Posts by kepler

30

Impact on the receiving end of "What the Bible Really Teaches"

by kepler in

several years ago my fiance had a traumatic experience and decided to return to being a jw.. .

as a result she insisted that we read "what the bible really teaches".

then later i agreed to take instruction with house visits by an elder and his associates on weekends with the same purpose.. .

kepler

Searching for Questions from Readers - Instead I find Walker Percy!

As I indicated at the start of this topic, I took the matter of contacting an authority with my concerns back to a local Kingdom Hall. After sitting through two hours of services one Thursday Februrary 23 rd , I was given an interview with an elder and two of his colleagues for about an hour on Saturday March 3 rd . After listening to some of the issues I had raised and being unable or unwilling to comment, they did direct me to contact the Patterson, NY headquarters via the official websites.

In the course of searching for a means to submit my concerns to the parties to which you had said they should be directed, I ended up locating and visiting several Jehovah’s Witnesses official websites. On one of the primary links, Walker Percy is quoted in an interview with the American Medical News – 21 November 1977.

"The whole world really blew up about World War I and we still don't know why. Before then, men thought that utopia was in sight. There was peace and prosperity. Then everything blew up. We've been in a state of suspended animation ever since . . . More people have been killed in this century than in all of history."—Dr. Walker Percy, American Medical News, November 21, 1977.

Walker Percy was a Louisianan with roots of many generations, an essayist and novelist with medical training, a Roman Catholic convert, whose books and novels I have read almost in entirety. Back in the early 1980s I once tried calling him up when I lived in New Orleans, but couldn’t reach him; often shopped at the Maple Street Bookstore in the Uptown area, but never ran into him. That he was quoted in American Medical News is more from his training as a doctor rather than his practice; he suffered from tuberculosis for much of his life and switched careers.

I can say with assurance that his outlook would not have placed him on the official website voluntarily. But since he is now deceased (1990), he can hardly protest his citation, postcards as rare as they are from where he has gone. I doubt the average website visitor has any idea who he was. Safe to say, his passing just makes him an excellent target for exploitation. But it is another illustration of the manner of behavior which inspired me to seek the Questions from Readers or “write to us” webpage in the first place.

Certainly, Walker Percy made those remarks about WWI – just as he would observe much about American and world history in their entirety. Like Lincoln he observed the Civil War as a test bestowed on America by God for its legacy of slavery – and he also called it aptly the “American Iliad”. Civil War historian Justin Foote was one of his closest and life long friends. He shared Percy's last correspondence directed to him during funeral observances.

While the website seems to indicate Percy was enlisted in the cause, Walker Percy does speak of Jehovah’s Witnesses on his own, however. In my autographed 1987 edition of his book “The Message in the Bottle” in an essay of the same name, Percy writes:

If the newsbearer is a stranger to me, he is not necessarily disqualified as a newsbearer. In some case indeed his disinterest may itself be a warrant, since he does not stand to profit from the usual considerations of friendship, family feelings, and so on. His sobriety or foolishness, good faith or knavery may be known through mien. Even though he may bring news of high relevance to my predicament, yet a certain drunkenness of spirit – enthusiasm in the old sense of the word – is enough to disqualify him and lead me to suspect that he is concerned not with my predicament but only with his own drunkenness. If a Jehovah’s Witness should ring my doorbell and announce the advent of God’s kingdom, I recognize the possibly momentous character of his news but must withhold acceptance because of a certain lack of sobriety in the newsbearer ….

… A third canon of acceptance is the possibility of the news. If the news is strictly relevant to my predicament and if the bearer of the news is a person of the best character, I still cannot heed the news if (1) I know for a fact that that it cannot possibly be true or (2) the report refers to an event of an unheralded, absurd or otherwise inappropriate character. If I am dying of thirst and the newsbearer announces to me that over the next dune I will discover molten sulfur and that it will quench my thirst, I must despair of the news….

But the message in the bottle is not enough – if the message conveys news and not knowledge sub specie aeternitas. There must be, as Kierkegaard himself saw later, someone who delivers the news and speaks with authority.

Is this someone then anyone who rings the doorbell and says “Come!” No indeed, for in these times everyone is an apostle of sorts, ringing doorbells and bidding his neighbor to believe this and do that. In such times, when everyone is saying “Come!” when radio and television say nothing else but “Come!” it may be that the best way to say “Come!” is to remain silent. Sometimes silence itself is “Come!”

Since everyone is saying “Come!” now in the fashion of apostles – communists and Jehovah’s Witnesses as well as advertisers – the uniqueness of the original “Come!” from across the seas is apt to be overlooked. The apostolic character of Christianity is unique among religions. No one else has ever left or will ever leave his island to say”Come!” to other islanders for reasons which have nothing to do with the dissemination of knowledge sub specie aeternitas and nothing to do with his own needs. The communist is disseminating what he believes to be knowledge sub specie aeternitas – and so is the Rockefeller (Institute) scientist. The Jehovah’s Witness and the Holy Roller are bearing island news to make themselves and the other islanders happy. But what if a man receives the commission to bring news across the seas to the castaway and does so in perfect sobriety and with good faith and perseverance to the point of martyrdom? And what if the news the newsbearer bears is the very news the castaway had been waiting for, news of where he came from and who he is and what he must do, and what if the newsbearer brought with him the means by which the castaway may do what he must do? Well, then, the castaway will, by the grace of God, believe him.

When this particular essay was written could have been any time between 1954 and 1975. In one of the later essays, “Notes for a Novel about the End of the World”, (probably among the later essays), he begins: A serious novel about the destruction of the United States and the end of the world should perform the function of prophecy in reverse. The novelist writes about the coming end in order to warn about present ills and so avert the end. Not being called by God to be a prophet, he nevertheless pretend sto a certain prescience. If he did not think he saw something other people didn’t see or or at least didn’t pay attention to, he would be wasting his time writing and they reading. …I am not speaking of a Wellsian fantasy or a science fiction film on the Late Show… Of more concern… Perhaps “Love Among the Ruins” represented the transformation from essay to novel of this idea.

