Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DCHindley · 03-10-2010, 09:33 PM

You will note that I call it an alternative chronological layout, not a reconstruction. Basically it rearranges the passages into chronological order, as in the preserved text they are confused in a manner similar to Ezra-Nehemiah. I recognize that in Daniel the "chronology" is artificial and probably serves as a framework for his "prophecies." I am not defending the idea that these are genuine historical "prophecies."

I agree that chapters 7, 8 9 & 10 all show signs of having been written around 164 BCE. The earlier chapters may rely on older lore or legends.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I think it is very much in question what period to ascribe 1 Enoch 37-71 (the Similitudes, which is preserved only in Ethiopic). No fragments of it were found among the DSS, not even a tiny one. While there are some who think it may have sprung from early Christianity, others think it originated with Jews of Egypt (2nd century CE) or maybe even Ethiopia, which could have been written several centuries into the Christian era.

As for the component sources of Daniel, find below an analysis of the various parts of the book of Daniel as the text exists in manuscripts today.

Then I give an alternate chronology that I came up with about 10 years ago.

<snip>

You're correct that there has been debate about the exact date of the similitudes and it has been occasionally attributed to a Christian; however the most recent analyses tend to affirm its Jewish character. Certain elements of it directly contradict Christian theology, such as the revelation in chapters 70-71 that the Son of Man/Messiah is actually somehow a reincarnation of Enoch himself(!). A first century BC date seems to be as good as any, especially if it's Jewish character is affirmed.

With regards to your analysis of Daniel, your chronology is extremely speculative. I think you're taking the book too literally and looking too much for real history behind the stories. The Darius-Gobryas equation has no evidence to support it, and the gist of the book is manifestly against this equation. Darius the Mede is a fictional character produced by the author, loosely based on Darius I of Persia, but here depicted as ruling over a distinctly Median (rather than Persian) empire. The author depicted the Medes as ruling Babylon because several prophecies in Jeremiah and Isaiah predicted that Babylon would fall to them. These prophecies failed, and Babylon fell to the Persians instead. The author of Daniel dealt with this by simply falsifying history-- which he could get away with because he was writing long after the fact, in a culture where knowledge of the past was hazy. Note that in the book, the reign of Cyrus is clearly distinguished from that of Darius the Mede. Daniel's Darius is not a governor, he's a king.

The author's invented chronology is clear enough when you get to the visions of the four beasts. These represent Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. Greece is the final kingdom, after which God will intervene, restore Israel to power, and resurrect the dead.

Come to think of it, the whole issue of an independent Median Empire ruling Babylon before the Persians is an argument for the book's unity-- both the narrative sections and the prophecy depend on this fictive chronology.

Additionally, the author of Daniel gets his chronology off at the very beginning by attributing Daniel's exile to the third year of Jehoiakim, which would be 606/5 BC. This is before Nebuchadnezzar even took the throne (in 605/4 BC, counted as his accession year); this error is probably based on a misreading of 2 Kings (which notes that Jehoiakim paid tribute to Nebuchadnezzar for three years) combined with the later, inaccurate account in Chronicles which says Jehoiakim was taken captive to Babylon. In reality Nebuchadnezzar did not exile any Jews until 597 BC, and by this time Jehoiakim was already dead, his son Jehoiachin being the king who actually was taken to Babylon, along with the first Jewish exiles.

Daniel is a late text without any earlier sources, and seems to be largely a free composition. We should not expect it to be chronologically accurate when it deals with the earlier periods, so trying to twist the book's story in order to fit reality is a futile endeavor.

Jane H · 03-11-2010, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

What this speaks to is a continuous reinterpretation of the biblical texts and imagery on the human level, something that is profoundly interesting from a historical and anthropological point of view, but, to me, not at all indicative of divine origin. Note that this continuity in the tradition of interpretation and reinterpretation flows right through non-canonical books like Enoch just as much as it does through the Bible itself; indeed, Enoch is in many ways a forgotten link between late OT theology and early NT theology. Certain concepts such as the Son of Man as the Messiah, and said figure's pre-existence since before the creation of the world-- features which are totally absent from mainstream Judaism but extremely important in mainstream Christianity-- find their earliest home in the Book of Enoch. The more I read on the subject, the more I come to realize that the earliest Christians were profoundly influenced by this book, probably more so than any other Jewish sect of the time. Yet they (with the notable exception of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church) chose not to include it in the canon. Which goes onto a whole other topic, which is how the early rabbis and church leaders decided what was canonical and what wasn't...

Oh, and I'd be willing to bet that if you took a look at the Hindu Scriptures, you'd find just as much of a continuously flowing river of meaning as you find in the Bible. Interpreting and reinterpreting religious texts is simply what people do.

