Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,421 Year: 3,678/9,624 Month: 549/974 Week: 162/276 Day: 2/34 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When was the Book of Daniel written?
Peg
Member (Idle past 4951 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 76 of 83 (537820)
12-01-2009 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Jazzns
11-30-2009 10:57 PM


Re: LXX in the DSS
Jazzns writes:
Do you have any response to my comment about why we should consider the linguistic evidence more than the rest of it?
we should consider it because language is like a map that linguists can trace to certain times, places and people. The aramaic portions of Daniel, which are Daniel 2:4b—7:28, point it to other aramaic texts that have been found from the 5th centruy BCE and earlier.
Jazzns writes:
It is also just a plain bad argument to say that because the Greek translators were bad then Daniel must have been old. The whole reason that the LXX exists is precisely because greek speaking jews were having a hard time with the hebrew and aramaic texts.
Why were they having a hard time with the hebrew and aramaic?
you dont think it was because the common tongue was no longer those old languages?
Truthnet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Jazzns, posted 11-30-2009 10:57 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Jazzns, posted 12-01-2009 11:19 AM Peg has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3933 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 77 of 83 (537875)
12-01-2009 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Peg
12-01-2009 4:55 AM


Re: LXX in the DSS
we should consider it because language is like a map that linguists can trace to certain times, places and people. The aramaic portions of Daniel, which are Daniel 2:4b*7:28, point it to other aramaic texts that have been found from the 5th centruy BCE and earlier.
That is not an answer to the question that I asked. Let me try and rephrase it...
Why should we consider the linguistic evidence, especially if it is a subject of scholarly controversy, to be a stronger determination of the date of Daniel than the other internal and external evidence from and about the text?
In my mind, someone can always sound like the past. If I today wanted to write a book that sounded like it was written in the time of the king james bible, I could simply use that as a resource to make my new work use the same vocabulary, styling, etc. So it is one thing to say that the language is of the 5th century, it is an entirely different thing to claim that because the language is of the 5th century, that therefore the writing MUST have been written in the 5th century. It is one line of evidence, disputed evidence, that we can put on the scales along side all of the other evidence to come to a reasonable and rational conclusion.
My feeling is that if you take evidence as best as it has been presented anywhere that you can reference, it stands as 60/40 in favor of the early date. Hence my statement that I feel that the linguistic evidence is not the best evidence for determining the date precicely because it is so fuzzy and in dispute.
Why were they having a hard time with the hebrew and aramaic?
Because they were speaking, reading, and writing primarily in greek. It might do you good to look into the history of the textual traditions. There was essentially a battle for legitimacy between the greek and non-greek traditions which is why we have the different traditions to begin with. The greek speaking jews wanted a greek text, the purists wanted to keep it in hebrew and aramaic.
you dont think it was because the common tongue was no longer those old languages?
When Daniel was translated into greek, greek was the common tongue. But my point is that the translation came later. The DSS of Daniel are not in greek so the point they were making about awkward translations is sort of a silly argument. I couldn't find a good online resource for exactly when the earliest copies of Daniel we have in greek were supposed to have been written but if I recall from some dead tree resources the earliest it would have been was the first century CE.
Truthnet
Are you going to present your own arguments or just link to sites you agree with?

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Peg, posted 12-01-2009 4:55 AM Peg has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 78 of 83 (539783)
12-19-2009 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peg
11-19-2009 8:38 PM


