Posts by KalebOutWest

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.

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 individual in the context of the vision was originally Michael the Archangel.

This is an apocalypse, and as such it is a “vision” or a scene in which the players are tropes borrowed from previous Jewish compositions, stories and writings to fit in with the Hasmonean narrative.

The Hasmoneans had just defeated the Seleucids and were now doing something the Jews had not done since before the Babylonian Exile, namely rule themselves with their own king. In the Book of Daniel, this is pictured with a series of visions, as if the events are settled via spirits in heaven. The idea came from the Jews being exposed to Persian ideas, especially their demonology and the concept that world events were thus destined to the outcome to the battles between the forces of good and evil.

While not named or necessarily Michael at the time of composition, at Joshua 5:13-15, before receiving dominion over Jericho (Joshua 6:2), Joshua only receives victory when the captain of God’s forces appears before him “like a son of man” in a vision.

The “son of man” is, sort of, “messianic,” only there was no messianic hope or theology at the time of its original writing. If that seems contradictory it is only because most are unaware of the evolution of Judaism and when and how the concept of the Messiah came about. It has a lot to do with the Hasmoneans.

When Judas Maccabeus led the Jews to victory against the Seleucid forces, that autonomous act of anointing and installing a new line of kings over the Jews led to a mixed history. There was freedom, yes, but the Hasmoneans abused it and their own people. They started to twist the Jewish religion in favor of the abusing Hasmonean rulers who engaged in forced conversions of those who were refusing to submit. Their own political intrigue, which included murder, blinded them to the rise of Rome, which was inducing the Herodians to trick its way into the Hasmonean line by way of its own subtleties. This was done by an arranged marriage.

When all was done, the Herodians had control of Judea, the Romans of the territory, and the Hasmoneans had nothing. The Jews were once again enslaved to new masters.

Always searching for answers in disbelief, the Jews turned to the Scriptures. The Mosaic Law, teaching that the kings must only come from the tribe of Judah, was claimed to be the sticking point. The Hasmoneans were all Levites. As the suffering under the Herodians and the Romans increased, a new theology stitching together texts where the promised coming Golden Age for humankind and the promises to David that one of his “anointed” offspring will always sit on his throne were developed into the Messiah theology of Judaism.

The Hasmoneans originally ended Daniel with the 12th chapter, where Michael “stands” and it spells doom for the Gentile nations but prosperity for the Jews. Oddly this did not happen this way. While the books of 1 & 2 Maccabees are quite accurate, historically speaking (even 2 Maccabees with all its religious references), due to the failure of that dynasty the books were never considered for the Jewish canon. The story of Chanukah that is celebrated is not the victory of Judas Maccabeus over the Seleucid army but of God miraculously supplying enough oil to light the Temple menorah for all 8 days of the first celebration of the re-dedication.

And the Book of Daniel itself? It is not even given prophet status. It is considered one of the Writings or Nevi’im. This was partially due to the fact that there was no “Daniel” who preached as a prophet to Israel or Judah (even in the book the character is not sent to prophesy to the Jews). The “prophet” is often considered a folk hero.

In the end, the great Jewish scholar Rashi who died in 1105 attributed the “son of man” of Daniel 7:13 to messianic expectations. So eventually, it has evolved to become that figure.

Today, many Jews do not believe that the concept of a Jewish monarchy that will rule all Jewish people and the world is compatible with justice. Therefore they do not believe in a “personal” messianic figure as part of the messianic hope.

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

It appears, in editing a space, I lost my entire comment. I will return when I can to add it again. I don't know what happened.

9

The Akedah

by peacefulpete in

the genesis 22 episode, often referred to as the akedah (aqueda) ie "the binding" is a topic worthy a masterclass in textual and theological development.

a comprehensive discussion regarding this development would involve volumes and still leave much to be uncertain.

in short, the internal contradictions the narrative offers as it appears in genesis have inspired millennia of interpretive expansions and elaborations.

KalebOutWest

I understand the strict D.Hypothesis as it was originally formulated has fallen out of favor, especially outside the US.

I see some of these views as possibly threatening to US/Christian/Western society. They are based on the understanding that we Jews were likely not descendants of an "Abraham" type figure and thus the Canaanite or original Lavant people.

It puts forth the view that there were no 12 Tribes of Israel and no "Lost 10 Tribes."

It also posits that "King David" and "selected tribe of Judah" narrative were inventions.

While Jews seem to swallow these things because you can do a lot when you realize you are talking about your own culture and looking back millennia (and are not surprised anymore on how your own people or anyone's manipulates history or tall tales in their favor), this doesn't work well for a civilization that totters on the belief that these things are true as a Cecil B. DeMille flick.

Western civilization loves carving its idols, whether in its mountainside rocks or especially those mental recesses where they can be denied that they do not exist and can be the most dangerous and do the most damage. God is so real that it is the central figure of the culture war in the United States that neither side can do without. Who are the theists or the atheists without this God? Who are the Fundamentalists/Conservatives and the Liberals without him?

It's not as if this data has not reached the shores of the US. It is here and has been here for some time. It is that it is Jewish and scary because it is coming from a place of theological evolution, an evolution moving at a speed that is disturbing to Westerners.

