Ozzie - your prediction on page 1 was spot on. It reminds me of a fight that I once went to where a hockey game broke out. The usual crowd of apologists and dreamers always arrives right on queue.
Simple Question Re 1914
by Slidin Fast 540 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Disillusioned JW
scholar is correct in saying that 'Porphyry was the first person to introduce the idea that Daniel was not a work of the 6th century but was written much later in the time of the Seleucids in the 2nd century". I wish that the correct works of Porphyry were extant so that I could read (in an English translation) what he said about Christianity. He might have had some strong evidence against many of the core claims of Christianity and its NT Bible. Likewise I wish that the complete works of Celsus survived, for the same reason. Celsus "was a 2nd-century Greek philosopher and opponent of early Christianity" (that quote is from Wikipedia).
Regarding " 'higher criticism' of the Bible" I am fascinated by it. Consider for example something which The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary On the Bible: Including the Apocrypha; with General Articles [copyright 1971 by Abingdon Press, and of my favorite scholar books by 'Christendom', an ecumenical book authored by Jews, Protestants, and Roman Catholics] says on pages 436-437 as part of the evidence of the book of Daniel being authored under a false name and having been written no earlier than the 2nd century B.C.E.
'There are a number of a number of Persian and Greek words in the text. E.g. the name of one of the musical instruments in 3:5 transcribes a word that is not only Greek but found with this meaning nowhere in Greek literature before the 2nd cent. B.C. The name "Chaldeans" is also used in a special sense it did not acquire till long after the Exile (see below on 1:3-5). The fact that the book in the Hebrew Bible is placed among the Writings rather than the Prophets indicates a late date; if it had been in existence before ca. 200 B.C. it probably would have been included rather among the Prophets, as it now stands in the English Bible. Writing ca. 180 Jeshua ben Sira lists the heroes of the faith from Enoch, Noah, and Abraham through Nehemiah (Ecclus. 44-49) but makes no mention of Dan., evidently because he does not know of the book about him. On the other had Dan. and his 3 companions are mentioned in 1 Macc.2:59-60, probably composed late in the 2nd cent., and fragments of the book apparently produced ca. the same time have been found among the Dead Sea scrolls.' The next paragraph in the book provides further evidence that the book was written about the year 164 B.C.E, including pertaining to the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Other portions in the article about "The Book Of Daniel" (by George A. F. Knight) in the commentary book provide further evidence in support of a date of about 164 B.C.E for the book of Daniel.
Jeffro, I very strongly think you are correct in saying the following. "Setting aside the exaggerated end times claims about a hypothetical future, there are no details in Daniel requiring knowledge beyond around 164 BCE. (Daniel was in circulation by the end of that century so writing couldn’t have been much later than 164 B.C.E either.)
Christian re-interpretations that some of the elements refer to the Roman Empire, to Jesus, or to the modern era are incorrect and all the elements in Daniel can be identified with events up to the 2nd century B.C.E." The only reservation I have about those words is that the Roman Empire and its dissolution seem to well fit the Daniel chapter 2 in regards to the description of the iron legs and of feet of the image.
In contrast the WTS' interpretation of a so-called Anglo-American world power being indicated is highly problematic to me. That is largely because the USA (after it won it war of independence) and Great Britain were never combined together as one kingdom, one nation, or even one world power. The USA was even at war with Britain during the war of 1812 when England invaded the USA and attempted to take it over, something I first learned about in social studies (history) classes in public school (first learned in high school, if not first learned in grade school). Though in later times the USA has often been allied with Great Britain (including defending it militarily during WW1 and WW2) it has not really been part of an Anglo-American world power.
When I was an active strongly believing JW I thought that the WTS' interpretation of part of Daniel chapter 2 as pertaining to the Anglo-American world power was a mainstream idea of modern Christianity. After I started doing independent research upon the Bible I was shocked to learn that other than the JW no Christian group (other than perhaps some very some small groups) have that idea, not even the SDA have that idea.
Jeffro, you are correct in saying the following. "Everything in Daniel 11 and12 can be readily associated with events up until the Seleucid period (apart from the exaggerated claims about a hypothetical future that aren’t real at all). It has nothing at all to do with “our day”. "'It’s funny how the threshold for evidence that JWs (and many other religious people) expect from others is a lot higher than for the ‘evidence’ they accept for their own dogmatic superstitions."
