For by wise counsel you will wage your own war,
And in a multitude of counselors there is safety.
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
For by wise counsel you will wage your own war,
And in a multitude of counselors there is safety.
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
I see that a Dr. John Trevore did a piece that suggested TofR as author/redactor of Daniel. I probably read it years ago and got the idea there.
The Book of Daniel and the Origin of the Qumran Community on JSTOR
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
sigh, you guys need a beer
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
Lighten up, I don't have many friends to compare notes with and I need you all to stick around.
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
Kaleb....I've given it some thought and if I understood your comment regarding Maccabean authorship of Daniel correctly, I can't agree, at least without some more explanation. The Qumran community is the sticking point. Many have remarked that the character Daniel was important to the community, not just copies of the book we know but other versions of stories involving Daniel. That element plus the composite nature of the book of Daniel leads me to suspect someone associated with or esteemed by that community was the compiler/redactor during the duress of Antiochus.
The "Teacher of Right" would be a fine candidate, but who knows. If that is correct it reasonably could be a subsequent leader (or himself) that makes the additional calculation after initial disappointment made it necessary. In my mind I see someone with pious intentions using the literary device of pseudonymity to comfort a distressed people. I'm seeing a collection of tales and prophecy collected and redacted to be relevant. Noticeable also is the absence of any call to arms or glorification of armed resistance, but patient waiting for heaven to end the times of distress. The Qumran community in contrast to the Maccabeans were pacifists.
Given the absence of any witness to Daniel the prophet prior to that community (Unknown to Ben Sirach in his list of heroes) it makes sense to at least consider there for an origin.
After the Romans entered the scene, similarly pious Essenes (probably directly linked) were well esteemed as keepers of the Law brought the work to the larger Jewish awareness, some of whom subsequently misinterpreted it to be about Rome.
What do you think?
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
Have a na'im trip
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
There's a reason why Theodotion's version of Daniel supplanted the OG version.
Yes, in certain quarters for theological reasons.
The point of these articles is the variants seem to have had a role in Christian development. It's enjoyable for me to ponder the how's and why's but in the end, what we can be sure of is that it existed and was influential.
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
Vidqun... I'd encourage you to read the links provided. You need to get access but it's free.
Lots of great comments, unlearning is twice as hard as learning.
last night at my bible study group we looked at 1thessalonians ch 5 .
we have been working through the whole letter.
verses 1-11 start with .
Jan... Carla answered your specific question well. All I was referring to was the 1 Thess 5 interpretation. Many were disappointed the Great War hadn't brought on Armagedón, unable to accept their error and embrace peace, they became effectively critical, dismissive of efforts for peace. Some would say they opposed peace, preferring for the world to be destroyed.
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
That was worth waiting for KoW. Good stuff. I've read others having concluded Daniel 7 was featuring Michael as SM. I follow the logic but have to question the obvious, why not simply make it explicit? Why describe the powerful angelic Prince as 'like a son of man' which has been argued effectively to imply human frailty in Daniel. I follow your logic regarding Joshuah usage of the term, but that was hundreds years distant and likely had different shades of meaning by the time of Dan 7 composition.
Matt 16 famously has Jesus ask who the people say the SM is, implying that their were multiple opinions centered around one of the prophets.
Much like you said: players are tropes borrowed from previous Jewish compositions, stories and writings
The answer insisting the SM and Messiah are one and the same reflects the view of the writer and his community not apparently the majority view even then. The half joking suggestion that the author imagined Daniel to be the SM isn't as crazy as it seems. Like I said the similar books of Enoch elevate Melchizedek, Enoch to godlike status.
I love the suggestion that the Hasmoneans themselves were responsible for Daniel. Maybe, but it would seem easier to assume someone with deep sympathies for their efforts, given the short sighted prediction.