God went from Entity to Ineffable Entity over the course of 2000 years in Judaism. But went from Ineffable Entity to Ineffable, period, in the next 400, and then from Ineffable to Non-personal, to Questionable, to "legally" non-existent in less than 50. Who would think that rabbis would ever agree on a large scale theologically across so many spectrums that as long as a Jew doesn't worship another God that "not believing in God" is still "O.K." in the history of Judaism? But that is where we are today.

But such views like this cannot work in a society where the status quo is "us-against-them." If there is no such thing as "God," what is there to argue about? What is there to believe in? What is there not to "not" believe in? Who and what are you in a society that defines you by where you stand in this great culture war then?

So no one is going to seriously buy into something that begins to pick away at the very floor they stand on unless they don't realize it will make them vanish. That might be why it's not rushing out to be widely accepted. People need God, even anything to disbelieve in. They need Judah so they can have King David, so he can be the forefather of Jesus, so they can have their religion, so they can have their political view that they stand for or against.

They need the 12 Tribes so they can be part of the "Lost 10 Tribes" so that America can be special or they themselves can be part of a special race that replaces the Jews because they believe the Jews are special.

But we are not. We aren't even what people thought we were.

So people keep all this quiet, less they disappear too, no matter what side you are on, no matter what you believe or don't believe. Don't look behind the curtain.

9

The Akedah

by peacefulpete in

the genesis 22 episode, often referred to as the akedah (aqueda) ie "the binding" is a topic worthy a masterclass in textual and theological development.

a comprehensive discussion regarding this development would involve volumes and still leave much to be uncertain.

in short, the internal contradictions the narrative offers as it appears in genesis have inspired millennia of interpretive expansions and elaborations.

KalebOutWest

I personally cannot speak to much of what has been written here.

I was taught some of the Document Hypothesis but only as in "that is what we used to teach," almost sort of the way the Governing Body offers "new light" except that this is due to new archological scholarship.

While Jews do talk about the "Deuteronomist" author(s), this is for a very limited portion of the Torah, actually limited mostly to verses found only in Deuteronomy itself. The rest of the Torah is actually divided, along with the work of other books of the Hebrew text, namely into the work of the Israelites and the work of the Judahites. The reason for this is that it is no longer believed that we were ever originally one people, or that the Biblical stories originally came from a singular culture. It appears that what we have is a story politcally manipulated by the Judahite people to read the way it does, and instead of the Torah and the Nevi'im (Joshua-Judges-Samuel-Kings) being separate collections written by different writers at separate times, the Torah and Nevi'im is actually one collection produced by one redactor or set of redactors, namely the Jedahites. They merely collected some legends and folktales from Israelites who merged with them after the Assyrians destroyed their northern territory.

While this does not mean that there are no more separate composers like "J" and "E," etc. There are, and in fact, there are a plethora more. Many others have been identified since the original Document Hypothesis was developed in the mid-18th century. "J" and "E" have now, for example, been merged, and they are considered the probable source of the Akedah.

While this doesn't mean that some of what was posted above isn't correct or that some of what many scholars have posited is no longer applicable. (You did great work, PeacefulPete. I should have teach my Sunday Hebrew school for me. My kids would love you.) What it does suggest is that we have to make room for what we now are coming to understand and that this could mean that we might have to abandon some very long-held theories.(I can hear some people crying in the backrow. It's okay. Let it out.)

Whatever the critical data shows doesn't change the traditions or applications much, nor does it makes our previous study a waste. To illustrate, of interest are the midrash traditions where Isaac does indeed seem to die and Satan plays a trick on Sarah coming to her as her son only to announce he is dead which causes Sarah's own death. There are a few versions of this. But the particular one with "the Satan" is one of the few where one can see the development of a personification that leaped from Judaism to Christianity, only to be abandoned once the character takes off as Jesus' archenemy. (See Sarah and the Akedah for more interesting details of the narratives themselves.) Jews had only a short history of demonology that came from our exposure to Persian culture but became lost with the introduction of great sages like Rambam (Maimonides) who introduced rationalism and a return to stricter adherence to traditional Judaism which has no demons. It was believed that good and evil should be morally attributed to God in the end according Scripture.--Job 2:10.

I think the Akedah is less a story about a deity and more a story about us. Where do we come from? What do we do? Do we sacrifice our children ever so blindly on altars? We do it when there is a call for secular war. We do it when there are politcal demands when we vote someone in office that our young people don't like and make them live by laws they don't agree with or can't live by. We do it when we take away their rights by these laws. We do it when we carelessly do things in this generation that makes it difficult for the young to inherit the world we live behind. We sacrifice our children on altars to our gods all the time, gods that we blindly follow because we believe in them, but gods they might not, whether it's the God of the Bible or the gods of our disbelief.

It's a shame we don't put up more of a fight for our children before we sacrifice them to something we think is best for them. There are no angels to call from the heavens to stop us. There will be no rams to wonderously appear to take their place. If we don't learn from myths or legends, then we obviously aren't smart enough to face reality.

