Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Prophecy in the Bible - Theology of Double Fulfillment
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 1 of 157 (527468)
10-01-2009 1:06 PM


Prophecy in the Bible - Theology of Double Fulfillment
I recently became interested in studying the Book of Daniel. I have read a lot about the controversies surrounding the origins of Daniel but what I am really interested in is this notion of prophetic double (or multi) fulfillment.
The reason I am sticking with Daniel is this. Most people agree that Daniel was fulfilled (or written contemporaneously) with the warring between Antiochus and Ptolemy in the 2nd century B.C. Even if you believe that Daniel was written earlier, Daniel 12 suggests that nobody should know about it until it happens anyway. The fact that we do and the very accurate description of Palestine as a battlefront between the Antiochus and Ptolemy seems to make it pretty clear that Daniel 11 is a description of Antiochus as the "despicable person" and the one who desecrates the temple, etc.
But if you look at people who are deep into end-times thinking and writing right now they are basically saying that the events from Daniel 11 are going to happen again followed by the first fulfillment of Daniel 12. My question is, what is the Biblical support for this theology of double fulfillment? Even if you take for granted that Daniel 12 is yet to come and was not a failed prophecy, what Biblical support is there for another fulfillment of 11? You could broaden this topic to any other prophecy that is claimed to either BE a double fulfillment or that WILL HAVE a double fulfillment although I would like to focus on Daniel as a base example and would like to bring in the PRIMARY Biblical support for why double fulfillment is even valid theology.
I'll tell you right now that what I am NOT looking for is an argument that double fulfillment must be true in order to make the Bible accurate. I am looking for direct theological, historical, and Biblical evidence that we SHOULD consider double fulfillment as a valid method for interpreting prophecy in its own right.
I would love input from Christians as well as non-Christian Bible experts such as Brian if he is around.
Bible Accuracy Forum please.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by purpledawn, posted 10-02-2009 2:25 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 8:06 AM Jazzns has replied
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 10-03-2009 7:32 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 25 by kbertsche, posted 10-04-2009 11:42 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 107 by PaulK, posted 10-15-2009 5:40 AM Jazzns has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 157 (527480)
10-01-2009 1:34 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Prophecy in the Bible - Theology of Double Fulfillment thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 3 of 157 (527706)
10-02-2009 10:44 AM


Any Takers?
Any Interest in this topic at all?
No offense taken if there is not, I just don't want to hold my breath. =)

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

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 4 of 157 (527750)
10-02-2009 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jazzns
10-01-2009 1:06 PM


PaRDeS
quote:
I'll tell you right now that what I am NOT looking for is an argument that double fulfillment must be true in order to make the Bible accurate. I am looking for direct theological, historical, and Biblical evidence that we SHOULD consider double fulfillment as a valid method for interpreting prophecy in its own right.
I don't have the resources or knowledge that Brian has, but don't see that the prophecy writers give the impression that their prophecies hold a double meaning.
The NT writer seem to be applying a form of Remez to interpret the OT.
Hints, Allegories, and Mysteries: The New Testament Quotes the Old

(2) Remez (hint)wherein a word, phrase or other element in the text hints at a truth not conveyed by the p’shat. The implied presupposition is that God can hint at things of which the Bible writers themselves were unaware.
Kyle Williams has presented the book of Matthew as satire. The Satire According to Matthew
When it comes to thumbing his nose at the reader, Matthew's phony fulfillments are his forte. It is generally conceded that Matthew addressed his gospel to a Jewish audience. The Jews, being familiar with the Old Testament scriptures, would have recognized Matthew's phony fulfillments as signals that the book should not be taken seriously.
What if the humor got lost on the Gentiles and double fulfillment was born.
Daniel and the New Testament
This article brings out several references to Daniel made in the NT, although some of his references from Matthew to Daniel are rather vague.
Matthew (24:15) is the only one who refers back to the Book of Daniel (9:27)concerning the abomination that causes desolation. Mark (13:14) and Luke (21:20) don't. Luke doesn't even say abomination.
Luke 21:20
"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.
Using the same words doesn't mean they are referring back to Daniel.
I think the Book of Matthew sparked the double fulfillment issue, whether seriously or in jest.
I don't see that the OT writers lead one to that conclusion. If you notice the definition of Remez gives the implication that a writer can be clueless to an underlying meaning from God. I don't see that the OT writers presented that idea.
Edited by purpledawn, : Fix link

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jazzns, posted 10-01-2009 1:06 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Jazzns, posted 10-02-2009 3:26 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 10-02-2009 5:47 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 5 of 157 (527759)
10-02-2009 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by purpledawn
10-02-2009 2:25 PM


Re: PaRDeS
If I understand what you are saying it essentially is still boiling down to an argument that double prophecy has to be true in order to make the Bible accurate.
If you read Daniel 11 and 12 in particular, there is nothing there to suggest that the events at the end there would be delayed, by oh lets say 2000 years, but I am not certain that other traditions don't exist that would push for a double fulfillment interpretation.
Hence my asking.

