Verses about the resurrection from the dead:
Mark 16:6; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15; Hebrews 6:1-2; 1 Corinthians 15:1-58; Acts 17:31 Hebrews 11:19
Daniel 12:2, 13
Isaiah 26:19
Hosea 13:14
Ezekiel 37:1-14
Compare Romans 6:9; Revelation 1:18
Wednesday, September 18, 2024
In Defense of the Resurrection: Verses That Speak About Being Raised from the Dead
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
108 comments:
DSS Daniel - 8 scrolls with extracts from every chapter except 12
Yeah, that's the DSS, but Wiki says:
"The Book of Daniel is preserved in the 12-chapter Masoretic Text and in two longer Greek versions, the original Septuagint version, c. 100 BC, and the later Theodotion version from c. 2nd century AD."
See also https://brill.com/display/book/9789004443280/BP000015.xml
I have no doubt that concepts from Daniel 12 or similar thereto are reflected in the GNT.
https://biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/divided-monarchy/3193-new-light-on-the-book-of-daniel-from-the-dead-sea-scrolls
You have a BCE witness in Greek to chapter 12?
Pg 279 - VI. Daniel The 00 text of ch. 12 is unlike the sections that we have considered previously because it has more textual differences, particularly additions, when compared to MT. These textual differences will be discussed initially under the rubric of Syntax.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9640633.pdf
A test in flux?
https://www.proquest.com/openview/d5ac94600e7db1185f7ca0979303d7c0/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
"The oldest Greek language copy of Daniel is Papyrus 967, dated to 3rd century CE."
https://paultanner.org/English%20Docs/Daniel/Introductory/App%20C%20-%20Texts%20Versions.pdf
App.C.3
https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/58706/1/Bledsoe_Relationship.pdf
There is no serious reason to doubt that chapter 12 was written in the BCE period: even one link you posted confirmed this point. Also see the link above and the tanner.org link does not seem to cast doubt on chapter 12 either.
Keep in mind that MS do wear out :-)
https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-valley-of-dry-bones-and-the-resurrection-of-the-dead
I don't support this late date for Daniel, but think it was written earlier. However, even those who practice historical-criticism don't try to locate Daniel in the CE period.
"Every chapter of Daniel is represented in the eight manuscripts, except for Daniel 12. Yet this does not mean that the book lacked the final chapter at Qumran, since Dan 12:10 is quoted in fragments 1-3 ii 3 - 4 a of the Florilegium (4Q174), which explicitly tells us that it is written in the book of Daniel the
Prophet."
See http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/51323/1/18.pdf
https://intertextual.bible/book/4q174/chapter/1
I am sure you appreciate the gnostic nature of the supposed quote of Daniel 12:10. It also has no linkage requirements to verses before and after. So, does it confirm the contents of an early chapter 12 of Daniel? Once one removes presuppositions.
As far as I can tell at the moment, THE SIBYLLINE ORACLES only use Daniel 7 & 11.
Sorry, but I don't find the quote to be Gnostic. Similar statements are made in other parts of Daniel and other Bible books.
"Similar statements are made in other parts of Daniel and other Bible books." In the OT?
I was thinking of Daniel 11 and Deuteronomy 29:29.
Your assumptions are putting the cart before the horse and Deut 29:29 is talking about knowledge already attained, not the promise of knowledge never attained which is the hallmark of Gnosis writings - Like Paul's sacred secret.
https://www.tyndalebulletin.org/article/30242-early-traces-of-the-book-of-daniel.pdf
Even these don't demonstrate Daniel 12 & reference to 1st Enoch is highly dubious in any case.
It is not an assumption, but what Daniel and Deuteronomy say. There is no good reason to deny that Daniel as a whole was written in the BCE period. Much of Daniel is also mirrored in Revelation.
Granted, the Israelites had things already revealed to them, but not everything. In order to have more things revealed, they had to obey. To me, that's a non-starter. Tell me why Jehovah would reveal sacred things to unholy or wicked people.
It's not reasonable to expect that one would find all of Daniel amongst the DSS.
What other writing in the DSS has 8 witnesses? What is your benchmark for calling it unreasonable? Nearly every other chapter has more than one witness.
