Jack the Bodiless

Yes, it's already common knowledge that Daniel was written in a somewhat "archaic" style (all the rage in apocalyptic literature, apparently).
:rolling:

Of course, the author could have used historical figures anyhow...

So I guess we're still waiting for that clear evidence of early authorship.

Jim Larmore

Heres a website that puts the book at late century B.C.E. from qumran and LXX rolls and papyri
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/earlypaplist.html

spin

Jim I wasn't asking about what you believed, but about your analysis of the evidence as I put it forward.

As to mainly ch.11, have you followed the relationship between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies through from the time that they were in conflict until Antiochus III took power over Palestine? Just find a history of the relations and check out the correspondences between the kings of the north with the Seleucid kings and the kings of the south with the Ptolemy kings. One on one mappings in each case. Do you need help for some source material? (A good book on the relations between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies at this time is an ancient volume by Edwyn Bevin called "The House of Seleucus", Ares (it's a reprint).)

We are down to Antiochus III's defeat of the Ptolemaic general Scopus at Paneas. Antiochus III's son is the king in 11:20 "who shall send an official for the glory of the kingdom" -- ie to rob the temple of its treasure -- "but within a few days he shall be broken, though not by anger or in battle". This refers to the attempt by Heliodorus to rob the temple on behalf of Seleucus IV -- see 2 Maccabees 3. This leads us to the successor to Seleucus, Antiochus IV, who was not in line for succession, but because his brother died mysteriously he came back from Rome and took the opportunity to gain power, ie he was a person "on whom royal majesty had not been conferred", 11:21a. Heliodorus had set up a puppet king, but soon decided to handle power directly, so that when Antiochus IV came to power, it was necessary for three kings to be put aside. This is the little horn which cause three horns to be plucked out by the roots in 7:8.

When Antiochus IV came to power he removed Onias III from high priestly office -- "the prince of the covenant will be swept away", 11:22b -- and a section of the Jerusalem oligarchy appealed to him to make Jerusalem a polis -- "After an alliance is made with him, he shall act deceitfully and become strong with a small party".

11:25-27 have Antiochus carrying out a campaign against the kings of the south. He attacks and defeats one then makes a treaty with the other. All nice clean simple history you can check out (Antiochus IV's first campaign in Egypt).

His second campaign is not so successful because the Romans came (referred to as Kittim, LXX says Romans) and forced him to get out -- "At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south, but this time it shall not be as it was before. For the ships of the Kittim shall come against him, and he shall lose heart and withdraw", 11:29-30a. What could Antiochus do? "He shall be enraged andtake action against the holy covenant", 11:30bi. He leaves and takes his anger out on Jerusalem which he sacks before returning to Antioch. A rumour had spread that Antiochus was dead in Egypt, so Jason rebelled against the Seleucid appointed high priest, so Antiochus was heavy handed. This was followed up by an attempt at a more coherent approach to the troublesome Jews. "Forces sent by him shall occupy and profane the temple and fortress", 11:31a.

And so on.

Do you think that I have established a historical context that needs to be dealt with before you can start to contemplate any prophetic interpretations?

Do you want more information?


spin

spin

This is my field, Jim.


spin

Jim Larmore

This is just about as clear as most of the evidence ascribed to any fully accepted ancient writings gets. The problem with you guys is you want absolute concrete irrefutable proof of every thing to accept it. That is an impossible requirement and you know it. Outside of archeological finds we have to accept much of the authenticity of ancient writings on traditions and history. History has verified and validated the Bible time and time again so has many archeological digs. Like I have said before we just as well throw out the Illiad and most of the historical works of those like Tacitus, Heroditus, etc. because you can't provide "clear evidence of their authorship either.

Jim Larmore

I'm going to be gone for the rest of the day so don't think I'm ignoring you guys. My life does include other activities thats much more important than sitting here debating these issues with you folks.

Jack the Bodiless

I know that there's a lot of conjecture in history, but historians generally recognize that and DON'T make grand claims about the authenticity of historical documents based on stuff written centuries later (as you've done with Daniel and Josephus etc).
I certainly don't accept Homer's works as factual, and I don't know anyone else who does. As for their authorship: we don't know if "Homer" was the name of a real person or not.

For other historians, we generally have some other supporting evidence of their existence: if you want us to accept "Daniel" as a real person comparable to Tacitus or Heroditus, then you need to explain why nobody mentions him for several centuries.

Jim Larmore

Spin,
I may be urinating in your post toasties here but to be honest I truely feel paleographical interpretations are subject to extreme modifications from time to time based on archeological finds etc. and are at best decent approximations . I'll concede to you at this point that you probably have a much larger knowledge base on these issues than I do. However, I've been studying this stuff for a few years myself. I've invested a lot of money on reference books that I haven't even tapped the surface on for historical and commentarial expositions.

