Vidqun - very interesting.
EdenOne - even though I disagreed with you I appreciate you stimulating some new thought on this passage.
NEW ARTICLE - Commentary on Daniel chapters 2, 3 and 4.
by EdenOne 25 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
EdenOne
Vidqun
It is my confidence that the prophecy of Daniel deals with other nations, even other 'world powers', namely on the vision concerning the four beasts that arise from the sea. (Chapter 7) But these two visions deal specifically with the Babylonean empire and its demise (chapter 2) and Nebuchadnezzar's punishment period (Chapter 4).
Regarding the use of "olam":
Vine's Expository Dicctionary of Old Testament Words says: " This word has cognates in Ugaritic, Moabite, Phoenician, Aramaic, Arabic, and Akkadian. It appears about 440 times in biblical Hebrew and in all periods."
Therefore, you shouldn't limit the scope of "olam" to the aramaic variation of "elam". They all mean the same across all the linguistic variations, especially the 440 times it appears in Biblical hebrew.
Take, for example, Jeremiah 28:8: " From early times [olam] the prophets who preceded you and me have prophesied war, disaster and plague against many countries and great kingdoms." Clearly, if olam meant "eternity", then the prophets had been prophesying since forever, which is not the case. This an example where olam means "old time" or "long time". Same with Jeremiah 5:15: " Behold, I am bringing against you a nation from afar, O house of Israel, declares the LORD. It is an enduring nation; it is an ancient [olam] nation..." In this case, olam doesn't imply a nation that has existed forever into the past, but simply an "ancient" nation. Also consider the use of olam in Psalm 61:8 " So will I sing praise unto thy name for ever [olam], That I may daily perform my vows." Clearly the intention of olam here is of a "continuous time", but not infinite duration, for the writer of the psalm could only continue to sing praise until he dies.
Jeff A. Berner comments on the Hebrew use of olam: " The word olam is also used for time for the distant past or the distant future as a time that is difficult to know or perceive. This word is frequently translated as eternity or forever but in the English language it is misunderstood to mean a continual span of time that never ends. In the Hebrew mind it is simply what is at or beyond the horizon, a very distant time."
Therefore, you shouldn't be stumbled by the association of the word olam with "kingdom". Both the messianic kingdom and the persian kingdom would last 'into olam', that is, into a presumably long time beyond the horizon. Keep in mind that the Persian empire lasted well over two centuries, more than the normal time horizon of any human being.
Regarding the quality of the materials.
Evidently the gold, silver etc is from a human standpoint - not God's.
i don't agree with you. If materials were irrelevant to God, then he wouldn't require that Gold was used in his temple, nor would he give specifics about what type of materials should be used in his temple.
Eden
Edit: Sorry, I mixed replies to Vidqun with Framegrilled.
-
EdenOne
Vidqun
At least you should concede that the metaphor of iron+ clay on the statue's feet is also a fit description of the strenght of iron (Nabonidus) and the fragility of the clay (Belshazzar).
Eden
-
EdenOne
Some other point to consider:
What are the fundaments that you base your claim that Nabuchadnezzar's rule was more autocratic than some of the Persian monarchs? Or some of the Roman emperors?
On his work "From Eden to Eden", author Josi Luis Keyes has the same view that you hold: That the persian empire was less autocratic that the babylonian empire, and the greek empire less autocratic than the persian empire. however, he fails to offer any empirical evidence of such claim. However, for example, if you study the life of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, you clearly see a monarch that was far more autocratic than Nabuchadnezzar II.
In ancient times, autocracy is intimately tied with warfare. When a Kingdom is involved in warfare, its rulership tends to become more autocratic. Nabuchadneezar was an autocrat inasmuch as he was a conqueror warrior. Nabonidus, on the other hand, being much less busy with warfare, had no problems in sharing his kingdom in co-regency with his son Belshazzar. However, when war came upon him, he attempted to retake absolute control again.
Eden
-
flamegrilled
Hi Eden
Was scratching my head as to whom your comments were directed until I saw your edit.
You've raised quite a few points. I have company right now, but will try to reply more fully later.
But in the meantime I'm just wondering why you focus on Hebrew "olam", and say we shouldn't confuse with Aramaic "elam" when the available text is Aramaic?
Or am I missing something?
FG
-
EdenOne
Framegrilled,
Basically the aramaic "elam" is equal to hebrew "olam"; therefore, when they are used in the Scriptures, their meanings do not differ.
Eden
-
flamegrilled
Hi Eden
Here I am not nit-picking - only seeking to understand.
You said ...
Therefore, you shouldn't limit the scope of "olam" to the aramaic variation of "elam".
Why would the scope of the Aramaic be limited at all if it is truly synonomous with the Hebrew?
Do you see what I mean?
FG
-
Vidqun
Eden, I agree with your view of `olam. I have researched its development, and you're right. The root of the word means "hidden." But it would be unwise to build your arguments on this word, because its meaning would change over time (I removed the Hebrew fonts, they don't transfer well).
Times indefinite. Hidden or remote time. Aram. (sing.) or (plur.); 2 44b ; Heb. sometimes m., pl.—what is hidden; specially hidden time, long; the beginning or end of which is either uncertain or else not defined. 2 44a never. According to context, it could point to: 1) Of time long past, antiquity, e.g., Deut. 32:7; Am. 9:11; Mic. 7:14; Is. 63:9. 2) Mostly it refers to future time, in such a manner, that what is called the terminus ad quem, is always defined from the nature of the thing itself.