No, you are clearly wrong. In Deut there is no claim that the secret things will be revealed. They are not ours to know but the others are revealed.
https://dssenglishbible.com/daniel.htm
Gaps? - https://dssenglishbible.com/Isaiah.htm
My point about the DSS is that we don't have everything that was written in those scrolls and we should not expect to have every vestige of scripture in the scrolls. They're a subset of the Jewish writings and other books are also incomplete in the DSS collection. Furthermore, the book of Daniel did not originate with the DSS.
I'm not going to argue about the things revealed point, but I thought you knew that the things revealed were once things concealed. Jehovah gradually reveals the things concealed.
I am not talking about the verse level and I have already demonstrated that from the Isaiah witnesses, we have something of every chapter, and not just a verse. Your argument does not hold.
"Furthermore, the book of Daniel did not originate with the DSS." - your evidence please?
This is the Marcion Luke Acts issue all over again. These references tell us nothing that ties them together and even if something does it still does not prove chapter 12 as extant. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2014%3A14%2CEzekiel%2014%3A20%2CEzekiel%2028%3A3&version=NIV
Maybe Solomon was not the only gifted son of Solomon ? - https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_chronicles/3-1.htm
What about the book of Esther? Is it in the DSS? What about the fact that much of the DSS is fragmentary, so that it's hard to tell how some of the scrolls should read?
And you think the book of Daniel did not exist until the DSS? Both the Hebrew Bible and the LXX were written before the DSS. You're well aware of the late date assigned for Daniel, which would place it around 167 BCE. I don't have direct testimony for that date or earlier for Daniel, but you don't have evidence that it originated with the DSS either. Please also tell me which scholar thinks Daniel started with the DSS.
Why you want to exclude chapter 12 of Daniel because the chapter doesn't appear in the DSS mystifies me. That is not a good reason and there is no reason to exclude Daniel from the LXX which was completed before the CE period and likely, before the DSS. And I think you're wrong about the whole Marcion issue too.
" Both the Hebrew Bible and the LXX were written before the DSS." - your evidence please? Especially since the original definition of the LXX in tradition was NOT the whole Tanakh.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n17/robert-alter/where-s-esther
"Taylor brings to bear formidable erudition, and works out her argument with impressive thoroughness. She follows Philo and Josephus in seeing the Essenes not as a sect but as one of the three major movements in Judaism at the end of the Second Temple period – the other two are the Pharisees and the Sadducees. As she summarises Philo’s view, which she largely embraces: ‘The Essenes were by no means a small, marginal, alienated group living on the fringes of Jewish society, or one that was not representative of the whole; they were the very opposite. The Essenes were among the most exemplary representatives of the best in all of Judaism.’ The conclusion is repeated a dozen or more times, repetition being the defect of her virtue of thoroughness."
I don't have manuscript proof for my position, if that's what you want, but there are book-length works that discuss the LXX. From what I've read in those works, the LXX was completed circa 150 BCE.
Regardless of that point, I would submit that Daniel appeared even earlier in the Hebrew Bible although we don't have manuscript evidence for that either.
The "LXX" tanakh is a construct. Sure, many used greek translations of Hebrew scriptures but this use of "LXX" as a label for a uniform set of translations is misleading and baseless apart from a legend of budious origin. The LXX as most understand is 4th century CE. I truly think that most Christians today including scholars under estimate the ability of people to propagandise in the early centuries of or common era, for purposes of rulership.