-
Disillusioned JW
Corrections: Where I said "... and of my favorite scholar books ..." I should have said "... and one of my favorite scholarly books ...". Where I said "There are a number of a number of Persian ..." I should have said "There are a number of Persian ...". Where I said "... perhaps some very some small groups ..." I should have said "... perhaps some very small groups ...".
-
Disillusioned JW
I also have another book by Abingdon Press, one called The Abingdon Bible Commentary Edited by Eiselen, Lewis, and Downey [Copyright 1929. The book says "Although the contributors were requested to have before them the English Revised Version, reference is made to important variations from the American Standard Version, especially as noted in marginal readings, so that the COMMENTARY will be equally available with any of the English translations.] In the article "By Professor HERBERT T. WILLETT" about the book of Daniel, pages 746-747 of the commentary book say the following.
'Daniel appears to have been written in the days of the bitter persecution of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, who reigned from 175 to 164 B.C. In his efforts to compel the faithful in Jerusalem to abandon their practice of the Mosaic precepts and their worship at the Temple, he partially destroyed the city, defiled the sanctuary, and rendered the maintenance of service impossible until it was cleansed. ... The Maccabaean movement was a patriotic effort to save the national faith. ... Another effort was made by the author or authors of the book of Daniel. ... They believed firmly that within a brief time (referred to often as three years and a half) the trouble would be over, the tyrant dead, and the happy age of deliverance and triumph for the Jewish people would come. In setting forth this hope and making this appeal, they employed the venerable figure of Daniel, a Jew of ancient days ....
The second section, chs. 7-12, is devoted to a series of visions ... in which .. the four kingdoms--the Babylonian, the Median, the Persian, and the Macedonian or Grecian--are described in terms which leave no doubt of their object, the description and doom of the "little horn," Antiochus the tyrant. The author employs the device of having the hero of the book predict the events of the years from his own time in the past to the period in which the book was prepared, that device being explained by the sealing up of the revelation till the events predicted were about to be fulfilled. This plan of pseudepigraphic authorship and the employment of the form of prediction for the narration of history was common with the apocalyptic writers, and was a most effective means of accomplishing their purposes (see p. 188a).
Type of Literature. The book of Daniel belongs to the apocalyptic literature of the Bible, a type of writing that took form in the later periods of persecution of the Jews and Christians, from about 200 B.C. to 150 A.D. ...
Perhaps no book in the O.T. contains more definite indications of its date than does the book of Daniel. ... (The arguments commonly used to prove that Daniel is the author are outlined and criticized in Eiselen, The Pslams and Other Sacred Writings, pp. 256-263.)At the present time scholars are generally agreed that the arguments usually brought forward to establish the claim that Daniel wrote the book are in no sense conclusive. On the other hand, they have discovered evidence of various kinds to convince them that the book is a product of the Maccabaean crisis, during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, who, as has been pointed out, sought to stamp out Judaism.'
Page 747 of the book says something which scholar would likely appreciate. There the book says the following. "The principle idea of the book is the ultimate triumph of the kingdom of God." [The use of italics in that quote is that the book for the quoted sentence.]
-
Jeffro
Disillusioned JW:
scholar is correct in saying that 'Porphyry was the first person to introduce the idea that Daniel was not a work of the 6th century but was written much later in the time of the Seleucids in the 2nd century".
Actually, he’s quite incorrect. Porphyry is a known early source for considering interpretations of Daniel by Christians, but not ‘the first person to introduce the idea’. Obviously the original author of the work knew when the work was first written, along with any number of other Jewish sources that may now be lost.
No sources prior to the mid-second century BCE reference Daniel (no, not even Ezekiel, who actually refers to the Ugaritic Danel among two other ancient non-Jews) and it was introduced later than the closure of the ‘Prophets’. Proponents of an earlier writing of Daniel must appeal to magical thinking to ‘explain’ the obvious reference to the Seleucid period.
-
Jeffro
Disillusioned JW:
The only reservation I have about those words is that the Roman Empire and its dissolution seem to well fit the Daniel chapter 2 in regards to the description of the iron legs and of feet of the image.
People like to retrofit any number of things that ‘seem to well fit’ vague writings, including to the present, but it is an established fact that Daniel was definitely written prior to the Roman period, and there is no basis for deferring to magical thinking. The ‘iron legs’ definitely refer actually to the Seleucid period.
-
Jeffro
(Last reply was in a hurry. More accurately, the legs and feet in Daniel chapter 2 refer to the Macedonian and Seleucid periods.)
