|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Prophecy in the Bible - Theology of Double Fulfillment | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
While I don't know as much as Brian I have discussed some of these issues and had a good look at them before.
quote: Mark's reference is pretty clear - and the authorial aside "let the reader understand" is a strong hint, Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse is pretty heavily rewritten - probably with knowledge of the events of 70 AD - which don't agree that well with the version found in Mark and Matthew. Luke would know, for instance, that there was nothing corresponding to Daniel's "Abomination". I suppose that it is possible that Matthew (also written after 70 AD, according to mainstream estimates) left the Olivet Discourse largely unchanged because it didn't fit events that well. And it is possible (but not that likely) that Mark was copied from Matthew. But I don't think that you have a very strong case for this example (unlike those in Matthew's Nativity - which could easily be original to Matthew's gospel). Having said that I do feel that "Double fulfilment" is something of an ad hoc excuse. In my experience the second "fulfilment" relies on picking out bits and pieces of the prophecy, and so has a very dubious claim to be called any sort of "fulfilment".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I would say that the author of Mark regarded it as a fulfilment of Daniel - I can see no indication that he felt it to be merely "similar" events. Whether the author saw it as a second fulfilment requires determining his opinion of whether the prophecy had already been fulfilled or not - which we cannot even do for Matthew. We must remember that the End did NOT come according to Daniel's "predictions" so it is distinctly possible that the authors reinterpreted Daniel as referring to later events.
quote: The idea that the use of Daniel in Matthew's version of the Olivet Discourse is satire. Taken at face value it seems to be a simple replacement for the authorial aside, conveying the information that the author of Mark intended that the reader should discover.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Mark also refers to "The Son of Man" which is taken to be a reference to Daniel. (And I would think that Matthew would be more likely to refer to merely "similar" events than Mark).
quote: Which does not nean that it was not viewed as predicting the future by Jews. Josephus certainly seemed to think so, relating a story - almost certainly ahistorical - about Alexander reading Daniel.
quote: I never said otherwise. All I said was that the case for that reference being satirical was weak.
quote: Josephus was active at that time, and IIRC probably did include Daniel as canonical. And as your source states 1 Maccabees is no more likely to be considered canonical itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Because the Son of Man in Mark appears to be a more-than-human figure.
quote: Daniel still seems more likely.
quote:As we know, Josephus (wrongly) believed that Daniel was written at the time the story is set. Thus Daniel could certainly fall into the canonical group - and 1 Maccabees could not. Also if you read your own source it proposes that Ruth is counted as part of Judges and Lamentations as part of Jeremiah to explain the count of 22.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It would be more accurate to say that the author of Mark has Jesus referring to himself as the "Son of Man".
quote: Exactly. An entity that looks like a human - but presumably is not.
quote: As I have already said the evidence supports the idea that the authors of Mark and Matthew saw it as A fulfillment of Daniel. First or second is impossible to tell.I don't see much of a link to Maccabees (which is linked to Daniel anyway). quote: No, we can't know for sure. However, since Josephus took Daniel at face value, it seems very likely that it was counted as one of the 22.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I think that your interpretation has some big problems.
Firstly you jump from the Hellenistic period to the Roman between verse 19 and 20. What is the justification for that ? The ruler of verse 20 appears to be the immediate successor to the ruler of verse 19. The latest date for the registration accompanying Jesus' birth is 6 AD - most conservative Christians try to introduce an (unrecorded) registration even earlier. Even the later date gives ~8 years to Augustus' death which is not a "comparatively short time". The more obvious candidate Seleucus IV Philopater tried to gather money from the Jewish Temple in 173 BC, and died in September of that year - to be succeeded by the despised Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It needs justifying because you are inserting a (large) gap into the narrative. It should be marked. Instead the text taken at face value seems to simply carry on with the next of the Seleucid rulers (who fits the prophecy better than Augustus). And no, the prophecy does NOT have to cross over to Roman rule. (In fact Daniel 8 indicates that it should not - see 8:17 and 8:20-26).
quote: I don't know. But your answer seems to say to me that since your interpretation demands a mangling of the text, mangling the text is the way to go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That's a big part of it. But it is also a break in the narrative. The translated text at least looks like a continuous narrative. You have it suddenly jumping to a different time and different people with no obvious connection. What is there in the text that justifies such an interpretation ?
quote: And the relevance of this is ?
quote: The problem is in your interpretation of the prophecy. I repeat the question. What is there in the prophecy that justifies your insertion of a gap between verses 19 and 20 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You still haven't answered the question. Why interpret it as Augustus rather than Seleucus IV ? Why Quirinius rather than Heliodorus ? Why Tiberius rather than Antiochus ? What is there in the test that suggests the change ? Also compare your translation with the NASB
19"So he will turn his face toward the fortresses of his own land, but he will stumble and fall and be found no more. 20"Then in his place one will arise who will send an oppressor through the Jewel of his kingdom; yet within a few days he will be shattered, though not in anger nor in battle.