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 4 by purpledawn, posted 10-02-2009 2:25 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by purpledawn, posted 10-02-2009 4:38 PM Jazzns has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 6 of 157 (527794)
10-02-2009 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Jazzns
10-02-2009 3:26 PM


Re: PaRDeS
quote:
If I understand what you are saying it essentially is still boiling down to an argument that double prophecy has to be true in order to make the Bible accurate.
That wasn't my intention.
I agree that in the text of Daniel the writer does not present the idea that the fulfillment events would take place 2000 or more years later. I don't think any of the prophecies did. They were written for their audience.
I think the double fulfillment idea was generated through looking for hidden meanings after the exile in texts for hope since the prophecy well had run dry for many years before Christ. That may be reflected in the humor of the Matthew writer. Supposedly there were many who claimed to be the messiah and they probably used the scripture to try and prove they were.
Looking for hidden meanings is just another way of reading religious text. It doesn't really deal with accuracy. Although as a general rule any extended meaning supposedly should not contradict the simple or direct meaning.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Jazzns, posted 10-02-2009 3:26 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Jazzns, posted 10-02-2009 5:35 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 7 of 157 (527813)
10-02-2009 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by purpledawn
10-02-2009 4:38 PM


Re: PaRDeS
I fear that that explanation might stuffer from the same properties that I am trying to avoid though in that there is no evidence to support the validity of such interpretations.
Was such a thing done in the past with older prophecies? Is there support somewhere in the Bible or elsewhere to suggest that it is okay theologically to do such a thing?

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 6 by purpledawn, posted 10-02-2009 4:38 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by purpledawn, posted 10-02-2009 7:24 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 8 of 157 (527816)
10-02-2009 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by purpledawn
10-02-2009 2:25 PM


Re: PaRDeS
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:
Matthew (24:15) is the only one who refers back to the Book of Daniel (9:27)concerning the abomination that causes desolation. Mark (13:14) and Luke (21:20) don't. Luke doesn't even say abomination.
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by purpledawn, posted 10-02-2009 2:25 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Jazzns, posted 10-02-2009 6:25 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 11 by purpledawn, posted 10-02-2009 7:52 PM PaulK has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 9 of 157 (527825)
10-02-2009 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
10-02-2009 5:47 PM


Any double fulfillments actually documented?
As a seperate issue, do you know of good place to get detailed information about when books were written. Internet searches on things like this are hard because you often get the theologically biased interpretations.
I would love to see a wiki style site with each book, canoncal, apocrophal, deuterocanoncal, etc listed with information about its origins and evidence for dating etc.
As for the topic:
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".
The primary place I hear about "double fulfilment" is issues regarding the end times. Daniel describing Antiochus and then some as of yet unfulfilled anti-christ. John the Revelator describing Nero and some as of yet unfulfilled anti-christ.
I don't know enough Bible to know if there are any self-contained double fulfillments in the bible of earlier prophecies but that is certainly something I could imagine someone posting about.
Aren't there some prophecies concerning Jesus that were also fulfilled by earlier Biblical persona? The criticism there may be that they weren't really about Jesus to begin with but it would be a good starting place for discussing if there is biblical support for this method of interpretation of prophecy.

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 8 by PaulK, posted 10-02-2009 5:47 PM PaulK has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 10 of 157 (527834)
10-02-2009 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jazzns
10-02-2009 5:35 PM


Re: PaRDeS
quote:
I fear that that explanation might stuffer from the same properties that I am trying to avoid though in that there is no evidence to support the validity of such interpretations.
Valid as in they are allowed to do it, or valid as in the interpretation matches the simple reading? These types of interpretations aren't meant to match the simple reading. Religions can interpret their religious writings any way they want. When people stop buying into it they will disappear.
quote:
Was such a thing done in the past with older prophecies? Is there support somewhere in the Bible or elsewhere to suggest that it is okay theologically to do such a thing?
From what I can tell this type of interpretation came about after the exile when the rabbinic style emerged. Before that the manuscripts were still being written.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jazzns, posted 10-02-2009 5:35 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 11 of 157 (527843)
10-02-2009 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
10-02-2009 5:47 PM


