24-27 Has anyone read the claim that this prophecy referred to the destruction of the second Temple? Josephus (Wars 6.5.4; 6:3,10-15) and perhaps the Jerusalem Talmud (Taanis 4:5), make reference concerning approximately seven years (or one week of years) before the Temple was destroyed, Vespasian made an agreement with the Jewish leaders to let the sacrifices continue. However, approximately 3 and 1/2 years later the Temple came under siege and the sacrifices were abandoned. I got these references off of websites, so I don't know accurate they are. Since there is the claim that Daniel 9:27 really refers to Antiochus, I'd like to know what is thought. Do you think that perhaps there was some "exagerration" involved to try to fit Daniel 9:27 to the events surrounding 70 AD? Any help is appreciated.

04-04-2005, 10:49 AM	#10
Ruy Lopez Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Manila Posts: 5,516	A More Balanced Presentation I read through this long article by Francis Gigot and it seems to date 1908. (Please correct me if I'm wrong) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04621b.htm The article is included in the Catholic encyclopedia. The author presents both the pro-Daniel authorship as well as the anonymous writer(s) circa Antiochus. He presents both vigorously. Being Catholic, I presume, the author had to adhere to the inspired nature of the literature regardless of the Daniel authorship. It seems to me that the 168-164 BCE date of composition is the stronger side. Gigot does not expressly give his own opinion. Gigot also mentions that it was Josephus who asserted that Daniel was shown to Alexander the Great. A little later in the article, Gigot cited more recent scholars who debunked Josephus' claim as untrue.. I think the date of Gigot's article is important. Very recent biblical scholarship works are virtually unanimous in supporting the Antiochus date of composition.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-04-2005, 07:53 AM	#3
Jim Larmore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Bartlesville, Okla. Posts: 856	The book of Daniel was CANONIZED by the time the maccabean wars came along. This is confirmed by the fact that this book is part of the books found among the dead sea scrolls found at Qumran. Canonization takes a long time so your late date is extremely suspect. Also its historical that Alexander the Great consulted the book of Daniel when He was conquering the then known world. It is reported that he knew he would be successful against the Persian Empire because of the succession of kingdoms described in the dream of Nebuchshadnezzar that was interpreted by Daniel in Dan 2. Daniel 9:24-27 is a true and accurate prophecy of the time period placed on the nation of Israel and the 1st advent of the Christ/Messiah. If you take the decree that really counted to re-build and restore Jerusalem it was made by Artaxarxes (ms) in 457 B.C.. I say this because he actually financed the venture which made it possible. All the other decrees didn't put any bucks behind it so they were Satan's attempt to confuse the truth. BTW, Satan is an astute Biblical scholar too. If you take 69 weeks and apply a day for a year it works out perfectly for the beginning of Jesus' ministry. The selucid Antiochus Epiphanes came to rake havoc on Israel during the Maccabean wars which was long before this time. Biblical skeptics don't like to apply the day for a year on prophecy so if you take the time as actual you don't wind up at any significant historical time at all. Add 490 days to the year 457A.D. and you come to 458A.D. See if you can find anything that happened back then that applys to the messiah the prince or the children of Israel. You certainly won't find Antiochus Epiphanes.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.