spin

Any nabi taken out of his context can be reinterpreted and reapplied. You should leave that to christian cretinism. Christian scholars wisely remain tacit when confronted with the abuse of Daniel in christian literature.

Reinterpretation, a form of eisegesis, has no place in BC&H except for the recognition of its presence in literature.

stephan huller

The rabbinic tradition is pretty uniform that the first anointed one is Cyrus, the second one Agrippa. There are some later interpretations which argue for a high priest as the second anointed.

maryhelena

Oh dear, spin....I can't believe I'm reading this. There is no 'true' interpretation - think about it. Interpretation deals with explaining or giving meaning to a text. People can differ in their interpretation. There is no one size fits any text, no one interpretation, no one 'truth' from a biblical text. That's the playground of the fundamentalists - each to his own 'truth'.

Yes, this is BC&H - and it's Biblical criticism and history that we want to explore. Problem is that that Biblical text has to be interpreted - and that is as much the prerogative of the fundamentalist as it is the scholar. Both are as liable as each other to err in their interpretation. Christians have been interpreting their texts for around 2000 years - resulting in a multitude of interpretations - and that will not change because some scholar makes a claim for one 'true' interpretation.

Interpretation is playtime with the Biblical texts. The focus should be on history. That is primary. If one can fit ones interpretation of Biblical texts to history, if one can make a story combining ones interpretation with historical realities - then one has something a bit more than simply an interpretation. One has a pseudo-historical story. Which is what the gospel JC storyboard is. An interpretation of Biblical texts combined with Hasmonean history, reflecting Hasmonean history.

And as that gospel JC storyboard demonstrates - it's a moving story. A moving story that has re-interpreted it's interpretation of the Biblical texts. From a birth in around the 15th year of Herod the Great; to a birth towards the end of the rule of Herod the Great; to a birth in 6 c.e. To a crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius, to a crucifixion around the 15th year of Tiberius, to a crucifixion story that can be pushed to the end of the rule of Tiberius. And lets not forget that birth in the time of Alexander Jannaeus.

That, spin, is all re-interpretation of the Daniel's 70 weeks of years - Biblical texts regarding the expectation of a messianic/anointed figure.

One 'true' interpretation of a Biblical text? Spin, I left that idea behind many moons ago...

All we should be really concerned with is identifying the historical backdrop to the gospel JC storyboard. Anything else - interpreting that gospel story - is playtime; it's a story that can be interpreted, 'read', and re-interpreted until the cows come home. Christianity has been called the 'mother of heretics' - and, spin, there is nothing that you nor I can do to change that reality. Yes, the story might lose some of it's power when JC falls from his historicists pedestal - but, methinks, the fascination with that story will ensure it a place in history via future re-interpretations.

Iskander

LOL
Anyone wishing never to be wrong should become a biblical scholar and avoid earthquake forecasting!

spin

My only interest here is Daniel and where it is coming from. I have little interest in its reuse. Any text has its context and its writer's intentions can only be understood when that context has been struggled with. Reinterpretation reflects the reinterpreter's context. In the Joni Mitchell song "A Case of You" she sings "Just before our love got lost you said, 'I am as constant as the northern star'" and what she cites are the words of Julius Caesar in Shakespeare's play. Mitchell says something about her interlocutor in the song, but nothing useful about Shakespeare's play.

Daniel has at least five glimpses of historical commentary relating to Judea and its place in history in the period leading up to the end of the Hellenistic crisis (1. the statue, 2. the four beasts, 3. ram, goat & horns, 4. 70 weeks, and 5. kings of the north and south). What Christians do with the text once the context is lost is a pale mashup.

maryhelena

The writer's intentions....??

According to spin that is...

What is this, don't like the word re-interpretation - which simply means that one is going to change or update ones initial interpretation - and prefer rather to go with an attempt to devise the author's intention for the text.

That's mind reading spin - and best left to a clairvoyant...

spin

The act of writing is an attempt to communicate the writer's notions in a context, ie a writer has intentions for writing and their contexts help us understand them. Does one need to be a clairvoyant to acknowledge your intentions? Should we just reinterpret your comments for our own purposes? Am I a mind reader when I take what you say in its context to come to a conclusion about what you'd like the reader to understand from your communication?

You decided to waylay my comments on the exegesis of Daniel. I don't feel you have engaged with what I've said to you and I don't see what you are doing with the book of Daniel reflects the text or how it is functionally different from what certain christians do with it. At some stage in the development of christianity adherents midrashed Daniel, but, as I've indicated, that doesn't interest me very much. And still remember, you are doing the waylaying.

I've shown a series of elements in Daniel, which include

1. the cutting off of a significant individual (at the beginning of the seven years),
2. the profaning of the sanctuary,
3. the stoppage of the tamid and
4. the desolating abomination,

all significant concerns repeated in three of the book's visions, the combination of which is not dealt with in any of the reinterpretations. And that's where I came in, to point out that the reinterpretations show little regard for the book of Daniel's concerns and contextual indicators. Neither require clairvoyance, though they do require close reading of the text with the aid of some knowledge of Near Eastern history. While I don't expect the writers of Daniel to have known much about events outside their lifetimes, I do expect them to know what happened in the seven years prior to their writing.

Enjoy the arithmetic, I'll sit this dance out.

maryhelena

Spin, what I write is open to interpretation by my readers. The difference here is that I am alive and my readers can question me. Attempting to ascertain the motive, the intention, of the Daniel writer is guess work, it is no better than a clairvoyant attempting to communicate with the dead.

Yes, of course, one can attempt to draw a conclusion regarding intention from a dead writers work - but that is all it is. An attempt - however
This thread brought up Daniel 9 - to which I have responded in various postings. I did not seek to waylaid this discussion with bringing in Daniel 8 and 11. That comes from your chart.

I'm not interested in complicating the issue here. Daniel 9 is of interest re messianic expectations because of it's 70 weeks of years prophetic formula. Context? OT prophecy: And that is a subject not confined to the book of Daniel. It's a subject with relevance to the gospel JC storyboard - and that is where my interest lies - the JC story and it's placement in a historical context that reflects a long lens use of Daniel 9. (32 c.e. being 490 years from the 7th year of Artaxerxes I, in 458 b.c.)

That's the arithmetic that I'm interested in - numbers with relevance to the gospel JC story. I find no significance for that gospel JC story in applying elements, taken from Daniel 9 and its 70 weeks of years, to events surrounding the year 175 b.c. 'Fulfilled' prophecy is what gMatthew writes about - and that necessitates that Daniel 9 and it's 70 weeks of years be relevant to the placing of his story within a specific historical time frame.

stephan huller

Has anyone actually looked at Aquila's translation of the material. Instead of:

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. "

He renders it:

"On thy people, and on thy sacred city.. For ending disobedience, and for completing transgression. For the fulfilling of their disobedience and the completion of their sin, For the propitiation of their transgression, For the bringing in of everlasting righteousness, And for fulfilling the vision and the prophet. For the anointing of the most consecrated."

Also for 9:26:

And this is made clear by the other translators: for Aquila says, "And after the seven weeks and the sixty-two, he that is anointed shall be cast out, and there is no place for him." And Sym-machus, "And after the weeks the seven and sixty-two the Christ shall be cut off, and shall not belong to him:" which (b) seems strong confirmation of my interpretation of "Christ the Governor."[Eusebius Demonstation 8.2]

sotto voce

Thy, thy. Reluctant faith is so common.