Freethought & Rationalism Archive

knuckles644 · 06-18-2004, 12:43 PM

The writing of the book of Daniel was completed in about 536 B.C.E. Macedonian King Alexander the Great, who was born 180 years later, in 356 B.C.E., conquered the Persian Empire. He was “the great horn�? between the eyes of “the hairy he-goat.�? According to the Jewish historian Josephus, upon entering Jerusalem before his victory over Persia, Alexander was shown the book of Daniel. He concluded that the words of Daniel’s prophecy that were pointed out to him referred to his own military campaign involving Persia. What is more, in textbooks on world history, you can read of the course that Alexander’s empire took after his death in 323 B.C.E. Four generals eventually took over his empire, and by 301 B.C.E., the ‘four horns’ that stood up instead of “the great horn�? divided the domain into four sections. Once again, we have every reason to wonder, ‘How could a book so vividly and accurately foretell what would take place some 200 years later?’

What is the current consensus on the book of Daniel?

Mat Wilder · 06-18-2004, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knuckles644

The writing of the book of Daniel was completed in about 536 B.C.E. Macedonian King Alexander the Great, who was born 180 years later, in 356 B.C.E., conquered the Persian Empire. He was “the great horn�? between the eyes of “the hairy he-goat.�? According to the Jewish historian Josephus, upon entering Jerusalem before his victory over Persia, Alexander was shown the book of Daniel. He concluded that the words of Daniel’s prophecy that were pointed out to him referred to his own military campaign involving Persia. What is more, in textbooks on world history, you can read of the course that Alexander’s empire took after his death in 323 B.C.E. Four generals eventually took over his empire, and by 301 B.C.E., the ‘four horns’ that stood up instead of “the great horn�? divided the domain into four sections. Once again, we have every reason to wonder, ‘How could a book so vividly and accurately foretell what would take place some 200 years later?’

What is the current consensus on the book of Daniel?

My Catholic Study Bible (NAB) says that Daniel lived "at least until 538 B.C." but also that "This work was composed during the bitter persecution carried on by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (167-164 [BCE]) and was written to strengthen and comfor the Jewish people in their ordeal" (1086).

So, general consensus is that the book wasn't written by Daniel, so you don't have a problem about it "telling the future." I don't know where you heard the story about Alexander the Great, but clearly it must be false if the book wasn't written until long after he died.

Toto · 06-18-2004, 03:01 PM

Josephus

Quote:

. . . for Alexander, when he saw the multitude at a distance, in white garments, while the priests stood clothed with fine linen, and the high priest in purple and scarlet clothing, with his mitre on his head, having the golden plate whereon the name of God was engraved, he approached by himself, and adored that name, and first saluted the high priest. The Jews also did all together, with one voice, salute Alexander, and encompass him about; whereupon the kings of Syria and the rest were surprised at what Alexander had done, and supposed him disordered in his mind. However, Parmenio alone went up to him, and asked him how it came to pass that, when all others adored him, he should adore the high priest of the Jews? To whom he replied, "I did not adore him, but that God who hath honored him with his high priesthood; for I saw this very person in a dream, in this very habit, when I was at Dios in Macedonia, who, when I was considering with myself how I might obtain the dominion of Asia, exhorted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over the sea thither, for that he would conduct my army, and would give me the dominion over the Persians; whence it is that, having seen no other in that habit, and now seeing this person in it, and remembering that vision, and the exhortation which I had in my dream, I believe that I bring this army under the Divine conduct, and shall therewith conquer Darius, and destroy the power of the Persians, and that all things will succeed according to what is in my own mind." And when he had said this to Parmenio, and had given the high priest his right hand, the priests ran along by him, and he came into the city. And when he went up into the temple, he offered sacrifice to God, according to the high priest's direction, and magnificently treated both the high priest and the priests. And when the Book of Daniel was showed him (23) wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended. And as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present; but the next day he called them to him, and bid them ask what favors they pleased of him; whereupon the high priest desired that they might enjoy the laws of their forefathers, and might pay no tribute on the seventh year. He granted all they desired. And when they entreared him that he would permit the Jews in Babylon and Media to enjoy their own laws also, he willingly promised to do hereafter what they desired. And when he said to the multitude, that if any of them would enlist themselves in his army, on this condition, that they should continue under the laws of their forefathers, and live according to them, he was willing to take them with him, many were ready to accompany him in his wars.

