Sheshonq

Wrong. The 5th century date is questioned because of:

1. historical mistakes
2. internal inconsistencies
3. unexplained missing knowledge of certain events/items

Stuff that's way over your head, I know.

Sheshonq

Hardly precise, since Daniel makes no mention of a battle at all. Mentioning the name of a river does not give a location for the battle, esp. since the battle was *already* known as the "battle of Ulai", thus connecting it with the river.

Moreover, since a majority of translations give this as the Ulai CANAL, the rest of your argument is rather handicapped. Notice the footnote:

Then you can hardly make an argument that Daniel gives a "precise location" for it, can you?

In point of fact, geographers are not even sure which modern river the Ulai corresponds to, making any claim that Daniel gives a "precise location" harder for you to support.

First you need to get agreement on which modern river corresponds to the ancient Ulai.
Second, you need to demonstrate that Daniel was actually referring to that river, and not a canal - which is what the text appears to indicate.
Third, if you clear the previous two hurdles, then you need to explain how mentioning a river somehow gives a location for a battle, esp. since the colloquial name of the battle already included the name "Ulai".

The Greeks apparently also called it "Eulaus", derived from "Ulai".

You mean, a Jew living in Jerusalem, the center of resistance to Hellenization? Writing a religious text to remind other Jews to remain separate from the Hellenizing influences all around them?

No, I certainly can't see why Daniel might be motivated to avoid Greek terms.

All the more reason to avoid using tainted Greek terms?

All very interesting claims. I've given them letters above: a, b and c. Do you plan to prove them? Or did you think we would just accept your word at face value?

In light of your past mistakes and overly broad generalizations, did you *really* think we would do that?

mens_sana

Now that's delightful information! In Nebby's time, the alleged date of Daniel, Kittim could only have meant Cyprus. But the book was written ca. 165/4 BCE, and the Old Greek translator (c. 100 BCE) could see that "Romans" clarified the Hebrew text for his readers. I think Kittim would have to be the primary reading, assuming that the original text was in Hebrew. From my little bit of reading in this area, the Old Greek translations of Daniel, 1 Maccabees, and 1 Esdras all seem to have been done ca. 100 BCE, with Daniel and 1 Esdras possibly by the same translator.

spin

Naturally it's more complex than that: Kittim is actually a plural gentilic, ie the people of Kition, a city on Cyprus. And the Arad tablets from the late 7th c. BCE refers to the Kittim.

As I've indicated it's not the primary reading. First, try to justify why the Romans would be called "Kittim". That would be fun, considering Daniel has no problem mentioning Persia and Greece. Why not the Romans?

Then one looks at the Theodotion version of Dan 11:30 and although it mentions Kittim (Kitiaioi) it knows nothing about the ships.

And Daniel doesn't use biblical citations to hide references. The use of "Kittim" does not reflect the types of means of referring found in Daniel.

(Oh, and one day I might explain why "Kittim" is used.)

This doesn't stop the Old Greek representing the earliest Hebrew/Aramaic Vorlage. 1 Esdras is better than Ezra! -- just ask Josephus.


spin

Sheshonq

Yes, we do.

DAN 5:30 In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.
DAN 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

That's a reasonably clear placement in time context, unless you are prejudiced or operating with agenda. Of course, Daniel's placement of Belshazzar as the last king of Babylon before Darius taking over power raises several other embarrassing problems that you have failed to respond to:

* No mention of Cyrus II, the actual conqueror of Babylon;
* No mention of Cambyses II, who ruled after Cyrus;
* No mention of the almost two decades that intervened between (a) the fall of the Chaldeans and (b) the reign of Darius I (539 to 522);
* No "Darius the Mede" in any case;
* No conquest, no uprisings by spurious "Nebuchadnezzars", no revolt in Babylon against the Persians, no protracted military engagement to re-take Babylon - NOTHING

Dan 5:30 slides right into 5:31 and misses all these things.

An amazing statement from someone who engages in the mass production of unsupported, prejudiced-based claims.

arnoldo

Care to list the Greek words and musical instruments which dates it to the 2nd century?
That seems to be just your opinion because linguists don't share your sentiment.
Care to list any sources for your claim?
So it is out of the question that Daniel would know of the prophecies of Jeremiah? You seem to believe that Daniel was written between 167-164 BC and widely accepted in a few years then why would Jeremiah have to wait until the year 200 BCE to be accepted?

Johnny Skeptic

I refer you to my post #332 in a thread at this forum at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=236624.

Casper

Finally!

I can say that i have waded through the swamp that is this thread and reached the end. All in all it has been a fantastic journey, with lots of tidbits cribbed.

But I have some questions going back about 20 pages or so:

1) If daniel is not prophecy, it certainly seems like something close. I understand it isn't the christian exegisis often claimed, but it seems to me that danials dreams and visions are at least a literary device that look like prophecy. Maybe I'm confusing things here unnecesarily, but is the point of these dreams and visions a literary device to make daniel prophetic (as a character) but describing events that are still understood to be in the past? Like a story about John Doe, written in the 20th century, who has a vision of President Lincoln being assassinated and carrying the story on from there? Please, if it doesn't try anyone's patience, can someone put me on track here?

2) all the bantering about "take", "receive", etc, seems silly, at least to an anglophone like me, when the word "inherit" is nowhere to be found in any translations. Is this significant?

3) If the earlier portions of daniel are older than the latter, what was the purpose of these portions? Was something excised as well? Just curious. I guess this ties in with question 1, which is that I don't quite follow the purpose of the book except maybe to outline a perceived history and cast certain characters as bad-guys or good-guys.

Thank you all for your contributions so far.

spin

Daniel's visions, ie Dan 7-12, because we can date them so easily allows us to understand them relatively well. The visions were written in a historical context where the Jews had experienced the persecution of Antiochus IV and were now engaged in a David and Goliath struggle against the Seleucids. They are as you say a literary device, seen in two other works of around the same period, the Enochic Animal Apocalypse and the Enochic Apocalypse of the Weeks, both of which take a panoramic view of history from the time of Enoch until the time of writing. The idea as I understand it is for the edification of the people involved in these troubling times, they show how god knows what happens in history and thus everything is under control. Those people who trust in god and do his bidding win out in the end, comforting news for those engaged with a powerful enemy which wants to do away with the Jews' way of life.

It was an inane tangent which missed the point totally. It started with a misconception about a Hebrew verb, which I tried to correct by putting the perspective onto the one who gets the object, so I used the English verb "take" to show the perspective -- it could have been "get" or "obtain" just as easily, as these ideas do not contain the notion of "giving". But the quibble was on which English verb and not what the original verb meant.

It's harder to date the dreams section of Daniel because there may not be such a clear dating indication as the visions have. However it too fits into a literary genre of the good Jew who makes good in the foreign court, as with Esther in Susa and Joseph in Egypt. The affinity with Joseph is clearer because they use the same mechanism of dream interpretation, but they all point to a wider world than Judea in which Jews have to face hardships and eventually make good and trust in god will give you success.


spin

Casper

Thanks spin, especially for the original outline of chapter 11's historic significance. Also to sheshonq and makeover, and anyone else who contributed. That's why I love this board. So much good stuff in such a small area.