Posts by KalebOutWest

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.

i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.

i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.

KalebOutWest

Scholar,

And all I asked is why you can't read Hebrew?

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.

i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.

i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.

KalebOutWest

Why should I, a Jew, whose third language is English, translate a paper from years and years ago out of the language it was primarily written?

Can't you read Hebrew? I can speak English. And several other languages as well as sign in two different forms of sign language.

If you are a scholar, why do you need anything translated for you?

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.

i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.

i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.

KalebOutWest

Scholar,

You would like me to post a dissertation of 270+ pages that is written Hebrew here?

Jewish culteral studies, bubbale. That was some time ago in Tel Aviv. What on earth do you want with that old thing? Do you even know what is on it?

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.

i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.

i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.

KalebOutWest

You may think I am 110% crazy for doing this:

Jeffro is correct. Everything, absolutely everything Jeffro has stated is right.

I teach Jewish cultural studies, and have even done a thesis on VAT 4956.

Though it helps to supply us with the date for the Exile, it is pretty much an boring piece of rock that nobody but Jehovah's Witnesses worry about these days.

It's a significant find, mind you, and it plays a most important point in astronomical and historical science. But so much of this has already been confirmed by other methods.

We may have our differences, but Jeffro's work here is solid. Running a computer simulation and drawing cartoon pictures won't teach you anything new that centuries of watching these things play out in the heavens and using good ole math can't.

Besides, it's written in stone.

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?.

KalebOutWest

I would rather become one of Jehovah's Witnesses once again.

Talk to Jeffro. He apparently claims to be far more versed on any subject than me. This is what you will be left with.

And if it makes you feel better, Jeffro: I am completely wrong. I know nothing. I never have. You are 100% right about everything. Apologies. I am sorry to have ever doubted you.

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?.

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.

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?.

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.

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?.

KalebOutWest

Since they were unable to celebrate the holiday of Sukkot at its proper time in early autumn, the victorious Maccabees decided that Sukkot should be celebrated once they rededicated the Temple, which they did on the 25th of the month of Kislev in the year 164 B.C.E. Since Sukkot lasts seven days, this became the timeframe adopted for Hanukkah.--The History of Hanukkah, MyJewishLearning.com, Italics Added.

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?.

KalebOutWest

Why describe the powerful angelic Prince as 'like a son of man' which has been argued effectively to imply human frailty in Daniel.

I think that is a bit of a Christian idea. Jews and the Hasmoneans didn't have the same view.

First, the term chebar actually means "like" as in "similar to" or "about" as in "something around the likes of." It doesn't refer to the quality of the subject, as if the subject is the same or necessarily shares something with what is being described.

It appears at Daniel 5:31 in reference to telling an age:

And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about [chebar] sixty-two years old.

The vision is connected to the ideas in chapter 12. But Michael is neither an "angel" in the Christian sense* nor the "messiah." Michael is the "dominion" or the authority or autonomy that the Hasomonean kings believed God had given them once they had received their Temple back from Antiochus. He is kind of like an excuse, to put it lightly.

Recall, these are Levites. Some of the Hasmoneans were part of the priesthood, from which came the high priest. So when time came to anoint a king, they knew the Torah and what is said about restrictions regarding rulership. They should have stopped their own family from taking the crown.

Instead, they anointed their brothers and put them on the throne. The high priest, the one who was supposed to know and uphold the Law for the people, was the only one who could anoint the king if there was no authorized prophet to do so. No one else could. Thus it was corrupt from the beginning.

How does one, therefore, legitimize an illegitimate dynasty that, according to Torah, is against the Law?

You write an oracle (as if you were a prophet) in which the Ancient of Days gives power to what was at the time believed to be the Prince guaradian of the Jews: Michael the Archangel.

In the vision of Daniel 7, the vision is of four succeeding kingdoms: Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece.

When we get to verses 7-8, we come to the kings of the Seleucid empire. The little horn is Antiochus IV Epiphanes who usurped the throne and persecuted the Jews.

The writing of the apocalypse, of course, is contemporary with the events, usually after. When the Jews receive access to their Temple again and freedom to worship, the vision of "the son of man" that gains access to "the Ancient of Days" is written.

