arnoldo

Post #133 demolishes your argument.

Amaleq13

You have obtained several replies to that post but, to my knowledge, answered none of the questions raised.

What evidence dates the copy of Daniel c.100BCE?

spin

What would be more interesting, as you are asking the leading question, is to hear your answer.

I've already said that I would prefer to deal with Dan 11, which I've asked you to talk about and you have not done so in five days. Unfortunately you have this propensity to avoid topics, finding tangents agreeable. I think if you dealt with Dan 11 we could decide whether we can set down common ground to discuss the rest of Daniel.

In an effort to facilitate your analysis of Dan 11, I'll post an expanded analysis of the historical events contained in the chapter for you to decide whether acceptable or not.

I posted that if we turn to ch.11 we find a series of conflicts between the kings of the north and the kings of the south immediately after the time of Alexander, the warrior king of 11:3 and the diadochi in 11:4. The king of the north is clearly Seleucid (Syria) and the king of the south is Ptolemy (Egypt) and chapter 11 describes the Syrian_Wars. A close examination of the text in conjunction with this history provides an identical match, showing

• Persia is stirred up against Greece, 11:2,

The Kingdom of the Greeks

• the rise of Alexander, 11:3,
• the death of Alexander and the division of his empire into four, the diadochi, 11:4,
• the ascendancy of the southern Ptolemy kings in the third century, 11:5
• the problem of northern Antiochus II's wife, Berenice, 253-246 BCE, 11:6,
• her brother, Ptolemy III, marches into Syria, briefly occupying Antioch before returning to Egypt with much booty, 246-241 BCE, 11:7-8,
• Seleucus II attempts to recoup from Syria's losses, by civil unrest forces him to return, 11:9

Antiochus III

• the Syrians (Antiochus III) advance far into Egyptian holdings to Gaza, 11:10,
• but Ptolemy IV stops the southern movement temporarily, winning the battle of Raphia in 217 BCE, 11:11-12,
• the ascendency of Antiochus III with his successful campaigns against the south, 11:13-16,
• Antiochus III consolidates his positions in Palestine and marries his daughter to Ptolemy IV in 195 BCE, 11:17,
• Antiochus III moves into the Aegean, but is defeated by the Roman commander Scipio Asiaticus at Magnesia in 190 BCE, 11:18,
• the death of Antiochus III in 187 BCE, 11:19
• the reign of Seleucus IV (187-175 BCE) with the famous visit of his official Heliodorus to Jerusalem (2 Macc 3), 11:20,

Antiochus IV

• the usurpation of the throne by Antiochus IV in 175 BCE, 11:21,
• the removal of Onias_III, the prince of the covenant, in the same year, 11:22,
• Antiocus IV's agreement with the supporters of Jason, 11:23,
• a detailed account of Antiochus IV's first and second campaigns against the south including mention of the two Ptolemy kings, 11:24-29, culminating in
• the arrival of the Romans (the ships of the Kittim) to force him to leave, 11:30 (see also the Old Greek LXX which specifically mentions the Romans),
• Antiochus's attack on Jerusalem, 11:31, and
• his occupation of the temple and the fortress (Acra) with the stopping of sacrifice and the pollution of the temple, 11:32,
• and the complete suppression of the Jewish religion (see 2 Macc 6:1ff), 11:34-35,
• and so on, including the mention of his receiving help from a foreign god (Olympian Zeus, see 2 Macc 6:2).

The fulcrum is the stopping of temple sacrifices, 11:31, 9:27 and 8:11 -- this last is done by the little horn, who we also see is the culmination of the fourth beast in chapter 7, who attacked the Jews and attempted to change the seasons and the laws. Dan 11 should show that the stoppage of daily sacrifice was done by Antiochus IV, so he should be responsible in the other visions as well.


spin

arnoldo

Aren't there copies of the book of daniel in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Amaleq13

My question clearly implies the answer to yours and you still haven't answered it.

ETA: Please don't tell me you are wasting time with an irrelevant nitpick about my use of the singular rather than the plural.

Jack the Bodiless

There is no inconsistency between a 168-164 BC authorship and a 100 BC copy. Indeed, the argument is bizarre: we're supposed to believe that NO copies were made in those 6 decades?

The whole "canonicity" argument is spurious. Daniel was supposed to be regarded as a long-lost old book, deserving of instant recognition and acceptance. And the Dead Sea Scrolls wan't a collection of exclusively "canonical" texts anyhow (indeed, some weren't even religious).

Jack the Bodiless

Hilarious! You think Antiochus carved his own statue, carried it to the temple on his own back, and erected it himself? Then he ran amok in Jerusalem with a sledgehammer and trashed the place single-handedly? You don't think that a king maybe has PEOPLE to do his chores for him?
And absolutely nothing in Daniel says that the little horn has to be "a prince of the Romans". You should avoid pizzas with the funny-looking mushrooms on them. :wave:

spin

You'll argue anything so that you don't have to deal with what you cannot deal with, ie the history behind Dan 11.

Jesus -- "Yeshua" is merely hypothetical, assuming that the actual name of the character called Ihsous in Greek was ever really called Yeshua, though we only have Greek texts -- is attributed as misunderstanding Dan 7:13, converting "one like a son of man" who was going up to heaven on the clouds to "they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds". The one like a son of man is simply descriptive, not titular: while the angels of the other nations were like strange animals, that of Israel was like a man. It is a corruption of the description of the angel of Israel (one like a son of man) who was fighting against the angels of the other nations (one like a lion, etc.).

Christians have perverted the book of Daniel, ignorant of what it was about, knowing nothing about its context, too busy finding signs of Jesus to have a clue. Daniel has nothing at all directly to do with Jesus. Do you not find it strange that Paul knows nothing about the titular "son of man"? It's simply not Jewish. A "son of man" is a disparaging reference to a human being, used frequently in the Hebrew bible often describing Ezekiel. Gabriel calls Daniel "son of man" in Dan 8:17. The titular use of "son of man" is a human mistake, based on not understanding the source material.

Daniel says nothing about Jesus. It is early christian eisegesis. It comes from their heads, not the text. If you weren't committed to the error, an objective analysis would uncloud your judgment.

And if you want to be honest and argue about the subject of Daniel, approach it coherently and deal with chapter eleven with me and see where we can go.


spin

spin

You have no argument. You are just reading subconscious cue cards.


spin

Amaleq13

I tend to agree but I was interested in whether such a date had actually been assigned to their copy(ies) of Daniel.