Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Leelee · 07-28-2010, 12:49 PM

I came across this article about the date and authorship of the book of Daniel. In the section about linguistic evidence, the author states:

Quote:

a. Aramaic: Daniel’s Aramaic demonstrates grammatical evidences for an early date more closely associated with the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. than with the second century B.C.

b. Persian:

1) Persian loan words in Daniel do not necessarily argue against an early date for the book since Daniel, who lived under the Persians, could have placed the material in its final form at the latter part of his life.

2) Four of the nineteen Persian words are not translated well by the Greek renderings of about 100 B.C. implying that their meaning was lost or drastically changed meaning that it is very unlikely that Daniel was written in 165 B.C.

3) The Persian words which are cited in Daniel are specifically old Persian words dating from around 300 B.C. This argues against a 165 date

Is the linguistic evidence really against a second century BCE date? I have read that some scholars, such as John J Collins, argue that both the Aramaic and Hebrew of Daniel point to a late date.

stephan huller · 07-28-2010, 01:08 PM

Hi great post:

I can only say that chapter 9 verses 24 - 27 so closely resembles the events of the destruction of the temple in 70 CE - and is almost universally connected with that historical event (unless there are some yahoos at this site who think that the Jewish War was also just a myth!) - that it is tempting to argue that the text was edited in that period by someone close to the official government (i.e. Agrippa). The text was certainly used to prove Agrippa's legitimacy. As I have noted in another thread, the surviving material in Josephus was read by Jews to argue that Agrippa was the messiah (Dan 9:26) who was rejected by the Jews, the only messiah they were ever appointed and because of their iniquity the temple was destroyed and will never come back.

Sound familiar?

Of course the alternative is to accept that the text was written in the second century BCE and that it accurately foresaw the event that would end Judaism as it was known throughout the Second Commonwealth period ...

jgreen44 · 07-28-2010, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The text was certainly used to prove Agrippa's legitimacy. As I have noted in another thread, the surviving material in Josephus was read by Jews to argue that Agrippa was the messiah (Dan 9:26) who was rejected by the Jews, the only messiah they were ever appointed and because of their iniquity the temple was destroyed and will never come back.

The text in question states...

"on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation,"

If this pertains to the 1st century then the "he" in this passage is the Messiah. What was the "abomination" that Agrippa set up? Or Jesus for that matter? As such this passage seems to be about Antiochus IV Epiphanes rather than Agrippa or Jesus.

stephan huller · 07-28-2010, 02:59 PM

The text was obviously written to describe events before the Common Era. I have no doubts about that. I am just engaging in speculation.

It is worth noting that Nodet has I believe argued that the Slavonic Josephus identifies the abomination of desolation as the cross. The parallel passage in chapter 8 is read as if the temple will be rendered foursquare ie will be conquered by the cross.

This is from memory. Texting while driving

More later

Toto · 07-28-2010, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

.... Texting while driving

...

Please be safe.

stephan huller · 07-28-2010, 03:26 PM

I know. I have the Oprah pledge on my to do list ...

I was really texting while in a drive thru but still.

stephan huller · 07-28-2010, 04:07 PM

In Slavonic Jewish War 6:311 Nodet points to an important variant narrative of the conquest of the temple by the Cross where Josephus declares that:

although there was by the Jews a prophecy that the city would be destroyed by the quadrangle shape (Greek, tetragonos) they started making crosses for crucifixion which includes the quandrangle shape we said, and by the demolition of [the] Antonia [tower of the temple] they gave the temple a quandrangle shape.

Nodet flags this as a development of Daniel 8:22 which he interprets literally as “and the horn will be snapped, the four horns will sprout in its place, four kingdoms from a nation will rise and not from its own strength.” Nodet notes that the Hebrew word for “horn” can also mean “angle” and so understands the original author to read it as “and the broken horn, four angles will sprout in its place and four armies from one foreign nation will rise and there is no more strength.” The meaning of Josephus is thus that Antonia is the broken horn replaced – if not conquered – by the “four-angled” shape, the Cross.

Of course nothing in Daniel chapter 8 can be properly identified as "a prophecy that the city would be destroyed." The only prophesy that fits in Daniel - as Nodet notes - is Daniel 9:24 - 27. The cross must be the 'abomination of desolation.'

