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

  • #16
    Son of Man

    Continuation of chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
    Daniel 7 is somewhat different. The dreamer is the main hero, whose character and attainments are so clear that it is no surprise to find him too dreaming dreams. All that is necessary is therefore a statement that he did so on a particular occasion, and some sort of conclusion (Daniel 7.1, 28). A story is not necessary on grounds of context, because the general setting is already clear enough and the point is the dream and its interpretation, and a story is not necessary on grounds of form because the author's ideas of form were not as rigid as that. To get his chiastic structure he needed another dream of the four kingdoms and the Jewish triumph, together with its interpretation, and this is what he supplied; to a natural story-teller it did not matter that he had put a good story round the first dream and interpretation.

    To be continued...

    Comment


    • #17
      Son of Man

      Continuation of chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
      These two dreams correspond in what they symbolize. There will be a sequence of four kingdoms, of which Nebuchadnezzar's is the first. The fourth will be most terrible, but at length it will be destroyed, and the Jewish people will triumph, by the ordinance of their God. That the symbolism of the two separate dreams should correspond need not be maintained, and for the most part it is clearly not the case. That the metals of the image in Daniel 2 decline in preciousness is probably due simply to the use of ancient symbolism, since the author does not stress this decline. Certainly the correspondence between Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 should not be forced by seeing the four beasts in a declining sequence too. The fourth beast was intended to be worse than the other three, but this does not establish a complete declining sequence of four. A decisive factor is the lack of any indication, symbolic or real, that the third beast is worse than the second. To suggest that the bear and leopard mark a decline from the bear and the eagle, the kings of beasts and birds, is to point out that there is no decline from bear to leopard, and to stress that the Babylonian kingdom was more favorable to Israel both shifts the argument from symbolism to reality and points up the lack of evidence that the Persians are considered to mark a decline from the Medes. Attempts to demonstrate more detailed correspondence in the symbolism of the two chapters are open to more obvious criticism. For example, the appendages of the first beast have no parallel in Daniel 2―there is no reason why they should have. Finally there is some development in Daniel 7 over Daniel 2: Daniel 7 has more ample description, especially in its picture and interpretation of the little horn. None of this is sufficient to upset the basic literary structure of Daniel 2-7. Daniel 2 and 7 broadly correspond in all important matters; there is no reason to imagine that they should have corresponded at the level of more precise detail.

      To be continued...

      Comment


      • #18
        Son of Man

        Continuation of chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
        Daniel 2―7 may therefor be seen as a unified literary structure, the work of a single author. But what of Daniel 1, 8―12? Were they written by the same man? The matter is difficult to resolve, but the two languages suggest two authors, and a reasonable hypothesis may begin from the unified literary structure of Daniel 2―7. This was written first. Its message is simple, as we have seen, and its function in time of persecution is clear and well-known, that of fortifying the faithful. Aramaic was the natural language in which to write this material because it was intended to have popular appeal and Aramaic was the lingua franca of the time. The choice of Hebrew for the remaining material may be ascribed to deliberate nationalism. It is most natural to ascribe this change of policy to a change of author. In time of war and persecution, change of authorship in such an important and successful religious work may have a simple and unavoidable cause―the death of the first author.

        To be continued...

        Comment


        • #19
          Son of Man

          Continuation of chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
          If this conjecture is right, the author of Daniel 2―7 left behind him a unified collection of stories and dreams. Someone else, writing now in the Jewish national tongue, furnished them with an introduction. He made a little beginning to the first of the original stories in Hebrew, but his Hebrew was not the most brilliant, and everyone admired the existing collection of stories, so he left the translation at 'in Aramaic' (2.4). It is that kind of device―clever at the most mechanical level, dissatisfying to anyone literary. It reeks of someone who could not manage to translate 2.4b―7, though it may be he had respectable reasons, including lack of time. Then he, or other men, added the three sections of Daniel 8, 9, and 10―2. They are of unrelieved solemnity, perhaps unlikely to be the work of a natural story-teller (but not impossibly so, if he were constrained by recent disaster or an unfamiliar tongue).

          To be continued...

