Talk:Book of Daniel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Bible | (Rated B-Class, Top-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
| WikiProject Judaism | (Rated B-Class, High-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
| WikiProject Christianity | (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Date of composition
How can it possibly be written in the "2nd century bc" if the Septuagint translation, the (LXX), was created in 350 bc or around that time... and Daniel was already written to be translated... at that time... how could it have been written at a later date? you guys seriously dont have brains... and you gotta stop deleting the lxx thing, people deserve to know the truth... you guys only delete it because you know it is correct and you are wrong but you wanna sound smart.
see how you deleted it again? you guys need to get a life.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkorichard (talk • contribs) 12:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Then explain how the Book of Maccabees(dated to the 2nd century) came to be included in the Septuagint if the Septuagint was completed by 350/270 BCE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capsicumsp (talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
the Maccabees were added later, and composed in Greek... NOT translated from Hebrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkorichard (talk • contribs) 10:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Lawrence H. Schiffman writes: "It is generally agreed that the First Book of Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew. Even though no manuscripts or fragments still exist in Hebrew, the Greek text of 1 Maccabees has the unmistakable style of a rather literal translation from the Hebrew. Moreover, the church father Origen (third century A.D.) claimed that the Hebrew title of 1 Maccabees was Sarbethsabaniel. This puzzling title is difficult to interpret but may be a somewhat corrupt rendering of Hebrew sar bet 'el ('Prince of the House of God') or of sfar bet sabanai 'el ('Book of the House of the Resisters of God'). Most Greek manuscripts simply term the books of 1 and 2 Maccabees Makkabaion A and Makkabaion B. By the second century A.D. To Makkabaika ('The things Maccabean' or 'Maccabean Histories') was the designation for both 1 and 2 Maccabees. The early church father Clement of Alexandria (second century A.D.) termed 1 Maccabees to Biblion ton Makkabaikon ('The Book of Thing Maccabean') and 2 Maccabees he ton Makkabaikon epitome ('The Epitome of Things Maccabean'). Although 'Maccabee' (meaning 'hammer') was originally the nickname of the hero Judah, the use of the title 'Maccabean Histories led to the custom of referring to all of the heroes of the book as 'Maccabees.'" (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 875)[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capsicumsp (talk • contribs) 18:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
lol, we disagree... and i do believe you've made it sound like its only those 2 "christian websites" that agree with me... but other then that, i actually like the new write up... i only wanted my point of view showed as well as yours... :) im happy now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.210.105 (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] traditional
Traditionally, the Book of Daniel was believed to have been written by its namesake during and shortly after the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century BC. Although this view continues to be held by traditionalist Christians and conservative Jews, it has been rejected by many of the scholarly community since the end of the nineteenth century. While a number of traditional scholars accept a sixth century date (Sir Robert Anderson, Dr. Gene Scott) "for mainline scholarship... these issues were decided at least a century ago" according to Dean Farrar. Some leading evangelical scholars have recently adopted this position[citation needed], while in the Roman Catholic community it has been the norm since World War II. [25] Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated and looted the Jerusalem Temple around 167 BC, outlawed the Jewish religion, massacred observant Jews and precipitated a national crisis that is commemorated to this day in the Feast of Hanukkah (which recalls the rededication of the temple). The Book of Daniel (in its final form) was written, according to the liberal view, in response to that crisis. Even when the fourth kingdom of chapters two and seven began to be reapplied to Rome in pre-Christian and early Christian times the memory of Antiochus was still vivid. This is evidenced by the fact that leading Jewish and patristic commentators such as Josephus, Hippolytus, and Jerome continued to apply sections of Daniel (especially chapter 8) to the activities of Antiochus.
Sir Robert Anderson DANIEL IN THE CRITICS DEN[2]
Dr. Gene Scott www.drgenescott.com[3]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottsmen (talk • contribs) 02:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Darius the Mede again
This article has certainly deteriorated since I last looked at it. The Darius the Mede section as it currently stands pushes the tired old and well debunked anti-Bible arguments about Darius the Mede not appearing in any other source. It does this despite clearly mentioning numerous sources outside the Bible mentioning such an indvidual and instead dismisses these as simply not counting because either they are other Jewish source e.g. Josephus or because they use a different name for the same individual e.g the Nabonidus Chronicle whose Gubaru is logically the same person as Darius the Mede. Attempts to present and make sense of the sources are dismissed as "apologetics". Come on people get real.
Some guiding points for a rewrite:
- Logically Darius the Mede and Gubaru are the same individual the ruler placed over Babylon by the Persians. The Nabonidus Chronicle confirms what the book of Daniel says viz. that the Persians placed a ruler over Babylon. The only debate that remains is whether the use of the name "Darius" for this ruler in Jewish sources reflects an actual name used at the time for this person or whether it is a name for him that arose by some error at a later date.
- The distinction between Ugbaru and Gubaru is clear in the actual text of the chronicle, its is recognized that the original translation which confounded the two is simply wrong. The names are spelt and pronounced differently and moreover Ugbaru dies soon, Gubaru goes on ruling for years - this is not some sort of "apologetic" opinion.