h. "The Canon in the Jewish Diaspora: THE PROLOGUE OF JESUS BEN SIRACH [132 BC]: In connection with the question of the development of the Jewish canon, reference is repeatedly made to the Prologue by the author’s grandson, who was also the translator of Sirach. The author speaks three times of a threefold division of the Jewish Scriptures. The very first sentence reads: "Whereas many great teachings have been given to us through the law, the prophets, and the other [writings] that followed them … (διὰ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατʼ αὐτοὺς ἠκολουθηκότων)." The next references occur in the description of the activity of his grandfather, who "devote[d] himself especially to the reading of the law and the prophets and the other books of our fathers (ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἑαυτὸν δοὺς εὶς τε τὴν τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων βιβλίων ἀνάγνωσιν)." The final reference occurs after he has mentioned the difference between the Hebrew original and the imperfect translation: "Not only this [work], but even the law itself, the prophecies and the rest of the books differ not a little if read in the original (ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων)." Clearly, the grandson, who himself emigrated from Palestine to Egypt in the year 132, reproduces here the Hebrew concept of canon, although we do not know exactly which books he placed among ‘the other books’. His threefold repetition and the concluding statement that he had published his book for those ‘abroad who are eager to learn’, who ‘desire to lead a life according to the law’, suggest that he regarded his grandfather’s work no more as ‘canonical’ but as a type of hortatory introduction to a life according to the ‘law, the prophets, and the other books’. He also emphasizes the difference between the original Hebrew and the Greek text and the difficulty of the translation. In his opinion, the pious Jewish lifestyle was apparently no longer to be taken for granted in Jewish Alexandria; therefore he feels the effort of translating the work is necessary. A review of the work, and especially of the writings employed in the Praise of the Fathers in Sirach 44:1–50:24, demonstrates that the grandfather knew or cited all the books of the Hebrew canon except Ruth, Canticles, Esther and Daniel. He could not have known Daniel, because it came into existence only later. Sirach 38:34c–39:1, the self-portrait of the scholar Ben Sirach, already essentially anticipates the division in the prologue: … he who devotes himself to the study of the law of the Most High will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients, and will be concerned with prophecies; he will preserve the discourse of notable men and penetrate the subtleties of parables; he will seek out the hidden meanings of proverbs … [This is followed in 39:6 by mention of] ‘words of wisdom’ and ‘thanksgiving to the Lord in prayer’. This statement distinguishes between law, prophets, historical narrative, wisdom books and hymnic poetry. Thus grandfather and grandson already tell us relatively much about the formation of the ‘Holy Scriptures’ in the motherland during the second century, but nothing about what was recognized as ‘canonical’ in Alexandria. Instead, the Jews in the Diaspora required special instruction on this point. The ‘prophets’ in the prologue may—as occurred later in the Hebrew canon—encompass both historical and prophetic books in the sense of the נביאים הראשונים or האחרונים, respectively. References to the ‘others that followed’—’other fathers’ or ‘other books’ respectively—betray an uncertainty that makes it clear that this collection of documents was by no means definitely delimited even in the grandson’s time." (The Septuagint as Christian scripture: its prehistory and the problem of its canon, M. Hengel, R. Deines, M. E Biddle, p96, 2002 AD)
I might post a separate thread about the LXX, but I realize the distinction between OG and LXX, but just use the latter designation for convenience.
I've usually read that the Septuagint started to be produced circa 280 BCE and was finished circa 185/180 BCE. Either way, it seems that writers alluded to the Septuagint before the CE period or it's sometimes quoted in the GNT.
My experience with OT studies has been that most scholars working now question almost everything about how a work originated. Hence, the late date for Daniel, etc.
That 150BCE is something parroted from one work to another but I would love to know where it originated and what data supports it because I sure have not found any yet. Please do a thread on this, I would love to learn more and my resources on this might be limited at the moment.
I will see if there is a need to construct a thread and consider whether anything new can be said about this subject. I doubt that any MS evidence will support the date, 150 CE, but I coulld be wrong about that. But we don't have MSS for a lot of things.
Btw, you posted information to another thread that I think was meant for this one.
From E. Tov:
"The translations of the Prophets and Writings were completed by the middle of the first century B.C.E. The grandson of Ben
Sira knew the translation of the Prophets and part of the Writings in 132 or 116 B.C.E. according to different computations of the date of his Greek translation of Ben Sira.
Origin. The Jewish origin of the LXX is described in the Epistle of Aristeas, rabbinic literature, and various additional sources. Its Jewish nature is reflected in its terminology and exegesis. However, it was soon recognized that the LXX often differed from the Hebrew text that was current in Palestine from the second-first centuries B.C.E. onwards and that was later to become the Masoretic Text."
http://www.emanueltov.info/docs/varia/202.lxx.intro.short.varia.pdf?v=1.0
Yes I mis posted again but it get laborious typing everything in again, especially when my posts don't stick. Rabbinic literature has its own level of self promotion and propaganda, but I will look into it. As for the Epistle of Aristeas It has no real provenance and may are recognizing that, as per a paper that I posted some time ago, but to add to that see- https://www.jstor.org/stable/90025846#:~:text=According%20to%20Grafton%2C%20Aristeas%20is,%2C%203%20vols.%2C%20ed.
The text of the Septuagint is contained in a few early, but not necessarily reliable, manuscripts. The best known of these are the Codex Vaticanus (B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (S), both dating from the 4th century ce, and the Codex Alexandrinus (A) from the 5th century. There are also numerous earlier papyrus fragments and many later manuscripts. The first printed copy of the Septuagint was in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514–22).
