Daniel: Ch 11's correspondence with history

[Robyn Banks]

Chapter 11 of Daniel is a clear correspondence to the events of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms until 165BC. If you examine a chronology of Daniel, like this one:
http://www.tektonics.com/prophecy/daniel_chronology.html
the correspondence in Chapter 11 particularly is compelling.

And it provides a link with each of the other 'visions' in the Book of Daniel, to explain the entire book.

[GrayPilgrim]

It is interesting that in his new commentary on Daniel, Ernest Lucas is able to show that there the supposed Greek influence is lacking, as there are only three Greek words in the entire book, excluding hte Greek additions of the Apochrypha, which are muscial instruments. So to call this a late date based on this is just following in Porphyry's foot steps based on a predisposition against prophecy. The Aramaic is that of the Persian period which put the book pre-Alexanrian, so this rules out the Maccabean period. Many hstorical "innacuracies" have been shown through archaeology to be forgotten or lost information that has recently come to light, such as the Babylonian succesion. All of that was to say, it just makes the prophecies of the succesive Empires all the more complelling.

[Robyn Banks]

Gray Pilgrim:
It is interesting that in his new commentary on Daniel, Ernest Lucas is able to show that there the supposed Greek influence is lacking, as there are only three Greek words in the entire book, excluding hte Greek additions of the Apochrypha, which are muscial instruments.
The reasons for the dating of Daniel to Antiochus' time are usually grouped into three categories:
1. Historical reasons
2. Theological reasons
3. Literary reasons

Of the three reasons, the literary is usually given as supportive, i.e., given that the historical reasons are so compelling, and the theological reasons are quite compelling, the question is: is the linguistic analysis consistent with a dating to 165BC? And the answer is, yes.

Incidentally, one of the Greek words used in the main body of Daniel is the symponia (3.5), which was a Greek instrument written about in connection with Antiochus IV himself, by the Greek historian Polybius.

Gray Pilgrim:
So to call this a late date based on this is just following in Porphyry's foot steps based on a predisposition against prophecy.
You are incorrect.

Amongst skeptics with poor methodology, I have no doubt that they are influenced in their decision by a bias against the phenomenon of prophecy. However, good scholars do not show such bias. For example, John J Collins - who like most scholars today dates the Book of Daniel to 165BC - rejects, as a proper basis for his decision, any enquiry into whether prophecy is 'possible' or not.

I quote from Collins:
"The issue is not whether a divinely inspired prophet could have foretold the events which took place under Antiochus Epiphanes 400 years before. The question is whether this possibility carries any probability: is it the most satisfactory way to explain what we find in Daniel? Modern critical scholarship has held that it is not."

Collins rejects any enquiry into whether prophecy is 'possible' or not, and then proceeds to base his decision on the internal evidence of Daniel - theological, historical and literary. The factors which he considers include:
- the events in Dan 11.40-45 not being fulfilled, although ex eventu prophecies were.
- the genre of 'apocalyptic', and its usual ascription of its writings to an ancient figure
- the historical errors, such as having Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar (he was the son of Nabonidus), and Darius the Mede as a successor to Babylon (the Persian Cyrus overthrew Babylon)

Collins, like most other scholars today, finds the best explanation of these internal evidences supports a dating to 165BC. And only the most tendentious arguments have been offered in opposition to these and other indicators of Daniel's dating.

Gray Pilgrim:
The Aramaic is that of the Persian period which put the book pre-Alexanrian, so this rules out the Maccabean period.
Again, lingusitic analysis is not a major factor in determining the dating of Daniel. It would be if the Aramaic were really limited to 400 years earlier, but this is not the case.

Tim Meadowcroft, who wrote a recently published thesis specifically on the Aramaic and Hebrew of Daniel, confirms that Daniel was written in 165BC.

Gray Pilgrim:
Many hstorical "innacuracies" have been shown through archaeology to be forgotten or lost information that has recently come to light, such as the Babylonian succesion. All of that was to say, it just makes the prophecies of the succesive Empires all the more complelling.
The historical errors in Daniel are not explicable in terms of mere 'omission'. A number of them actually contradict profane history - rather than deal with an area which is unknown.

However, I wish that you had commented on my rather narrower point - and that was the clear correspondence of Daniel 11 to the events of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms until 165BC. Have you examined the chronology of Daniel, to compare history against Chapter 11?
http://www.tektonics.com/prophecy/d...chronology.html

Robyn

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Dear Robyn :hi:

Hello, the historical reasons are compelling are they? What are they, please? Have you read about the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery of 4QDan (c) no.4Q114 which contains Daniel 11:1-29, and is a *copy* dated late 2nd century BC? (The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years (vol 2). Peter W. Flint and James C. Vanderkam (eds). Brill:1999. p53) Being a copy implies earlier originals!

secondly, why, if Dan is really written about 165 BC, why are there only three Greek words in it? The arguments about "Greek words" usually revolve around knowledge of ancient Greek texts; we have about one-tenth of these in existance, and one of the three (not symponia) has been found in Homer (8th century)...so it may be that in future the word could turn up in an older work (than Daniel). Or, the Greeks copied the word from the Babylonians - did you consider that?

Finally, tektonics.com has apparently copied Holding's site look, without engaging any of his work!

I have pages and pages of evidence for a date prior to 165 BC, so I want to see your compelling evidence - thanks.

Cheers,
from Guy

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Dear Robyn

Who is Tim Meadowcroft please, what are his qualifications, where is his work published and has it been peer reviewed?