          Comment


          • #20
            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 reconstruction is in a measure imaginative, but it does explain the basic evidence. More detailed investigation of the languages has been attempted, but it has been more learned than successful: the problems of method are severe, and compounded by the small quantity of both languages surviving for comparison, and this explains the failure to achieve any useful results. There is nothing here to overthrow the prima facie impression that the Hebrew is of different authorship from the Aramaic. Finally, the similarities between 7 and 8―12 may not be urged in favour of unity of authorship, since they are perfectly explicable on the assumption that the second author (and, if need be, the third and fourth) belonged to the same religious group as the first author and took up his work when he died.

            Hence, probability is on the side of a separate author for Daniel 8―12, though certainly has not been achieved. It is therefore reasonable to use these chapters with caution to illustrate the religious environment and general viewpoint of the author of Daniel 7.

            To be continued...

            Comment


            • #21
              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 date of Daniel 7. When it was completed, the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes was already underway, as is clear from the account and interpretation of the little horn. The date is therefore somewhat after December, 167 B.C. The three-and-a-half-year interval to the Maccabean victory is inaccurate: the expanded version of the story in 11.40 ff. is certainly wrong. Therefore this is a genuine prediction, and the date is somewhat before December 164 B.C. Allowance has to be made for 1, 8―12 to be written early enough for 11.40 ff. to seem plausible. From these factors it follows that Daniel 2―7 is to be dated in 166 or 165 B.C. The Qumran fragments of Daniel may not be held against this. It is very exciting that we have some fragments written so soon after the composition of this book, and verifying that already it was written in both languages just as we have it now. This does not, however, constitute proof that it was already regarded was Scripture in the full sense which that word later came to have, and we have no evidence that suggests that this period of time was too short for its acceptance as a sacred book. Interpretative traditions of this work also suggest that its pseudepigraphic device was successful. There is nothing wrong with the suggestion that it was successful quickly.

              To be continued...

              Comment


              • #22
                Son of Man

                Continuation of chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                But have we now dated the composition of Daniel 7, or only its final redaction? There have been several theories of the redaction history of the chapter. They are important because they suggest the possibility of a written source in which the man-like figure was something other than a symbol of the Saints of the Most High. Some authors have thus been able to use this chapter as evidence that there once existed a 'Son of man Concept' in pre-Christian Judaism. The most important attempts in recent years to trace out the pre-history of the chapter have been those of Hölscher, Noth, and Dequeker. These must therefore be examined in some detail.

                To be continued...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Son of Man

                  Continuation of chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                  Hölscher argues that the pre-Maccedonian version of Daniel 7 did not include verses 7b, 8, 11a, 20-2, 24-5. He begins with verse 11, where there is a genuine difficulty which has led some scholars who do not follow the view that this chapter has a complex literary history to suppose that something has gone wrong at this particular point. The versions are not very helpful. The omission of verse 11a in the Peshitta must be ascribed to homoioarcton: the repetition of 'I was looking' is unnecessary to the sense, so it is not surprising that LXX and Theodotion omitted the second occurrence of it. The main point is that מן must be taken as a temporal particle. This makes excellent sense, whereas in the middle of such a dramatic vision there is no need for an explanation as to why Daniel should have continued to watch it. באדין normally occurs at the beginning of a sentence in Daniel because elsewhere it introduces a statement of an event subsequent to those previously related, but here it is in a different position because it picks up the events of verse 8. An interruption in the account of the activity of the little horn was desirable so that the scene could be set for the passing of judgment, but Daniel did not cease to notice the blasphemy of the little horn. באדין here denotes events which began to take place before the events of verses 9-10, and this accounts for its unusual position, for which there is a good parallel in 1 QApGen XXII,

                  ואברם באדין הוא יתב בחברון

                  'Now at that time Abram was living in Hebron.' Daniel 7.11 may therefore be translated 'I was watching then, from the time when I heard the blasphemous words which the horn was speaking, I was watching until the beast was slain . . .'. Dequeker complains that the 'regular translational formula' חזה הוית עד די is interrupted: it will be argued that his ideas of transitional formulae are more rigid than those of our author. The effect of the repetition of 'I was watching' is to quicken the tempo of the narrative just at the point where the terrible enemy is to be destroyed. The author's Aramaic has been misunderstood, and here as elsewhere his resolution of a literary problem by means of a formulation which deliberately seeks a literary effect has remained unappreciated.

