malookiemaloo

Greetings again.

Conservative scholars have 'no methodology'. Bit of a sweeping statement!!

To date Jesus's crucifixion, the start date is not 500bc but the date of the decree issued by Cyrus allowing the Jews to return. (I appreciate that there have been various decrees on this matter but this was the main one.)

Weeks to seven years? Crops up in Leviticus. Sorry, haven't got the precise references just now.

Still think the fourth beast of Chapter seven is Rome, and it is not destroyed before the others although I do agree that the phrase 'lives prolonged for a season of time' after it's destruction is enigmatic.

Sorry, but no Sunday School teacher of mine ever ventured into the apocalyptic visions of Daniel!

So to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (EB).

The bit on Daniel was obviously written by a liberal theologian-no surprise there. You're not espousing inerrancy on behalf on the EB are you?!

Belshazzar is referred to as the Son of Nebuchadnezzar although he was in fact the son of Nabonidus. Well, every boy scout knows that to refer to oneself as son could mean son grandson offspring or descendant. A King may even refer to himself as the son of someone he really admired who was no blood relation.

Darius the Mede. To date, there is no reference to this individual outside the book of Daniel. But that used to be the case with Belshazzar.

Now to RK Harrison's dating of Daniel. First of all let me emphasise that I am not a Bible historian to trade therefore I am simply quoting/paraphrasing him. In his book An Introduction to the Old Testament, there are over 17 pages on the dating of Daniel. Anyway, a few points at random.

As you say, the events of the Maccabean period are very accurately predicted. The late dating was started by Porphyry (' a formidable heathen antagonistic to the Christian faith'). Late dating reached it's zenith in the second decade of the 20th century.

The Aramaic sections are of a style consistent with the period 700-500 bc.

The Hebrew resembles Ezekiel, Haggai, Ezra and Chronicles but not that of the later Ecclesiasticus.

Persian loan words are consistent with an earlier rather than later date for composition eg satrap once thought to be greek in origin is derived from the Old Persian word kshathrapan which also occured in cunieform scripts as shatarpanu, which gives rise to satrap.

The Persian terms used in Daniel had died out by 300bc.

There are Greek references to musical instruments which used to be taken as indicating later origin despite the fact that the instruments were mesopotamian in origin.

Greek culture had permeated the near east before the neo-babylonian period eg Greek colonies in mid Egypt by 7bc and Greek troops serving as mercenaries in both the Egyptian and Babylonian armies in 605bc.

If you want to contact RK Harrison direct, he is at the University of Toronto.

Finally, thanks for the correction on the spelling of Nebuchadnezzar. I always wondered why there were so many variations.


malookiemaloo

Celsus

Hi malookiemaloo,
And unfortunately, perfectly accurate (it's hyperbole if you haven't noticed). Theirs is a slipshod piecing together of whatever they can drag in that agrees with tradition, while ignoring everything else. That's the same sort of "methodology" used by Holocaust deniers, New Age conspiracy theorists and leftist linguists who like dabbling in politics. You will see examples as we go along.
Fine with me. The bulk of the Jews returned from exile in 537/6 BCE. What monumental empire-shattering event occurred in 47/6 BCE? The closest I can think of is Herod being installed c.40BCE. You mean Herod's the messiah?
Ah, repeating defeated assertions, is that an apologetic "defense"? What's so "enigmatic" about it? The author of Daniel got it wrong, simple enough.
Didn't they at least tell you that Daniel wrote the book? The point is, the modus operandi of apocalyptists (with a now well-attested corpus of extant work) is well known:

1) They wrote anonymously and their works were "hidden"
2) They took the names of well-known figures from the past
3) They wrote on current events (but claimed of course, to be written well in the past)
4) They utilised symbols and numbers to illustrate meaning

