Analysis of the Book of Daniel

by Londo111 18 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Londo111

  I had hoped one or two others were about to start a thread on the book of Daniel, springing off from the NWT conversation, but alas, nobody has yet. Therefore, I thought I'd start one--I hope that was not too presumptuous of me.

  Personally, I have nothing meaty to contribute to this thread, only questions and gut feelings. When I was a Witness, this book of the Bible, above all others, seemed to be the central well of Witness doctrine. I think the Seven Gentile Times teaching has been thoroughly debunked in the analysis of when Jerusalem fell. And it now seems that the Witness starting point for the 70 weeks, namely 455 BCE, is completely off and there is no valid way around the evidence.

  Of course, the question becomes whether the book of Daniel was written by Daniel, or during the Maccabean revolt or even the Hasmonean civil war. For the last few months, my gut has been leaning toward the later, but I will endeavor to keep an open mind.

  In regard to the 70 weeks, some of the explanations make sense to me…yet I have never heard a fully satisfactory interpretation that has leapt at me. For instance, that the Word went forth to rebuild Jerusalem in 587 BCE with Jeremiah, as well that the 7 weeks or 49 years culminate in the coming of a Messiah, that being Cyrus, make sense. But the ending point doesn't quite feel right. Of course, there are other explanations.

  Since the Gospels have Jesus quoting Daniel, if the prophetic parts of Daniel were written in the time of the Maccabees or later, then that calls parts of the Gospels into question, unless we hold that the Maccabean or Hasmonean writer was partly inspired. Of course, many will hold to the possibility of the Gospels being called into question quite empathically because of this. Nevertheless, I feel the evidence should be examined, and the truth of the matter be followed, no matter where that leads.

  I am done with dogma…whether religious or anti-religious and every other shade of dogma there is. Therefore, it is my hope that a fair, open discussion can be had here, without it descending into a verbal fights and character assaults.
• 

  Vidqun

  Allow me to fire the first salvo:

  The first to question the authenticity of the book, would be the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry (ca. 232-303 CE). This is not surprising. He hated Christianity. Ironically, Daniel is a much maligned book today, but this time targeted by Christian Bible scholars. These would continue where Porphyry had left off. The reason: Most attempt to pin Daniel’s prophecies to events during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. These follow the interpretation found in the book of Maccabees, one that Jesus rejected outright (cf. 1 Maccabees 1:54, 59; Matt. 24:15, 16). Even the angel in Daniel’s final vision would doom a Jewish uprising, saying: “And the sons of the robbers [“violent ones”, CSBO] belonging to your people will, for their part, be carried along to try making a vision come true; and they will have to stumble”, i.e., die [1] (cf. Dan. 11:14b).

  Modern scholars, with Porphyry, insist that there can be no predictive element in prophecy. By refusing to consider a post-Grecian interpretation of Daniel’s prophecies, these place an impossible burden on the interpreter as well as an insurmountable obstacle on the road to a satisfactory exegesis. These maintain that ancient wisdom cannot stand against the onslaught of modern criticism. No wonder the skeptics reign supreme. A similar situation existed in Asaph’s day: “Our signs we have not seen; there is no prophet any more, And there is no one with us knowing how long” (cf. Ps. 74:9).

  ---

  [1] The Hebrew word for stumble is kâshal (= “to cause to fall”). Especially in the book of Daniel this verb refers to a literal stumbling because of war (cf. Dan. 11:33b). In most cases the Syriac interprets it as “to overthrow.” This fact is corroborated by HALOT: to fall, collapse (of a government, dynasty) Dan. 11:14, 19, 33, 35, 41. In each of these cases, the verb refers to people, not countries. The Maccabean dynasty, and all break-away groups, disobedient to God, would come to a violent end.
• 

  Quirky1

  He shouldn't have ate those mushrooms growin' in the cow pasture..
• 

  Leolaia

  I'm quite busy at the moment, so I can't really go into depth in this thread for the time being. I already wrote about a monster of a thread on the composition of Daniel but never posted it because it was too long and I was only a third of the way through the book. One day I might finish it.

  Londo....Daniel is probably my favorite book in the Bible and I'm very familiar with its connections with the literature of the Second Temple period. I personally have no doubt that the bulk of scholarship is correct that the book is of Hellenistic origin and the Hebrew visions in particular pertain to the Maccabean period. This most satisfactorily accounts for the preponderance of evidence (both contextual and external), and it is a very similar body of evidence that assigns the book of 1 Enoch to a similar period.

  I have my own understanding that is quite close to yours about the seventy weeks, except I believe the first anointed figure (who arrives after the 7 weeks and before the 62 weeks) is best identified as Jeshua son of Jozadak. This is on account of the sacerdotal interest in ch. 8 and 9 of Daniel. This was also the ancient understanding of the identity of this figure as Hippolytus attests.