Is this "son of man" figure "the Jews"? Yes. Is he also "Michael the Archangel"? Yes, because he represents the Jews. Is this the Hasmoneans? Yes, because this was how they legitimized breaking the Mosaic Law to anoint their own brothers as kings when they as priests knew Levites had no right to rule as kings. Is this the "messiah"? There was no "messiah" teaching officially yet, but eventually the Hasmonean view of "Michael" was abandoned because of what they did and the Jews accepted a general "messiah" view of the text.

By the time the Herodian Temple stood, the Greek version of Daniel was popular reading. There were many explanations of Daniel, many views of "the son of man." And there was finally a full-fleshed out belief in the Messiah.

What there wasn't was a belief in the Hasmonean dynasty or its original ideals, teachings, or even the way it celebrated Chanukah (for a time then and after rabbis tried to stop it). The Christian movement and the Bar Kokhba Revolt only made it loose favor in the eyes of the Jewish sages and teachers. The Book of Daniel barely made it into the Hebrew canon.

___

*-I could spend too much time trying to reframe something that would only leave people so confused. There are very few concrete things in Judaism. Angels is not one of them. Suffice to say: Christian angels are one thing, Jewish angels another. Apples, oranges. Best to leave it there for now.

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?.

KalebOutWest

Final Redactions and Greek Additions to the Texts

When the Hasmonean Dynasty was coming to the close, the Daniel apocalypse itself proved to be a failure. There are signs that the writers began to see themselves not as mere composers of political intrigue (which is what most apocalyptic authors are) but perhaps a new school of inspired prophets to Judea.

Scholars see this in the final redactions to the text of Daniel, the very “prophecies” that fascinate groups like the Watchtower religion.

These are time calculations for the coming Golden Age, the revival of the Solomonic Era or prosperity. Believing they were not merely the inheritors but the very ones to bring it forth into the world, chapter 12 of Daniel has them at the forefront of a future world where all Gentile forces fall before them as the powers of heaven literally drop them to their feet in an all out “end-of-the-world” scenario.

At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish [for the Gentiles] such as has never occurred since [the Gentile] nations first came into existence. But at that time your people [the Jews] shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book.--Daniel 12:1.

The “great prince” of Joshua chapter 5, now in the person of Michael the Archangel, having received dominion, has “restored the kingdom to Israel” to the Hasmonean Dynasty. (Compare the question asked of Jesus at Acts 1:6) Three dates are set for the date of the Golden Age. One at Daniel 12:7, another at verse 11, and then at verse 12.

Why? Because the Hasmoneans for the most part were quite honest about history-keeping. Not totally, but not given to the normal amount of superstition that others were. The apocalypse of Daniel, though a hidden language of tropes that for a time the Maccabean fighters had to employ due to oppression, eventually could be more open once they won more and more of their freedom. While no one is perfectly honest, they had quite a bit of candor due to the fact that their pride blinded them to even their own self destruction.

The “end of days” or Golden Days that they write about was believed to begin with the first Chanukah celebration and the death of Antiochus in 164 BCE, when the Temple was liberated and rededicated. (vs 7) When one date for their “end” did not come, they merely left that “prediction” in the text and just added the newly updated one. (vs 11)Then when that one failed, they added the recalculation beside it. (vs 12) Eventually the Hasmonean Dynasty completely failed, and so Daniel is put to rest, to “rise” for his own reward “at the end of days.”--vs 13.

Why were Greek additions added to Daniel, namely the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, Susana and Bel & the Dragon. While the last two are very entertaining on their own and likely circulated independently because of this before being added, the reason for all three being attached to Daniel might be the same reason there are additions to Mark. It is clear that Daniel comes to a swift and sudden end in the book named after him. We don’t know what happens to our protagonist. It is a very cryptic ending for a book that begins with wild stories of our hero. Is that it? Just some tales of numbers and days? Then he dies? Did somebody tear off the ending? Did we lose it or something?

So it seems natural that these stories fit the bill when the Greek Septuagint was developed. Daniel needed a proper ending. The rabbis likely did not appreciate the book or its meanings very much, but there was very much interest in it and its signs and visions. It was the “Revelation” of its day. Did it really predict the future and foretell the “end of days”? People really wanted to know. So it was prepared "properly" for the wider readership who used Greek as their main language of reading the Jewish text.