guess again
If jesus was the Messiah, then he could not have been wrong becuase the Messiah was sent by God, with full knowlege of the history of the world. Jesus had a prehuman existence and therefore he would not have used that book if it were a fake.
Except that Jesus quotes from outside the canon all the time.
As for example
Mark 11:25,26 writes:
And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
From here
Sirach 28:2 writes:
Forgive thy neighbour the hurt that he hath done unto thee, so shall thy sins also be forgiven when thou prayest.
Of course, Jesus the son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) is just ordinary wisdom literature, it's not like it's attributed falsely or something ...
John 15:6 writes:
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast [them] into the fire, and they are burned.
from here
Wisdom 4:5 writes:
The imperfect branches shall be broken off, their fruit unprofitable, not ripe to eat, yea, meet for nothing.
Here's the same reference again, in Matthew, this time given by name rather than substance, as he is wont to do
Matthew 12:42 writes:
The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon [is] here.
Of course, that's still just wise sayings, even if misattributed, it's not like it's a totally fictional work ...
Luke 6:31 writes:
And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
like this one
Tobit 4:15 writes:
Do that to no man which thou hatest
Still, Tobit isn't completely historically falsified, it's not like it's one of those Maccabean-period books where Nebuchadnezzar is just a code word for the Greeks
Mark 9:48 writes:
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
but this is
Judith 16:17 writes:
Woe to the nations that rise up against my kindred! the Lord Almighty will take vengeance of them in the day of judgment, in putting fire and worms in their flesh; and they shall feel them, and weep for ever.
There's also this
John 3:13 writes:
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.
from a source that has already been cited in this connection
Baruch 3:29 writes:
Who hath gone up into heaven, and taken her, and brought her down from the clouds?
I can do this for hours, there are several from each of these, but I think I will close this post up with one of my favorites, not the least because it gives us some insight into how Jesus works with his crowd.
Here he is, with an uncanny prompt from the proverbial innocent bystander, referencing a teaching from the story of Samuel
Mark 12:32,33 writes:
And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love [his] neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
While Jesus takes the lead from this and uses it to launch a sermon against the Pharisees, let's take a sneak peek at his real source
Antiquities 6:7.4 writes:
But the prophet said, "God is not delighted with sacrifices, but with good and with righteous men, who are such as follow his will and his laws, and never think that any thing is well done by them but when they do it as God had commanded them; that he then looks upon himself as affronted, not when any one does not sacrifice, but when any one appears to be disobedient to him. But that from those who do not obey him, nor pay him that duty which is the alone true and acceptable worship, he will not kindly accept their oblations, be those they offer ever so many and so fat, and be the presents they make him ever so ornamental, nay, though they were made of gold and silver themselves, but he will reject them, and esteem them instances of wickedness, and not of piety. And that he is delighted with those that still bear in mind this one thing, and this only, how to do that, whatsoever it be, which God pronounces or commands for them to do, and to choose rather to die than to transgress any of those commands; nor does he require so much as a sacrifice from them. And when these do sacrifice, though it be a mean oblation, he better accepts of it as the honor of poverty, than such oblations as come from the richest men that offer them to him.
We know that this is the text, rather than the actual book of Samuel, because the real prophet leaves out the part about small offerings. As Jesus gets to the end of his sermon, up steps another convenient person acting out:
Mark 12:40-44 writes:
Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.
And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
And he called [unto him] his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
For all [they] did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, [even] all her living.
What's Jesus doing quoting from Josephus, by the way? It's almost as if, after he was executed under Pontius Pilate, he didn't really stay dead. He seems to have gone on talking to people and teaching them for years and years after that ...
But you don't really believe that, do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 11-19-2009 8:38 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 5:53 AM Iblis has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4951 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 79 of 83 (539820)
12-20-2009 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Iblis
12-19-2009 11:54 PM


Re: guess again
Iblis writes:
Except that Jesus quotes from outside the canon all the time. As for example Sirach 28:2 writes:
Forgive thy neighbour the hurt that he hath done unto thee, so shall thy sins also be forgiven when thou prayest.
I hope you realise that Jesus taught from the Mosaic law as did other Jewish writers of the time including Jesus ben-Sirach of Jerusalem who wrote Sirach. However, unlike Jesus, he believed women were the cause of mankinds fall and wicked creatures. .
From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die. (sirah 25:33)
If Jesus was influenced by this extremist jew, he would not have saved a prostitute, condemned by law, from being stoned by an angry mob.
You seem to be attributing Jesus teachings with apochryphal books. Those books were written by Jew's who were also followers of the mosaic laws so its no surprise that they wrote many of the things that came from their scriptures.
But this does not prove that Jesus was copying them. Jesus was a follower of the Law of moses and the prophets and that is where his teachings came from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Iblis, posted 12-19-2009 11:54 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Iblis, posted 12-20-2009 9:46 AM Peg has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 80 of 83 (539850)
12-20-2009 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Peg
12-20-2009 5:53 AM