  Vidqun...Yeah I have pretty much the opposite opinion. I don't think its fair to criticize the consensus view of Daniel in scholarship by criticizing Porphyry, this smacks a bit of being a hominem argument. Nor do scholars seek to deny that the author made predictive prophecy: the author clearly does in the case of the cleansing of the Temple and the death of Antiochus. The author was pretty accurate in terms of the Temple restoration and that the death of Antiochus would follow soon after, though not in quite the manner as expected. But if we are to treat all Second Temple apocalypses by the same measure, then one would similarly hold the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch up to the same standard and question whether this could possibly have any reference to the Maccabean era since we would not want to deny predictive prophecy to that work as well. The author is quite clear in ch. 8 that the "little horn" pertains to the kingdom of Greece, and ch. 11 especially identifies Antiochus Epiphanes (through its sweep of history through the Syrian Wars) as the figure responsible for desecrating the Temple as discussed in ch. 8 and 9. I mean, one could posit that there is a break and the prophecy was concluded with some later, Roman, desecration, but this is not the most elegant explanation of the contextual evidence and historical allusion in Daniel; it imposes various contrivances into the text and disrupts the parallels between the different chapters. The book of 1 Maccabees is closer to the older, more original, understanding of the Hebrew apocalypse than later Roman-era writings, like the synoptic gospels, which defer (unfulfilled) portions of the apocalypse to the Roman period. Even at the time, it was understood that the "Roman" interpretation was younger than the interpretation given in the book itself; this is essentially stated as such in 4 Ezra regarding the identity of the "fourth kingdom". And certainly Josephus, while holding a Roman interpretation himself, regarded the prophecy about the abomination of desolation as an example of how Daniel was an accurate prophet, with it being fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes.

  Anyway, I have to run, so I hope that is enough for now. :)
• 

  Londo111

  Leolaia,

  I'm sure I speak for some people here, but it would really be interesting to see the results of your research. Even though you are not done with what you have, it might work out for the best, since releasing it piecemeal would be best for digestion.
• 

  Londo111

  Alas, I definitely know all to well the Society's explanation of the Seven Times and the Seventy Weeks, and used to believe it, and could explain it inside and out.

  Unfortunately, the starting points for both are not correct, both scripturally and historically, especially in regard to 607 BCE and the start and finish of Seventy Years of Jeremiah.

  There are other threads about this, revolving around the recent articles in the October and November Public Edition. I feel it might be better to go discuss such things there than here. Having personally weighed the evidence, I feel it is a slam dunk case for 587 BCE, both from the Bible and from all secular evidence.
• 

  steve2

  Imagine if there were no Book of Daniel, there would have been no 1914 doctrine. Sobering. The loss of the Book of Daniel would be absolutely no loss to humankind. It's full of symbols and ancient hocus pocus and every second scholar thinks they've got it nailed in terms of interpretation.
• 

  GLTirebiter

  Most attempt to pin Daniel’s prophecies to events during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

  This gets confusing, because more than one "Antiochus" is involved. The events of Daniel 1:10-15 were during the reign of Antiochus III (Magnus), not Antiochus IV (Epiphanes). Antiochus III twice invaded Egypt, losing the first time, but later defeating Ptolemy V (Epiphanes) and regaining control of Judea around 198 BC (*). He then made the mistake of attacking Pergamum, an ally of Rome, in 192 BC. Roman General Scipius did what Roman Generals did best: defeated Antiochus III in Pergamum in 191 BC, followed his retreat to Asia Minor where he defeated him again at Magnesia in 190 BC, extracted a massive tribute, took away his fleet, and took his younger son Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) as hostage.

  Needing gold to pay off the Romans, Antiochus III took it from temples throughout his realm (not just in Jerusalem). He was killed during one of these temple raids in 187 BC. He was succeeded by his older son, Seleucus IV (Philopater).

  This was the one "soon destroyed, though not in conflict or battle" (Daniel 11:20). In 175 BC Seleucus IV was assassinated by his own minister, who briefly took over the throne.

  Antiochus IV returned from Rome, deposed that minister, and took the throne for himself--also in 175 BC. Daniel describes the reign of Antiochus IV beginning at verse 21. He is the one who looted the temple in Jerusalem on his way back from his first invasion of Egypt in 170 BC (1 Maccabbees 16-28). He invaded Egypt again, suffered his own humiliation at the hands of Rome (Daniel 11:30), and sacked Jerusalem again on his way back (168 BC)--this was the time of the desecration of the temple (Daniel 11:31) and forced Hellenization, though some Jews resisted and remained faithful (Daniel 11:32-39). After that, Daniel departs from known history--verses 40 and on seem to be a wishful account of Antiochus' demise, echoing the fate of Gog in Ezekiel chapters 38-39. His actual death in Persia (164 BC) was anti-climatic, his power faded after assaults on multiple fronts (including the Maccabbean revolt and attacks from the Parthians).

  That was, for practical purposes, the end of Seleucid power. Roman influence and power were becoming dominant, especially after the defeat of Carthage in the third Punic war (146 BC).