Thanks, from Guy

[GrayPilgrim]

The Aramaic of Daniel is consistent with that of the Persian period, which ended with the conquests of Alexander which is well before 165 BC. The Hebrew is consistent with 5th century Hebrew, and not that of the 2nd Cent. BC, which has lost the ability to figure out the vowel pointing which is evidenced by the hyper-corrections in the Qumran texts, e.g. a w in kl demonstrates that they had no conception that it was not the general orthographic practice of the Classic Hebrew or any other phase of orthography before or since.

[dizzle]

Thank you GP.

[GrayPilgrim]

Quick correction on my previous post: I said vowel pointing, which is anachronistic, as the masoretes did not finish that development until c. 10th Century AD. I meant to say matres lectiones (mother's of reading) which is where certain consenents are used as vowels, e.g. ", h, w, y. And my point about kl (all) is that it does not take the matres lectiones w except in the time period encompassed by the Maccabeans-Fall of Jerusalem.

[Robyn Banks]

ghbearman:
Dear Robyn :hi:

Hello, the historical reasons are compelling are they? What are they, please? Have you read about the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery of 4QDan (c) no.4Q114 which contains Daniel 11:1-29, and is a *copy* dated late 2nd century BC? (The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years (vol 2). Peter W. Flint and James C. Vanderkam (eds). Brill:1999. p53) Being a copy implies earlier originals!
I think I recall what you were referring to. But the Book of Daniel was obviously quite popular amongst the Maccabeans. One would expect a number of 2nd century copies, spreading rather quickly. And one would expect it to decrease in popularity in later centuries.

What you wouldn't expect is a third century copy! :)


ghbearman:
secondly, why, if Dan is really written about 165 BC, why are there only three Greek words in it?
"Only 3" in a Hebrew-Aramaic work? Sounds about the right number of 'borrowed' words!


ghbearman:
The arguments about "Greek words" usually revolve around knowledge of ancient Greek texts; we have about one-tenth of these in existance, and one of the three (not symponia) has been found in Homer (8th century)...so it may be that in future the word could turn up in an older work (than Daniel).
Incidentally, 'Symponia' was used by one of the historians of the period, also in relation to Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

There is no doubt that such words could be used earlier. But one comes to expect a couple or so in a Hellenistic document.

Literary reasons are supportive of the historical and theological reasons for dating Daniel to 165BC. The historical reasons are compelling on their own.


ghbearman:
Or, the Greeks copied the word from the Babylonians - did you consider that?
Literary reasons are merely supportive of the historical and theological reasons for dating Daniel to 165BC.

ghbearman:
Finally, tektonics.com has apparently copied Holding's site look, without engaging any of his work!
The cheeky devils! :angel:

ghbearman:
I have pages and pages of evidence for a date prior to 165 BC, so I want to see your compelling evidence - thanks.
The compelling evidence is in Chapter 11 of Daniel. It clearly corresponds to the events of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms until 165BC. And why 165BC? Because the book as a whole focuses on Antiochus.

The reason why Daniel is most commonly dated to 165BC today is because this explains Daniel's comments far and away better than any other explanation. I wonder whether the few remaining supporters of an earlier dating are simply trying to rescue their doctrine of inerrancy, rather than examine the historical, theological and literary facts?

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

ghbearman:
Who is Tim Meadowcroft please,
A theologian. Currently teaches at the Bible College of New Zealand - a fundamentalist College, as the name suggests.
http://www.bcnz.ac.nz/staff_ac.html
ghbearman:
what are his qualifications,
MA, BD, PhD, DipTchg
ghbearman:
where is his work published
The Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplementary Series, #198.
ghbearman:
and has it been peer reviewed?
Last time I checked, the JSOT was quite heavily peer-reviewed. :rofl:

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[HerodionRomulus]

The late dating, and ch11 detailing events in the Seleucid era are supported by Louis F Hartman and Alexander A Di Lella in Anchor Bible, vol 23.

Also by the marginal commentary in The Jerusalem Bible.

nb 11:18 uses "magistrate" in reference to the Consul Lucius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, who defeated Antiochus the Great at Magnesia in 190 bce.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Dear Herodian

I find it slightly disturbing that you so readily agree with Robyn after consulting only two commentaries! Please note that I had mentioned LATE 2nd century copies - Robyn managed to miss the word "late" out of his response, quite handy for pushing the date forward, no? It's quite hard to say that 165 BC is 'late' 2nd century.

I haven't got hold of the Meadowcroft article yet, I'll report back when I do, I've more important things on my plate than disarming liberal < edited by GHB, sorry Robyn >

from Guy

[jpholding]

Need another correction, Robyn? How about answering what GP said? Too hard? Not in the sources you quote? Awww. :bawl:

Be sure and check the new tektonics.com staff page:

http://www.tektonics.org/combomb2.html

I have read Meadowcroft. He admits the Aramiac is early but resorts to the hypothesis that it was preserved to a later date!

Stop wasting our time, Robyn. :rofl:

[Socrates]

Robyn Banx explains who this Meadowcroft is:
A theologian. Currently teaches at the Bible College of New Zealand - a fundamentalist College, as the name suggests.
http://www.bcnz.ac.nz/staff_ac.htmlUnlike my American friends, I live just across the Tasman, so am not as likely to be taken in by that. It wouldn't be the first college with a great statement of faith, but which doesn't insist that its lecturers hold to it. In other words, this SoF is a dead letter, for the benefit of its donors only, and no reflection on what they teach. Last year BCNZ sponsored a rabidly evolutionary conference, and its Head of New Testament Chris Marshall denies the Substitutionary Atonement.

Closer to home for our American friends, the apostate SDA Ronald Numbers wrote a highly inaccurate account called The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, University of California Press, 1992. However, he documents how some theistic evolutionary college professors ‘[s]tretching the truth to the breaking point’ (p. 182) when trying to hide what they really believed from conservative parents and donors.