Disillusioned JW:
Daniel was probably speaking of eth[n]ic groups rather than kingdoms when he said "the Medes and the Persians".
Probably. It is also possible that both were listed because both the Medes and the Persians (as Elam) were mentioned in Jeremiahâs list in chapter 25.
it depends upon the purpose of of why Daniel wrote the prophecy
Thereâs no evidence the author of Daniel wrote any âpropheciesâ at all or that âprophecyâ (as distinct from predictions based on other methods such as speculation, trend analysis etc) is even possible. Though presented as âprophecyâ, obvious references to the Seleucid period and the overall purpose of the book negate any need for any reliance on such superstitions. The purpose of setting the events in the Neo-Babylonian period and phrasing the stories as âprophecyâ helps reinforce the parallels between Babylonian and Syrian oppression.
But, I noticed it is many pages long and I am not yet interested in reading all of the pages.
No problem. Unlike âscholarâ, I donât imagine anyone is obligated to read anything in particular. In brief, the first few pages indicate early interpretations by various âchurch fathersâ. More generally, if there were in fact any such calculations at the time that the â70 weeksâ pointed to the âmessiahâ appearing some time around 30CE, you would reasonably expect to see it directly stated at least in Paulâs writings and the âgospelsâ. Instead, what we find is exactly what we would expect to see from a made-up history only loosely based on an actual person: almost no biographical details of Jesus from Paul, more detail from the author of
Mark but no genealogy, fleshed out (but inconsistent) genealogies from the authors of
Matthew and
Luke, and more anecdotes about Jesus added by the author of
John (noting that all of the âgospelsâ are actually anonymous works that were only later traditionally accredited to the named authors).