When Walker Percy died north of New Orleans across Lake Pontchartrain in 1990, he was part of the Saint Benedict monastic community still short of full ordination.

51

Has anyone read Thucydides - beside the author of Daniel?

by kepler in

belshazzar was the son of nabonidus the king.

darius i was a persian king who reigned after cyrus from 522 to 486 bc.

he succeeded the son of neriglissar, labashi-marduk who reigned for only nine months and was put to death in a conspiracy.. .

kepler

AnnOMaly,

---------------------------

1.) Regarding the Aramaic word 'achashdarpan. Again, you seem to be arguing that this word cannot be applied to any of the Babylonian administrative offices - as if Babylonians didn't have such a thing as governors over their provinces. If the writer of Daniel finished the book in Persian times or even Greek times, why couldn't he have used a term that he thought closely described the types of position delegated by Nebuchadnezzar and Darius the Mede, and that readers of the time would readily understand?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Is it Aramaic? I took that out of the Hebrew text and there were uses. Let's go over those again.

Dan 3:2 King Nebuchadnezzar then summoned the satraps, magistrates, governors, councillors, treasurers,

Dan 6:1 It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps over his kingdom for the various parts.

Dan 6:5 the presidents and satraps hunted for some affair 7-8, realm, magistrates, satraps....

Ezra 8:36 They also delivered the king's decree to the the king's satraps and the governors

Esther 3:12 ...according to all that Haman commanded, was written to the king's satraps and to the governors..

While some of Ezra was supposedly written in Aramaic, the above quote is not included in that section. Hebrew. Esther was written in Hebrew.

If Daniel finished the book in Persian times or Greek times he would be over 100 or 200 years old respectively. Darius the Persian is the one who is on record for establishing satraps. It is nice to think that the author of Daniel used satraps to simplify the story. Other things he leaves us largely clueless about.

--------------------------------------------------

2.)Regarding 90 AD. Yes, it looks like your encyclopedia is referring to the now largely abandoned hypothesis that a Council of Jamnia finalized the Hebrew canon.

For myself, it is interesting to note the exceptional nature of Daniel's exclusion from among the prophets.

Yet Daniel was counted among the prophets in the LXX and also (I've just learned) in the Qumran texts. OTOH, the Masoretic texts put Daniel in with the Writings. Whichever way his book was categorized, Daniel was included in the canon long before 90 AD.

-------------------

Even as I write you this reply, I am going to my copy of the JPS Hebrew-English TaNaKh - and to look up lines in Daniel I have to go to the section called Kethuviim or The Writings. Kethuviim begins on page 1413 with Psalms, followed by Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Job, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther and DANIEL on page 1803. He is followed by Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles, none of which mention him or"Darius the Mede". I gave two instances to support this arrangement not of recent origin: Ecclesiasticus and Luke.

The Neviim begin with Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos... Jonah, other minor prophets but no Daniel.

Regarding Daniel's acceptance or not at Jamnia, I am inclined not to drag my feet on this one. For if I maintained that the book just had to have been admitted into the canon at that point, I would be grasping at the same sort of straws that characterize arguments for Darius the Mede or Belshazzar son of Nebuchadnazzar. But Daniel's presence in the LXX or at Qumran does not necessarily settle the matter of canonicity either. What does so is an actual council or decree that explicitly says so. We have early councils that set Christian canons, and then revisions during the Reformation and counter reformation. To identify a similar event for Daniel, we would have to study rabbinical judaism history further.

Discussions of the Septuagint or LXX is like taking aim at a moving target. It started out as the Torah the Law, but it expanded to 47 entries. According to Jaroslav Pelikan in "Whose Bible Is It?", Daniel was number 47 following Ezekiel. Maccabees I & II were 20 and 21. Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus ( mentioned above) were 30 and 31. Judith was book 18.

Let's talk a little about Judith. The first verse starts like this: "It was the 12th year of Nebuchadnezzar who reigned over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh...." Is there something wrong with this? Nabopolassar wiped Nineveh off the map. Not very historical. And that is probably one among many reasons it is not in the canon today. Someone must have raised objections similar to those we are engaged with discussing about Daniel now.

But all the same it was in LXX.

One of the editors of the JPS TaNaKh edition I mentioned above, also wrote a study aid called "How to Read the Jewish Bible". When the book addresses Daniel, it begins on page 212: "Daniel is a short book that boasts some unusual features.... Some of the book's claims are at odds with historical fact: (about which you have already heard)..."Someone living in the Babylonian exile would not have made these kind of mistakes."

In chapter 8 of Daniel, "the continuation of the passage deals, in not so veiled language with Antiochus Epiphanes, the Greek king who in167 BCE took the unprecedented step of converting the Jerusalem Temple into a temple of Zeus, while prohibiting central Jewish practices. ..Other sources tell us that he suspended the regular Temple offerings; this is reflected when Daniel hears mention of the current crisis, "the regular offering, ... forsaken because of transgression (v. 13). Thus,someone wrote down the vision after 167 ( when Antiochus took control of the Temple) but before 164 (when the Hasmoneans restored the Temple following the Maccobean victory).

In verse 19 of that chapter, an angelic figure tells Daniel : "I am going to inform you of what will happen when wrath is at an end," ... this verse is picking up on the vocabulary of of Habakkuk 2:3: ... Thus, even though the Book of Daniel presents this passage as a new prophecy, it relates to an older prophecy."

Later, Marc Zvi Breitler writes: "As a scholoar I am curious whether the ancient Jews took these stories as 'real history' or recognized them as legends."

Well, there is more discussion, but I am weary of typing - and I lost most of this post on the first try. But to me, it would seem irrational not to examine what Jews make of their own scriptures before we make decisions based on what 19th century Anglo Protestant "visionaries" thought they meant based on their tangential reasoning.

30

Impact on the receiving end of "What the Bible Really Teaches"

by kepler in

several years ago my fiance had a traumatic experience and decided to return to being a jw.. .

as a result she insisted that we read "what the bible really teaches".

then later i agreed to take instruction with house visits by an elder and his associates on weekends with the same purpose.. .

kepler

Question 40: Where are JW Hospitals and Schools?

