Posts by peacefulpete

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

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?.

peacefulpete

Yet we know from both 1 and 2 Maccabees that in the second century B.C.E. a group or party developed, associated with the Maccabees, who called themselves Chasidim, as reflected in the Greek term asidaioi (faithful).

Reciting Psalm 30 on Chanukah: A Biblical Custom? - TheTorah.com

Daniel’s apocalypse offers a perspective of the events leading up to Chanukah that differs markedly from that of First and Second Maccabees. While the latter books take the perspective of the Maccabees, a political group of guerrilla fighters, Daniel reflects the point of view of some of the scribes, the “knowledgeable among the people (maskilim).” A fragile alliance formed between these two groups, but much distrust as well.....What actually happened may have been unimaginable to Daniel’s more passive group: the Judeans won. After a protracted campaign, Antiochus’ beleaguered successor, Lysias, entered into negotiations with the Maccabees, which led to the independent state ruled by the Maccabees and their successors. It was at this time that the rededication of the Jerusalem temple, the event that Chanukah celebrates, occurred. The unknown authors of the apocalyptic visions never wrote the end of the story, or if they did, it was not preserved.

The Lead up to Chanukah in the Book of Daniel - TheTorah.com

As much as I dug, I found no 'consensus' that the book of Daniel was written by the Maccabees themselves. It would seem to answer more questions if we conclude that the author/s were 'associated' with the Maccabees but having clear differences regarding the use of literal swords. It probably sounds pedantic but my subtle difference of opinion seems sound. Many commentators have observed and elaborated on the distinctly different outlook of the would-be martyrs of Daniel and the must-be warriors of 1 Maccabees.

The Book of Daniel is generally agreed to have been written at some point during the persecutions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, around 167–165 BCE. Compared to the more secular stance of 1 Maccabees that advocated direct military action under the leadership of the Hasmonean family, Daniel appears to have a more spiritual and apocalyptic approach to the crisis, suggesting that God would directly intervene to punish the Seleucids. It appears to suggest more of a passive resistance and praises martyrdom; thus, the most important thing for the faithful was to remain 'pure' in their Judaism to maintain God's favor.... One common point of speculation is that the author of Daniel was a member of the Hasideans, or at least a good example of how the Hasideans thought. Scholars favoring this include Martin Hengel, Victor Tcherikover, and James A. Montgomery.[16][2 Hasideans - Wikipedia

1 Maccabees relates that at the start of the conflict around 167–166 BCE, some of those "who had rejected the king's command" forbidding traditional Jewish practices such as circumcision and Jewish dietary laws had escaped into the wilderness. (Qumran?) The empire's soldiers had attacked them on the Sabbath, they declined to defend themselves, and were killed. Hasideans - Wikipedia

Dan 11:33Those with insight will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by sword or flame, or be captured or plundered.
34Now when they fall, they will be granted a little help, (Maccabee initial campaigns) but many will join them insincerely. (perhaps a reference to a group of Hasidim that, after the massacre, decided to join the Maccabean army mentioned in 1 Macc 2 :42,43)

Perhaps this betrayal of their pacifist stance, emboldened the Hellenist High Priest Alcimus (appointed by Antiochus) to feign a peaceful confab with a group of them, and executing the trusting bunch.

Then a group of scribes appeared in a body before Alcimus and Bacchides to ask for just terms. The Hasideans were first among the Israelites to seek peace from them, (the Seleucids) for they said, 'A priest of the line of Aaron has come with the army, and he will not harm us.' Alcimus spoke peaceable words to them and swore this oath to them, 'We will not seek to injure you or your friends.' So they trusted him; but he seized sixty of them and killed them in one day (...) Then the fear and dread of them fell on all the people, for they said, 'There is no truth or justice in them, for they have violated the agreement and the oath that they swore.'

— 1 Maccabees 7:12-16, 18[8]

I believe we have enough of the picture to tentatively connect the Hasidim with the book of Daniel. The further connections to Qumran appear probable.

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

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?.

peacefulpete

I agree with everything said. Well mostly. I find academia like any profession can get contented with stasis quo, well argued 'novel' ideas can sometimes kick the machinery back to life. We may not agree on that. I have a half dozen retired professors in my circle of codgerly friends. It's funny, when we have our recurring lunch together, they seem to be studying me as a specimen of homo non-academia sapiens.

So to clarify for you, I have a purely academic interest in these topics. What started out a quarter of a century ago as a cathartic mission of discovery/recovery has evolved into a genuine interest in the topics as an intellectual exercise. I have to imagine something similar happened in your process. You certainly had the cultural advantage of being surrounded by this material and history, and your choice of career immersed you in ways my blue-collar skills didn't. While not gifted with the acumen of some posters over the years, I have eventually seen the logic of those who are. I was a clock and watchmaker (among other things) and feel an unrelenting need to grasp how wheels perform as part of the train. I'm not slaying dragons anymore, I'm studying them.

Again enjoy your trip.