This is your field? I concluded that from about the third or fourth post you made way back yonder. We stand on opposite sides of the fence. However, it seems to me we can both learn a lot from one another. Why do I say this? Different perspectives on a widely studied discipline can initiate novel or modified philosophies.

I don't mind a lively debate or discussion, I just get tired of being hammered without impunity.

I'm gone for the rest of the day , see you tomorrow.

Have a good day.

Julian

All this is well and good. However, Jim, could you please explain how you would fit Luke into your 'prohecy?' Since you have no problems bending Matthew to your will as you move Jesus' birthday around, I am curious to see how you can consolidate Luke's Quirinius and Matthew's Herod into Daniel's shaky timekeeping...

Julian

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, as I recently posted elsewhere, here's Young's Literal Translation of the entire relevant section:

Everyone got that so far? Daniel supplicates himself and prays for forgiveness and at that moment (as a result of his supplication) Gabriel arrives with a message about a countdown that begins with the delivery of his message.

Ok? You've got 70 weeks (490 days) to get your shit together and determine who are the holy among you and mark them accordingly and rebuild Jerusalem. The clock is ticking starting now is what Gabriel is saying to Danial. Not thousands of years from now or "soon" or a day is equal to a year, but seventy weeks (490 days).

The translators of Young's Literal were not morons. If the context of subaim (or whatever the word used for "weeks" was) meant years or days for years or months or whatever, then they would have used the proper terminology. We know what a week means, they knew what a week means, that's why the translators deliberately used the word "weeks" (or, in other translations, "sevens"). Even though all of that nonsense is a pointless red herring, I just wanted to reiterate that the use of the word "weeks" is purposeful and not arbitrary.

Regardless of the red herring of what was meant by subaim, Gabriel is not talking about something that will happen beyond Daniel's lifetime; he is clearly saying, "The clock starts now!"

See what I mean? It's a countdown. The "word" was just given to Daniel; that's what verse 24 was; the word to restore and build Jerusalem in preparation for Jehovah. Gabriel has come to tell Daniel (and Jerusalem), "You've got 70 weeks from now before everything is destroyed. Your Messiah (the Leader) will arrive in 7 weeks. In 62 weeks the 'broad place' will have been built again and the rampart in place for God to arrive."

Just the facts of the timeline of what's coming starting right now. Not hundreds of years from now; nothing about a "second" coming; and nothing about the Messiah sacrificing himself for our sins. Indeed, the exact opposite:

The Messiah that comes to help you get your shit together is then going to be your executioner if you don't get your shit together.

Jeruselam is given a 70 week countdown to destruction. They are sent a Messiah to help them get their shit together; make their final prayers; say their final words to plead their case to God so that God (Jehovah) doesn't destroy them through his messenger, the Messiah (Leader). There's a window of oppotunity where the Messiah helps the people get all their shit together and acts as a conduit to Jehovah (62 weeks; right at the completion of the rebuilding of the city).

Once the 62 weeks are done and the "rampart" is completed (presumably for Jehovah's entrance into the city), the Messiah will no longer be your conduit to Jehovah; at that point he becomes your executioner. Literally. All those who have not properly atoned in those 62 weeks will be murdered by the Messiah by drowning (primarily) and wars and desolations.

Absolutely, perfectly clear.

The Messiah does all he can while still a conduit to Jehovah, but then he causes sacrifice (the Old Testament way of winning God's favor) to cease. Not by sacrificing himself. The divine forgiveness granted through sacrificing animals and grain and what have you ends. No sacrifice made after the 62 week mark from when Gabriel speaks to Daniel shall have any redemptive power so you'd better do your sacrificing now, because the Messiah will put an end to it and then murder you.

That is what Gabriel is telling Daniel is about to happen in Daniel's lifetime.

It is reiteration. The clock is ticking starting now. You've all got 70 weeks to pray and sacrifice your brains out and to help you do this, Jehovah will send you a Messiah. That Messiah, however, will only help you until the 62 week mark, when, at that point and after making a covenant with many, he will turn into your worst fucking nightmare and murder all who have not been annointed.

Not even the most supreme method of gaining God's favor (sacrifice) will gain God's favor so act now or face the direst of consequences beginning (roughly) 441 days from today.

That and only that is what Gabriel is telling Daniel is about to happen.

And since none of that did happen, all those who read this section have no choice but to conclude incontrivertibly that Daniel's "vision" or "prophecy" or delusion or whatever you want to call it, never took place.