In an on-line post dated 03/11/2011 regarding the topic – Matrix Moment a correspondent wrote:

My matrix awakening was while at a meeting just after the devastating Haiti earthquake. Many of the brothers were inquiring about a special collection for the victims and an announcement was made that "there will be no special collection for the victims of the Haiti earthquake. Anyone who wants to make a donation for this cause, please make a deposit in the World Fund box and the Society will put the money were the need is greater". I was shocked in disbelief. The coldness and uncaring way this was presented placed me wide awake. The same Holy Spirit who has not been able to give this Org a correct date for Armagedon is correctly going to separate money donated for Haitian victims and direct the monies to that cause. I was disconnected immediately and forever.

---

In the midst of my instruction via “What the Bible Really Teaches”, Haiti was struck by a severe earthquake 12 January of 2010. In the following Saturday morning session at my house, the elder in charge of instruction cited this as proof that we were near the end prophesied, but he was extremely vague about how else we should respond other than to get to the bottom line of the book we were reading through. That day I had asked specifically what relief action was being undertaken through the KH. As for myself I made several donations to charities that had feet on the ground; and in the case of Catholic Relief Service, I could hear about what they were doing via National Public Radio interviews on site a day or two after submitting something via phone. It wasn’t much in the face of what had happened, but connection with the suffering of others could be made in Christ’s name or simply via a secular non-government organization. The fate and welfare of others was not entirely ignored.

The previous fall when I had asked my fianceé the same root question ( Where are the hospitals and the schools? Where are the evidences of the works of mercy or charity? ), defensively she said that I would have to ask someone else, someone with authority to answer such perhaps impertinent questions. She fobbed it off to the instructors with the pamphlet “What the Bible Really Teaches”. I posed this one a couple of times before I finally got an answer.

Generally speaking though, I could see though where the organization took seriously the 24 th chapter of Matthew, but what of chapter 25? What was being done for suffering on Earth? What was being done to make sure that the next generation had as good a chance as the previous or better?

To me and my generation with whom I had shared the experience of private parochial schools, there actually had been vocational direction to professional careers such as teachers and doctors; either outside of or within religious orders with active missionary efforts for such purposes. In contrast, as an observer via WTBRT, I was struck by the lack of regard for suffering on Earth or the belief that we were put on this Earth to make it any better than the shape in which it was found. If we were not to be called to ministry, then that at least was our calling before God – so I was led to believe.

When I attended a 2010 Memorial service notified of its imminence with a broadside that said it would include an important message, I discovered that this entailed a litany of how much suffering was going on on Earth and how it was a proof that the end of the old “system of things” was sure to come. Hence, increased tempo in events such as tsunamis and earthquakes restore faith rather than challenge it, no?

Then the matter came up again after the Haiti quake, it was when an overseer had accompanied the elder instead of his regular crew.

The two had differed on a couple of matters brought up. On the matter of Babylon’s destruction, the elder was sure it was a done deal in 538 BC because “What the Bible Really Teaches” had just explained it. The overseer interceded to say that actually Jehovah had destroyed Babylon in his own time. If it meant anything, what I was doing was picking at knits and the book was still right and I was wrong to question it. But regarding schools and hospitals, the overseer cited Jesus himself: “The poor you will always have with you.” Either from Matthew 26:11 or Mark 14:7.

The remark, at the occasion of the anointing at Bethany, was elicited by someone protesting the use of expensive oil which was spilled on the floor and could have been worth 300 denarii had it have applied to the care of the sick or poor.

But Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Why are you upsetting her? What she has done for me is a good work. You have the poor with you always, and you can be kind to them whenever you wish, but you will not always have me here. She has done what she could, she has anointed my body beforehand for its burial. In truth I tell you, whatever throughout all the world the gospel is proclaimed, what she has done will be told as well in remembrance of her.”

The words are, as near as I can tell, identical in Matthew.

But were those words, as the Overseer had alleged, a justification for no schools or hospitals? Is it that the hour is so late and the work so urgent that these things must wait now near the elapse of the first tenth of millennial reign? How many generations now have there been pioneers and publishers, but a ministry without any works?

Or is it the reasoning somewhat akin to that of the rift between socialists and socialist revolutionaries: that improved conditions only delay violent overthrow? Shortly after Russell announced that October 1914 was the arrival time of his prophecies and American clergymen observed that, true enough the world was involved now in a great war, there was a movement within the nation to stage a national day of prayer to resolve the European conflict now on-going since mid summer. The Watchtower replied to this with disdain, citing that God’s judgment was final. There could be no turning back.

The book of Jonah is among the shortest of the Old Testament, but I wonder if by Russell it was ever read?

51

Has anyone read Thucydides - beside the author of Daniel?

by kepler in

belshazzar was the son of nabonidus the king.

darius i was a persian king who reigned after cyrus from 522 to 486 bc.

he succeeded the son of neriglissar, labashi-marduk who reigned for only nine months and was put to death in a conspiracy.. .

kepler

AnnOMaly,

RE: Satraps are a Persian convention. ... Nebuchadnezzar should not have had any. &

Perhaps it's a problem of translation rather than concept. Are you arguing that governors or 'princes' over provinces or towns could not exist before the Persian hegemony?

----------

In searching on satrap in concordances and hebrew on line OT texts, I found 3 other instances beside the one in chapter 3. Interestingly enough, several of the sources tended to ignore the existence of the Dan 3 usages. Anyway, the convention appears to be used in the NWT as well as the Hebrew (language) text. To expedite things, here are the other three instances copied from an on-line Biblical source.

