Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Son of Man

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Son of Man

    Continuation of chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
    Dequeker continues to adhere in general to Noth's analysis, but his opinion that 'Noth's surgical operation is too radical' only serves to underline the fact that the criteria which he uses for making decisions about authenticity and redaction are no less arbitrary than those of Noth. He is able to make only one effective point against earlier defenders of the unity of the book of Daniel, in that he does give a convincing outline of circumstances under which what he regards as the original substratum of Daniel 7 might have been written. For this purpose he makes use of mostly recent work on the 'opposition history' of the Hellenistic period. However, this general point demonstrates no more than that this kind of writing could have been done at an earlier period; it does not show that Daniel is actually based on an earlier literary source.

    To be continued...
    Last edited by John Reece; 11-22-2014, 08:54 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Son of Man

      Continuation of chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
      It is to be concluded that attempts to find an older literary source behind Daniel 7 have not been successful. They are less numerous than at first appears, because they depend on each other. All fail because of the inadequacy of the criteria which they use. Most assume that the author's habits were extremely rigid, and can be deduced from a small proportion of his work and then applied to the rest. None takes sufficiently seriously the variation and flexibility found in the work of real authors, whether in random variation or for deliberate effect. This does not of course preclude the possibility that the author used old stories and old ideas. We shall see that in chapter 7 he did indeed make use of older material, though not in the same way that literary critics assume. The real importance of this result is twofold. First, the present text of Daniel 7 does not provide evidence of an older source which dealt with the supreme figure of 'the Son of man'. Secondly, the only interpretation of verses 2-14 which we have is the angelic interpretation in verses 1-27: it tells us what the author meant by his symbolism.

      To be continued...

      Comment


      • #33
        Son of Man

        Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
        We can now establish the original author's interpretation of Daniel 7. It falls naturally into two main parts: first in verses 2-14 Daniel sees a symbolic dream, then in verses 17-27 one of the angels in his dream interprets it for him. It begins, however, with a brief narrative framework. Since Daniel has the dream, an angelic interpreter is required: he is put in the dream, and the opening verse gives us the basic information of the date and the authentic information that Daniel wrote the dream himself. The date under Belshazzar has provoked comment because so far the stories of Daniel 2―6 have appeared to be set in chronological order. Daniel 2 is dated in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 4 must be placed later in his reign, and it is natural to suppose that Daniel 3 took place in the meantime. Daniel 5 is then set under Belshazzar, and Daniel 6 under Darius. However, chronological sequence cannot follow further, because the destruction of Babylon is not to be foretold after it occurred, and the setting of Daniel 5 and 6 under different kings from those of Daniel 4 and 3 is also to be related to the chiastic literary structure of Daniel 2―7. For these reasons Daniel 7 was to be set under a Babylonian king other than Nebuchadnezzar, and this makes Belshazzar a natural choice.

        To be continued...

        Comment


        • #34
          Son of Man

          Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
          The symbolic part of the vision falls naturally into two sections. In verses 2-8 four beasts rise from the turbulent sea; in verses 9-14 the fourth is destroyed in a divine judgment and sovereignty is given to the man-like figure. The location of the whole scene has been problematical. I shall argue that the beasts come out of the Mediterranean Sea on the shore of the land of Israel, and that it is here in Israel that the judgment is placed.

          To be continued...

          Comment


          • #35
            Son of Man

            Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
            The identification of the 'big sea' as the Mediterranean is crucial. There are two points. The Jews were acquainted with several seas, of which the Mediterranean is the biggest, and genuinely big, so it is natural that they would term it 'the big sea'. Secondly, OT evidence, simple and straightforward, shows abundantly that they actually did so, and this is now further confirmed by 1QApGen 21, 16 where 'the big sea' is again clearly the Mediterranean. To explain why the author brings the beasts out of the Mediterranean we must consider the matter from a different perspective. In the OT the sea is used to symbolize the turbulent world and peoples, Isa. 17.12f., Jer. 46.7f. More than that, the sea has mythological overtones―it is the domain of all that is opposed to God. Hence it forms a perfect contrast to the clouds of Daniel 7.13. If Babylonian material lies behind this, it is a long way behind. Nearer at hand (and more recently discovered and canvased) are the Ugaritic texts, in which Baal does battle with Yamm the sea monster. Above all, clear evidence of this way of thought occurs in the OT, notably at Isa. 27.1; 51.9-10; Pss. 74.13f.; 89.10-1. If we consider this now, as we should, from the author's own perspective, it means that in using the sea as a symbol of hostility to God he was drawing on native Israelite imagery, as a conservative defender of the traditional faith might be expected to. Finally, there is no inconsistency in locating the dream in a definite place while using material with mythological overtones. It is useful to compare Psa. 104.25-6, where the great sea has Leviathan (the terrible Chaostier l-t-n in his home the Chaosmeer) in it and the ships on it. The dramatic imagery is heightened by the use of the four winds to whip up the sea into a storm. The winds are the four cardinal winds. It is not surprising that they are found in the Babylonian epic of creation, but it is more relevant that they were already in use in Israel (Jer. 49.36; Zech. 2.6; 6.5; cf. also Dan. 8.8; 11.4).