Its etymology has been and remains disputed or at best uncertain, and the various studies suggest that no real progress has been made. Following E. Jenni, most scholars translate `oulam as “long time” or “farthest, remotest time.” Various nuances of this translation must then also be distinguished contextually. See TDOT, vol. X, p. 531. [1]
[1]The book of Daniel contains 5 occurrences in Hebrew (9:24; 12:2[bis]; 3, 7), 18 in Aramaic (2:4, 20[bis], 44[bis]; 3:9; 4:3; 4:34[bis]; 5:10; 6:6, 21, 26; 7:14, 18[ter], 27) of which 9:24 (Hebrew) and 2:4, 44; 3:9; 5:10; 6:6, 21, 26 (Aramaic) as well as one of the occurrences in 7:18 are plural. Dnl. 2:4; 3:9; 5:10; 6:21 belong to the royal greeting (cf. also 6:6). Dnl. 2:44; 4:3; 4:34, and 6:26 also make clear that the concern (as in the book of Daniel in a larger sense) is not only with the coming divine rule “forever,” but also with extolling the present and the future rule as being perpetual.
The assertion that “everlasting righteousness” (9:24) will be brought to the people and the city (cf. 11QPs a 16) then focuses more unequivocally on the new future, and Dnl. 2:44; 7:14, 18; 12:2f. make clear that, and how, the present “age of the world” will end and the new age (this age too, as the final one!) will commence. At that time “many” will be raised to “everlasting life” (12:2), others to everlasting shame and contempt.
Resurrection thus functions here as a solution to the problem of theodicy [2] [2] and as instrument for balancing things out between the good and the wicked, neither of whom will or may be permitted to end with death only. Here `oulam/`alam acquires the meaning of “world/age of the world” (cf. already Ps. 104:5; 148:6; Is. 40:28), something that then developed further in early Jewish literature. See TDOT, vol. X, pp. 542, 543, and TDNT, vol. I, pp. 202-206 under aioun, aiouvios.
According to TDOT, vol. XI, p. 149, an etymological relationship between `lm and `oulam seems unlikely.However, I believe that the word is indeed semantically related to the verb `alam and the noun ta`älumâ belonging to the semantic field “to hide.”[2] Theodicy (= God + justice): “A justification of the existence, justice, and goodness of God in the light of the existence of evil” (cf. Webster).
Yes, Nabonidus (iron) and Belshazzar (clay) fit the picture. Belshazzar's knees turned to jelly (clay) when he saw the hand writing on the wall.
But coming back to Dan. 2: First of all, the stone striking the image, pulverized it. Even though the Babylonians were subjugated, as a nation they continued to exist (cf. Dan. 7:12). Secondly, the phrase "mixed with the seed of mankind," (Dn. 2:43) in connection with the iron and clay, point to people not mixing (because of different ideologies?). Some of the seeds (or offspring) were of iron variety, and some were of clay variety. Not sure about your application here. Nabonidus would share his kingdom with Belshazzar willingly.
That brings me to the different metals. Nebuchadnezzar was the supreme autocrat. His word was law. He decided whether you lived or died. But in connection with the Medes and Persians, Darius could not save his friend Daniel because the order was promulgated into law, and not even the king could change that (same happened in Esther’s case). Now what about Alexander the Great? He surrounded him with his generals and they would decide on strategy together. Certainly the autocracy became watered down over the years. Law, generals and advisors began to have more and more say.
-
flamegrilled
Hi Eden
I've reread your reply more carefully and I understand what you are saying now about the Hebrew and Aramaic. Nevertheless "olam/elam" in relation to kingdom/kingship only has those two instances in Daniel as far as I can see. (There are some toadies in the intervening chapters who say "live forever" to their kings but obviously that is just their custom rather than anything prophectic).
I just don't see sufficient evidence that the prophecy is not messianic when that is what it appears to be. I totally respect your line of reasoning, but there just seems to be too much weight on the other side of the scales.
Even if the gold is from God's standpoint I think it can still be understood as the "best" human government was ever going to achive, and it would decline from there.
Ultimately the gold is proven to be perishable, and the mountain that fills the whole earth is supreme. So regardless of the material and regardless from whose standpoint, there is a clear winner that is shown to be of more enduring value.
That's the way I see it anyway.
FG
-
EdenOne
Framegrilled
let me ask you this: How could Nebuchadnezzar be "gold" (understood, as you said, as the "best human government" possible) when the babylonians opressed God's people so much that even many prophets uttered condemnations against the babylonians because of the tyranic, oppressive treatment inflicted to the israelites in captivity? Has Alexandre the Great ever treated the Israelites bad? He even granted them tax exemptions in things related with the worship of Jehovah. The persians have treated the people of Jehovah with relative kindness, allowing them to return to Palestine and even contributing to the reconstruction of the Temple. How could the tyrant Nebuchadnezzar be more valuable (from any godly point of view) than the Persians or the Greeks? I don't see much sense in that reasoning. That means that Jehovah values tyrants and despises peace-seeker monarchs? Does that make much sense to you? What kind of King, then, would be jesus? What kind of Kings would be those who will co-rule in the Kingdom with Christ? Tyrants? Or peace-makers?
Also, remember that "the whole earth" is a relative term ... it does not refer to the entire planet. It refers to a specific territory, often referring to the land of israel. In the case of the medo-Persian empire, it "filled the whole earth" ... taking hold of the whole Palestine within its empire.
Eden