                  To be continued...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Son of Man

                    Continuation of chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                    Hölscher then argues for the omission of verse 8, on the ground that אלו is used here only in Daniel 7 instead of ארו. Haller added that ארו is the older form. Rowley replied, pointing out that the prima facie evidence of the book of Daniel is that the author used both forms, as ארו occurs also in 2.31, 4.7, 10. Dequeker remains unconvinced. 'They do not explain however the variation of the formulas in Daniel 7. Daniel 2 and 4 have only ʾlw. That means that the basic text of Daniel 7, which has ʾrw, may be older than Daniel 2 and 4. . . .' We may now add the information that ארו is still used in 11QTgJob, 1QApGen and 4Q Giants. Dequeker's argument is unsound for two reasons. Firstly, if ארו was replaced by אלו as the Aramaic language developed, there will have been a period of transition in which either form might be used. We do not have sufficient evidence outside the book of Daniel to enable us to date any transition, but it is now evident that ארו continued to be used after the time when Daniel 7 was finally written down. During any such transition period, the possibility has to be admitted that an author may have used both forms. The contrary has to be demonstrated, not simply assumed. Rowley already pointed this out, citing the use of ארקא and ארעא side by side at Jer. 10:11 and in the Elephantine papyri, which provide many examples of the same phenomenon. Secondly, the number of occurrences of each form is too small for observations such as 'Daniel 2 and 4 have only ʾlw' to have any real force. It is to be concluded that Rowley's arguments stand. The author used ארו and אלו, five times each. The demand that he should have been consistent has never been justified.

                    To be continued...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      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 further objects to משׂתכל instead of the 'regular' חזה. But the variation is deliberate, to concentrate attention on the little horn. שׂכל has a different semantic field from חזה and the difference is really well used here, as Plöger had already seen. Dequeker's reply is mere reference to 'the structure and style'. He could better have cited Procrustes. Dequeker next objects to the perfect סִלְקָת; he thinks we should have a participle, as after ארו in verses 2, 3, 5, and 7. 'Montgomery and Ginsberg have seen the difficulty, changing the aorist of the Massoretic text into a participle.' This misrepresents Montgomery, who showed proper philological concern about the MT סִלְקָת and suggested that the original consonantal text סלקת might have been intended to be a participial form, which he vocalized סִלקַת. Delcor had already replied to Ginsberg. The use of the perfect is quite normal. It may be added that the variation in tense increases the dramatic quality of the description and helps to focus the reader's attention on the little horn, which is just where the author intended to focus it. Dequeker's final argument from the 'syntaxis' is to object to the hithpeel (sic) passive אתעקרו instead of the 'regular' passive qal and hophal forms. But his base for determining what is 'regular' is far too narrow: he has given no reason at all for regarding this kind of variation as abnormal within the work of a single writer. Finally, these arguments should not be held to carry cumulative weight, because none of them carries any weight on its own. It will be noted that I have supposed two kinds of variation in the author's work, random variation of a kind which normally occurs, and deliberate variation for literary effect. Neither Dequeker nor anyone else has really got down to arguing that these kinds of variation do not occur in the work of normal authors. Yet only if this assumption is made can the persistent attempts of these literary critics to point out (usually with perfect accuracy) that there are variations between verse 8 and other verses of this chapter actually constitute evidence of separate authorship.

                      To be continued...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Son of Man

                        Continuation of chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                        Hölscher turns next to 7.20-2, which are, in his view, rather pointlessly repetitive. He objects particularly to 7.21, on the ground that this does not offer any interpretation of the dream but forms a later addition to it, one which would have been better placed after 7.8. Putting it there illustrates well enough the prosaic and unimaginative mind of the critic, far removed from the creative histrionics of our author. The effect of verse 21 in its present position is to increase the dramatic quality of the narrative. Moreover, we shall see that the position of verses 20-2 was necessitated by the author's choice of symbolism. The man-like figure cannot suffer, and it is only when he has been identified as the Saints of the Most High that Daniel can see them humiliated. This could not be said at verse 8. Finally it should be remembered that this is not the sudden occurrence of part of a vision in the middle of its interpretation: Daniel is dreaming throughout the chapter. Hölscher adds two arguments from the vocabulary: דינא in verse 22 has a different sense from דינא in 7.10, 26, and חזו in verse 20 a different sense from its occurrences in 7:1-15. Again the observation is sound, but the conclusions do not follow. Words have semantic fields, not single meanings, and authors habitually make use of them. The author of Daniel 7 is in this respect simply normal, and a very precise parallel to his use of חזו in two senses is now to be found in 4Q ʿAmramb I, 10-4.