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Septuagint
ChatGPT -
The earliest extra-biblical references to the Book of Daniel are relatively late compared to the time period the book is set in. Here are some key early references:
1. Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd century BCE)
Fragments of the Book of Daniel were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. These manuscripts date to the late 2nd century BCE. This is the earliest manuscript evidence we have of the text, showing that Daniel was considered important in Jewish communities by this time. Notably, some of the Aramaic and Hebrew texts from Daniel found at Qumran suggest the book was widely circulated.
2. 1 Maccabees (2nd century BCE)
While the Book of Daniel is not directly cited, the story of the Maccabean revolt (167-160 BCE) shares thematic connections with Daniel, particularly in terms of resistance to foreign rule and religious persecution. The Maccabean literature shows familiarity with Daniel’s themes of faithful endurance under persecution, which may suggest indirect reference to the book's influence during the period....
......5. Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Works (2nd century BCE - 1st century CE)
Several works in the Jewish Pseudepigrapha show familiarity with the ideas in Daniel. For example, the Book of Enoch and 4 Ezra contain apocalyptic visions that reflect the eschatological themes in Daniel. These writings likely indicate that Daniel’s apocalyptic worldview was influential in Jewish thought around the same period. - ***FALSE assumption of priority***
6. Rabbinic Literature (post-2nd century CE)
Rabbinic texts like the Talmud (3rd-5th centuries CE) also mention Daniel and interpret parts of the book, particularly its prophecies. Daniel is not considered a prophet in the same way as Isaiah or Jeremiah by some rabbinic sources, but his visions are still treated as significant.
In summary, the earliest extra-biblical references to Daniel come from the 2nd century BCE, with more explicit references in the 1st century BCE through 1st century CE. These references underscore the growing importance of Daniel within both Jewish and Christian traditions during this period.
early rabbinic references to the LXX and its history
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Early rabbinic references to the Septuagint (LXX) — the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible — reflect a complex relationship with the text. The Septuagint originated in the Jewish community of Alexandria, Egypt, in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, but by the time of the early rabbinic period (1st-5th centuries CE), it was viewed with increasing suspicion and criticism in Jewish circles.
Here are some key early rabbinic references and their views on the LXX:
1. The Story of the Seventy Translators (Tosefta, Megillah 3:33; b. Megillah 9a; Philo and Josephus)
The rabbinic tradition preserves a version of the origin of the LXX in connection with King Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (r. 285–246 BCE). According to the Talmudic accounts, Ptolemy asked for a Greek translation of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible). Seventy or seventy-two Jewish elders were chosen to translate the Torah into Greek, a miraculous event where all of them independently produced identical translations.
Tosefta Megillah 3:33: This version emphasizes the miraculous nature of the translation and God's hand in ensuring the text was faithfully rendered into Greek. However, the account subtly reflects a tension between the translation and the Hebrew original.
b. Megillah 9a: This Babylonian Talmudic text provides a more critical view, mentioning certain changes the translators made to avoid misunderstanding by the Greeks. For example, they altered passages to avoid anthropomorphisms of God or political sensitivities (like translating "man" in place of "Israel"). The narrative suggests concern that the Greek translation was not perfectly faithful to the Hebrew text.
Philo of Alexandria (early 1st century CE) and Josephus (1st century CE) also recount this story. Philo praises the translation highly, reflecting the Greek-speaking Jewish community's pride in the LXX, while Josephus echoes this positive assessment in Antiquities (12.2.1).
I wont bother posting the rest on the negative attitude of the sources toward it.
This thread was never really about the age of Daniel, but about the resurrection. However, what chat GPT says is standard liberal scholarly fare. On the other hand, the New American commentary for the book of Daniel makes an extended case that Daniel was written earlier than the second century BCE. See also https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_daniel.html
https://www.mabts.edu/directory/miller-steve/
https://bestcommentaries.com/book/3601/
"Although Jewish believers revered the book, interestingly there are no
Targums on Daniel. 37
" - Rhodes, “Daniel,” 437.
Regarding LXX - "(probably third century B.C. but no later than ca. 130 B.C)" repeated three times in this work but sadly not one foot note reference to back it up.
That work does not even dain to mention the fact that Chapter 12 is missing from the DSS witnesses. You can keep that commentary.
