Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man (page 4)

peacefulpete

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.

Boccur makes an interesting case. But he'll have to do better than that to convince me to substitute an OG reading for a MT reading. There's a reason why Theodotion's version of Daniel supplanted the OG version. And if we get into the identity of Father and Son and the Trinitarian controversy, that would take us into the first few Christian centuries, which is very late in the game. Here's Dan. 7:13, 14 in the Gottingen Septuagint, the phrase in question glaring in its absence. Who am I to question such specialists?

13 om. τῆς νυκτός 62′ | μετά = Marc. 14:62 Apoc. 1:7] επι Q Sa Hippol.Ant.HS Eus.ecl. Chr. (= I828) PsChr. II799 Tht. IV524 = οʹ et Matth. 24:30 26:64 | ὡς Cyr.VIII648] ωσει 62′ 449 C′−87 26 46′ 106 407 590 Cyr. III1048 | ἐρχόμενος B-26-46′-239 Q V 538 LaS Hippol. Eus.dem. p. 440, 10 et ecl. CyrHieros. p. 909 Didym. p. 893 PsAth.IV697 Chr.I828 VII553 PsChr. II799 Cyr. I313 IX933 X309 Hil. Aug.ep. 198, 3] + ην A′’ L’-311 C′ 230′’ 407 534 590 Arab Eus.dem. p. 495, 23 et eccl. theol. et c. Marc. Chr. (= I294) Tht. Cyr. VI284 VIII 648. 1048 Aug. civ. 18, 34 = 𝔐; + αυτος ην 62′; ηρχετο Tht. IV524 = οʹ; venit verss.p Lucif.; veniebat Vig. c. Eut. 1, 14 PsVig. c. Var. 1, 47 | om. καὶ προσήχθη αὐτῷ Aeth Eus.dem. p. 440, 10 CyrHieros. p. 909 Tht.IV524 PsVig.; om. καί A’ | προσήχθη αὐτῷ B-46′ Q* LaS Hippol.Ant.p Didym. Lucif. Hil. PsVig. trin. 3] προσηνεχθη αυτω Qc Hippol. p. 210, 18 et Ant.p Eus.dem. p. 495, 24 et ecl. et eccles. theol. PsAth. IV697 = Sixt.: cf. Is. 53:7 σʹ; αυτω προσηνεχθη 230; ενωπιον (εμπροσθεν Eus.) αυτου προσηνεχθη (+ αυτω 62′ 311-lII Chr. Tht.p) O L′’ C′ 106 233′ 393 407 534 590 Co Arab Arm Eus. c. Marc. Chr. (= I 294. 828) Tht. Cyr. I 313 VI 284 VIII 648. 1048 IX 933 X 309 Aug. civ. 18, 34; ενωπιον αυτου (+ και 584) προσηγαγον αυτον A’ 26 = 𝔐; pr. ενωπιον αυτου 239

14 αὐτῷ ἐδόθη] tr. verss.p Hippol.Ant.p Eus.dem. p. 495 et ecl. Cyr. I 313 Lucif. Hil. = οʹ | ἀρχή … τιμή] tr. 311 CyrHieros. p. 909 Tht.p; αρχη … εξουσια Sa; εξουσια … τιμη Eus.ecl.: cf. οʹ | γλῶσσαι] pr. και B 538 106 verss.p Hippol.p Hil. PsVig. trin. 3 = 𝔐: cf. 3:4 | δουλεύσουσιν αὐτῷ Q-233 46′ 590 Co Aeth Arab Hippol. Eus.ecl. Didym. p. 893 PsAsAth. IV 697 Hil. PsVig. trin. 3] δουλευουσιν αυτω B-239 LaS CyrHieros. p. 909 Lucif.; αυτω δουλευουσιν A’ 538-88 c Eus.dem. Chr. I 294; αυτω δουλευσουσιν (-σωσιν 62′ 230) O L-311-449 C 26 106 230’ 393 (+ και υπακουσονται: ex 27) 407 534 Arm Eus. eccl. theol. et c. Marc. Chr. (= I 828) Cyr. VI 284 VII 656 VIII 648. 1048 IX 933 X 309 Tht. Aug. civ. 18, 34 = 𝔐: cf. 27 | ἡ ἐξουσία] αυτω ουσια 534; pr. και L’-311 LaS Aeth Arab Arm Tht. Ir.lat Lucif. Hil. = οʹ | ἐξουσία1°◠2° 88 | om. καὶ ἡ βας. αὐτοῦ οὐ διαφθ. 230: homoiot.; om. καί LaS | οὐ ult.] pr. η V Aeth = 𝔐

Joseph Ziegler, Olivier Munnich, and Detlef Fraenkel, eds., Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco, vol. XVI, 2, Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 339–341.