Re: guess again
If Jesus was influenced by this extremist jew, he would not have saved a prostitute, condemned by law, from being stoned by an angry mob.
Then I suppose he wasn't influenced by this extremist Jew, either
Proverbs 5:3-6 writes:
For the lips of a strange woman drop [as] an honeycomb, and her mouth [is] smoother than oil:
But her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a twoedged sword.
Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell.
Lest thou shouldest ponder the path of life, her ways are moveable, [that] thou canst not know [them].
or this one
Nehemiah 13:26 writes:
Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin.
or this one
Isaiah 3:12 writes:
[As for] my people, children [are] their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause [thee] to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
or this one
Ezekiel 13:17,18 writes:
Likewise, thou son of man, set thy face against the daughters of thy people, which prophesy out of their own heart; and prophesy thou against them,
And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe to the [women] that sew pillows to all armholes, and make kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls! Will ye hunt the souls of my people, and will ye save the souls alive [that come] unto you?
or this one
Genesis 3:6 writes:
And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
or especially this one
Deuteronomy 22:22-24 writes:
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, [both] the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
If a damsel [that is] a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Now that that's settled, what's left for this to mean?
Those books were written by Jew's who were also followers of the mosaic laws so its no surprise that they wrote many of the things that came from their scriptures.
But this does not prove that Jesus was copying them. Jesus was a follower of the Law of moses and the prophets and that is where his teachings came from.
We know that the saying Jesus is quoting in the first century AD is a quote, because ben Sirach already said it around 180 BC. By your logic, he must be quoting it from the Law or the Prophets. Show me where.
Ecclesiasticus 28:2 writes:
Forgive thy neighbour the hurt that he hath done unto thee, so shall thy sins also be forgiven when thou prayest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 5:53 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 7:58 PM Iblis has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4951 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 81 of 83 (539937)
12-20-2009 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Iblis
12-20-2009 9:46 AM


Re: guess again
Iblis writes:
We know that the saying Jesus is quoting in the first century AD is a quote, because ben Sirach already said it around 180 BC. By your logic, he must be quoting it from the Law or the Prophets. Show me where.
You 'know' that Jesus quoted from him do you?
Leviticus 19:18 'You must not take vengeance nor have a grudge against the sons of your people; and you must love your fellow as yourself.'
the jews would have understood what this mosaic law meant. To not hold a grudge against someone would mean that you would have to forgive. Remember that these were the laws that had been a part of their worship for many centuries, so it was not like none of them knew about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Iblis, posted 12-20-2009 9:46 AM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Iblis, posted 12-20-2009 8:19 PM Peg has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 82 of 83 (539938)
12-20-2009 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Peg
12-20-2009 7:58 PM


Re: guess again
Leviticus 19:18 'You must not take vengeance nor have a grudge against the sons of your people; and you must love your fellow as yourself.'
That would be fine if we were looking for a source for loving your neighbor as yourself. We aren't. What we are making reference to, is a principle, that you should forgive your enemies, so God will forgive you, when you pray. This is a quote from Jesus ben Sirach, nothing less. It's a much better quote, more word-for-word exact, than the vast majority of Old Testament "quotes" in the Gospels. It beats a lot of Matthew's fabrications hands down.
If I say "God helps those who help themselves", I'm quoting Ben Franklin. I may not know who I'm quoting, I may not have his exact words right, but I sure didn't make it up just by knowing what a cypher God is. I got it from Ben Franklin. Didn't I?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 7:58 PM Peg has not replied

  
anthonylau 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 5109 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 04-24-2010


Message 83 of 83 (557246)
04-24-2010 12:57 AM


spam deletion
Edited by AdminAsgara, : spam deletion

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024