spin

Nothing to say but sophistries, bfniii. But what can one expect? Feel free to move on. Brush the dirt off your feet.


spin

bfniii

sophistry, right. i asked you no less than 15 times (it was more. i just quit counting) to at least discuss the shortcomings of the critical position, much less any analysis of the other major views. you didn't even attempt to. even simpler, i asked for a mere timeline that you never provided. those are simple, straightforward requests, that are acutely pertinent to daniel, for you to show that you are willing to objectively analyze the issues.

Jack the Bodiless

Update:

bfniii keeps referring back to this thread. And he's still arguing elsewhere that the critical position has "problems", but getting him to STATE these "problems" is like pulling teeth. Eventually, after MUCH nagging, he finally declared that he alluded to a "problem" in post #21 of this thread. On further probing, he finally posted this:
...However, on reading this thread, this appears to be a reply to Spin based on a misunderstanding:
Now, it seems reasonable to me that the prophesied ending of the crisis would presumably involve "finishing the transgression", anointing a new priest, and so on.

But bfniii's difficulties go far beyond this. One of the pieces of evidence for a LATE authorship of Daniel is the naming of Greek musical instruments apparently not known to the Persian court because they were introduced later after Alexander's conquest of the region (i.e. this is a claimed historical anachronism). Bfniii has misremebered this, and tried to argue that the Greek musical instruments are actually evidence of an EARLY authorship of Daniel (it also became apparent that he couldn't name the instruments, I had to do it for him).

A few samples from here:
In response to "the text knows nothing tangible about sixth century Babylon":
...Followed by:
After being advised by spin to READ about those musical instruments:
And, on a previous thread:
Followed by:
He has repeatedly refused to admit this blunder, instead seeking to evade the issue by demanding that we prove that the instruments were NOT known earlier (he is apparently unable to comprehend the fact that if they WERE known earlier, they would STILL not be evidence FOR an earlier dating of Daniel). He is also falsely claiming that I have refused to answer this question. Here is one such answer:
I would also like to add that I don't really CARE if some evidence finally surfaces which demonstrates that those Greek instruments were known in the region earlier. This would not pose a "problem for the critical position", because it does not CONTRADICT a late authorship of Daniel.
Why should I need more than that?

Here is Ezekiel's reference to Dan'el/Daniel:
So, there is not the slightest hint that Daniel is a contemporary of Ezekiel. Indeed, his name appears only between those of Noah and Job. So these were contemporaries of Ezekiel too?

bfniii

no, getting spin to state them was like pulling teeth. spin was the person who was acting like he knew daniel inside and out. from the beginning, i acknowledged that each of the three major views has pros and cons.



if i understand you correctly, you are elaborating on the critical position. i stated one reason why the sacrifice does not fit the critical position.



you haven't shown me to be having any difficulties so far. your next points are on a completely different topic and i have addressed them in prior posts.



do you have a historical source that shows unequivocably that these instrument were introduced after alexander's conquest; that they could not have possibly existed in that region prior? i have already cited a source here, edwin yamauchi, that claims the opposite. curiously, sauron never responded to that point even after brought it up several times afterward.



i provided a source and a theory. how is that evading?



the answer you provided does not address the point that the instruments necessarily point to late authorship.



because it's not convincing. a true skeptic would know that's obvious.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: Consider the following:


At a web site at http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...tz/critic.html Bernard Katz aptly deals with Josh McDowell’s mention of Daniel’s 70 weeks in McDowell’s book titled ‘Prophecy: Fact or Fiction.’ Ironically, Katz discredits McDowell with some of McDowell’s own sources. Following are some excerpts from the article:

“Christian fundamentalist Josh McDowell has become quite rash in one of his latest books Prophecy: Fact or Fiction. For he is pinning his whole faith in Christianity on the ‘historical evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Daniel.’

“Here's his argument: ‘Such amazing accurate predictions (in the Book of Daniel) defy the possibility of merely human origin. If these prophecies were composed in the lifetime of the sixth century Daniel, they would compel our acceptance of special revelation from a transcendent, personal God. No anti-supernatural position can reasonably be defended if Daniel is a genuine book of prophecy composed in 530 B.C. or the preceding years’ (p. 5).