In the Foreword to Daniel Pietersma explains: "It is not until 7-12 that one generally finds the common vocabulary in the two Greek versions to run around 50% and portions (e.g., 7.10, 25; 8.11-17, 21-23; 9.3-4, 11-12, 19-20, 27; 10.3-6, 19-20; 11.38) where there is extensive argreement for a verse or more. Some of the places where there is agreement can be demonstrated to be due to textual corruption, while others are incidental agreements that would be expected from two independent translators working from a similar source text. However, the portions of the Greek versions in these chapters where the verbal agreements between the texts are strong give the appearance that the TH text is a revision of the OG."

peacefulpete

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.

KalebOutWest

Jeffro, your citation from MyJewishLearning is based on a book Celebrate! The Complete Jewish Holiday Handbook. It was published in the year 2000.

Mine didn't even come from that website. Around 2015 or so academics began questioning not only the dates we had been using but regarding what was usually believed to have occured (i.e., had there even been a battle to win back the Temple or did a dying Seleucid king graciously give it back?).

The date was moved up to 164, to coincide with new data on the death of Antiochus as no battle in 165 can be confirmed. You are aware of the "no battle, Antiochus just gave it back and the Hasmoneans lied" theory that is gaining in several quarters, no?

I merely pointed to the later article in MyJewishLearning that uses the new dates to save time. Most of what I have is in books. You can, obviously, find multiple articles on that site using data that has not been updated or support various views since Judaism is a spectrum. I was only using it to show you a recently published article that employ the 164 date.

I am on my way to a trip to prepare for Purim. While I don't have time for anymore, I want to thank all of you for this short break. It's been fun.

peacefulpete

Have a na'im trip

Jeffro

The date was moved up to 164, to coincide with new data on the death of Antiochus as no battle in 165 can be confirmed.

Antiochus certainly didn’t ‘just give it back’ after he was dead, and he died in (what is now part of) Iran. The timing of the rededication of the temple is consistent with 165 BCE, though the actual events are certainly in question. Whether the battle of Emmaus actually happened as described (in 165 BCE), it was (purportedly) led by Lysias, while Antiochus was going to Ecbatana, so there isn’t a need to move the event based on the death of Antiochus (who wasn’t at Jerusalem in or around December of either year).

I merely pointed to the later article in MyJewishLearning that uses the new dates to save time.

My conclusions are not based on the citation from MyJewishLearning. I simply cited that site to demonstrate that there is variation in what sources say. But it is not at all new for sources to vacillate between 165 BCE and 164 BCE for the rededication of the temple.

KalebOutWest

The dates do not fluctuate. New information has changed since that older article on MyJewishLearning you searched for to back up your insufferable need to correct everyone on this forum and belie your lack of education.

There has been an influx of new data since the beginning of the 21st century that set the date to 164 BCE.

Hanukkah commemorates the Maccabean (Hasmonean) victories over the forces of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (reigned 175–164 BCE) and the rededication of the Temple on Kislev 25, 164 BCE. --https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hanukkah

And while I hate to use it, the data has also found its way here:

Timeline:
164 BCE: The Jewish revolt against the Seleucid monarchy is successful in recapturing the Temple, which is liberated and rededicated (Hanukkah).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanukkah

I never said there was new information regarding where Antiochus died. I wrote that we may have a new picture of who the man was when he died, which is very different. He still died in the year I claimed:

Antiochus IV Epiphanes , (born c. 215—died 164 BC, Tabae, Iran), Seleucid king of the Hellenistic Syrian kingdom (175–164 BC). --https://www.britannica.com/summary/Antiochus-IV-Epiphanes

This is what I wrote. If you don't personally agree with the majority of academia, guess what? Academia doesn't care.

Jeffro

Your claim that the dates don’t fluctuate is simple wrong. For example, in the JW Pay Attention to Daniel’s Prophecy (1999) they use 167-164 but in their other literature, all before 2015, they use 168-165.

You can apologise now, you smarmy so-and-so.

peacefulpete

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?

peacefulpete

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

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

Share this