"At that time those who had come from captivity , the returned exiles, offered burnt offerings to the God of Israel, twelve bulls for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven lambs, and as a sin offering twelve he-goats; all this was a burnt offering to The Lord. They also delivered the king's commissions to the king's satraps and to the governors of the province Beyond the River; and they aided the people and the house of God." (Ezra 8:35-36 RSV)

"Then the king's secretaries were summoned on the thirteenth day of the first month, and an edict, according to all that Haman commanded, was written to the king's satraps and to the governors over all the provinces and to the princes of all the peoples, to every province in its own script and every people in its own language; it was written in the name of King Ahasuerus and sealed with the king's ring." (Esther 3:12 RSV)

"It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty satraps, to be throughout the whole kingdom; and over them three presidents, of whom Daniel was one, to whom these satraps should give account, so that the king might suffer no loss. Then this Daniel became distinguished above all the other presidents and satraps, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom.Then the presidents and the satraps sought to find a ground for complaint against Daniel with regard to the kingdom; but they could find no ground for complaint or any fault, because he was faithful, and no error or fault was found in him. (Daniel 6:1-4 RSV)

In all these instances the Hebrew text used the same word: achshdrphni - depending on number or case - Hebrew is not a language I have studied. But you can go to an on-line Hebrew OT with the phonetic transliteration and identify the word that is used repeatedly and translated as "satrap". Satrap is a Persian convention, not Babylonian. Lest we lose track of what this is all about, I should reiterate that Nebuchadnezzar can have all manner of governors, but he is not going to name them satraps - unless he is a satrap of the Persian government himself. If Darius the Mede supposedly appointed all these satraps before Cyrus showed up, then the Mede bureaucracy must have worked as fast as lightning. Funny how it is Persian Darius that gets the credit for all that elsewhere.

--------------

Regarding 90 AD

--------

To determine what my 25 year old encyclopedia was talking about, I was able to locate reference to a rabbinical meeting around that date in Jamnia or Javne. While on line sources were not in agreement whether anything regarding setting a canon was determined there, the wikipedia source that was most adamant about the absence of canon issues decided also weighed in for late date of Daniel (wikipedia jamnia). A University of Sheffield historian disagreed, but had more interesting things to say about other matters (below).

However, the issue of 90 AD obscures a couple of things. This was a hypothesized date for admission into the canon, not the writing of the book itself. A majority of adherents for late date would be no later than 165 BC. Secondly, it is also an issue of WHERE in the canonical structure the book resides.

In the first case, there are other books beside Daniel that were written relatively late for which decisions had to made whether they should be part of the OT canon. Despite much of merit in Maccabees or Sirach or Wisdom of Solomon, though they appeared in the 2nd century BC, they were not included, save as tack ons to the Septuagint or "deutero-canonical" recommendations of Jerome or others, distinct from the NT scriptures, but providing further detail about things prior. Esther does not mention God a single time, but makes it into the Canon. The book of Enoch is the non-canonical book on which the brief arguments of the Epistle of Jude are based. Maccobees have martyrdoms described in terrifying detail and a campaign to prevail in the name of faith without the assist that Joshua supposedly had - and they won.

It is in Sirach or the Ecclesiasticus that the structure of the Hebrew Scritpure is spelled out in chapter one:

1 [The Prologue of the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach.] Whereas many and great things have been delivered unto us by the law and the prophets, and by others that have followed their steps, for the which things Israel ought to be commended for learning and wisdom; and whereof not only the readers must needs become skilful themselves, but also they that desire to learn be able to profit them which are without, both by speaking and writing: my grandfather Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the law, and the prophets, and other books of our fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on also himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom; to the intent that those which are desirous to learn, and are addicted to these things, might profit much more in living according to the law. Wherefore let me intreat you to read it with favour and attention, and to pardon us, wherein we may seem to come short of some words, which we have laboured to interpret.

For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. For in the eight and thirtieth year coming into Egypt, when Euergetes was king, and continuing there some time, I found a book of no small learning: therefore I thought it most necessary for me to bestow some diligence and travail to interpret it; using great watchfulness and skill in that space to bring the book to an end, and set it forth for...

--------------

Quoting the Sheffield source:

In the Hebrew Bible these books are divided into three divisions: the Law, the Prophets and
the Writings. The Law comprises the five books of Moses. In the ‘Prophets’ are included the
books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings (the ‘Former Prophets’) as well as the books of
Isaiah, Jeremiah. Ezekiel and the ‘Minor’ Prophets (the ‘Latter Prophets’). The ‘Writings’
contain firstly Psalms, Proverbs and Job; secondly a group of five books called the ‘Five
Scrolls’, Canticles, Ruth. Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther; thirdly the books of Daniel,
Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles.

[continuing]

I still don't think that many people following this issue take much notice of the concept that OT and NT have secondary structure. If they did, they would not be as susceptible to the argument that dreams and numerology in one book about a questionably historical figure by an anonymous author could trump the words uttered by Christ on the cross in another book so that they would have to be re-written to conform (NWT Luke 23:43). When I happened to notice this discrepancy and reported that's "what I learned in school a few days later" in December of 2009, I got my own equivalent of disfellowshipping without ever having had gone through the formality of having joined.

The reason for this arrangement is uncertain. It does not represent the order in which the
various books were written, nor is it an arrangement in accordance with subject-matter.

..it appears from Lk. 24: 44 that our Lord knew the threefold division of the
Hebrew Bible, for when He speaks there of ‘the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the
psalms’, the last word may refer not merely to the Book of Psalms hut to the whole division
of the ‘Writings’ in which the Book of Psalms took first place. There is evidence, indeed, that
this threefold division was known in the second century B.C., for the translator of the
apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach) from Hebrew into Greek was plainly acquainted with it,
and makes more than one reference to it in the preface to his translation, written about 132 B.C.

F.F. Bruce, “The Canon of Scripture,” Inter-Varsity (Autumn 1954): 19-22.
President of I.V.F. (1954-55) and Head of the Department of Biblical
History and Literature in the University of Sheffield

-----

For myself, it is interesting to note the exceptional nature of Daniel's exclusion from among the prophets. Jonah abides there along with the minor prophets - and Ezekiel who was supposedly a contemporary of Daniel residing in Babylon is included as well. Many would regard Jonah as fiction today; and then others have argued that Daniel was excluded because he did not do his work in Judea. Maybe some of the same questions arose in those days that we are reviewing now.

