Polytheism in the Book of Daniel, a late second temple religious document

by fulltimestudent 54 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  fulltimestudent

  SS: Interesting concept, brainwashed only to be brainwashed by someone else equates free will.

  Well, its your concept SS, so stick with it mate.

  The majority of our beliefs are shared, inherited in some way. Your teacher at school, endeavouring to instill an understanding of geometry in your precocious brain, learned his understanding from others that stretches (in part) to a time before Jesus walked the earth. (although, we have no evidence that Jesus understood anything about geometry).

  The idea of this thread was rather simple. That although Judaism is seen as monotheistic (and you spent a lot of time in a concordance picking out texts to cite that), Boyarin proposed that Daniel 7 (written after the Hellenisation of Palestine) indicated that the author(s) of the Daniel manuscript was prepared to envision two gods, though he depicts both through symbols.

  I'm reasonably confident that even you, will see the first 'god' in Daniel 7:9, the 'ancient of days' who comes to sit on his throne, as representing the 'Yahweh' god figure. And, I'm sure that most Christians will see the other figure, the 'son of man' as representing (in Christian theology) the 'Messiah.'

  Boyarin's contention is that this second person, arriving on the clouds of heaven, must also be a 'god,' so he asks, was Jewish monotheism so pure and straightforward as you seem to think.

  Of course, if like the JWs, you want to believe that ALL the Bible, (every word of it) was written under the guidance of the "ancient of days, and that the "ancient of days," was a jealous god that would brook no rivals, then you will reject Boyarin's suggestion, and go on spouting proof texts, that to you indicate only one god.

  If there are demigods in existence and Jesus was a demigod, then that may provide you with and intellectual escape clause.

  But then I guess, you'll turn around and say that the Greeks were polytheists, because they believed in more than one god, when it is clear that there was one supreme god, Zeus/Jupiter, (just as in Daniel's ch. 7 vision, there was one supreme god), who gives the other god, supreme power over the earth. To be consistent, should you say that this is also evidence of polytheism?

  Did Jesus believe that he was this 'other god?'

  Luke 21:27 seems to suggest that the author of the Luke document thought that he did, as he portrays his version of the messiah saying, "And then they will see the son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory."

  And, irrespective of your own conclusions concerning the grammatical construction of John 1:1, in some way the author of the John document thought that his version of the messiah was divine.

  It the time of writing of the John document is as late as some think, it ties in well with Justin Martyrs' belief that Jesus was his God. (written circa 110 CE).

  So is Boyarin so wrong, when he suggests that the Daniel document is pointing to a contamination of Jewish monotheism by the introduction of a second divine figure?
  
• 

  jhine

  I will chip in here to say that ,yes , most Christians believe the second figure to be the Messiah . We have no.problem in seeing this person as Divine because we hold that He is the second person of the Trinity .

  That is , I know, restating the obvious ,that Trinitarians use this passage as a pointer towards a 3in 1 Godhead .

  How a Jew would explain this figure I do not know , it would be interesting to read Jewish commentary on this . Did Boyarin do that ? I am not familiar with his writing . As I said before the only meaning of a word or passage that is helpful is the one used by the writer , and the closest we can come to that surely is in the thoughts of his fellow Jews .

  Either which way I do not see that the WT position can be upheld . If they maintain that the second figure is not part of a single Godhead and is a lesser or demi- god then how do they explain the fact that

  " all peoples , nations and men of every language worshipped him .."

  I have restated the question simply and ask sincerely if there is a JW answer to this that makes sense , if they maintain that there is but one God . Trinitarians feel that this position makes sense of that passage .

  As to Boyarin I can see what he is getting at . Really.he is asking the same question but aiming it at Judaism not the Watchtower . If there is an answer from Judaism that does not compromise the Oneness of Yahweh then it surely must lie in Jewish commentary .

  Jan
• 

  fulltimestudent

  jhine: How a Jew would explain this figure I do not know , it would be interesting to read Jewish commentary on this . Did Boyarin do that ? I am not familiar with his writing . As I said before the only meaning of a word or passage that is helpful is the one used by the writer , and the closest we can come to that surely is in the thoughts of his fellow Jews .