6. So when Alexander had thus settled matters at Jerusalem, he led his army into the neighboring cities; and when all the inhabitants to whom he came received him with great kindness, the Samaritans, who had then Shechem for their metropolis, (a city situate at Mount Gerizzim, and inhabited by apostates of the Jewish nation,) seeing that Alexander had so greatly honored the Jews, determined to profess themselves Jews; for such is the disposition of the Samaritans, as we have already elsewhere declared, that when the Jews are in adversity, they deny that they are of kin to them, and then they confess the truth; but when they perceive that some good fortune hath befallen them, they immediately pretend to have communion with them, saying that they belong to them, and derive their genealogy from the posterity of Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh. Accordingly, they made their address to the king with splendor, and showed great alacrity in meeting him at a little distance from Jerusalem. And when Alexander had commended them, the Shechemites approached to him, taking with them the troops that Sanballat had sent him, and they desired that he would come to their city, and do honor to their temple also; to whom he promised, that when he returned he would come to them. And when they petitioned that he would remit the tribute of the seventh year to them, because they did but sow thereon, he asked who they were that made such a petition; and when they said that they were Hebrews, but had the name of Sidonians, living at Shechem, he asked them again whether they were Jews; and when they said they were not Jews, "It was to the Jews," said he, "that I granted that privilege; however, when I return, and am thoroughly informed by you of this matter, I will do what I shall think proper." And in this manner he took leave of the Shechenlites; but ordered that the troops of Sanballat should follow him into Egypt, because there he designed to give them lands, which he did a little after in Thebais, when he ordered them to guard that country.

7. Now when Alexander was dead, the government was parted among his successors, but the temple upon Mount Gerizzim remained. And if any one were accused by those of Jerusalem of having eaten things common (24) or of having broken the sabbath, or of any other crime of the like nature, he fled away to the Shechemites, and said that he was accused unjustly. About this time it was that Jaddua the high priest died, and Onias his son took the high priesthood. This was the state of the affairs of the people of Jerusalem at this time.

My guess: this is some creative writing on Josephus' part, or he has passed on some legends from earlier story tellers. The whole story is not credible.

Chris Weimer · 06-18-2004, 03:13 PM

hmm... about "prophecies" in revelations there was a passage about a star called wormwood that is described as basically blowing up and contaminating water. Chernobyl in Ukrainian means wormwood. How about that, eh?

Magdlyn · 06-18-2004, 07:33 PM

So Chernobyl is a star?

MysteryProf · 06-18-2004, 07:40 PM

Erich S. Gruen's Heritage and Hellenism has an interesting explanation for the Josephus account: Gruen's basic thesis is that, in an outburst of cultural creativity, Jews took to writing themselves into the histories of their conquerors and taking on Hellenistic writing forms. That's not the best explanation of his ideas, but the book is really great. And it leads to the question of whether, if Jews of that time were willing to fabricate stories like that or adjust established tradition (as he discusses elsewhere in the book), we need to adjust our view of the Bible.

Chris Weimer · 06-18-2004, 08:40 PM

Hey, I'm not defending Christianity, I just think that certain things are unusually coincidental, meltdown at wormwood, "And the name of the star is called Wormwood: And the third part of the waters became wormwood; And many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter."

Toto · 06-18-2004, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysteryProf

Erich S. Gruen's Heritage and Hellenism has an interesting explanation for the Josephus account: Gruen's basic thesis is that, in an outburst of cultural creativity, Jews took to writing themselves into the histories of their conquerors and taking on Hellenistic writing forms. That's not the best explanation of his ideas, but the book is really great. And it leads to the question of whether, if Jews of that time were willing to fabricate stories like that or adjust established tradition (as he discusses elsewhere in the book), we need to adjust our view of the Bible.

Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (or via: amazon.co.uk) is searchable on Amazon

06-18-2004, 12:43 PM	#1
knuckles644 Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Seattle Posts: 202	Prophecy The writing of the book of Daniel was completed in about 536 B.C.E. Macedonian King Alexander the Great, who was born 180 years later, in 356 B.C.E., conquered the Persian Empire. He was “the great horn�? between the eyes of “the hairy he-goat.�? According to the Jewish historian Josephus, upon entering Jerusalem before his victory over Persia, Alexander was shown the book of Daniel. He concluded that the words of Daniel’s prophecy that were pointed out to him referred to his own military campaign involving Persia. What is more, in textbooks on world history, you can read of the course that Alexander’s empire took after his death in 323 B.C.E. Four generals eventually took over his empire, and by 301 B.C.E., the ‘four horns’ that stood up instead of “the great horn�? divided the domain into four sections. Once again, we have every reason to wonder, ‘How could a book so vividly and accurately foretell what would take place some 200 years later?’ What is the current consensus on the book of Daniel?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-18-2004, 03:13 PM	#4
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	hmm... about "prophecies" in revelations there was a passage about a star called wormwood that is described as basically blowing up and contaminating water. Chernobyl in Ukrainian means wormwood. How about that, eh?

06-18-2004, 07:33 PM	#5
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	So Chernobyl is a star?

06-18-2004, 07:40 PM	#6
MysteryProf Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 301	Erich S. Gruen's Heritage and Hellenism has an interesting explanation for the Josephus account: Gruen's basic thesis is that, in an outburst of cultural creativity, Jews took to writing themselves into the histories of their conquerors and taking on Hellenistic writing forms. That's not the best explanation of his ideas, but the book is really great. And it leads to the question of whether, if Jews of that time were willing to fabricate stories like that or adjust established tradition (as he discusses elsewhere in the book), we need to adjust our view of the Bible.

06-18-2004, 08:40 PM	#7
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Hey, I'm not defending Christianity, I just think that certain things are unusually coincidental, meltdown at wormwood, "And the name of the star is called Wormwood: And the third part of the waters became wormwood; And many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.