51

Has anyone read Thucydides - beside the author of Daniel?

by kepler in

belshazzar was the son of nabonidus the king.

darius i was a persian king who reigned after cyrus from 522 to 486 bc.

he succeeded the son of neriglissar, labashi-marduk who reigned for only nine months and was put to death in a conspiracy.. .

kepler

AnnOMaly ( True, eccentric or mean? f, E or M? You've probably addressed that one before),

An initial note:

I think we are both falling into the advocates pro or con for the historical case concerning the book and identity of Daniel. At some point, we will soon exhaust the available information at hand. And I suggest that for the sake of all that we adjourn our discourse for Thursday. I suspect we have an audience pro and con themselves, plus those who are weighing what we say. If something I say is intemperate, I would rather it came out on a different occasion.

But before adjourning, I would like to answer a couple of your queries. My enumeration of arguments "for" was not really an endorsement. I wanted to collect a number of arguments in support of Daniel's historicity which individually were all very much a stretch. When you do risk assessments you multiply individual probabilities together and get lower and lower likelihoods.

Satraps are a Persian convention. They ran "Satrapies". How many Darius instituted varies from source to source, but Nebuchadnezzar should not have had any. Your argument about N's territories to the west is a stretch. He didn't take over Egypt. But the Persians did - and they were the ones that had an Empire that stretched to India. Whether the LXX entry was a lapse or not, I cannot say, but it would be consistent with a ceremony involving satraps, translated more universally than "Danel" or "Daniel".

I checked the encyclopedia entry several times. 90 AD. How one determines the canonical process for either OT or NT? Good question.

As for submissions to the Questions to Readers, I'll just mention I had some open discussions about most of them with their readers already. Some of my correspondents, however, have made some prophecies of their own about what the reply will look like, documented, detailed or not.

51

Has anyone read Thucydides - beside the author of Daniel?

by kepler in

belshazzar was the son of nabonidus the king.

darius i was a persian king who reigned after cyrus from 522 to 486 bc.

he succeeded the son of neriglissar, labashi-marduk who reigned for only nine months and was put to death in a conspiracy.. .

kepler

AnnOMaly ( True, eccentric or mean? f, E or M? You've probably addressed that one before),

An initial note:

I think we are both falling into the advocates pro or con for the historical case concerning the book and identity of Daniel. At some point, we will soon exhaust the available information at hand. And I suggest that for the sake of all that we adjourn our discourse for Thursday. I suspect we have an audience pro and con themselves, plus those who are weighing what we say. If something I say is intemperate, I would rather it came out on a different occasion.

But before adjourning, I would like to answer a couple of your queries. My enumeration of arguments "for" was not really an endorsement. I wanted to collect a number of arguments in support of Daniel's historicity which individually were all very much a stretch. When you do risk assessments you multiply individual probabilities together and get lower and lower likelihoods.

Satraps are a Persian convention. They ran "Satrapies". How many Darius instituted varies from source to source, but Nebuchadnezzar should not have had any. Your argument about N's territories to the west is a stretch. He didn't take over Egypt. But the Persians did - and they were the ones that had an Empire that stretched to India. Whether the LXX entry was a lapse or not, I cannot say, but it would be consistent with a ceremony involving satraps, translated more universally than "Danel" or "Daniel".

I checked the encyclopedia entry several times. 90 AD. How one determines the canonical process for either OT or NT? Good question.

As for submissions to the Questions to Readers, I'll just mention I had some open discussions about most of them with their readers already. Some of my correspondents, however, have made some prophecies of their own about what the reply will look like, documented, detailed or not.

51

Has anyone read Thucydides - beside the author of Daniel?

by kepler in

belshazzar was the son of nabonidus the king.

darius i was a persian king who reigned after cyrus from 522 to 486 bc.

he succeeded the son of neriglissar, labashi-marduk who reigned for only nine months and was put to death in a conspiracy.. .

kepler

AnnOMaly,

Regarding:

------------------------

Teaming together the decisive battle of Carchemish (where the Babylonians pulverized the Egyptian army), Berossus' testimony and the book of Daniel's own date (1:1), Daniel was most likely taken in 605 BCE, the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiakim's 3rd year (accession counting).

In Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year (603/2 BCE), he had his 'image dream' and promoted young Daniel to one of the top jobs. By the time of the siege of Tyre, Daniel would have been an accomplished, experienced chief 'sage' of (as you said) at the very minimum 30, but more likely (IMHO) closer to 40. (Cp. Dan. 1:4 - yeled can be rendered 'young man,' e.g. cf. 1 Ki. 12:8, 10, 14.)

-----------------------------

Let's explore that early arrival for a bit and how Daniel became well known as an accomplished sage by the time he was 40 as the siege of Tyre gets underway. In his second year of King N's reign and in the second chapter, Daniel interprets the dream and the King Nebuchadnezzar falls prostrate before Daniel and says (Dan 2:47-49) "Your god is indeed the God of gods, ..." and then conferred high rank on him and gave him handsome presents. He also made him governor of the whole province of Babylon and head of all sages of Babylon. ...Daniel himself remained in attendance on the king.

So in the ensuing years he was a close councilor of the king, years in which Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem twice and ultimately destroys the city and Temple. Those must have been really compelling reasons for Ezekiel to extoll his wisdom and virtues to the King of Tyre.

In chapter 3 the narrator ( Daniel) sets the scene with Nebuchadnezzar next setting up a statue of himself sixty cubits high before (NWT and NJB) "the satraps" and governors... Wait a minute. Satraps? When was this ceremony supposed to have occurred? Just a few verses ago, Daniel got this enormous encomium and concession...? Others have commented on the orchestra, but "satraps"?

To review,

1. Since Wiseman in the Annals of Chaldean kings noted an early Jerusalem raid, we just have to assume that Daniel was taken.

2. That since Daniel interpreted a dream when he was an adolescent, he immediately became governor of Babylon and designated several of his young comrades to assist him.

3. Since Daniel mentions a Darius the Mede, we insert him into history along with 3 Persian Dariuses.

4. Since Daniel says that Belshazzar was king, we let that ride because the Hebrew "mlk" (like Arabic malik) has been used for lesser figures.