Maybe you would like this commentary:
"The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 and subsequent discoveries in the years that followed revolutionized the studies of the text, canon, and theology
of the books of the Bible. Fragments and quotations from Daniel's book have come from caves one, four, and six. These fragments attest the presence of all twelve canonical chapters in the library at Qumran. In fact, the material evidence indicates the presence of no less than eight copies of Daniel's book there."
Stefanovic, Zdravko. Daniel: Wisdom to the Wise: Commentary on the Book of Daniel, page 39-40.
Look, unless something new has been found recently I know the fragments of the DSS, some years ago I even paid about £400 on a book that contains plates of all the unpublished fragment of the Judean desert finds. There are no fragments of chapter 12.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/archaeologists-biblical-scholars-works/ancient-scribe-links-qumran-scrolls-to-masada/
https://www.schoyencollection.com/bible-collection-foreword/hebrew-aramaic-bible/daniel-b-dead-sea-scroll-ms-1926-4
Well, a quote from Daniel 12:10 does appear though, as the commentary says. See also https://ojs.reformedjournals.co.za/ngtt/article/view/1222/1715
But it would not bother me if nothing from chapter 12 appeared since Daniel was likely written before the DSS were produced. Besides the LXX, which we've discussed, there is the proto-Masoretic text that contained Daniel.
My last two post demonstrate that there are plenty of witnesses in the DSS are not that old, even as far a the mid first century and possibly even later, so the question is, what is the dating(s) of the fragment that contains the quote?
A. Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschata,b) (STDJ, 13), Leiden, Brill, 1994, proposed that 4Q174 and 4Q177 are two copies of the same composition, but G.J. Brooke, From Florilegium or Midrash to Commentary: The Problem of Re-Naming an Adopted Manuscript”, in Brooke – J. Høgenhaven (eds.), The Mermaid and the Partridge: Essays from the Copenhagen Conference on Revisiting Texts from Cave Four (STDJ, 96), Leiden, Brill, 2011, 129-150, cautiously prefers to see them as related.
3. Introducing 4QMidrEschata.b The first manuscript argued to form part of 4QMidrEschata.b is 4Q174 (also sometimes referred to as 4QFlor).22 Dating to the second-half of the first century BCE, it consists of 26 quite poorly preserved fragments.23 These have been arranged by Annette Steudel into six columns, which would then constitute the first part of the composition designated as 4QMidrEschata.b.24 Here, quotations from Ps 1,1 and Ps 2,1 are found, in both cases followed by commentaries.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09018328.2019.1686285
https://www.thetorah.com/article/evaluating-proto-mt
My last contribution to this thread: http://essays.wisluthsem.org:8080/bitstream/handle/123456789/626/WegnerDaniel.pdf?sequence=1
A document with no specific date, however, I am not going to take issue with most of what it has to say. Leather VS parchment, compared to what? I don't know either but who does? The one thing I must take issue with, that colours this document is "qumran scribe" for which he has absolutely no evidence whatsoever. This is why I post extras that may not seem relevant initially, but apparently qumran scribe also produces texts for Masada and even if its the Essenes, again this is highly speculative, they may have been a faction of note in Jerusalem. To avoid argument, I am not asserting these things but rather pointing out how wide open the answers still are.
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-360284
This is the fragment in question an it seems like most sites omit the fact that this quotes Dan 11:32 just before the mention of what Daniel says. The section that follows is more broken than the section before. That generates even more questions, but it is also a pity that 4Q114 Daniel & 6Q7 PapDaniel do not have V32.
Josephus talks about the prophecy of daniel to the Greek King and it was shown to Alexander the great and he accepted as about him we all know that is around 332 BCE. Daniel was available to him according to Josephus. Daniel was also spoken about favorably by Ezekiel.
I like that point, Philip, and I believe Daniel was written well before the 3rd or 4th century BCE and that would include all 12 chapters. But "liberal" scholars want to assign a date around the 2nd century BCE. I disagree but was saying that even if that date is correct for the final edition of Daniel, it still appears that the book came before the DSS were produced.
https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004359932/BP000018.xml?language=en
No references for 400 hundred years and then Josephus has accurate facts?
You have no evidence to support your position, but if that where you stand why should I mind?