Now remember this carefully as we examine your arguments.
Yes, I suppose Encyclopaedia Britannica is an obscure resource that only the dyed-in-the-wool liberals accept. The reason I bring it up is that there are a thousand and one websites out there claiming EB supports the "facts" and "prophecies" in Daniel. What was that I was saying about no methodology? (Ignoring the obvious ad hominem attack)
Is this is an example of the methodology of conservative scholarship?
Yes, but we do have the lines of succession without any gaping holes for Darius the Mede to fit in. Cyrus was the successor to Belshazzar, etc. Daniel got his facts wrong. Repeatedly. And he was supposedly a court official living around this time.
And I'm not a Bible historian by trade either. But let's not turn this into arguments from authority: Let's evaluate which arguments can stand their ground under critical scrutiny.
Yes, it's called progress.
Hello? Aramaic was the language of the Persian empire which was eventually adopted by the Judahites/Judea. Of course it's consistent. Now, I really have to check up the linguistic evolution in ancient times. Regardless, the vivid imagery of Daniel 7-12 are not consistent with anything else from 700-500 BCE. Secondly, if you wanted to pass off a work as that of Shakespeare, would you write using the style of Hemingway? Remember, apocalyptists are trying to pass off works as ancient.
Irrelevant. Ecclesiasticus/Sirach was written in Egypt and is bound to have a different style, since it follows after Proverbs and Job. It is not a prophetic work. Also, I'm not aware that Ecclesiasticus is extant in Hebrew bar a few fragments (and quotes in Rabbinical literature). Could you cite a reference?
Yes. And so what? achashdarpan is the Hebrew rendering. You see, proper scholars are willing to retract arguments in the light of new evidence.
Name one.
Oh? symphonia is mesopotamian in origin? I do realise that at least you've noticed that Daniel is written in two languages. Can you explain how the Greek words crept into the lingua franca of a court official? (And don't tell me there was no word for "music" in Aramaic.)
And why would a court official be mixing with mercenaries, enough to borrow their cultural terms?
The correct spelling is based on independant archeological evidence (something all Biblical events before King Omri are sorely lacking). Would you like to know why the author of Daniel gets it wrong, while a proper contemporary of the events like the author of Jeremiah gets it right? Numerologically, Nebuchadnezzar=Antiochus Epiphanes in Hebrew, whereas Nebuchadrezzar would not. See? Even the author of Daniel had a sense of humour! (Joke: He's using an apocalyptic numerological device)

Now your turn: The points I raised:
Why would this be the case?

Now to add to this whole problem, some more problems:
1) If Daniel had been accepted as inspired since the 500s, why is it not included in the Nevi'im? [The dating of Daniel is so well-attested that its exclusion is used to date when the Nevi'im was closed: After the Samaritan schism in Nehemiah/Ezra and before the 3rd century.]
2) Why did it end up in the Ketuvim with all those other late books like Proverbs? [The Ketuvim was only closed in the 2nd century CE, hence the omission of the Apocrypha (which was generally accepted by Christians originally)]
3) Why were the Apocryphal additions to Daniel (Susanna, Bel & the Dragon, and The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of Three Young Men [which clearly date to the mid-2nd century] so easily inserted into a book supposedly 300-400 years old? Susanna is thought to be older than Daniel!

Happy hunting,
Joel

Edited for clarity

Gooch's dad

malookiemaloo, do you actually have a problem with the methodology of this 'liberal theologian', other than the fact that he doesn't presuppose the bible to be true? If so, present it. Otherwise, it is poisoning the well.
In Daniel 5:1-23, the word 'father' is used four times, and the word 'son' used once, to describe the relationship between Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar. To claim that their relationship was actually that of grandfather and grandson, or something other than actually father and son, is special pleading with no actual evidence. Your argument simply shows a presupposition that the book of Daniel is 'true prophecy', in spite of solid evidence that it is not.

Cheers,

-Kelly

malookiemaloo

Hello again.

Will endeavour to respond next week. (My PC is at work and I have to fit the sec. web ib at lunchtimes and other breaks.)

However, I made an error of fact. (Yes, I can hear you saying 'only one'!).

The decree from which Jesus's death dates is that by Artaxerxes to Nehemiah and not Cyrus. Apologies.

Note to Gooch's Dad.

I trust you will forgive my tongue in cheek jibe at the EB but it is, after all, supposed to be objective and not presumed a late date for Daniel when an earlier date can be argued.


malookiemaloo

Celsus

No problems.
Huh? Where are you getting all this from? What decree? To rebuild the Temple? The Second Temple was finished by 516/5 BCE. What monumental empire-shattering...
Except that the EB is good for accepting the best supported theories. It doesn't have anything for creationism (although creationism "can be argued") because it is hopelessly wrong. Ditto for an early date for Daniel.

Joel

malookiemaloo

malookiemaloo

Joel,

Just a quickie.

The decree is the one mentioned in Nehemiah 2:1 computed at 445bc.


Alistair

Jan Haugland

That was to rebuild the city walls around Jerusalem. The temple was already rebuilt.

- Jan

...who rants and raves every day at Secular Blasphemy

malookiemaloo

Yes, but Artaxerses decree represents the Jews returning to Jerusalem in earnest, this notwithstanding that they had been drifting back before then. The decree has nothing to do with the Temple.


Alistair

JubalsCall

The signifigance is that if there were 500 people who saw Jesus alive after he had died then people could still find these people and talk to them about it. This was evidence back then that Paul was using to show people that his faith was not foolish and that there was eye witness testimony of 500 who were still alilve who could tell them that they had seen Jesu after he had been crucified.

Tibbs