5. Since Daniel says Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnazzar, the guy he converted in chapter 2, we now have an iron-clad case that he is related to Nebuchadnezzar via a maternal line.

6. Nearly 70 years after Daniel arrived in Babylon he was interpreting wall handwriting for Belshazzar during a festival night; not the New Year's but the one in the midst of the battle for Babylon under siege by the Persians 6 months later. That's the night that is going to count against Babylonians according to my copy of "What the Bible Really Teaches". Never mind that his "father" Nebuchadnazzar did quite a turnabout on Daniel and leveled Jerusalem.

7. And Daniel being such a sage, wrote this book in two languages, sometimes in 3rd and sometimes in first person, depending on whether he wanted to give an account of his own dreams, evidently. That must have increased his sage reputation as well. Oddly enough he writes the early parts in 3rd person Aramaic and the later parts in first person Hebrew.

In reviewing these findings, I happened to notice a footnote in the NJB. Regarding the beginning of chapter 3, it notes that the Septuagint (LXX) and the Theodotion texts add that Nebuchadnezzar erected the statue in his 18th year. LXX further adds :having subdued towns and provinces and all the inhabitants from India to Ethiopia." I think they mean Egypt's neighbor Kush. I think Nebuchadnezzar would have had to push through Persia to have obtained those bounds. Or he might have been a Persian himself.

According to my Funk and Wagnalls encyclopedia, Daniel was accepted into the Hebrew canon in 90 AD.

Aside from Daniel the book, however, there is evidence of Belshazzar from Babylonian sources. The Nabonidus cylinder speaks of him as the king's son and the Babylonian annals speak of his rule in the absence of his father at Tayma. But both the Verse of Nabonidus (composed by a Babylonian Marduk priest) and the Cyrus Cylinder disregard him. Both are archeological evidence.

Finally, there are the discrepancies between Daniel and Isaiah, even though much of what is said in Isaiah does not match up exactly with historical evidence either. But let me explain.

Whether you believe it is Isaiah looking ahead a century and a half in chapters 40-55 or an anonymous Deutero-Isaiah reporting of the reign of Cyrus, in Isaiah Belshazzar, Darius and Daniel are unmentioned. Cyrus has a prominent protagonist role. The material of this section is definitely a break from the first 39 chapters which conclude with Isaiah warning Hezekiah what will someday follow Babylonian emissaries, but the next 15 chapters seem to be written with the expectation that Cyrus was about to arrive in Babylon, with the consequences in store for the city and its rulers and an opportunity for hostages to go home.

This post is no doubt over-long already. But if someone wishes to look at the texts related to Cyrus, Naibonidus, plus Isaiah, check out

Babylonian and Persian accounts compiled by www.livius.org

The Chronicle of Nabonidus

gives contemporary information about the rise of Cyrus and the erratic behavior of the Babylonian king Nabonidus, who leaves Babylon and spends several years in the oasis Temâ in Arabia. His son Bêlsharusur (the biblical Belshazzar) acts as regent but is unable to ward off the approaching Persian danger. Finally, Nabonidus returns and fights. But it is in vain; Cyrus is welcomed as representative of the supreme god.

The Verse account of Nabonidus

is a poem by one of the priests of the Esagila, the temple of the Babylonian supreme god Marduk. It shows that the religious establishment of Babylon was upset because the important New Year's festival (Akitu) had not been celebrated in Nabonidus' absence. The author of this libel does little to hide his contempt for the impious madman.

http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon06.html#Ezra

Second Isaiah...

2

How many JWs does it take to ....

by 00DAD in

.

q: how many jws does it take to .... figure out the meaning of the word "generation"?

they've had millions of people working on it for about a century and they still haven't figured it out yet!!!!

kepler

How many JWs does it take to ...

...screw in a light bulb?

... What does the Watchtower say?

... distribute its publications?

All of them.

... write them?

None of them.

... filll up the anointed class?

Who's counting?

51

Has anyone read Thucydides - beside the author of Daniel?

by kepler in

belshazzar was the son of nabonidus the king.

darius i was a persian king who reigned after cyrus from 522 to 486 bc.

he succeeded the son of neriglissar, labashi-marduk who reigned for only nine months and was put to death in a conspiracy.. .

kepler

Well, doing some more background research. AnnOMaly had inquired about the lineage of Belshazzar on his mother's side.

One piece of data is the mother of Nabonidus, described variously as 94-104 years old when she died. One brief account provided by a genealogical organization, something of a skit:

Daughter of King Assurbanipal ll and Queen Ashursharrat [ASSYRIAN]. I was born in 649, in Harran. I married Nabu-balatsu, a Prince of Babylon.

He was a good man and the marriage was successful. We had two sons. Nabonidus, King of Babylon NN of Babylon. I lived 98 years. I witnessed the fall of the great Assyrian Empire and the establishment of the Babylon Empire by Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar ll. I lived long enought to see my son Nabonidus sit on the throne of Babylon, well, that took awhile. All of Nebuchadnezzar's immediate successors had to be murdered first, but that is another story.

In an on-line encyclopedia article he refers to his otherwise unknown father, Nabu-balatsu-iqbi, as "wise prince." I don't have a fix on whom he married. But so far, if we were to take the line of reasoning of the"son of" argument, Daniel might have been able to say "son of Assurbanipal". This does not help Daniel.

In commentary connected with the Nabonidus Chronicle, it is pointed out that Nabonidus had returned from Tayma (Arabia) in time for the new year (April 2nd - TODAY!) festival, but the battles with Cyrus were several months later. It is argued in this source that Nabonidus had dismissed Belshazzar and taken field command. Then, it was also suggested elsewhere that Belshazzar might have passed away earlier anyway. 50 -50. Belshazzar excused from duty and available to party - or Belshazzar had a legitimate alibi for absence.

OFF in another direction.