I suspect that Josephus story had much more to do with Alexander than Daniel. A supposed response of Alexander toward the Jews & trying to pour water on the fire pre revolt - https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004324763/B9789004324763_021.xml
"In Ezekiel 28:3, Danel is one noted for his wisdom in the prophecy addressed to the king of Tyre: "you are indeed wiser than Danel, no secret is hidden from you". The name "Danel" had a long tradition in Hebrew culture: he is supplied as the father-in-law of Enoch in the Book of Jubilees." - He is also one of the sons of David. You are making connections of only a name without supporting evidence.
https://brill.com/display/book/9789004525627/BP000015.xml?language=en
If you're talking about my position on the date that Daniel was written, there might not be any MS evidence, but that doesn't mean no good reasons exist for holding to the position. Show me evidence that Daniel was written circa 167 BCE. It can't be done. Also, the absence of evidence does not equal the evidence of absence.
Better to not put words in my mouth - I did not say "MS evidence". There is NO evidence. There were far more records in that period than just Jewish ones. Just as so many other ancient books and who actually wrote them and/ or embellished them. I did not say when Daniel was written because I do not have that data, just as you have no data to distance the DSS from Jerusalem, as so many try to do. That is also straw manning. I am dealing with the lack of evidence for Daniel 12. How far down this rabbit hole do you want to go? There were far more records in that period than just Jewish ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
Alexanders First Three Persian Satraps and The Road to a New Realm
https://repository.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4314&context=gradschool_theses
I see sites like this - https://armstronginstitute.org/955-can-we-trust-the-book-of-daniel that actually present no evidence in the affirmative and make claims without foot notes.
Talk about putting words in someone's mouth: I said nothing about the location of the DSS though they're connected with Qumran for a reason. Maybe you didn't say MS evidence, but you act like nothing can be proved unless we have something tangible in hand. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are good reasons for accepting a 6th century BCE date for Daniel.
You make a big deal of Daniel 12 not being in the DSS, but why should I privilege the DSS over earlier versions of the Hebrew text? Besides, a portion of Daniel 12 is there and what about Esther, which is not in the DSS?
https://drmusekiwa.wordpress.com/2018/09/09/the-book-of-daniel-the-problem-of-dating/
https://www.tyndalebulletin.org/article/30242-early-traces-of-the-book-of-daniel.pdf
You are just regurgitating now. I posted papers and data that deal with all of this and you are still attempting to put the cart before the horse. You say something into it sounds like Daniel, I say that something in Daniel sound like tobit. Either way it's still not evidence.
Yes, what about Esther, no one is trying to steer modern living with it so it's not high on my list of concerns, but I do like the story. That's exactly what it is.
Two supposed samples of Daniel are in that witness in the DSS with the reference to a saying of Daniel samwidged in the middle. So which is the quote? So again, is Daniel quoting this witness?
The Book of Esther Between Judaism and Christianity
Book by Isaac Kalimi, 2023
https://www.persicaantiqua.ir/article_159734.html worth a read, but he points out that is still not evidence of first hand data, and other evidence shows that Alexander embraced Persian history and did nothing to obscure it and the local traditions. That's why he was appointing local steps, if the system worked he was not going to break it.
We have different ideas about what constitutes evidence or proof. It's not just the allusions, but other factors give us reason for thinking Daniel could be older than critics think it is. Even those who do historical-critical scholarship date the bookk of Daniel circa 167 BCE or a little earlier. That is the whole book--not just 11 chapters.
I'm not sure what kind of evidence would satisfy you, but no need to go in circles. As I said, I've seen no "evidence" that Daniel was produced circa 167 BCE either as opposed to being written earlier.
Ok, I'm going to say really done now: https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/dead-sea-scrolls/
Well, this spell checker is driving me crazy. Satraps NOT steps. There is nothing in chapter 12 that historically locates it so I am not really concerned with those that claim " the whole" books date, I don't think they really know what they are talking about & what about the supposed early date of the watchers to. They MTonlyists whatever they say to claim contrary.
"A third conclusion from the Dead Sea Scrolls is that Daniel was regarded as “Scripture” at Qumran. This is indicated by the large number of copies of Daniel discovered and by how Daniel was used. For instance, the Florilegium (4Q174) quotes Daniel 12:10 as ‘written in the book of Daniel, the Prophet‘ (frgs. 1-3 ii 3-4a). This formula is typical of quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran." - blatant misinformation by omission again, I can read the fragment and I know they are framing to suit there own agenda.
I agree that Daniel was not written at Qumran & I see no reason for ANY of the text to be written their.