Yes- the intertestamental books are an important record of the development in thinking between the OT and NT.

4 Ezra chapters 11-12 do have the Son of Man as the Messiah, as does 2 Baruch 35-40. These were ideas mainstream Judaism was working on.

Are you assuming the Son of Man sayings in the second part of Enoch are pre-Christian, because that would be not at all solid. Milik thought they could be as late as 270AD, and there is no sense of a consensus on the dating question. First century BC to first century AD is as far as consensus has got for that section.

On the broader question of “flow”, there are two aspects, I guess. Getting the idea out there to Xians the idea that the Bible isn't designed to be read in discrete sections, but seen as different acts of the same play is a key idea I push. And that's because it's exactly what the NT writers are doing. They are looking at the broader story of 'Sin, exile, forgiveness, restoration' as being a constantly recurring theme in God's dealings with Man/Israel.

But that then leads to the question you raise, 'Can a Divine Origin be seen?'. The key difference between the Bible and other comparable collections of writings, for me, is the strong sense that there are things going on behind the stories and histories that seem to possess a life of their own. The discovery of complex ideas playing out through simpler narrative analogies; the sense of revelation of reality rather than creation of theology is something that has become a lot clearer to me.

rob117 · 03-11-2010, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

Yes- the intertestamental books are an important record of the development in thinking between the OT and NT.

4 Ezra chapters 11-12 do have the Son of Man as the Messiah, as does 2 Baruch 35-40. These were ideas mainstream Judaism was working on.

That's interesting. However, these books were ultimately rejected from the Jewish canon, and in Judaism today the Son of Man is a non-entity. The importance of the phrase to early Christians was probably one of the reasons it was eliminated as a term for the Messiah in Judaism. Note that in Jewish translations of the Bible, the phrase "one like a son of man" in Daniel is often translated as "one like a human being"-- which, in its original context, is a perfectly accurate, albeit non-literal translation.

Quote:

Are you assuming the Son of Man sayings in the second part of Enoch are pre-Christian, because that would be not at all solid. Milik thought they could be as late as 270AD, and there is no sense of a consensus on the dating question. First century BC to first century AD is as far as consensus has got for that section.

I haven't explored this issue too far; however the sources I've looked at seem to favor a pre-Christian date-- which could extend into the early years of the 1st century AD, since Jesus wasn't active until the late 20s.

Quote:

On the broader question of “flow”, there are two aspects, I guess. Getting the idea out there to Xians the idea that the Bible isn't designed to be read in discrete sections, but seen as different acts of the same play is a key idea I push. And that's because it's exactly what the NT writers are doing. They are looking at the broader story of 'Sin, exile, forgiveness, restoration' as being a constantly recurring theme in God's dealings with Man/Israel.

But that then leads to the question you raise, 'Can a Divine Origin be seen?'. The key difference between the Bible and other comparable collections of writings, for me, is the strong sense that there are things going on behind the stories and histories that seem to possess a life of their own. The discovery of complex ideas playing out through simpler narrative analogies; the sense of revelation of reality rather than creation of theology is something that has become a lot clearer to me.

The problem I, and I suspect most people here, would have would this is that it's extremely subjective. A lot of these complex ideas that Christians (and Jews) see playing out are not actually there-- for example, the idea of the whole Garden of Eden story being about sin and temptation. It's really not about that at all; it's simply an etiological story--- why do snakes have forked tongues and crawl on their bellies, why is childbirth so painful, why do men rule over women, and why are people forced to work for their food? The idea of sin and temptation was grafted onto the story by later interpreters, searching for a deeper meaning. The idea that the expulsion from the garden of Eden is part of a recurring theme of sin, exile, and redemption is later still.

I suspect that many of the complex ideas you see playing out in the texts are not actually there in the texts; rather, you see them playing out because you are immersed in a long tradition of exegesis that sees them playing out. When you look at other faiths' texts, you do not see similar complex ideas being played out, because you are not immersed in their interpretive traditions. Those who are immersed in these other interpretive traditions will see ideas playing out in their own texts that are just as complex and just as interconnected (and just as foreign to the intent of the original authors) as you see in the Bible.

DCHindley · 03-11-2010, 08:55 PM

Could you be more specific about those sources? Jane is correct, there is no clear cut consensus.

Before the discovery of the DSS, the consensus was that the Similitudes were composed between c. 105-64 B.C. (see R H Charles' translation and commerntary in Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), vol 2, 1913, pp. 170 ff).