Again where did this material come from that gets incorporated into Slavonic Josephus? Justus of Tiberias? A later editor?

stephan huller · 07-28-2010, 04:32 PM

And with regards to the JEWISH interpretation that the Christian Cross was the 'abomination of desolation' (which I have heard through personal sources) I cannot find a scholarly reference to this interpretation other than this one:

Quote:

The Cross of Christ (as the Abomination of Desolation)

This is a minority position held by some Jews, principally as the result of some recent writings. These writings do not verify or use the 1290 days mentioned in Scripture in a manner that would indicate the cross of Christ is the Abomination of Desolation, but other Scriptures are cited instead

http://books.google.com/books?id=PAy...oss%22&f=false

I will try to find a better source for this interpretation

stephan huller · 07-28-2010, 04:57 PM

While the terminology isn't the same here is a study of the Jewish identification of the Cross as the 'abomination':

Quote:

The stories when taken together allow us to grasp the complicated nature of the medieval Jew's attitude toward the cross, a matter which comes across also from the rich lexicon devised by medieval Jews so as to avoid calling it by its true name. Within this lexicon I would like to focus on the twin (masculine and feminine) words ti'uv and to'evah, both meaning 'abomination'. Thus the above- mentioned Ephraim of Bonn, when describing acts of martyrdom in Wurzberg during the Second Crusade, mentions the case of a young maiden "who was brought into their place of idolatry in order to be defiled [baptized], but she sanctified the name of God and spat upon the abomination [ti'uv]. They then struck her with stone and fist'." Similarly, when R. Elazar Rokeah came to describe the background to the suffering of the Jews of Mainz during the Third Crusade he mentions hearing before Hannukah (of 1187) that the Muslims had taken Acre and the areas outside of Jerusalem 'and that they had captured the abomination [to'evah] upon which Jesus had been crucified ... and had taken the abomination with them to the land of Ishmael'. The same author utilized similar language to describe the arrival of the returning Crusaders at the gates of his own city: 'And the uncircumcised had marked themselves with the signs of their abomination (ba-ti'uv shelahem) by the hundreds and thousands.

One could add dozens if not hundreds of examples, but I would like to pause for a moment to examine the particular resonances of the word 'abomination' when used by medieval Jews in reference to the Christian cross. On the one hand it alluded to such biblical verses as Deut. 7:26, 'And you shall not bring an abomination into your house, and become accursed like it, where the reference is to artifacts of idolatry, but also, on the other hand it alluded to verses where the context is one of prohibited intimacy. These include Lev. 18:22: 'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination' and Ezekiel 22:11: 'One commits abomination with his neighbour's wife.' The abominated cross was regarded by medieval Jews as an idolatrous object, but also but also, I would argue, as a potential object of illicit desire. Recognizing that Jewish violence against the cross could stem, not only from undiluted hostility, but also from anxiety engendered by an object of illicit desire, we are in a better position to take Christian reports of Jewish cross desecration seriously rather than dismissing them as anti-Semitic inventions. There is also no paucity of references to such conduct in Jewish sources (some of which have already been mentioned), but these have all too often either been quietly passed over by Jewish historians or tendentiously misrepresented. [Horowitz Reckless Rites p. 155 - 156]

http://books.google.com/books?id=_kB...uct%22&f=false

I have to go do something important but the author eventually connects the abomination of the Cross to the terminology of Daniel

Just wait ...

stephan huller · 07-29-2010, 12:22 AM

On the idea that there was tampering with Daniel. Here are a few brief notes. If I was to write an article on the traditional Rabbinic material on the dating in Daniel here's what I'd say. This can be an exercise in how to set out data and evidence in a satisfactory form.

I would select exact translations of Rashi & Saadya with a guide on separating what is transmitted from the comments by the transmitter, and on how to show the reader where the divisions lie. I thought at one time that Rashi & Saadya are puzzled by what they transmit: it would be better to say they don’t want their readers to be puzzled, but don’t want them to be fully informed either.

The statement of policy in this respect is given by Maimonides. I could do all this in the form of working notes without waiting for my translations. I would try to find more Rabbinic support beyond what I have so far. I would need to add to what Maimonides says, two other pieces of information on the reticence of the Rabbinic sources in explaining CLEARLY what they transmit.

One is the statement on why there is no Targum to Daniel, the reason given being that there used to be one, but it was too explicit. The other is the statement of why the LXX of Daniel was replaced by Theodotion’s revision, namely that the original Greek translation was too explicit. Then I would have to give evidence for my claims about the authorship and dating of the Zadokite Document, and I would have to show which passages are specifically relevant to my article. Then I would have to quote any supporting evidence that is available from historical documentation.