“Sounds like Burrows definitely agrees with McDowell as to the historicity of Daniel - right? Wrong! For this ‘friendly witness’ then goes on to say: ‘Naturally readers of the Bible have supposed that in these passages the hero of our book of Daniel was meant... Now, however, we have from Ras Shamrah (tablets which are giving us ‘an enormous mass of new knowledge regarding the religion and mythology of northern Syria in the age of the Hebrew patriarchs’) a poem concerning a divine hero who name is exactly what we find in Ezekiel. He sits at the gate, judges the cause of the widow, and establishes the right of the orphan... In any case one can hardly doubt that the Dan'el referred to in Ezekiel is the same as the Dan'el of the text from Ras Shamrah. Here is a group of biblical passages which have been put in an entirely new light by a recent archaeological discovery’ (p. 263). And this refutation is from a ‘friendly witness.’

“In his From Stone Age to Christianity, 1957, paperback edition, Albright tells us: ‘And yet, the book of Daniel, the book of Enoch, and other works of the same general age show that a positive doctrine of the after-life had already gained the upper hand as early as 165 B.C....’ (p. 351).

“Farther along, on page 362, this archaeologist states: ‘It is highly probable that the idea of seven archangels was taken from Iranian sources. In the earlier books of the Old Testament and the earliest apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature there is nowhere any suggestion that certain angels formed a specially privileged group in the celestial hierarchy, nor do the angels receive person names identical with those of human beings. In Daniel (cir. 165 B.C.) Michael and Gabriel appear...’ (p. 362)

“Notice that Albright uses the date of 165 B.C. in the above two quotes. This late date of 165 B.C., not 530 B.C. as McDowell would have us swallow, is repeated by a great many other scholars. All of which flies in the face of the extreme claim of McDowell, who quotes from one of his sources: ‘Therefore, since the critics are almost unanimous in their admission that the Book of Daniel is the product of one author" (c.f. R.H. Pfeiffer, op. cit., pp. 761, 762), we may safely assert that the book could not possibly have been written as late as the Maccabean age’ (p. 14).

“Now if we turn to the very same book by Pfeiffer (Introduction to the Old Testament, 1948 - and cited by McDowell in his own bibliography on page 132), we find that if we look back just one more page - to 760 - we will see that Pfeiffer himself lists twenty major scholars who deny that the book was written by one author, Daniel, and that they mostly agree that the book is much later than 530 B.C.!

“To disprove a long chapter by McDowell (‘Attacks on Daniel as a Historian,’ pages 33-79, which amounts to 35 percent of the whole of McDowell's book), and in which McDowell says: ‘The alleged external discrepancies between the historical assertions of the Book of Daniel and secular historical sources will not hold up under close scrutiny’ (p. 129), I'm going to use Pfeiffer again. He's a top scholar and McDowell favors him with a thumb-nail biography on page 139 besides quoting him on pages 14 and 65.

“The historical background of Daniel is presented by Pfeiffer on pages 754 through 760, which is much too long for extensive quoting, so I'll choose just the highlights.

“He denies the correctness of McDowell's assertion that the Daniel mentioned in Ezekiel is the same Daniel who wrote the book of Daniel. This is what Pfeiffer says: ‘The Daniel of Ezekiel could conceivably be identified with that of Ras Shamra, but hardly with the hero of our book who, being at least ten years younger than Ezekiel, could hardly be classed with Noah; moreover, in 591 and 586 when Ezekiel was writing those passages, our Daniel had barely begun his career....’ (p. 754).

“Pfeiffer continues: (page 754) ‘The historicity of the Book of Daniel is an article of faith, not an objective scientific truth... In a historical study of the Bible, convictions based on faith must be deemed irrelevant, as belonging to subjective rather than objective knowledge. The historical background of Daniel, as was discovered immediately after its publication, is not that of the sixth but of the second century B.C. In the Sbylline Oracles (3:3831-400, a passage written about 140 B.C.) the ‘ten horns’ of Dn. 7:7, 20, 24 are already recognized to be ten kings preceding Antiochus Ephiphanes (175-164 B.C.) on the throne. In the first century of our era Josephus correctly identified the little horn in 7:20-27 with Antiochus Ephiphanes... (Antiquities 10:11, 7)... But the real discoverer of the historical allusions in Daniel was the neo-Platonic philosopher Porphyry (d. ca. 304 A.D.), who devoted the twelfth volume of his Arguments against the Christians to the subject. The extant portions of this work which have been preserved by Jerome (d. 420) in his commentary, which is the most important of all the studies on Daniel. Porphyry assailed the historicity of Daniel by proving in detail that ch. 11 presents a history (not a prophecy) of the Seleucids and Ptolemies culminating in the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus Ephiphanes. Jerome honestly accepted the views of this foe of Christianity, although in 11:21-45, he identified the tyrant Antichrist ... and not with Antiochus Ephiphanes’ (pp. 755-56).