            To be continued...

            Comment


            • #36
              Son of Man

              Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
              In verse 3 the four beasts come out of the sea on to the land. It may be assumed that they came in a line, because this harmonizes so well with the following description as a whole and especially with the fact that they are described as 'first', 'second', and 'fourth'. That they do come on to the land is not stated explicitly in verse 3, but it can be deduced from the detailed description of them in verses 4-8. In verse 4 the first beast is lifted off the ground; this could happen only if it was on the ground. It is put back on the ground when it is stood on its feet. The fourth beast must also have been on the ground to indulge in its terrifying activities, 'devouring, shattering and trampling the residue with its feet'. The total situation of the second beast, and particularly its position raised up on one side, is also best accounted for by supposing that it is depicted on land in verse 5. The description of the third beast is perfectly consistent with the supposition that it too was on land.

              To be continued...

              Comment


              • #37
                Son of Man

                Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                It is clear from this evidence that when the author described the beasts in verse 3 as coming up from the sea he actually meant that they came up from the sea onto the land. סלק is a natural word to describe this process, and it will never have occurred to the author that his words could be taken to mean the beasts might ascend in a mysterious and unfamiliar manner from the middle of the sea. Since he was a Jew, it may be assumed that the land in question is the land of Israel, and this assumption will be confirmed by the location of the scene of judgment in verses 9ff.

                To be continued...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Son of Man

                  Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                  The four beasts symbolizes four kingdoms, and Rowley has conclusively demonstrated the correctness of the normal critical identification of them as Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. That there was a sequence of four kingdoms which would be succeeded by a fifth is one of the older ideas which our author used. The sequence, which originated in oriental political and religious circles, had earlier begun with Assyria, but the Jews had replaced Assyria with Babylon, a step which led to historical errors in dealing with the kingdom of the Medes. Since this is the reason for the sequence Babylon, Media, Persia, Greece, we should not associate it with the order of the winds in Enuma Elish IV, 40. This illustrates the fragile nature of some of the parallels drawn from Babylonia.

                  To be continued...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Son of Man

                    Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                    In choosing beasts to symbolize all these foreign kingdoms, the author made use of the traditional Israelite idea that rebellion against God is beastlike rather than manly. The use of beasts to symbolize gentile nations is common enough in the OT, e.g. Jer. 4.7; 5.6; Exek. 29.3f.; Pss. 68.31; 80.14. The general idea of Mischwesen rather than more straightforward animals was widespread in oriental art. For the selection of these particular beasts to symbolize these particular kingdoms the author appears to have been dependent on current astrological symbolism, as this theory explains the choice of all the beasts.

                    To be continued...
                    Last edited by John Reece; 11-30-2014, 10:31 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Son of Man

                      Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                      For Babylon, however, the author could look back to the OT to confirm his choice of a lion and even add the symbolism of the eagle―Jer. 4.7; 49.19; 50.17; 49.22; Lam. 4.19; Hab. 1.8; Ezek. 17.3ff. The events of this verse recall the story of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4. This is not coincidental: the beast becomes more like a man to symbolize Nebuchadnezzar's repentance. The symbolism of the first beast is the only one that can provide any events to form a realistic counterbalance to verses 7-8. This should not be surprising, since most of the stories of Daniel 2―7 are set in Babylon which therefore looms large in this book, and it is not in any way unsatisfactory that the first beast should most nearly balance the last two less weighty descriptions in between. The only event in verse 5 is the command to 'eat much flesh', which hardly amounts to more than recognition of Median destructiveness. The rest of the description makes best sense as a colourful description of a voracious bear, rather than an allegory of the Medes. The third beast is another of the Mischwesen, being in this respect like the first and the fourth, and its details should probably be regarded like those of the second, as riotous description rather than allegorical detail.

                      To be continued...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Son of Man