47

The First Holocaust

by nicolaou in

please, please ignore all the scientific impossibilities here, that's not what this topic is about.. let's make the assumption as many christians do that the bible is historically accurate.

the noachian flood actually happened a little less than 4,500 years ago after which eight adults stepped off the ark to repopulate the planet.. that means that approximately 60 million lives had been snuffed out, a holocaust by anyone's estimation.

as if that isn't horrific enough just think about the babies, toddlers and young children god killed.. he drowned all of them, every single one.

KalebOutWest

For joey jojo:

I will offer below two good sources to help answer your questions. But first a brief explanation.

Judaism is a spectrum of belief and practices, not only among its groups of peoples such as the Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, Secular Humanist, Renewal, and Post-denomantional, but also among each individual person that allows for constant change.

Can an atheist change their beliefs and still remain an atheist? Can a Christian change theirs and still remain a Christian?

Unlike Westerners who are usually identified and self-identify according to strict creeds or general static set of definitions, Jews can and will switch what they believe and practice among this spectrum as they live and grow and age employing a diverse cornacopa of traditions and ethics to without losing their place in the tribe.

This doesn't work for, let's say a Jehovah's Witness who cannot stop believing in Jesus one day and still expect to remain a Witness. But a Jew can indeed go from theist to atheist one day then agnostic the next and then decide that they are something called an "ignostic" the next day, only later to start the cycle again, never to loose there place or membership in Judaism.

How? Why?

Open Judaism: A Guide for Atheists, Believers, and Agnostics by Rabbi Barry L Schwartz (it's available as an Ebook too)

and a YouTube series about charts--yes, charts, by Dr Matt Baker (yes, he is also a Jew). How will charts help? Click on his playlists and watch his Introduction to the Bible series at

https://youtu.be/KqSkXmFun14?si=wZEd1MLmnnPrQ1QY

and his Religious Studies series.

https://youtu.be/7wtBBVnyX3A?si=IC4y7Yw-sGBCDS8k

Many, many hours of stuff that will explain things.

Now, I am off to be "enslaved" by resting on the Jewish Sabbath.

Shabbat Shalom.

47

The First Holocaust

by nicolaou in

please, please ignore all the scientific impossibilities here, that's not what this topic is about.. let's make the assumption as many christians do that the bible is historically accurate.

the noachian flood actually happened a little less than 4,500 years ago after which eight adults stepped off the ark to repopulate the planet.. that means that approximately 60 million lives had been snuffed out, a holocaust by anyone's estimation.

as if that isn't horrific enough just think about the babies, toddlers and young children god killed.. he drowned all of them, every single one.

KalebOutWest

You are right NZ.

There was a Jewish philosopher of the Middle Ages, Rambam, who though persecuted at the time eventually won the Jews over with the prevailing theology that we had to reject the literal reading of any text of Scripture that suggested that God had a body or human traits or features.

While in many of the stories of the Bible, God is merely a player no less or greater than any other, this went often forgotten by the rabbis and they began to take it literal that God had a body. Rambam taught the opposite, that the writers made a character out of God in our human image to make God pliable for the purpose of each storyline. If one takes these literally, Rambam taught, you are actually guilty of idolatry.

Today this, outside of the claim that "God is one," is the only other universal definition that Jews tend to agree upon (if even they are agnostic and atheist), that the Jewish God is "Ineffable."

This is why the idea of a deity flooding the world and "feeling regret" for his actions is not taken literal by the Jews. It breaks Rambam's rule of ascribing anthropomorphic facets to God.

This makes most of Watchtower's theology incompatible with Judaism because it basically advocates worship of a god in human form with human features and qualities.

To many Jews, due to the introduction of teachers like Spinoza and Kaplan and even Sherwin Wine, God is not a person or there is no personal God.

47

The First Holocaust

by nicolaou in

please, please ignore all the scientific impossibilities here, that's not what this topic is about.. let's make the assumption as many christians do that the bible is historically accurate.

the noachian flood actually happened a little less than 4,500 years ago after which eight adults stepped off the ark to repopulate the planet.. that means that approximately 60 million lives had been snuffed out, a holocaust by anyone's estimation.

as if that isn't horrific enough just think about the babies, toddlers and young children god killed.. he drowned all of them, every single one.

KalebOutWest

We are not "enslaved" as JWs teach or you suggest.

A Secular Humanistic Jew, for example, who observes the sabbath or a holy day or places a mezzuzah on their door post is not doing this because they are enslaved to biblical obligations. Humanist Jews don't even believe in the Bible and most are strict atheists.

These are cultural practices, most of which came before they were written down into laws and regulations and given mythical significance. Jews celebrated things like the Passover and the Festival of Tabernacles with totally different meanings before the priesthood attached the meanings you read about them in the Torah. Our culture didn't start with the Bible. It is older. The laws you read in the Bible are not the way the Jews ever did things or do them today.

The Torah is mainly illustrative, not practical. That is why we have the Talmud and responsa.

Our culture is impotant to us. The music, food, dress, languages, holidays and myths and just some of the ways we celebrate our identity as a people.

It isn't slavery to celebrate your culture.