  
  

  Boyarin, does attempt to analyse prior Jewish usage of certain expressions, for example the two expressions used about the messiah, 'son of man,' and 'son of god.'

  I'd attempt to summarise, except that means I have to go to Sydney University to access Boyarin's book (My own university is not holding the book, and I have to complete my trip organising (- will sleep in Shanghai on wed. night- Aust. and Chns time -smile).

  If it interests you, look around your local libraries for a copy (some university libraries will let you read on their premises). Details of the book are in the first few posts of this thread.

  
  

  Attempting to reconstruct beliefs is a complex matter, more so because of the commonly held belief that Yahweh is the real author of the Bible.

  
  

  As we have observed, by some 70-80 years after Jesus died, Justin Martyr could call Jesus, 'god.' Did any other early Christian object to that statement? If they did, and the document is extant, I have yet to read it.

  
  

  And yet, as Geza Vermes observes ( Vermes, Christian Beginnings-From Nazareth to Nicaea, AD 30-325, Allen Lane, 2012. pp 106-113), in a sub-section he names, "The Status of Christ in the Pauline Religion."

  " Paul never envisaged Jesus as fully sharing the nature of the deity. When compared to God the father, 'the son' always occupies an inferior position in Pauline thought. ... The co-equality of the divine persons is a concept that is still centuries away."

  Vermes' analyses the prayers (formulas) of the writings attributed to Paul and notes that in general the prayers are directed to "God" as the father and not to Jesus.

  Its impressive to read his list of prayer extracts and see that point clearly.

  
  

  Clearly that buys an argument, and I want to say its all immaterial to me, I am as personally distant to the emotions of the argument, as I am in (to use a non-religious example) any arguments concerning prejudice that may be evident in the writings of Ammianus.

  
  

  So enjoy your intellectual journey through the maze of first century religious thought. I think in the end you will probably arrive at the same conclusion as many modern scholars, which is:

  
  

  That there was a great diversity of beliefs in both first century Judaism and Christianity.

  
  

  Therefore. the idea that there was a common "truth" taught by Jesus, and handed on to the apostles. is quite mistaken.

  
  

  Which leads is to another conclusion, the idea that the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses today is both the custodian and transmitter of that truth is also erroneous.

  
  
• 

  SimonSays

  Well once again it falls under interpretation doesn’t it? All that college glitter is paying off isn’t it mate. Since you’re fixated with the works of Daniel Boyarin as an unconditional authority and rendition of the 1 century Jew? Then you should also read and study the works of Stephen R. Miller, and Gleason Archer. Don’t make it complicated to the layman.

  It is also the perception of some Jewish people in history not to have viewed Daniel as a commissioned prophet based on Ben Sira’s Testimony.

  There will always be someone to think they have figured out the true nature of biblical text, but as stated you don’t need a classroom to understand the bible. You make it sound as if Boyarin is the first to place this argument before the people, he isn’t. The book of Daniel has been argued for a long time and the assertions of how many authors there were in writing the book. The two most examples are:

  Robert I Bradshaw

  The date of the book of Daniel is one of the most hotly contested themes in OT scholarship. Two main views prevail: a) that the book was written in the second Century BC in Judea in order to encourage the people of Israel undergoing persecution by the Seleucids under Antiochus IV Epiphanies’. Writing after the event the writer cast his work as a prediction of the future and urged his fellow Jews to remain faithful to their God. b) That it was written in the 6th Century BC in Babylon by a Jewish exile named Daniel who served in the royal court and accurately predicted events that were not fulfilled until the Second Century.

  Catholic Encyclopedia

  The Book of Daniel, as it now stands in the ordinary Hebrew Bibles, is generally divided into two main parts. The first includes a series of narratives which are told in the third person (chaps. i-vi), and the second, a series of visions which are described in the first person (chaps. vii-xii). The opening chapter of the first series may be considered as a preface to the whole work.

  If you wish to embrace Judeo-Christian ideology that’s fine, but call it for what it is, don’t make long speeches so people think you’re smart, because it’s also possible you didn’t comprehend the message Boyarin was attempting to establish, since it has nothing to do with trinitarianism that you used as filler for your argument.