  ---

  Sources:

  Asimov's Guide to the Bible, single volume edition published by Avenel, New York, 1981, ISBN 0-517-34582-X

  Jewish Encyclopedia, article about Antiochus IV Epiphanes

  New American Bible, Revised Edition, US Conferenec of Catholic Bishops, footnotes to books of Daniel and 1 Maccabbees

  (*) Three different calendars are involved: Seleucid (Greek), Hebrew and Julian (Roman). The different ways each reckon years sometimes causes one-year variances when comparing dates between different calendars.
• 

  Vidqun

  GL, here I prefer a christological explanation of the material. Dan. 11:22 mentions the "Leader of the covenant" which I believe to be the Christ (cf. Dan. 9:26, 27).

  Exactor (of Taxes) (Dan. 11:20)

  And there must stand up in his position one who is causing an exactor to pass through the splendid kingdom, and in a few days he will be broken, but not in anger nor in warfare.

  ???????? : Verb Qal Participle, one who is collecting taxes = a tax collector Dan. 11:20 (HALOT).

  ?????? : Verb Qal Perfect, an exactor of tribute (BDBLex). To collect (offerings) 2 Kings 23:35. [“ And the silver and the gold Jehoiakim gave to Pharaoh. Only he taxed the land, to give the silver at the order of Pharaoh. According to each one's individual tax rate he exacted the silver and the gold from the people of the land, to give it to Pharaoh Nechoh.”]

  In the book of Daniel “stand up” often refers to a king starting his reign (cf. Dan. 8:23; 11:3, 7, 20, 21; 12:1). In A Commentary on the Book of Daniel by John J. Collins, pp. 381, 382, we read: 20.In his place will arise one: Seleucus IV Philopator (187-175 B.C.E.). His reign was dominated by financial exigency, because of the tribute to Rome.

  who will make a tribute collector of royal splendor pass through : This is most probably a reference to Heliodorus, whose attempt to despoil the Jerusalem Temple is recounted in 2 Maccabees 3.

  in some days he will be broken : Seleucus reigned for twelve years, but his reign is dismissed as short and inconsequential. He fell victim to a plot by Heliodorus, hence the emphasis on the secrecy of his death.

  21. In his place will arise a contemptible man: The contemptible man is Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who is consistently derided in Daniel, etc.

  Keil & Delitzsch found it hard to place the verse in such a historical setting. They gave the following reasons for their misgivings: “Finally, of his successor, Seleucus Philopator, to whom v. 20 must refer, if the foregoing verses treat of Antiochus the Great, nothing further is communicated, than that he quum paternis cladibus fractas admodum Syriae opes accepisset, post otiosum nullisque admodum rebus gestis nobilitatum annorum duodecim regnum, was put to death through the treachery of Heliodorus, unius ex purpuratis (Liv. xli. 19, cf. App. Syr. c. 45), and the mission of Heliodorus to Jerusalem to seize the treasures of the temple, which is fabulously described in 2 Macc. 3:4ff. The ????????? (shall be destroyed) of this king ????????? ???????? (within few days) does not harmonize with the fact of his twelve years’ reign.

  Thus, Dan. 11:20, mentions an exactor (of taxes, cf. 2 Kings 23:35) that will pass through the splendid kingdom, taking the place of the King of the North. As an alternative interpretation, we look to Caesar Augustus, enrolling the people. During this time Jesus would be born in Bethlehem (cf. Luk. 2:1-5).

  Above explanation is in harmony with the facts. The Roman Empire would flourish under the reign of Caesar Augustus. He would order the registration of “all the inhabited earth” for tax purposes as well as military conscription (cf. Luke 2:1). Augustus will then be broken, “but not in anger nor in warfare”. He would die of illness. His successor, “one to be despised”, would take over the kingdom “by means of smoothness” (cf. Dan. 11:20, 21).

  “Tiberius,” says TheNewEncyclopædiaBritannica, “played politics with the Senate and did not allow it to name him emperor for almost a month [after Augustus died].” He told the Senate that no one but Augustus was capable of carrying the burden of ruling the Roman Empire and asked the senators to restore the republic by entrusting such authority to a group of men rather than to one man.

  “Not daring to take him at his word,” wrote historian Will Durant, “the Senate exchanged bows with him until at last he accepted power.” Durant added: “The play was well acted on both sides. Tiberius wanted the principate, or he would have found some way to evade it; the Senate feared and hated him, but shrank from re-establishing a republic based, like the old, upon theoretically sovereign assemblies.” Thus, in a crafty way Tiberius would take hold of the Roman Empire by means of smoothness .
• 

  Doug Mason

  Londo,

  My study on Daniel 9 (the 70 heptads") is available at:

  http://www.jwstudies.com/Critique_of_GM_on_Daniel_9.pdf

  Do not assume that time periods mentioned in Daniel 9 relate to the ministry and death of Jesus Christ.

  Doug