                        Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                        The fourth beast is different from the others, as we are told, so terrible that it is not likened to any real beast. Its details really are allegorical, to enable the author to expound contemporary history with the assumption that the End is at hand. He concentrates our attention on the fourth beast, and above all on the little horn, whose identification as Antiochus Epiphanes is rightly unquestioned among serious critical scholars. The ten horns are the Seleucid line—Alexander the Great, Seleucus I Nicator, Antiochus I Soter, Antiochus II Theos, Seleucus II Callinicus, Seleucus III Ceraunus, Antiochus III the Great, Seleucus IV Philopator, Demetrius I Soter, and Antiochus. The last three are the three horns uprooted before the little horn. Verse 24 explains that this means that the last king (viz. the little horn, Antiochus IV Epiphanes) will put down three of the kings of the fourth kingdom. Seleucus IV was murdered by Heliodorus: clearly our author believed that Antiochus IV Epiphanes was behind it. This belief is reflected also in Daniel 11:21, and was not unreasonable. Demetrious I Soter did not become king until 162. Our author was not aware that this would happen, as he wrote in 166-5, but he classified Demetrious among the kings because he was the eldest son of, and hence the rightful heir to, his father Seleucus IV Philopator. He was a hostage in Rome at the time of Seleucus' murder, so Antiochus IV Epiphanes was able to seize power. This situation fits 'uproot' (אתעקרו, verse 8 ), and 'put down' (יהשׁפיל, verse 24), the latter a general term deliberately chosen to include this usurpation as well as two murders. For the remaining horn was murdered too. He was a young boy, co-regent of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, done to death on Antiochus' orders in 170 BC. His name too was Antiochus. Probably he was a younger son of Seleucus IV, adopted at the age of 4 or 5 by Antiochus IV Epiphanes when he seized the throne, but some uncertainty over detail must not be allowed to obscure the basic identification.

                        To be continued...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Son of Man

                          Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                          With this Antiochus we have a coherent and convincing identification for all the fourth beast's horns. A little uncertainty must remain about the beginning of the list. Since the fourth beast is the Macedonian kingdom, it probably began with Alexander, the first Macedonian king and the real destroyer of the third kingdom. The author is not the sort of historian who is likely to have been worried by the fact that the Seleucid era was reckoned from Seleucus I in 312, or by the gap between 323 and 312 (if he knew of it). However the uncertain situation in these years may have led him to take a different view, reckoning the fourth beast as the Macedonian kingdom which destroyed the Persians, and bringing up a list of eleven Syro-Macedonian kings starting perhaps with Antigonus. This degree of uncertainty is due to the looseness of the author's criteria, which will have enabled him to take whichever of these views appeared to him to be historically accurate, and to our ignorance of his precise views of the history of that period. It does not affect the basic identification of the horns as the Seleucid line, nor the detailed working out of the last three of the ten horns. As always, our author speaks with the greatest clarity and detail of his own period. He will have found all his information in earlier sources. Whether they were written or oral we do not know, but at this level we can demonstrate he used them. They bear no resemblance to Daniel 7 itself, and they help to obviate any need to be vague about the older material which our author used.

                          To be continued...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Son of Man

                            Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                            Verses 9-14 deal with the divine judgement of the fourth beast and the triumph of the man-like figure. In verses 3-8 the beasts came out of the Mediterranean Sea on to the land, presumably, we conjectured, the land of Israel. No change of scene is marked at the beginning of verse 9. We have no right to suppose one, and this is confirmed by the use of the formula 'I was watching until', which elsewhere in this chapter always denotes an action which takes place against the background of the existing scenery―it is difficult to see how it could do otherwise. It follows that the judgement in verses 9-12 takes place on earth. There are other examples of this at Enoch 1.3-9; 90.20ff.; 4Q Giants; cf. 1 Enoch 25.3. At Enoch 90.20 the land of Israel is specified as the place of judgement, a predictable view among Jews. Thus we have independent contemporary evidence of the view which I have attributed to the author of Daniel 7. If the judgement is is on earth, God will have to come to earth in order to carry it out. This is not explicitly stated at verse 9, because it is not an important aspect of what the author wanted to say. The scene is sufficiently sketched out by declaring that the thrones were put in position and an Ancient of Days took his seat, his arrival for that purpose being assumed. It is stated explicitly in the summary at verse 22: 'until the Ancient of Days came'. The coming of God for judgment was already part of Old Testament belief (cf. Zech. 14.5; Psa. 96.13; Joel 3.12).

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Son of Man

                              Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                              This interpretation provides an excellent connection between verses 2-8 and verses 9-14, and we shall see that from the point of view of their content verses 9-14 make an organically connected whole. Some scholars have however argued on metrical grounds that a separate source is to be distinguished behind verses 9, 10, 13, and 14, and Perrin has recently distinguished these verses from the rest of the chapter on the basis of their metric structure alone. This argument is unconvincing, because our understanding of the metre of Semitic poetry is not exact enough to form a sound basis for emending texts or distinguishing literary sources.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Son of Man

                                Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                                At verse 9 the Ancient of Days appears for the first time. He is clearly God, and the description is that of an old man. He is not likened to an ancient of days, for the beings described as 'like' something are all pure symbols; God really exists. Moreover he had existed for a a very long time, and this piece of imagery should not be held to imply that he had not existed for ever before―we are still dealing with imagery rather than precise description, and a being who was 'from of old' (Psa. 118.2) was necessarily ancient of days. If there are echoes of Ugarit they are far behind. Man was made in the image of God, and there were old men in Israel, so that the use of imagery taken from the dignity of old age should not cause surprise.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X