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

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?.

peacefulpete

I had to account for the usage of the book by both the Anti-Hellenist Maccabeans and those Anti-Hellenists that came to oppose their reforms as apostasy (Qumran). What yet remains a nagging question is the Sadducean, who are often said to have come from the Maccabean priesthood, apparent agnosticism regarding books like Daniel. Who knows. Religious ideas shift. If you can offer anything , please do.

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

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?.

peacefulpete

I'll take that.

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

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?.

peacefulpete

OK, I've spent enough time on this to conclude I will not be able to arrive at anything conclusive. In short, there were decades of civil-war-level tensions dividing the traditionalists and the so-called Hellenists. Antiochus intervened and enforced repressive actions against those who resisted, and the temple was center of all this. The post by Kaleb endorsed the position that the Hasmonean powers themselves created the book of Daniel as well as a subsequent (~25 yrs. later) work, 1 Maccabees, that endorses Daniel as a 'prophet' and quotes from the book. I keep coming back to that idea and really find it attractive. I'm only now adding they must have used previously existing tradition/folklore for the framework and for added credibility. I'm always puzzled by would-be prophets' willingness to make short sighted predictions, but it's a record that continues to this day so my objection to official Hasmonean scribes being responsible for it cannot be justified. It's also hard to distinguish genuine zealotry from manipulative propaganda, so can't say which motivation was involved.

For me this explains the acceptance of Daniel by opponents of the Maccabean 'wicked priest' who gathered at Qumran, in that the book of Daniel was obviously 'unsealed' prior to the death of Antiochus (prediction of death wrong as well as the predicted glorification of holy ones to occur subsequently) and endorsed by priests and others prior to the gradual increasing corruption of the priesthood.1 Macc. parallels the courage and zealous violence of Judas Maccabees to Phineas of Numbers 25 wherein Phineas is rewarded with the high Priesthood. This then justifies his taking the High Priesthood and the gradual replacement of priests with those who endorsed him. This replacement of priests apparently resulted in the ousting of the TofR, (as suggested by terminology used of him and their opponents) who then either formed or joined to lead the pietists cult at Qumran where he was regarded as the inspired "interpreter of the Law". Michael Wise suggests he was the missing High Priest of the 160's, who knows. In the end the members of Qumran came to see the "smoke of the alter as a stench to God's nostrils".

The Community Rule and Damascus doc, (Qumran) refers to 20 years they were aimless until the leadership of TofR and that he arrived 390 years since God “gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon”. A number of scholars have posited these fragments a part of a schematic reinterpretation of Ezek 4 and the Daniel 70 weeks schema. (390+20+40+40=490) If so, this would explain the apparent adoration of the book of Daniel and related Daniel traditions. They had lived through the disappointment of the intended 'end time" and had of necessity accepted a reapplication of the passages featuring the TofR so that 50 or more years they could still regard themselves as the "last generations".

So, I'm growing warmer to the idea that the book of Daniel was the work of associates of the Maccabean clan prior to the death of Antiochus who had high apocalyptic expectations and was after just a couple decades reinterpreted through the person of the TofR after his purge from the Jerusalem priesthood. How much the TofR was involved in the original work is unknown but the reinterpretation revolving around him seems consistent with his role as "interpreter". It remains possible that the TofR was initially convinced the cause and actions of the Maccabees was providential but when disillusioned and eventually booted he assumed a role as cult leader able to uniquely understand the new book of Daniel and the rest of the sacred writings.

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

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?.

peacefulpete

I'm sure the fact that the evidence is insufficient to say anything assertively, dominates the response. I have also now found other articles that link the dual Aramaic/Hebrew composition with Qumran as well as numerous verbal similarities. FF Bruce many years ago assumed a Zadokite author, (TofR is understood as such, central issue for the community). Bruce never connects the TofR with the author directly but attribute to him interpretations unique to the community that envisioned a restoration soon. They saw the efforts of the Maccabees up to that point as "little help" but their hopes were with heavenly intervention. It also is suggested a reinterpretation subsequent the failure of the expectations. A more sectarian symbolic one after the Maccabees proved to be successful but corruption ensued.

In all, I like the suggestion that the TofR was the author/redactor but his identity unsurprisingly is lost to time and probably was unknown at the time it was "unsealed". Such is the point of pseudonymity.

I find the idea very attractive; all the ingredients are there, a charismatic homeless priest leads a movement of disillusioned and distraught pietists and a new document is 'unsealed' containing exactly what the group wants to hear, that soon Michael in some such way will be responsible for the end of distress and the glorification of the holy ones. That document is a pastiche of Daniel cycle material that was preexisting but not regarded canonical and interpretations supplied by the TofR. The group itself under subsequent leadership maintained the esteem of the work by reinterpretation, a process that continues to this day.

Then again the use of Dan by 1 Macc is suggestive that the work had it's source in that camp. Maybe the original intents of a Maccabean author was holier than I imagine.

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

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?.

peacefulpete

For by wise counsel you will wage your own war,

And in a multitude of counselors there is safety.

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

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?.

peacefulpete

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

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

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?.

peacefulpete

sigh, you guys need a beer

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

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?.

peacefulpete

Lighten up, I don't have many friends to compare notes with and I need you all to stick around.