Toto

Let's get back to this. The book of Daniel concerns events in the 6th century BCE but was written in the 2nd century BCE. The book of Daniel is full of anachronisms and historical confusion and appears to be based on other mythic sources rather than historical records or memory.

No scholar outside of inerrantists thinks that Daniel was a historical person. Your statement "nor does the scholarship know" whether Daniel was a historical person misstates the probabilities.

Daniel was not a cult leader, but later cult leaders have appealed to the authority of his prophecy.

PhilosopherJay

Hi ApostateAbe,

Thank you for your interpretation of the point that I raised.

I contend that the two failed predictions you mentioned (in Mark chapter 8 and 13 are not failed predictions), but are only interpreted as failed predictions. They only appear to be failed predictions when we read the text leading up to the prediction, however, when we read the text in context, along with what comes directly after the predictions, it is clear that they are not failed predictions.

In Mark 9, we have the prediction:

Following this prediction, we get:

Jesus predicts that some of his disciples will see the kingdom of Heaven before they die. Six days later, he takes Peter, James and John to a mountain and shows them Moses and Elijah who are presumably in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus' prediction is not only fulfilled, it is fulfilled in the very next paragraph textually-wised and fulfilled within one week, narrative-wise.

One might quibble that the text doesn't specifically say the three disciples saw the kingdom of heaven. But we know that the kingdom of heaven is supposed to be on a mountain and that Elijah and Moses are supposed to be in the kingdom of heaven as opposed to Gehenna. So, we may assume that to any educated or competent Jewish listener, the fulfillment of the prediction would have been clear.

Here is the beginning and end of the discourse in Mark 13.

The question is when will the buildings be destroyed. It is hard to tell if the reference is to to the buildings of the temple or the buildings of Jerusalem. Their exit from the temple might mean that they are referring to the temple, but there is no specific reference to the buildings of the temple as opposed to buildings in Jerusalem generally. We cannot be sure if Jesus is predicting the destruction of the temple, something that happened partially in 70 C.E. and completely in 135 C.E. or he is predicting the destruction of Jerusalem, something that did not happen, but that the Jews felt had happened after the Bar Kokhbar

Notice that the episode ends with Jesus saying three times that he doesn't know when the time is and implying that it could happen any time. Jesus has just predicted a series of about two dozen "signs" that will happen before the destruction of the temple or city. Jesus should say something like, "You don't have to worry until you have seen all of these signs, then you should watch, for it could happen any day after that." Perhaps there are subtle hints in the text that would allow the Jewish listener of that time to understand Jesus in this way, but as it appears now, Jesus is just contradicting what he has just said about the signs appearing before the destruction.

One can interpret it as Jesus saying that after the signs, nobody knows the exact day. Jesus does not explicitly say this. He just says that nobody (except the father) knows when it will happen. he repeats it three times for emphasis.

While saying that Jesus really meant that the day or hour of the destruction "after" the signs is unknown, it puts something in the text that is not there.

A better solution is to analyze the signs. Here is your list of signs:


* Many will come in my name and say, "I am he!" and they will lead many astray.
* When you hear of wars and rumours of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come.
* For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom
* there will be earthquakes in various places
* there will be famines
* they will hand you over to councils
* you will be beaten in synagogues
* you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them
* bring you to trial and hand you over
* Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child
* children will rise against parents and have them put to death
* you will be hated by all because of my name
* the one who endures to the end will be saved
* the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be
* those in Judea must flee to the mountains
* Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days
* in those days there will be suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, no, and never will be
* for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he has cut short those days
* False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
* sun and moon will be darkened
* the stars will be falling from heaven
* the powers in the heavens will be shaken
* Then they will see 'the Son of Man coming in clouds' with great power and glory
* Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.


Notice that there are two types of events predicted before the destruction (of the temple or city). The first type are natural, earthly and can be considered historical. The second type (in red) are supernatural, heavenly and non-historical.

This suggests strongly to me two layers of text. The original layer had the prediction of the supernatural events followed by the three statements that the day or hour of these supernatural events was known only to the father.

Here is a reconstruction of that layer, which describes only heavenly events.

the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 13.25and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 13.26And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 13.27And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
13.32 "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 13.33Take heed, watch; for you do not know when the time will come. 13.34It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch. 13.35Watch therefore--for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning-- 13.36lest he come suddenly and find you asleep. 13.37And what I say to you I say to all: Watch."

The second layer is of the historical events followed by the passing away statement, "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place. 13.31Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

Here is a reconstruction of this second layer:

Let us assume that the original layer of text was written sometime before 70 CE and attributed to Jesus or John. This original layer is not a false prediction because Jesus (or John) does not give any date for these heavenly events.

The second layer was created either after the destruction of the temple in 70 or after the bigger destruction of the city in 135. If after 70, the prophesy is certainly not false, but a true prediction of events and it certainly did happen in "this generation." If written in 135, the problem arises of the length of a generation. The writer could justify it with Genesis 6.3:

It is clear to me that the first part of this quote "My spirit shall not abide in man forever is related to the statement "Heaven and Earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." Thus we can be reasonably certain that this second layer of the text was written after 135. The writer and competent Jewish Listener would know that Jesus' prediction came true within the allotted 120 year life span of the generation.