  So then, they only thing you have managed to do with this, is confuse ideals by pitting who were the Israelites, Jews, and Christians and at what point they separated to draw different points of views. Now that wasn’t so hard was it?

  So, the question should be what role does the Jewish State of Israel play now that Jesus included all to be part of everlasting life.

  Trinitarian or Unitarian

  For hundreds of years most Christians have proclaimed to the world that Jesus Christ is “God.” They have told us that God exists co-equally in three persons. They say the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all exist in “one God.” Many even say that those who don’t believe that Jesus is God are not saved.

  The Bible says that “if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9).

  For many non-Christians, the idea of a 3-in-1 God is very confusing and unbiblical. Take, for example, Jews and Muslims. Both are monotheistic, which means they believe in “one” God. Most of them won’t even consider believing in a God that exists in “three persons,” because they reason that 1 + 1 + 1 does not equal one God.

  Millions of Jews and Muslims have completely denied Jesus as their Lord, because of the teaching that he is God, and they simply cannot accept a Triune God.

  So the concern is…

  How many more people would accept Jesus Christ as their Lord (and be saved) if he were not presented to them as the “second member of the Trinity”?

  Possibly millions? Surely this doctrine has confused and turned away a countless number of people since it was created more than 1,500 years ago. How sad to think that the idea of the Trinity has caused many to reject or even walk away from our Lord.

  What honors Jesus more?

  1. That he was God in human flesh – a “Godman,” who didn’t truly have free will, who couldn’t have sinned; “God the Son,” who always did the will of God the Father and always did what was right; “God the Son,” who died (How could God die?) for the sins of all mankind; “God the Son” come down from Heaven clothed in human flesh.

  Or…

  2. That Jesus was a flesh and blood human being who had free will, who could have sinned, but chose not to; the Son of God who laid down his life for his brothers and sisters; a man who could have disobeyed God’s plan for him, but who loved us so much that he chose to do God’s will and save us all; a man, who because of his accomplishments, was promoted to the right hand of God, made Lord over Heaven and Earth, and is now “functionally equal” with his God and Father.

  For a human being with free will to never sin is the greatest accomplishment of all time. The idea that he is God greatly diminishes the magnitude of his heroism on our behalf.

  Is Jesus God? Some say this argument is like “splitting hairs,” no big deal. But we say it’s one of the biggest attacks the Enemy has ever thrown at God’s people.

  John 17:3
  Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

  If we were the Enemy, and knowing God and Jesus Christ were the way to eternal life, we wouldn’t want people to know them. We would try to paint a different picture of God and a different picture of Jesus than what the Bible actually says. It is our belief that the primary attack of the Enemy has been an assault on the Word of God that began the moment it left the inspired hands that wrote it.

  What a glorious opportunity we have right now to learn and proclaim the simple and liberating truth that “Jesus is Lord,” and that he will mentor each of us in the art of trusting our heavenly Father like he did.
• 

  jhine

  Simon ,having just read your post the first thought that occurs to me is that as far as I am aware the main problem Moslems have with Christianity is the teaching that God asked an innocent person to die on behalf of sinners . They see it as unfair . So I am not sure that it is the idea of Trinity that is a stumbling block , and there are many Jews who upon examining the Tanach with an open mind do come to faith in Christ , the second person of the Trinity .

  It is hard to know how much of what you are saying is influenced by WT teaching . Please be aware that the WT is less than honest in it's quotes and explanations .

  I agree ,of course that " if you confess that Jesus is !ord and believe that God raised him from the dead you will be saved " but I am aware of how the WT has tampered even with the Bible to make it fit their theology .

  They add the word other in for example Colossians CH 1 many times to alter the meaning . e.g vs 16

  " because by means of him all ( other ) were created in the heavens and upon the earth , "

  And in lots of verses in that first chapter . Why do they alter scripture ? Adding the word other where they do totally downgrades what the writer is saying about Jesus .The word other is not in the original so why do they mess with the Bible . Do they claim to know better than the inspired writers of God's word . ?

  Fulltime , thanks for the discussion , have a good trip .

  Jan