The discussion of Danel and the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 draws me back to explorations leading to my first post on this topic. I was fascinated by the way Bible quotes and Watchtower paragraphs were used in the 1934 Yearbook. But it was in the introductory article of that publication where Joseph Rutherford provides a summary or framework around the movement. Beside his distinctive style, a number of things leaped out at me or stuck in memory for later investigation. But I suspect that someone with life-long involvement might have noticed even more.

Yearbook 1934 Excerpt beginning on Page 21:

..The beginning of creation was his beloved Son, whose first title is the Logos. (John 1: 1; Col. 1: 15;Prov. 8: 22-29). Thereafter all things created were created by Christ Jesus as the active agent of Jehovah.(Eph. 3: 9). Among the creatures created was Lucifer, who was made the overlord of man and all other creation of earth.

God created the earth as a place for man’s home, and the earth shall abide forever and be inhabited by those who love and serve Jehovah God.--Isa. 45-12,18; Eccl. 1: 4.

The Bible is God’s Word of truth and is given as a guide and for the instruction of man in the way of righteousness, and it contains the expressed purpose of Jehovah; and those who study it may ascertain his purpose.--Isa. 46: 9-12; 55.11; John 17: 17.

God created man of the dust of the earth, breathed into his nostrils the breath of lives, and man thereby became a living, moving creature called a "soul". (Gen.2: 7) The first man Adam was perfect, and it was his duty and obligation to obey God. (Deut. 32 ¯ 4) He was plainly informed by Jehovah that a willful violation of His law would mean death. Lucifer, the overlord of man, rebelled against God, and Adam, the first man, [p. 22 Year Book] followed the lead of Lucifer in sin and was sentenced to death. (Ezek. 28: 13-15; Gen. 3: 3-19). The power to produce children was exercised by Adam between the time of his sentence to death, which deprived him of the right to live, and the time of his actual dissolution; hence all of his children inherited the result of that death sentence and all the human race have been born as sinners. (Rom. 5: 12) Jehovah God changed Lucifer’s name to that of Serpent [ Sidebar: Was Rutherford reading the Bible backwards?], meaning deceiver; Satan, meaning opposer; Dragon, meaning destroyer; and Devil, meaning the slanderer of God. Ever since Satan has been the opponent of Jehovah God and the persecutor of all who serve God.

---------------------

Sidebar on Ezekiel 28 – Against the King of Tyre (using New Jerusalem Bible text)

1. The word of Yahweh was addressed to me as follows, ‘Son of Man, say to the ruler of Tyre, “The Lord Yahweh says this:

2. Because your heart has grown proud, you thought, I am a god; I am divinely enthroned far out to sea. Though you are human, not divine, you allowed yourself to think like [a] god.

3. So you are wiser than Danel; no sage as wise as you!

4. By your wisdom and your intelligence you made yourself a fortune, you have put gold and silver into your treasuries.

5. Such is your skill in trading, your fortune has continued to increase,…

11. The word of Yahweh was addressed to me as follows,

12. Son of man, raise a lament for the king of Tyre. Say to him, “The Lord Yahweh says this: You used to be a model of perfection, full of wisdom, perfect in beauty;

13. You were in Eden, in the garden of God. All kinds of gem formed your mantle: sard, topaz, diamond, chrysolite, onyx, jasper, sapphier, garnet, emerald, and your ear pendants and spangles were made of gold; all was ready on the day you were created.

14. I made you a living creature with outstretched wings, as guardian, you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked amid red-hot coals.

15. Your behavior was exemplary from the day you were created until guilt first appeared in you,

16. because your busy trading has filled you with violence and sin. I have thrown you down from the mountains of God and destroyed you, guardian winged creature, amid the coals.

17. Your heart has has grown proud because of your beauty, your wisdom has been corrupted by your splendor. I have thrown you to the ground.

Sidebar comments: Do I know what Joseph Rutherford was talking about in the excerpt or do I know what he was doing? Ostensibly the Lord is addressing the King of Tyre, under siege by King Nebuchadnezzar, speaking via prophet Ezekiel. Yet Rutherford in selecting and quoting the verses would never let the reader guess from context. But let us suppose even that Rutherford were right about whom the Lord was addressing. Would this not throw a wrench [28:16-17] into the events of 1914?

---------------------

[1934 YB continued] The Scriptures further teach that Satan the Devil challenged Jehovah God to put on earth any man that would be faithful and true to God at all times, Satan claiming that all men, under certain conditions, would curse God to his face. (Job 2: 1-9) From that time until the present the human race has suffered woe, sickness, sorrow and death. In order that all creation might be able to intelligently determine who is supreme, and from whom the blessings of life and happiness proceed, and who is the just, wise and loving one, Jehovah or Satan, the great Jehovah God permitted or suffered Satan to put forth his endeavors to prove his wicked challenge, declaring His purpose in due time to bring the knowledge of the truth to all creation and to fully vindicate his own name. (Ex. 9: 16, Leeser) From the very beginning of man’s experience Satan has carried forward an organized opposition to God and to righteousness, and continues so to do, and will continue so to do until he and his organization are destroyed.

Early in the history of man Jehovah God made promise and stated this promise to Abraham that he [1934 Year Book p 23] would raise up a seed which would redeem the human race from death and through which seed all the families and nations of the earth should have opportunity for blessings. That promised seed is Christ, the Anointed of Jehovah God.--Gen. 12: 1-3; 22: 18;Gal. 3 : 16-29. [Sidebar: To be honest, I do not see a promise of release from death in the verses cited in Genesis. What Abraham knew of the contents of Galatians, I cannot say, but reading that specifically, I did not see a release from death there either. If someone would like to pick up on that (e.g., it's elaborated by Paul elsewhere), and considering the season, I will certainly listen]

In due time Jehovah God sent his beloved Son, the Logos, to earth, who was made a man or human, instead of a spirit, that he might be the redeemer of mankind and the vindicator of Jehovah God’s name.--Heb. 2:9; 5:7-9; John 3:16; Phil. 2:7.