I’ve seen for myself how evidence is set out, and source-references are given, in academic writing. I will have noticed that there are different ways of formatting, all of which are acceptable. However, I would have to put editorial annotations in the margins, so the text can be revised.

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

07-28-2010, 01:08 PM	#2
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Hi great post: I can only say that chapter 9 verses 24 - 27 so closely resembles the events of the destruction of the temple in 70 CE - and is almost universally connected with that historical event (unless there are some yahoos at this site who think that the Jewish War was also just a myth!) - that it is tempting to argue that the text was edited in that period by someone close to the official government (i.e. Agrippa). The text was certainly used to prove Agrippa's legitimacy. As I have noted in another thread, the surviving material in Josephus was read by Jews to argue that Agrippa was the messiah (Dan 9:26) who was rejected by the Jews, the only messiah they were ever appointed and because of their iniquity the temple was destroyed and will never come back. Sound familiar? Of course the alternative is to accept that the text was written in the second century BCE and that it accurately foresaw the event that would end Judaism as it was known throughout the Second Commonwealth period ...

07-28-2010, 02:59 PM	#4
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The text was obviously written to describe events before the Common Era. I have no doubts about that. I am just engaging in speculation. It is worth noting that Nodet has I believe argued that the Slavonic Josephus identifies the abomination of desolation as the cross. The parallel passage in chapter 8 is read as if the temple will be rendered foursquare ie will be conquered by the cross. This is from memory. Texting while driving More later

07-28-2010, 03:26 PM	#6
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I know. I have the Oprah pledge on my to do list ... I was really texting while in a drive thru but still.

07-28-2010, 04:07 PM	#7
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	In Slavonic Jewish War 6:311 Nodet points to an important variant narrative of the conquest of the temple by the Cross where Josephus declares that: although there was by the Jews a prophecy that the city would be destroyed by the quadrangle shape (Greek, tetragonos) they started making crosses for crucifixion which includes the quandrangle shape we said, and by the demolition of [the] Antonia [tower of the temple] they gave the temple a quandrangle shape. Nodet flags this as a development of Daniel 8:22 which he interprets literally as “and the horn will be snapped, the four horns will sprout in its place, four kingdoms from a nation will rise and not from its own strength.” Nodet notes that the Hebrew word for “horn” can also mean “angle” and so understands the original author to read it as “and the broken horn, four angles will sprout in its place and four armies from one foreign nation will rise and there is no more strength.” The meaning of Josephus is thus that Antonia is the broken horn replaced – if not conquered – by the “four-angled” shape, the Cross. Of course nothing in Daniel chapter 8 can be properly identified as "a prophecy that the city would be destroyed." The only prophesy that fits in Daniel - as Nodet notes - is Daniel 9:24 - 27. The cross must be the 'abomination of desolation.' Again where did this material come from that gets incorporated into Slavonic Josephus? Justus of Tiberias? A later editor?

07-29-2010, 12:22 AM	#10
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	On the idea that there was tampering with Daniel. Here are a few brief notes. If I was to write an article on the traditional Rabbinic material on the dating in Daniel here's what I'd say. This can be an exercise in how to set out data and evidence in a satisfactory form. I would select exact translations of Rashi & Saadya with a guide on separating what is transmitted from the comments by the transmitter, and on how to show the reader where the divisions lie. I thought at one time that Rashi & Saadya are puzzled by what they transmit: it would be better to say they don’t want their readers to be puzzled, but don’t want them to be fully informed either. The statement of policy in this respect is given by Maimonides. I could do all this in the form of working notes without waiting for my translations. I would try to find more Rabbinic support beyond what I have so far. I would need to add to what Maimonides says, two other pieces of information on the reticence of the Rabbinic sources in explaining CLEARLY what they transmit. One is the statement on why there is no Targum to Daniel, the reason given being that there used to be one, but it was too explicit. The other is the statement of why the LXX of Daniel was replaced by Theodotion’s revision, namely that the original Greek translation was too explicit. Then I would have to give evidence for my claims about the authorship and dating of the Zadokite Document, and I would have to show which passages are specifically relevant to my article. Then I would have to quote any supporting evidence that is available from historical documentation. I’ve seen for myself how evidence is set out, and source-references are given, in academic writing. I will have noticed that there are different ways of formatting, all of which are acceptable. However, I would have to put editorial annotations in the margins, so the text can be revised.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.