-
Jeffro
Disillusioned JW:
Page 747 of the book says something which scholar would likely appreciate. There the book says the following. "The principle idea of the book is the ultimate triumph of the kingdom of God
It isn’t particularly surprising that a (quite dated) Christian commentary provides a Christian interpretation that agrees with other Christian interpretations of Daniel (noting that not all Christian denominations ascribe the significance of Daniel to ‘our day’). Daniel was not written by or for Christians. Rather, Christians reinterpreted the text to fit their own beliefs. To the extent that Daniel is about ‘triumph of God’s kingdom’, it is still in relation to what the Jews expected to happen shortly after the rededication of the temple in 165 BCE, and nothing to do with ‘our day’. But it remains the case that only two verses of Daniel actually refer to a future kingdom of God.
-
Disillusioned JW
Jeffrey I noticed you said the following. "Actually, he’s quite incorrect. Porphyry is a known early source for considering interpretations of Daniel by Christians, but not ‘the first person to introduce the idea’. Obviously the original author of the work knew when the work was first written, along with any number of other Jewish sources that may now be lost." I reply to that I say the following.
I realize that someone before Porphyry might have said that f'irst person to introduce the idea that Daniel was not a work of the 6th century but was written much later in the time of the Seleucids in the 2nd century', but Porphyry is the earliest known person to mention that claim.. I didn't think I needed to meticulously specifically say in my post that in known extant manuscripts he is the earliest known example of someone making that claim. Or are you saying that there is an extant document which identifies someone else as making the claim before him? The writer of Daniel while knowing his/her writing was written in the 2nd BC.E. did not make the claim (as far as anyone today knows) that his story was written in the 2nd century B.C.E.
It is like when history books say a particular person made a particular scientific discovery. They mean our knowledge the said person was the first, even though obviously someone else might have been first without there being a know extant record mentioning someone else.
--------
You also said the following. "... it is an established fact that Daniel was definitely written prior to the Roman period, and there is no basis for deferring to magical thinking." In reply to it I say the following.
Yes Daniel was written before the time period that Rome became an empire and before Rome conquered the Seleucid empire and/or the Greek empire. But the Roman kingdom was in existence prior to 180 B.C.E. Not only that, but Rome defeated Antiochus III the Great (the Seleucid king) in the Roman–Seleucid War of 192 B.C.E. – 188 B.C.E. Furthermore, Antiochus III was the father of
Antiochus IV Epiphanes! [See and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman%E2%80%93Seleucid_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_III_the_Great ].The latter web page mentioned above about the war says the following. "The fighting ended with a clear Roman victory. In the Treaty of Apamea the Seleucids were forced to give up Asia Minor, which fell to Roman allies. As a main result of the war the Roman Republic gained hegemony over Greek city states and Asia Minor, and became the only remaining major power around the Mediterranean Sea." it would thus have been humanly possible, by purely naturalistic means, for someone (such as the writer(s) of the book of Daniel), using a knowledge of history, to have have correctly deduced/predicted that Rome would eventually also conquer the Ptolemaic Kingdom, - and become an empire. No magical thinking would would been required, though a favorable element of random chance might would have been required.
Likewise I believe that some of the prophets in the OT Bible, using knowledge of history, could have made some correct predictions pertaining to military conquests. I also believe that some of the apparent predictions in the OT Bible by various so-called prophets were those kinds of predictions. Especially when one considers that the Bible says there were a great many of people in biblical times who claimed to be prophets and who made predictions, it is thus feasible that some of the predictions by some people came true. A number of the prophetic books of Bible (books which are claimed by the Bible to be inspired) focuses on those of people who made predictions which came true. Those who were deemed false prophets were excluded from having books of the Bible named after them. The compilers of the Bible chose those books that they thought were inspired of God, but which in fact were the product of human reasoning (and perhaps some element of chance in their favor).
I even think that the prediction (recorded in Mark, Matthew, and Luke) attributed to Jesus saying that Jerusalem (and its temple) would be destroyed, could have actually been made my Jesus (using purely naturalistic means of deducing what would happen).