When on earth Jesus was a perfect man, holy, sinless, and therefore competent to be man’s redeemer. (Matt. 1: 18-25; Gal. 4: 4; Luke 1: 35) He began his ministry at the age of thirty years, and testified boldly to the truth, and for this reason was the object of constant and wicked persecution by the religionists of his time, and which religionists caused him to be crucified upon the tree. His lifeblood, poured out in death, provided the redemptive price for the human race.--Matt. 4 :1-9; John 8: 40-44; 1 Tim. 2 : 5, 6, Heb.9: 22-26; 1 Pet. 1: 18, 19.

Jehovah God raised up Jesus out of death and exalted him to heaven and gave him a name above every name and committed into his hands all power in heaven and in earth and made him the Executive Officer of Jehovah to carry out his purposes---Eph. 1:20-22; Heb. 1:3,4; Matt. 28:18, Heb. 2.7,8; 1 Pet. 3: 21,22; Ps 2:6, John 5:21-27, Isa. 9:6,7; Ps. 45:6.

When on earth Jesus emphasized the fact that he came to be a witness to Jehovah’s Word of truth and that he spoke only what God had commanded him to speak. (John 18: 37) Just before his crucifixion especially impressed upon the minds of his disciples that he must die and go away to heaven to receive the

------------------------------------------------------------

The summary continues for a few more pages and the annual report by nations begins on page 27. Clearly, I can't see how he can rationalize his use of Ezekiel other than to manipulate, but I also wonder what others think of this.

Just wondering: Would Rutherford in the rank and file remain a JW in good standing or would he be subject to disciplinary hearing? Or would he just need to clean up his vocabulary?

51

Has anyone read Thucydides - beside the author of Daniel?

by kepler in

belshazzar was the son of nabonidus the king.

darius i was a persian king who reigned after cyrus from 522 to 486 bc.

he succeeded the son of neriglissar, labashi-marduk who reigned for only nine months and was put to death in a conspiracy.. .

kepler

AnnOMaly,

I will try to address as much of what issues you raised as I can. And I want to be on record to say that you are bringing up good debate points.

-----

Going back to:

Ezekiel identifies the date ( if we assume Jerusalem's fall in 586) as the same year as Jerusalem's fall. If this is indeed a reference to the king of Tyre in Ez 28:3 - "So you are as wise as Daniel/Danel; no sage as wise as you." - this would be very early in Daniel's career.

And considering it was Nebuchadnezzar that was laying siege to Tyre, it sounds a little implausible at that. But according to the text of Daniel, this was a period in which Nebuchadnezzar was off track for 7 years, having gone mad.

And you note:

If Daniel, not 'very' early in his career. He would have clocked up about 20 years' experience by then, and in a prestigious, official capacity too (2:48).

-----

Regarding dates we have a double system of book-keeping. The translator of Annals of the Chaldean Kings concedes evidence for a raid on Jerusalem that carried off hostages circa 603 BC, but his chronology has its ultimate destruction in 586. If you are saying that Daniel should be presumed to have a 20-year career with Nebuchnezzar as a sage, let us remember that the Tyre siege and Jerusalem's destruction occurred about the same time. IF Daniel were hauled into Babylon earlier than that (603), he arrived as hardly even an adolescent. According to chapter one, his first sage accomplishment was a 10-day diet plan that made him look healthy to the chief eunuch. Maybe in 586 he was about 33. If he came in later (597 or 586), he was much younger.

Tyre, held by the way. It was Alexander that actually delivered on Ezekiel's prophetic threats.

Now is there any mention of Daniel or Beltazzar in Babylonian or Persian cuneiform records? They certainly mention a lot of other individuals.

Prophecies are indeed murky waters. Over the decades I had not been tracking those of the JW, but I was aware of other people's notions of the layout of history. Even had a weird deju vu dream or two myself. But I would still have to say that the guys that get the best score on these tests seem to be surrounded with suspicions of falsified postmarks on their letters. Occam's Razor.

And, of course, there are other religious traditions that have prophecies of their own. Perhaps we could swap tales with discussions about Catholicism's own apocalyptic tradition - "Our Lady of Fatima". JWs can describe what their expectations from God were for the late 20th century and I can relate the tradition and the outcome of the other. Of the two I like the Fatima version better. There was a dilemma on Earth, presented at about time Russell and Rutherford presented theirs; but there was also eventual divine mercy and the faithful participated in the solution through prayer. It does not bring us to the end, but it wasn't a morbid apocalypse either. Even had a hero or two. But that's not the only tradition on the block.

The issue of translating Danel vs. Daniel illustrates another aspect of dealing with the uncertainties of translation. In the case I have presented, it becomes clear ( at least to me) that the NJB translators were not simply confronted with three consonants and no vowels from an ancient text, but deciding on what the vowels ought to be based on other documents they had access to. Admittedly not all of us reading these words will agree on their choices, but I suspect that it can be understood how evidence in Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus and world view would influence their choice. Their perspective is also based on hierarchies of evidence. These include classifying Biblical sources into Gospel, Epistle, Acts, Revelations, and Old Testament categories as well.

Let's take a different perspective. A 19th century Anglo American perspective is that Scripture is inerrant and does not contradict itself. Yet at the same time to explain the state of the world, consideration of organizational church abuses over centuries engendered a doctrine of a widespread millenium long apostasy that assured reformers they had God's guidance and that they would be his logical intermediaries when his Son returned. In this line of reasoning dreams recorded in apocalyptic books, whether initially intended or not, tended to have a trump effect over Gospels. If you would like an example, consider the NWT of Jesus speaking with the Good Thief in Luke 23:42-43 "And he went on to say:"Jesus, remember me when you get into your kingdoms". And he said to him: "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise."

It is in behalf of doctrines derived from dreams in Daniel about 2520 year intervals that just have to limit the ability of the Son of God to deliver on this promise. Apocalyptic literature has trumped over the Gospel in a translation decision. The result is that (as far as I understand this) to Watchtower readers the Good Thief is still waiting for what Christians elsewhere interpreted as an immediate entry. Otherwise, I don't think there would have been significant numbers of Christians around in 1914, if the original followers and adherents had understood the words in 30 AD the way the NWT has them interpreted today.