                        To be continued...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Continuation of chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                          Hölscher next attacks verses 24-5, on the ground that here the 'other king', that is, the little horn, is described as different from his predecessors, whereas at 7.7 it is the fourth beast which is said to be different from its predecessors. And why not? The author had very good reason to believe it of both. Hölscher then tries to use Daniel 8―12 to bolster his argument: but that their contents correspond with the verses he wants to excise is equally consistent with unity of authorship and with the conjecture the 8―12 was written after 7 by someone else. He then excises verse 7b 'and it had ten horns', but his argument derives what little plausibility it possesses from his omission of the climax to the description of the fourth beast by excising verse 8.

                          To be continued...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Son of Man

                            Continuation of chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                            Haller used Hölscher's critical position to date Daniel 7 earlier than Daniel 2, at about the time of Alexander the Great. One more of his arguments is worthy or mention, because it illustrates how much the literary criticism of this chapter has fed on itself. He argues that the author of Daniel 2 had more knowledge of the Greek kingdom than had the author of Daniel 7. The reason for that judgement was that Hölscher and Haller had excised most of what chapter 7 has to say about the Greek kingdom.

                            To be continued...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Son of Man

                              Continuation of chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                              Noth based himself on the earlier work of Hölscher and Haller, and contributed to a new argument from the structure of the chapter, which Dequeker still largely accepts. On the basis of the opening verses of this chapter Noth constructed a rigid structural schema: finding that the remainder of the chapter does not fit his schema, he resorted to the excision of the offending parts. But the method of this procedure is unsound. It is true that if verses 2-8 are examined in isolation, they can divided into four sections: three begin חזה הוית . . . וארו, as does verse 13, and וארו in verse 5 can plausibly be described as part of this same formula. It is also true that twice here, and again in verse 11, events are introduced with the formula חזה הוית עד די. But it is also very important from the structural point of view that already at this stage the operation of these formulae is flexible rather than rigid, and that Noth has to admit omission and abbreviation. When more striking variations from Noth's schema are found in the rest of the chapter, it should be concluded, not that the author's work has been upset, but that the author's ideas of introductory formulae were not as rigid as those of Noth. The occurrences of חזה הוית עד די in verses 9, 11b are just as much a part of the primary evidence as the formulae in the opening verses. When all the primary evidence is taken into account, it becomes clear that the author was somewhat flexible in his use of these phrases. It is useful to compare 2Q24, which also has חזה הוית עד די at line 17, but at lines 11 and 15 has the variants חזית עד די and חזי הוית עד. This is not the same as Daniel 7, but the significant factor is that here too the formula is not inflexible.

                              To be continued...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Son of Man

                                Continuation of chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                                Noth further developed his argument by trying to show that the author of the Similitudes of Enoch did use Daniel 7 but knew only verses 9, 10, and 13. This is unconvincing: the author of the Similitudes gave Enoch the substance of verse 14 and had no use for verses 11 and 12, not because they were not there, but because he had no use for the four kingdom theory embodied in them. Noth's argument for a separate literary source behind Daniel 7.9ff. thus collapses. He develops his argument further with reference to the angelic interpretation. Obviously those parts of it which interpret secondary additions to the vision must themselves be secondary, so out goes most of the interpretation, and Noth finds himself left with verse 17 alone. He then concludes that this is too short! This is a classic example of the catastrophic results that can follow from the rigid application of the techniques of some literary critics. The brevity has nothing to do with the author, but is the achievement of Noth, whose critical operations were so arbitrary and so remote from the literature he was dealing with that they could not possibly demonstrate anything.

                                To be continued...

                                Comment

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