- Josephus and midrashic sources present statements about Darius the Mede which are not simply derived from Daniel - they show indepedent knowledge of him.
- Given the extra-Biblical Jewish sources, Xenophon's Cyaxares is logically the same individual not some other person that "apologists" are trying to equate with Darius the Mede. Moreover Xenophon clearly mentions Cyaxares being given a palace and realm in Babylon which even without the Jewish sources makes him logically the same person as Gubaru of the Nabonidus chronicle ... hmmm oh I suppose pointing that out would be Greek paganism apologetics ;)
Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Book_of_Daniel/Archive_3#Messy_Darius_the_Mede_section for a more comprehensive discussion of the pertinent issues.
Unfortunately the "tired old" apologetic arguments remain tired and unconvincing. The fact that conservative commentators propose so many alternative solutions to this question is telling in itself and might almost be said to represent a "bankruptcy of criticism". Two key questions that these solutions fail to answer are:
1. If Cyrus was king and Gubaru was the regional governor of Babylon how would Gubaru have the authority to appoint 120 satraps to rule "throughout the kingdom"?
2. Why do the huge number of Babylonian cuneiform records from this period contain no reference to any king apart from Cyrus and his son Cambyses (who held the title "King of Babylon" for around nine months after the city was captured) after references to Nabonidus cease (William Shea's argument)?
--Sineaste (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kuratowski, I'll have to agree with Sineaste on this one. I'm actually shocked that you have flagged this piece of the article for 'neutrality'. It is giving the best neutral historical evidence on a topic that is in dispute. If the fact that there is absolutely no contemporaneous source that asserts that Gubaru is the same person as 'Darius the Mede' has been 'debunked', your section of the article must have left out some things because I don't see anything that contradicts that fact.
Making historical judgments is based on evidence and probabilities. You make the argument that Gubaru and 'Darius the Mede' are 'logically' the same person. However, there is not one piece of historical evidence that I am aware of that says that Gubaru was called 'Darius the Mede' by anyone anywhere. Have I missed something? The 'counter-arguments' are a shot-gun approach. The thought process seems like this: "Let me just throw out one evidentially unsupported hypothesis after another and see if one sticks. Sineaste's arguments simply have better foundation. Without at least one contemporary source confirming that Gubaru is just another name for 'Darius the Mede', I'm afraid you cannot make a plausible historical argument to that effect and should drop the contention. I wish you all the best in your relationship with Jesus.
--virago81 (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- "I wish you all the best in your relationship with Jesus." <-- I don't see how that last comment was relevant, in any kind of way that isn't logically fallacious. Awayforawhile (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Expositor's Bible Commentary
This section seems irrelevant on a first read: it lacks substance, citing neither example nor source, and offering no explanation for its large-scale dismissal of the status quo. Leegee23 (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
four generation four choosing other Gods.
the numbers of weeks mentioned in the book of daniel are 62*7 and 70*7 which totals 924 days or years and calculated to be four generations.the body of the dragon to 2310 days or years.1000 generations /4 generations.2310/924 10+10+10 for 30 sayings
11*70*3 for2310 years 7+7+7 for 21 which is wisdom. 21
70
- 1260(490+700+70)
- 2310(770+770+770)
- 21(7+7+7)
- 10+10+10(30)
- 10*10*10(1000)
Twentythreethousand (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Literary Structure Again
I feel that it is only fair to give notice that I intend to replace the section on literary structure with a rewritten version. As previously discussed (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Book_of_Daniel/Archive_3#Update )the position represented in the main article is a tiny minority view that seems to have been abandoned by its original author, William Shea. Moreover it is structurally absurd, balancing individual verses against whole chapters, and suggesting themes for chapters that bear no relation to their content in order to fit a predetermined scheme. By way of contrast, the widely accepted chiasm originally identified by Lenglet (1972) in chapters 2-7 (MT) balances clearly marked literary units (in this case whole chapters) against each other. Furthermore, the correspondence in theme between these units is self evident.
The fact that the view expressed in the main article originally appeared in an in-house Seventh Day Adventist publication, as an ad hoc argument to support a Christological interpretation of chapter nine, detracts from its reliability. Consequently, it is difficult to argue that it has been properly peer reviewed and certainly no commentary on Daniel that I know of seems to be aware of it. In fairness to the author of this section I intend to maintain the hyperlink to "Daniel Prophecy Literary Parallels" that promotes Shea's position, and to include Shea in a list of four scholars who have proposed differing chiastic structures for the full book of Daniel.
The question of literary structure in Daniel is much larger than the question of whether or not the book is arranged in chiastic fashion. In fact the once popular practice of "discovering" chiasms everywhere in the Bible has come in for a great deal of criticism recently in scholarly literature. Consequently, I intend to highlight three, widely acknowledged structural features of Daniel: the genre division between court tales and visions, the Hebrew-Aramaic language division, and the chiasm identified by Lenglet (along with other proposed architectural schemes).
If there are any objections to this proposal I am more than willing to discuss and consider them.
--Sineaste (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