The real question for me is whether the second layer was meant to be combined with the first layer when it was created or whether it was created independently of the first layer and only combined in a third text somewhat later, probably nearer to 180 C.E.

In either case, we see that we are not dealing with a failed prediction by the Jesus character in this case. We are dealing with a failure to see and understand the textual development of the chapter.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay
(AKA Jay Raskin)

ApostateAbe

OK, so Daniel was not a cult leader, and his prophecies were maybe only a little short of "doomsday," but maybe he still has strong potential for being a good comparison to a merely-mythical Jesus. I think such a comparison should be deeply explored, if it hasn't already been done, and that would be the way to start making a case that Jesus was merely myth. If you happen to know of evidence of Old Testament scholars who have concluded one way or the other whether the character of Daniel was part-history or merely-myth and their reasons why, then that would be a good way to begin, I think. This is progress.

Toto

The idea that Daniel could have been a historical person seems to be so improbable that no scholar tried to support it or bothered to refute it. There is extensive literature on the historical basis of the book of Daniel. Check the link.

ApostateAbe

I did check the Wikipedia page, and there does still seem to be plenty of room for one conclusion or the other. To be sure, if there was a historical Daniel, then the mythical evolution preceding our earliest evidence would be far greater than for other figures like Jesus. I don't know if you caught this blurb on the Wikipedia page:

There exists a broad consensus among scholars that the legendary stories of chapters 1-6 are almost certainly older than the visions in chapters 7-12.[81] The wide differences between the oldest manuscripts of chapters 4-6 suggests that these chapters originally circulated separately from the rest of the book and may have been transmitted orally,[82] and it is clear that the stories and visions that make up the book as we now have it were selected from a wider corpus of Daniel literature available to the author(s).[83]

The footnotes go to three pages of a single source:

Collins, John Joseph, Flint, Peter W., VanEpps, Cameron (eds)' "The book of Daniel: composition and reception" (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Brill, 2001) pp.2-4.

This means that the legend of the character of Daniel was around for a long time. I think it would be very tough to conclude one or the other whether Daniel existed, but maybe that isn't so important, anyway. The prophecies would be attributed to an almost-entirely mythical Daniel, regardless. So, that would leave only the problem of Daniel not reputedly leading a cult.

spin

This seems to be an utterly baseless claim.

You certainly didn't read my comment in your other thread, because this is another utterly baseless conjecture on your part.

This has nothing to do per se with historical methodology. No more conjuring tricks, please. Best explanation is a choice criterion for all disciplines. It doesn't help you here, other than for obfuscation purposes. You have to demonstrate best explanation. Not assume as you perennially do.

You still need historical criteria. Without them you are wasting everyone's time. All you have is empty waffle for you aren't dealing with history at all. You're still fiddling with text. And you provide no possible way of arriving at a meaningful best explanation. In short no way to get out of text.

This is utter balderdash--a formula for converting text to history without criteria. All you need do is declare something is the best explanation. And believe me you've done a lot of declaring about history without any historical methodology whatsoever.

But of course without historical criteria, you have no way of arriving at a best explanation that makes any sense in the real world. All you would be doing is making pronouncements about text. You're in a prison of your own making. You can say whatever you like but it will never reach the real world until you provide a functional methodology to relate text to real world and that doesn't just mean a wacky theory about historyless best explanations.

You can have a set of explanations of which none are functional. No amount of imagination or intuition will change that. You have no way of knowing the functionality without the historical criteria. So you may as well be theorizing about if and how Lizzy Borden gave her stepmother 40 whacks. I'm sure you can come up with a best explanation, but what value would it have, when you have no way of testing it?

You've been going on about historyless best explanation for too long.

spin

The difference between the two sections of Daniel is less than a century. The second half relates to the latter part of the Antiochine persecution of the Jews circa 164 BCE. The statue in chapter 2 is a presentation of the four kingdoms also seen in chapter 7. The lower part of the statue represent Greece and the legs and feet and toes are the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms. The reference to a marriage in 2:43 (KJV talks of mingling the seed of men), the same marriage mentioned in 11:6, regards Antiochus II and his Ptolemaic wife, Berenice, 253-246 BCE, so we have an earliest date of writing of this prophecy at 246 BCE, but it is a judgment in hindsight, so it is written some time after the period.

There is no necessary "long time" about it.

PhilosopherJay

Hi arnoldo,

This idea seems to go back to the 20th Century Jewish story teller Nissim Mindel. I cannot trace it back any further. Until there is some evidence that Nissim Mindel did not make it up as an entertaining story for children, we should not accept it.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

The "ARGUMENT to the BEST EXPLANATION" suggests that MYTH JESUS is the BEST EXPLANATION for the evidence.

The BEST explanation for the Conception of Jesus is MYTH.

The Best explanation for the Temptation story is MYTH.

The Best explanation for the Baptism story is MYTH

The Best explanation for the INSTANT healing MIRACLES is MYTH

The Best explanation for WALKING on water is MYTH

The Best explanation for the TRANSFIGURATION is MYTH

The Best explanation for the RESURRECTION is MYTH

The Best explanation for the post-resurrection is MYTH

The Best explanation for the Ascension is MYTH


The "ABE" SUPPORTS that the BEST EXPLANATION for the EVIDENCE is indeed MYTH JESUS.

ApostateAbe

OK, good to know, thanks.