“In view of the great importance which Pfeiffer attaches to Jerome's commentary on Daniel, I find it incredible that the only mention in McDowell of Jerome is that this great scholar places Daniel among the prophets (McDowell, p. 38).

“Pfeiffer continues: ‘It will be noticed at once that the amount of historical information gradually improves as we move from the days of Nebuchadnezzar to those of Antiochus Ephiphanes’ (p. 756). The reason for this is that since the book was written during the reign of Antiochus then those events pertaining to this Greek king would certainly match those in Daniel, but as history receded the events became more confused an in error.

“But McDowell takes the opposite tack. He says that the events of the sixth century B.C. are accurate because that is when the book was written and that the subsequent events (which are historically correct) substantiate the infallible prophetic revelations given by God to Daniel (p. 13). But the whole point of all the critical analyses by scholars shows that McDowell has turned the evidence upside-down and actually inverted the truth!

Pfeiffer: It seems clear that our author's misconceptions about the Persian period are derived to a great extent from late sources of the Old Testament and possibly from other sources of questionable trustworthiness (p. 757).

Pfeiffer: Our author confused Nebuchadnezzar with Nabonidus not only by making him the father of Belshazzar, but probably also in the story of Nebuchadnezzar's madness (p. 758; cf. McDowell pp. 123-4).

Pfeiffer: The chronology of Daniel is sufficiently elastic to allow the author to superimpose on the course of history a mechanical scheme based on the interpretation of Jeremiah's seventy years as seventy weeks of years, or 490 years. He divides the seventy weeks into three periods; seven weeks from 586 to 538 (with close approximation, 48 instead of 49 years), sixty-two weeks from 538 to 171 (actually 367 instead of 434 years), and, correctly, one week from 171 to 164 (p. 758; Pfeiffer cf. McDowell pp. 15-22).

Katz: This one paragraph destroys McDowell's reconstruction of Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks. To authenticate this prophecy, since it's crucial to the dates of the coming and death of Christ, as well as to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, McDowell devotes, as noted above, seven pages (15-22). The arithmetic of the weeks consumes three pages alone. McDowell would have been more productive if he had used the space to prove ‘pyramid power!’

“To resume listening to our ‘friendly witness’… ‘In conclusion,’ states Pfeiffer, ‘the author's information on the period preceding Alexander is extremely vague, being partly drawn from his imagination and partly from unreliable sources (p. 758). While the author knows very little about the history of his first three world empires, his information about the fourth, particularly in its later phases, is exact and clarified’ (p. 759). This corroborates what was said earlier in this article about McDowell inverting the truth.

“‘What lies beyond December 165,’ says Pfeiffer, ‘is not historical reality but apocalyptic dream... our author gives an imaginary picture of his (Antiochus') end. After a successful conquest of Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia, Antiochus shall meet his end in his camp between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean, 'broken without hand' by a supernatural agency. This unfulfilled prediction follows the pattern set by earlier apocalypses...’ (pp. 759-760).

“Thus the ‘friendly witnesses,’ Burrows, Albright, and Pfeiffer break the back of McDowell's thesis. By his own words, McDowell has hoisted himself on his own petard. The implications for a Christian fundamentalist's faith in his religion and his Saviour are in great doubt - this according to McDowell's own words: ‘Of course it must follow that if the critics can prove their case, then they have seriously undermined the credibility of Christ, the Bible, and the Christian faith’ (p. 9).

Jack the Bodiless

And you were mistaken.

STILL no actual "problems with the critical position".
...And spin addressed that.

The rest of your post consists of more obfuscation regarding your "musical instruments" blunder. Why are you so incapable of admitting your mistakes?

You falsely claimed that the instruments were evidence of EARLY authorship. Even if they WERE known in the region earlier, they would NOT be evidence of EARLY authorship, because they were ALSO known in the region LATER. So, if true, this would mean that the book could have been written earlier OR later.
It DOES address the point we were DISCUSSING: which was YOUR blunder in claiming that the instruments were evidence of EARLY authorship.
You have provided no "source" or "theory" to support your erroneous assertion that the instruments are evidence for EARLY authorship.


Will you admit that you goofed? Or must I continue to beat you over the head with this relentlessly?