One thing about Esther. I think numerous people use it as a guide for modern living. View it as a story, if you like. It's a lot more than that for millions of folks.
"historical-critical scholarship" - let me check the sources?
Please check them
Sites keep mentioning the OG Daniel dated to 100BCE - Where is it?
Again, making stuff up. As referenced by John J Collins and Adela Yarbro - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_967
They're likely talking about the Septuagint/LXX when they give that date, not Papyrus 967.
You cannot date what you have not got!
It happens all the time. One doesn't need something tangible in hand to date a text.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_literary_work
Just because it happens all the time does NOT make it legitimate.
https://hcommons.org/app/uploads/sites/1001447/2019/07/PAPYRUS-NETWORKS.pdf
And what about Bel and the serpent & Susanna?
https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/40-daniel-nets.pdf
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2017/09/daniel-in-select-codices.html#more
We know that MSS wore out, were destroyed or did not survive the sands of time. Why doubt that they were written or once existed at a certain time although we don't have them? For instance, https://philpapers.org/browse/aristotles-lost-works
We also know that Mikhail Bakhtin, who died in 1975, used to routinely destroy his writings or tried to hide them into obscurity. These things happen all the time. What should we do? Act like they were never written or ignore the testimony of those who witnessed the now absent texts? That makkes no sense to me.
I don't give much credence to Bel and the others. They're not canonical anyway. Thank God for the Masoretes.
https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-tale-of-susanna-a-story-about-daniel
One thing we haven't talked about and I'm not going to start now, is the resurrection--the original focus of this thread. Oh well. I'm closing it soon anyway.
Regarding "lost literary work", there is a big difference between proof of an existence and proof of veracity.
And before you close - "The Masoretes, who from about the 6th to the 10th century ce worked to reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible" - so they were inspired more than the Christian traditions?
I didn't say and I don't believe that the Masoretes were inspired, but they were careful and tried to preserve the Hebrew text. Here is what Jerome of sacred Vulgate fame wrote:
But among other things we should recognize that Porphyry makes this objection to us concerning the Book of Daniel, that it is clearly a forgery not to be considered as belonging to the Hebrew Scriptures but an invention composed in Greek. This he deduces from the fact that in the story of Susanna, where Daniel is speaking to the elders, we find the expressions, "To split from the mastic tree" (apo tou skhinou skhisai) and to saw from the evergreen oak (kai apo tou prinou prisai),2 (D) a wordplay |17 appropriate to Greek rather than to Hebrew. But both Eusebius and Apollinarius have answered him after the same tenor, that the stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon are not contained in the Hebrew, but rather they constitute a part of the prophecy of Habakkuk, the son of Jesus of the tribe of Levi. Just as we find in the title of that same story of Bel, according to the Septuagint, "There was a certain priest named Daniel, the son of Abda, an intimate of the King of Babylon." And yet Holy Scripture testifies that Daniel and the three Hebrew children were of the tribe (p. 493) of Judah. For this same reason when I was translating Daniel many years ago, I noted these visions with a critical symbol, showing that they were not included in the Hebrew. And in this connection I am surprised to be told that certain fault-finders complain that I have on my own initiative truncated the book. After all, both Origen, Eusebius and Apollinarius, and other outstanding churchmen and teachers of Greece acknowledge that, as I have said, these visions are not found amongst the Hebrews, and that therefore they are not obliged to answer to Porphyry for these portions which exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture.
Well some claim that Daniel was originally written in Greek around the 300BCE mark. I have laid out what I have found and that's about it.
How does Jerome in the 4th century speak about a group from the 6th?
As I've said before, I've seen no compelling evidence to make me believe the 300 BCE claim. It makes more sense to me that Daniel was originally written in Hebrew and I'm not going to make a big deal of when, but I am confused by your last statement about Jerome. To clarify, I quoted him to make a point about Susanna, Bel and the dragon, not to suggest he could tell us anything about later folks.
Circular - ""There was a certain priest named Daniel, the son of Abda, an intimate of the King of Babylon." And yet Holy Scripture testifies that Daniel and the three Hebrew children were of the tribe (p. 493) of Judah." & the first could just as easily be true.
"I also wish to emphasize to the reader the fact that it was not according to the Septuagint version but according to the version of Theodotion himself that the churches publicly read Daniel."
https://www.attalus.org/translate/daniel.html
Post a Comment