Re: PaRDeS
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 don't see that the author of Mark is insinuating that this is a second fulfillment of Daniel, but more of a similar event. Times just as bad as described in Daniel. We assume it refers to Daniel or have been told it does; but I don't see it in the text.
quote:
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).
Strong case for what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 10-02-2009 5:47 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2009 4:04 AM purpledawn has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 12 of 157 (527884)
10-03-2009 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by purpledawn
10-02-2009 7:52 PM


Re: PaRDeS
quote:
I don't see that the author of Mark is insinuating that this is a second fulfillment of Daniel, but more of a similar event. Times just as bad as described in Daniel. We assume it refers to Daniel or have been told it does; but I don't see it in the text.
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:
Strong case for what?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by purpledawn, posted 10-02-2009 7:52 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by purpledawn, posted 10-03-2009 8:23 AM PaulK has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 13 of 157 (527897)
10-03-2009 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jazzns
10-01-2009 1:06 PM


Hi Jazzns
Jassns writes:
My question is, what is the Biblical support for this theology of double fulfillment?
There certainly is biblical support double, greater fulfillments of prophecies. Many prophecies find a typical fulfillment in the nation of Israel and then find a complete fulfillment later on. In other words, the typical fulfillment itself in turn becomes a prophecy pointing forward to a still greater event.
One example is the prophecy at Exodus 23:31 which foretold the boundaries of the Promised Land that Isreal would come to possess. This prophecy had its typical fulfillment in David’s day when David expanded the kingdom to the divinely set boundaries between 1077 B.C. and 1037 B.C. But it will have a greater fulfillment when Christ Jesus enforces his dominion to the very ends of the earth by means of the Kingdom of God. At that time the boundaries of the promised land will encompass the whole earth.
Jazzns writes:
what Biblical support is there for another fulfillment of 11
which part of daniel 11 are you refering to? Its a fairly long chapter and its not all refering to 1 specific prophecy but actually contains several. It is an overview of the struggles between world powers right thru the ages until the 'last days' or 'our day'.
quote:
And as for me, in the first year of Da‧ri′us the Mede I stood up as a strengthener and as a fortress to him. 2And now what is truth I shall tell to you: Look! There will yet be three kings standing up for Persia, and the fourth one will amass greater riches than all [others]. And as soon as he has become strong in his riches, he will rouse up everything against the kingdom of Greece.
3And a mighty king will certainly stand up and rule with extensive dominion and do according to his will. 4And when he will have stood up, his kingdom will be broken and be divided toward the four winds of the heavens, but not to his posterity and not according to his dominion with which he had ruled; because his kingdom will be uprooted, even for others than these.
5And the king of the south will become strong, even [one] of his princes; and he will prevail against him and will certainly rule with extensive dominion [greater than] that one’s ruling power.
6And at the end of [some] years they will ally themselves with each other, and the very daughter of the king of the south will come to the king of the north in order to make an equitable arrangement. But she will not retain the power of her arm; and he will not stand, neither his arm; and she will be given up, she herself, and those bringing her in, and he who caused her birth, and the one making her strong in [those] times.
7And one from the sprout of her roots will certainly stand up in his position, and he will come to the military force and come against the fortress of the king of the north and will certainly act against them and prevail. 8And also with their gods, with their molten images, with their desirable articles of silver and of gold, [and] with the captives he will come to Egypt. And he himself will for [some] years stand off from the king of the north. 9And he will actually come into the kingdom of the king of the south and go back to his own soil.
10Now as for his sons, they will excite themselves and actually gather together a crowd of large military forces. And in coming he will certainly come and flood over and pass through. But he will go back, and he will excite himself all the way to his fortress.
11And the king of the south will embitter himself and will have to go forth and fight with him, [that is,] with the king of the north; and he will certainly have a large crowd stand up, and the crowd will actually be given into the hand of that one. 12And the crowd will certainly be carried away. His heart will become exalted, and he will actually cause tens of thousands to fall; but he will not use his strong position.
13And the king of the north must return and set up a crowd larger than the first; and at the end of the times, [some] years, he will come, doing so with a great military force and with a great deal of goods. 14And in those times there will be many who will stand up against the king of the south. And the sons of the robbers belonging to your people will, for their part, be carried along to try making a vision come true; and they will have to stumble. 15And the king of the north will come and throw up a siege rampart and actually capture a city with fortifications. And as for the arms of the south, they will not stand, neither the people of his picked ones; and there will be no power to keep standing. 