I even think it is possible that the biblical prophets might have used a meditative practice which enhanced the power of their subconscious mind to detect patterns world events, and then present the conclusions to heir conscious mind - even in visions. Because I think such might be possible I have even tried do such myself. On one occasion I even managed to to induce myself to have a vivid vision (as if watching a TV broadcast) while I was fully awake! It was the result of an effort to see and hear what the leader of the PLO would announce at the UN. In the visions I saw what looked like him at the UN. Why he said in my vision (as best as I could remember it) didn't come true, but it showed me it is possible to develop the ability to see visions of the kind which are attributed to prophets. Maybe with practice I could come to have some accurate visions. The following morning while lying in bed (whether I had already woken up by the time or whether I was dreaming at the time I don't know), I heard a voice call out my name - though I was the only person in my home at the time. the voice sounded like it came from outside my mind. I known it must have been from my mind (I'm a scientific naturalist), but it sounded external to me. The experience scared me. Note, the prior night I said to myself "time me me the future" (before having the vision). However I stopped the experiments for fear that the process might rewire my brain to the point where become crazy (including seeing the visions and hearing voices uncontrollably.------------------
You also said "But it remains the case that only two verses of Daniel actually refer to a future kingdom of God." My reply is the following.
Even if only two verses in Daniel specifically say they are about a future kingdom of God, that doesn't mean the story they are about isn't also about a proclaimed future kingdom of God. The two verses are a conclusion to one of more visions in the book. They reveal what the theme was of one or more visions in the book, and very possibly even for the book as a whole. The succession of kingdoms represented by an image made of metals and clay (with the latter kingdoms being described as inferior to the prior ones) leads up to the climatic claim of those kingdoms being removed from existence by the kingdom of God. I am not saying that the book of Daniel says that such kingdom is of the Christian sense (with Jesus Christ as king), nor am I am saying such a kingdom will come. [I am an atheist after all.] Obviously the book was written by a Jewish non-Christian, but one with hopes for an anointed one of God to rule in Jerusalem as the representative of God.
I think there were many Jews in the latter 2nd century B.C.E. and in later times who thought that at least one of the visions in the book of Daniel had the theme that YHWH God would eventually bring a kingdom which would conqueror gentile empires and kingdoms and rule the earth (likely with the headquarters in Jerusalem). I tried to see if there were Jewish commentaries which say such, but Jewish commentaries are far less numerous in the USA than Christian commentaries are. I haven't found more than a few religious Jewish commentaries of the Hebrew Scriptures (even of texts which can be read online in English).
-
Disillusioned JW
Revision: I ran out of time in revising my prior post. The paragraph about me having had a vision should say the following.
"I even think it is possible that the biblical prophets might have used a meditative practice which enhanced the power of their subconscious mind to detect patterns in known past world (and local) events, and then present conclusions based upon such to their conscious mind - even in the form of mental visions with mental audio. Because I think such might be possible I have even tried do such myself.
On one occasion I even managed to to induce myself to have a vivid vision (as if watching a TV broadcast without a TV) while I was fully awake (siting upright without a support for my back)! It was the result of an effort to see and hear what the leader of the PLO would soon announce at the UN. In the visions I saw what looked like him at the UN. [Hours before the experiment on the internet I watched prior TV videos of him giving a speech at the UN]. What the vision of him said in my vision (as best as I could remember the speech) didn't come true, but it showed me it is possible to develop the ability to see visions (and hear in my mind along with the vision) of the kind which are attributed to prophets. Maybe with practice I could come to have some accurate visions. The following morning while lying in bed (whether I had already woken up by the time or whether I was having an audio only dream at the time I don't know), I heard a very loud voice call out my name - though I was the only person in my home at the time. the voice sounded like it came from outside my mind. I know it must have been from my mind (I'm a scientific naturalist) instead of being something supernatural, but it sounded external to me. That is the only time in my life such has happened. The experience scared me. Note, the prior day (before having the vision) I said to myself "show me and tell me the future". However I stopped the experiments for fear that the process might rewire my brain to the point where become crazy (including seeing the visions and hearing voices uncontrollably. That was scary to m, so I told myself to "end the program" that was in my mind. For several days following those experiences I seemingly woke up to the sound of my alarm clock going off, but when I would check the alarm clock I noticed it was not going off. I deduced that I had an audio-only dream of my alarm clock going off and that the experience then woke me up. That was annoying to me and scary to me. I continued to tell myself to "end the program" that was in my mind and the problem stopped several days after it started.
If I had believed in God or some other spirit and I had asked the spirit to show it self to me and to speak to me I probably would have had a vision (or audio-only hallucination) of the seemingly the spirit speaking to me. I think the biblical prophets had such experiences. The Bible says YHWH God spoke to them in dreams and in visions.