Your blunder demonstrates your lack of familiarity with the issues regarding the dating of Daniel, and your ongoing refusal to own up is (further) demonstration of your intransigence and dishonesty.
Are you lost again? The issue here is whether Ezekiel mentions "the" Daniel: the one who was supposedly a contemporary of his, and supposedly wrote the "Book of Daniel". Ezekiel does NOT describe HIS "Dan'el" as a contemporary. So, no support for early authorship from Ezekiel, regardless of where he got the name from.

bfniii

you haven't even refuted the one that i posed.



no, he didn't. he thought that i couldn't name a problem with the critical view. when i listed one, he said that he never equated daniel's stoppage of sacrifice with the ending of the tamid. i don't care whether he said that or not. it's still one of the unresolved problems of the critical position. regardless of when it happened, it doesn't match what daniel was stating.



ezekiel doesn't have to mention daniel specifically as a contemporary in order for daniel to have been his contemporary. your point is totally inconclusive.

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
Nope, it isn't an "unresolved problem of the critical position". Antiochus IV did indeed stop the daily sacrifice (which WAS the "tamid"). But that doesn't imply the destruction of the temple. When Daniel was written (in the Maccabean period), the tamid HAD been stopped: it resumed with the rededication of the temple in 164 BC (hence Daniel was presumably written before the temple rededication and resumption of the tamid).

So, no problem here.

Furthermore, I note that this was dealt with back on page 1. It was on page 2 that you started "challenging" us to "list the problems with the critical position" (apparently in the hope that we would give you some ammo).

Here is a comprehensive list of the ACTUAL problems with the critical position:

( none )

...OK, so that's sorted.
I didn't claim that it WAS conclusive. I was merely forestalling the apologetic claim that Daniel WAS a contemporary "because Ezekiel says so": he doesn't. Furthermore, the context implies that Dan'el was regarded as an ancient hero like Noah and Job.

Incidentally, I note that you haven't responded to the "musical instruments" issue. Maybe you've realized your error and you'd now like to quietly drop it. However, I think it would do you good to admit your errors (as I would do): "confession is good for the soul". Hence:

REMINDER: bfniii, you have not yet admitted your "Greek musical instruments" blunder.

bfniii

but the critical position, as maintained by lacocque, goldingay, etc., states that the stoppage of the tamid and the rededication of the temple is what daniel was referring to in chapter 9. their timline is built around those events in 167bc and 164bc, respectively. are you saying that daniel was referring to some other events?



no need to. i have already stated my case.

mens_sana

Darius the Mede. Accounts tell us of Darius I (Hystaspes), Darius II and Darius III, but they were all Persians, not Medes, and they all came after Cyrus, not before him. This leaves only the possibility of a Mede known by some other name. H.H. Rowley in Darius the Mede explored the possibilities: (1) Astyages, the Median king overthrown by Nebuchadnezzar about the time Nabonidus came to the throne; (2) Cambyses, coregnant with his father for a brief period after the fall of Babylon; (3) Gobryas, Cyrus’ general who took command of Babylon before Cyrus arrived; (4) Cyaxares, son of Astyages according to Xenophon. However, Astyages antedates Belshazzar considerably. Cambyses was neither a Mede nor sixty-two years of age in 539. Gobryas was either an Assyrian, which probably means Babylonian, or a Persian—and could not have been a Mede since Herodotus records his indignation that “we Persians” should be ruled by a Mede in the person of pseudo-Merdis, and, additionally, was never king. And although Xenophon says Cyaxares was son to Astyages, Herodotus says that Astyages had no male heirs. In any case, there is the salient fact that none of the men was ever called Darius!

“Most important, Dougherty [Raymond Philip Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar: A Study of the Closing Events of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929. Yale Oriental Series, Researches, Vol. 15] gives two series of dated Babylonian tablets, the one referring to Nabonidus’ last (seventeenth) regnal year and the other to Cyrus’ first year, and the two series overlap by two months.” (Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, V.1, p. 765) Ordinary bills of sale dated “17th Nabonidus” and “1st Cyrus”, along with royal annals and inscriptions on matters such as dates of accession don’t get forged. They are as nearly unimpeachable witnesses as this world affords. And these common records allow no room for a Darius the Mede and a Median Empire between the reigns of Nabonidus and Cyrus. (Largely from the IDB article cited above. I can post quotes from the Dougherty, which I obtained through Interlibrary Loan, if anyone thinks it necessary.)