quote: Which points to Seleucus IV, not Augustus. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You mean Seleucus IV - and he sent Heliodorus to extract money from the Temple - which seems sufficient impact for someone who only rates a single verse. So Seleucus IV did stand up in place of Antiochus III (he was his successor), did send a man to extract money from Judah and did die shortly afterwards (and not in battle). Three out of three. Augustus only did one of these things. Seleucus IV fits the prophecy much better than Augustus - but you say that it can't refer to him and must refert to Augusuts. Why ?
quote: Which is another big problem with your interpretation, but we can deal with that later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: How is that a reason why it couldn't be Seleucus ? There's nothing in the prophecy that states that Antiuchus profanation of the Temple has to occur between verses 19 and 20.
quote: All of which assumes that verse 20 is about the situation after 30 BC - which begs the question. Neither of your two "reasons" has any basis in the text of the prophecy. So you have failed to answer AGAIN.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Since the Kings of the North seem to be the Seleucids (see Daniel 11:4) I would disagree. What are your reasons for saying otherwise ?
quote: This appears later in the prophecy. Remember that the King of 11:20 only succeeds Antiochus III, sends someone to extract money from Judah and dies shortly afterwards. Seleucus IV did all these things.In other words you seem to be disqualifying him BECAUSE he fits with the prophecy, which seems to be a very odd attitude. quote: I know that you claim that, but there seems to be absolutely no textual support for such an idea.
quote: The 6th Syrian war does not start until after the reign of Seleucus, so you need to disqualify him - and Antiochus IV - before it is even relevant to the interpretation of 11:20. All your argument attempts to do is argue that it is legitimate to regard Rome as taking on the roles - but it does nothing to suggest that verse 20 is where it does so. (And I would argue that it is unsuccessful even in doing that). SO, you need to ignore the fact that 11:20 is naturally read as referring to the immediate successor of Antiochus III. That that successor actually fits the prophecy better than your alternative candidate. That there is no mention of the Roman conquest of either state anywhere in Daniel (although the conquests of Babylon and Persia - and the division of Alexander's Empire are given prominent mention). And there are more problems to come in later verses. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So they exactly fit the prophecy ! 11:20 mentions no conflicts with the King of the South so obviously that ruler can't have any such conflicts.
quote: I don't think that it means that they must always be fighting wars even when the prophecy doesn't mention any ! And if the prophecy is about those conflicts then it should mention them - and there is none mentioned in Daniel 11:20. Seluecus IV can easily be identified as King of the North because the Kings of the North are the Seleucids (see Daniel 11:4 for important context).
quote: So he didn't do something that the prophecy doesn't mention him doing (and ought to mention if he did !). This is supposed to be an argument ?
quote: Aside from the problems with your reasoning which I have already dealt with (and the fact that Antiochus IV appears later in the prophecy) you don't identify Antiochus IV as a King of the North either. You jump straight to Augustus. So again, you are only undermining your case. I'm still waiting for any real justification that Daniel 11:20 is about Augustus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: What on earth are you talking about ? I never said any such thing.
quote: Then go back and read the thread. You say that Daniel 11:19 is about Antiochus III and the next "King of the North" in 11:20 is Augustus.
quote: So where - according to you - is Antiochus IV in the prophecy given that you have already claimed that it jumps straight from Antiochus III to Augustus ?
quote: Given that all of your reaosns are obviously invalid. "not very good" seems to be an understatement.
quote: At the end of the reign of Antiochus III (which is where we are at with Daniel 11:19 - according to you) Rome had not subjugated Syria or Egypt, Seleeucus IV took the place of Antiochus III and sent Heliodorus to extract money from Judah. In other words your "explanation" doesn't explain anything at all.
quote: That is Antiochus III according to your own Message 35 The successor to Antichus III was Seleucus IV according to your own Message 35. Thus Seleucus IV fits here.
quote: Not according to you earlier:
...Driven from Greece and Asia Minor and having lost nearly all his fleet, Antiochus III ‘turned his face back to the fortresses of his own land,’ Syria.
After he "fell" by death in 187 BCE he was succeeded by his son Seleucus IV, the next king of the north.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: i.e. your interpretation is not justified by the text of Daniel. In fact this just illustrates the problem Jazz wanted to bring forth. You feel that you have to reject the plain reading with its clear fulfillment because you have another interpretation that you prefer for reasons external to the text of Daniel. Proposing a double fulfillment would permit you to keep both interpretations.
quote: Antiochus DID desecrate the Temple, and arguably more completely than the Romans. Antiochus actually set up a pagan altar in the Temple itself and pagan sacrifices were held there. That's more than the Romans did.
quote: And that is a much better fit for Daniel. Daniel 12:11 states that there will be 1290 days from the abolition of the sacrifices and the setting up of the abomination. The Roman destruction of the Temple was in 70 AD - more than 1900 years ago.
quote: Daniel 8 places the "end times" in the Hellenistic period, as I have pointed out. How do you deal with that ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024