16And the one coming against him will do according to his will, and there will be no one standing before him. And he will stand in the land of the Decoration, and there will be extermination in his hand. 17And he will set his face to come with the forcefulness of his entire kingdom, and there will be equitable [terms] with him; and he will act effectively. And as regards the daughter of womankind, it will be granted to him to bring her to ruin. And she will not stand, and she will not continue to be his. 18And he will turn his face back to the coastlands and will actually capture many. And a commander will have to make the reproach from him cease for himself, [so that] his reproach will not be. He will make it turn back upon that one. 19And he will turn his face back to the fortresses of his [own] land, and he will certainly stumble and fall, and he will not be found. 20And there must stand up in his position one who is causing an exactor to pass through the splendid kingdom, and in a few days he will be broken, but not in anger nor in warfare. 21And there must stand up in his position one who is to be despised, and they will certainly not set upon him the dignity of [the] kingdom; and he will actually come in during a freedom from care and take hold of [the] kingdom by means of smoothness. 22And as regards the arms of the flood, they will be flooded over on account of him, and they will be broken; as will also the Leader of [the] covenant. 23And because of their allying themselves with him he will carry on deception and actually come up and become mighty by means of a little nation. 24During freedom from care, even into the fatness of the jurisdictional district he will enter in and actually do what his fathers and the fathers of his fathers have not done. Plunder and spoil and goods he will scatter among them; and against fortified places he will scheme out his schemes, but only until a time. 25And he will arouse his power and his heart against the king of the south with a great military force; and the king of the south, for his part, will excite himself for the war with an exceedingly great and mighty military force. And he will not stand, because they will scheme out against him schemes. 26And the very ones eating his delicacies will bring his breakdown. And as for his military force, it will be flooded away, and many will certainly fall down slain. 27And as regards these two kings, their heart will be inclined to doing what is bad, and at one table a lie is what they will keep speaking. But nothing will succeed, because [the] end is yet for the time appointed. 28And he will go back to his land with a great amount of goods, and his heart will be against the holy covenant. And he will act effectively and certainly go back to his land. 29At the time appointed he will go back, and he will actually come against the south; but it will not prove to be at the last the same as at the first. 30And there will certainly come against him the ships of Kit′tim, and he will have to become dejected. And he will actually go back and hurl denunciations against the holy covenant and act effectively; and he will have to go back and will give consideration to those leaving the holy covenant. 31And there will be arms that will stand up, proceeding from him; and they will actually profane the sanctuary, the fortress, and remove the constant [feature]. And they will certainly put in place the disgusting thing that is causing desolation. 32And those who are acting wickedly against [the] covenant, he will lead into apostasy by means of smooth words. But as regards the people who are knowing their God, they will prevail and act effectively. 33And as regards those having insight among the people, they will impart understanding to the many. And they will certainly be made to stumble by sword and by flame, by captivity and by plundering, for [some] days. 34But when they are made to stumble they will be helped with a little help; and many will certainly join themselves to them by means of smoothness. 35And some of those having insight will be made to stumble, in order to do a refining work because of them and to do a cleansing and to do a whitening, until the time of [the] end; because it is yet for the time appointed. 36And the king will actually do according to his own will, and he will exalt himself and magnify himself above every god; and against the God of gods he will speak marvelous things. And he will certainly prove successful until [the] denunciation will have come to a finish; because the thing decided upon must be done. 37And to the God of his fathers he will give no consideration; and to the desire of women and to every other god he will give no consideration, but over everyone he will magnify himself. 38But to the god of fortresses, in his position he will give glory; and to a god that his fathers did not know he will give glory by means of gold and by means of silver and by means of precious stone and by means of desirable things. 39And he will act effectively against the most fortified strongholds, along with a foreign god. Whoever has given [him] recognition he will make abound with glory, and he will actually make them rule among many; and [the] ground he will apportion out for a price. 40And in the time of [the] end the king of the south will engage with him in a pushing, and against him the king of the north will storm with chariots and with horsemen and with many ships; and he will certainly enter into the lands and flood over and pass through. 41He will also actually enter into the land of the Decoration, and there will be many [lands] that will be made to stumble. But these are the ones that will escape out of his hand, E′dom and Mo′ab and the main part of the sons of Am′mon. 42And he will keep thrusting out his hand against the lands; and as regards the land of Egypt, she will not prove to be an escapee. 43And he will actually rule over the hidden treasures of the gold and the silver and over all the desirable things of Egypt. And the Lib′y‧ans and the E‧thi‧o′pi‧ans will be at his steps. 44But there will be reports that will disturb him, out of the sunrising and out of the north, and he will certainly go forth in a great rage in order to annihilate and to devote many to destruction. 45And he will plant his palatial tents between [the] grand sea and the holy mountain of Decoration; and he will have to come all the way to his end, and there will be no helper for him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jazzns, posted 10-01-2009 1:06 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Jazzns, posted 10-05-2009 11:01 AM Peg has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 14 of 157 (527898)
10-03-2009 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by PaulK
10-03-2009 4:04 AM