This was challenged by J C Hindley (no relation), who in the article "Towards a Date for the Similitudes of Enoch," NTS 14 (1967/68), finds two historical markers. He links a reference to shaking hills with streams of water in 54:7 with the Antioch earthquake of A.D. 115 as described by Dio Cassius. In addition, the reference to Parthians in 56:5-7, usually taken as a reference to the Parthian threat of 40 B.C., he takes as a reference to the Parthian confrontation with Trajan ca. A.D. 113-117. (The Book of Enoch, or, I Enoch: a new English edition: with commentary and textual notes (or via: amazon.co.uk), by Matthew Black, James C. Vanderkam & Otto Neugebauer, 1985, 1997)

Then there is J T Milik, in The Books of Enoch (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1976), who says:

It seems to me quite certain that it did not exist during the pre-Christian era, in an Aramaic or Hebrew text, since not one fragment of it, Semitic or even Greek, has been located in the very rich assortment of manuscripts from the caves of Qumran. Hence it is probably a Christian Greek composition (its use of the text of the LXX has already been pointed out) which draws its inspiration from the writings of the New testament, the Gospels especially, beginning with the titles of the pre-existent Messiah: 'Son of Man' (Matt. 9:6; 10:23; 12:8; etc.) and 'Elect' (Luke 23:35). However, it is not likely to be an early Christian work, since no quotation from it is recorded between the first and fourth centuries, that is, during the period in which quotations, allusions, and reminiscences of other works attributed to Enoch abound. In fact, the existence of the Greek Book of Parables is not attested until the early Middle Ages, and even then indirectly, by the stichometry of Nicephorus and by the Slavonic Enoch ... Finally, we must recall its absence from any early version (apart from the Ethiopic) and especially the absolute silence on this subject in Coptic literature. No discovery of Byzantine papyri in Egypt has provided a Greek or Coptic sample of it.

Where its literary genre is concerned, the Book of Parables is most closely akin, in my opinion, to the Sibylline literature. Now, the Christian production of Sibyllines flourished in the second to fourth centuries. (pg 91-92)

His opinion was challenged by members of the SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminar in Tuebingen (1977) and Paris (1978). See J H Charlesworth NTS 25 (1979) 315-23; M A Knibb, "The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review" NTS 25 (1979) 345-59; and C L Mearns, "Dating the Similitudes of Enoch," NTS 25 (1979) 360-69. Their consensus, as reported by E. Isaac in his translation of Ethiopic Enoch published in Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (or via: amazon.co.uk), vol 1, was that the "Similitudes were Jewish and dated from the first century A.D." Opposing the opinion of Milik that the Similitudes had replaced an original Book of Giants by A.D. 400, he asserts "I am convinced that 1 Enoch already contained the Similitudes by the end of the first century A.D." (pg. 7).

DCH

(BTW, Jane, thanks for bringing Milik into a discussion here - a welcome change from potatoes).

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

Are you assuming the Son of Man sayings in the second part of Enoch are pre-Christian, because that would be not at all solid. Milik thought they could be as late as 270AD, and there is no sense of a consensus on the dating question. First century BC to first century AD is as far as consensus has got for that section.

I haven't explored this issue too far; however the sources I've looked at seem to favor a pre-Christian date-- which could extend into the early years of the 1st century AD, since Jesus wasn't active until the late 20s.

rob117 · 03-13-2010, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Could you be more specific about those sources? Jane is correct, there is no clear cut consensus.

Point conceded. I was arguing before from my own memory, which was mistaken.

I do think Joel Marcus makes a decent case for a pre-Christian Similitudes however (in his Gospel of Mark commentary). Basically, Jesus in the Gospels treats the Son of Man as a known quantity without bothering to explain who he is. That the Similitudes are non-Christian is evident from the total absence of references to the Son of Man's death and resurrection. The Enochic Son of Man, like Jesus, is to judge the dead on the day of judgment. Both Jesus (at least in some NT texts, e.g. John) and the Enochic figure are pre-existent heavenly beings. Marcus asserts, "With apologies to Voltaire, if the Enochic Son of Man had not existed, it would have been necessary to invent him."

It seems that Jesus and the early Christians were drawing on an existing tradition of who the Son of Man was, a tradition that is also found in the Similitudes. This could mean that they were using the Similitudes, but it could also mean that both the Christians and the author of the Similitudes were drawing on a common tradition of Danielic exegesis. It seems unlikely that Similitudes is a Christian work itself, however, and it is unlikely that a post-Christian Jewish author would deliberately use Messianic ideas that originated in Christian circles. It seems likely that the early Christians had access to, if not the Similitudes itself, at least a common oral (written?) tradition that they both drew upon.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.