Re: PaRDeS
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.
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.
1 Maccabees also mentions the abomination of desolation and describes what happened. The author of Mark could also be referring to that incident. Notice they fled to the mountains.
The Book of Daniel is grouped with the writings in the Jewish Bible, not the prophets.
1 Maccabees 1
[54] Now the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and builded idol altars throughout the cities of Juda on every side;
1 Maccabees 2
[27] And Mattathias cried throughout the city with a loud voice, saying, Whosoever is zealous of the law, and maintaineth the covenant, let him follow me.
[28] So he and his sons fled into the mountains, and left all that ever they had in the city.
[29] Then many that sought after justice and judgment went down into the wilderness, to dwell there:
Early Jewish Writings: Daniel
W. Sibley Towner writes: "Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In the form in which we have it (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), the book must have been given its final form some time in the years 167-164 B.C. This dating is based upon two assumptions: first, that the authors lived at the later end of the historical surveys that characterize Daniel 7-12; and second, that prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray. Based upon these assumptions, the references to the desecration of the Temple and the 'abomination that makes desolate' in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events known to the author. The best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The inaccurate description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests that the author did not know of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C. The roots of the hagiographa (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chaps. 1-6 may date to an earlier time, but the entire work was given its final shape in 164 B.C." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 696)
Early Jewish Writings: 1 Maccabees
David A. deSilva writes: "The book must have been written after the accession of John Hyrcanus in 134 B.C.E., since this event is the last related in the narrative. The author speaks of the Romans highly and emphasizes the Jews' friendly relations with Rome and Rome's faithfulnes as allies, necessitating a date of composition prior to 63 B.C.E. (Oesterley 1913: 60; Goldstein 1976: 63; Fischer 1992: 441; Bartlett 1998: 34). The narration of the achievements and character of the Romans in 8:1-16 is an encomium, contrasting sharply with later reflection on Roman conquest and rule as arrogance, insolence, and an affront against God. Pompey's entry into the holy places in 63 B.C.E. would have marred the author's unqualified appreciation of the Romans (as a comparison with the response of Psalms of Solomon 2; 8; 17 to that event might show). . . . The conclusion to the whole (16:23-24), while not necessitating a date after Hyrcanus's death, is certainly more naturally taken that way, given the parallels in the books of Samuel and Kings, on which the author is intentionally drawing (Oesterley 1913: 60; Pfeiffer 1949: 301; Goldstein 1976: 63; Bartlett 1998: 33). . . . It seems preferable, therefore, to consider 1 Maccabees as having originated sometime after John Hyrcanus's death in 104 B.C.E. and before Roman intervention in the dispute between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II in 63 B.C.E." (Introducing the Apocrypha, p. 248)
That one reference is not what makes the book of Matthew a satirical writing.
Daniel wasn't necessarily canonical at the time of Mark's writing. Was the writer of Mark alluding to Daniel or the actual Maccabean event which would remind the people of what did happen when they were overrun before?
In the Septuagint, the Torah and Nevi'im are established as canonical, but, the Ketuvim appear not to have been definitively canonized yet (some editions of the Septuagint include, for instance I—IV Maccabees or the 151st Psalm, while others do not include them, also there are the Septuagint additions to Esther, Jeremiah, and Daniel and 1 Esdras).
As I said: I think the Book of Matthew sparked the double fulfillment issue, whether seriously or in jest. I could be wrong. Just my thoughts.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2009 4:04 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2009 4:26 PM purpledawn has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 15 of 157 (527971)
10-03-2009 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by purpledawn
10-03-2009 8:23 AM


Re: PaRDeS
quote:
1 Maccabees also mentions the abomination of desolation and describes what happened. The author of Mark could also be referring to that incident. Notice they fled to the mountains.
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:
The Book of Daniel is grouped with the writings in the Jewish Bible, not the prophets.
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:
That one reference is not what makes the book of Matthew a satirical writing.
I never said otherwise. All I said was that the case for that reference being satirical was weak.
quote:
Daniel wasn't necessarily canonical at the time of Mark's writing. Was the writer of Mark alluding to Daniel or the actual Maccabean event which would remind the people of what did happen when they were overrun before?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by purpledawn, posted 10-03-2009 8:23 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by purpledawn, posted 10-03-2009 5:28 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024