- This topic has 302 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
To see the wider context see this link
@ Gadam
Mathew 16
[27] For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.[28] Truly I tell you, there are those who stand here who will not taste death, until they see the Son of man come into his kingdom.
Matthew 17: 1,2
[1] At the end of six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and set them apart to a high mountain,
[2] And he was transfigured before them: and his face shone as the sun, and his garment was white as the light.WHY JESUS GAVE THIS ONE(verse27) WHITH THE OTHERS VERSES ?????
Hi Berean, thanks for your continuous posts on this thread.
You: Peter, James and John were the “some standing here ” who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power” WHEN THEY saw Jesus glorified BEFORE THEM.
Me: So you think that Peter, James and John could visualize the Parousia of Jesus coming in his kingdom and executed judgement as quoted by Matthew ?
Matt 16: 27 “For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done. 28 Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
I find there are lot of holes in this view as Jesus promised only one coming(Parousia) every where in the Gospels and also quoted by the other NT writers.
The Dating of the Book of Daniel
Although it does not actually claim to have been written in the sixth century BCE, the Book of Daniel gives clear internal dates such as “the third year of the reign of king Jehoiakim,” (1:1), that is, 606 BCE); “the second year of the reign of king Nebuchadnezzar, ” (2:1), that is, 603 BCE); “the first year of Darius,” (9:1), that is 522 BCE); “in the third year of Cyrus,” (10:1), that is 547 or perhaps 536). Daniel and his associates are portrayed as Jewish Exiles in Babylon during that period. However, several internal inconsistencies give rise to certain questions and we are forced to ask whether these dates can be taken as the date of composition. First, who was Belshazzar? The book of Daniel portrays him as the Babylonian king in the first year of whose reign Daniel has his dream of the four great beasts which come up out of the sea. (7:1-14) Belshazzar was said to have been slain after he saw the writing on the wall, at which time Darius the Mede supposedly took over the Babylonian kingdom (5:30) Actually Belshazzar was the son of the Babylonian king, Nabonidus, and he ruled in place of his father when Nabonidus went to live in Teima in the Arabian desert for eight years (c. 552 – 545 BCE.) However, no evidence exists for the assassination of Belshazzar and it is known from conclusive extra-Biblical evidence that in fact Cyrus of Persia took the Babylonian crown from Nabonidus in 539. Darius was the second successor to Cyrus after Cambyses and he (Darius) ascended the Persian throne in 522 BCE. How could the author of the Book of Daniel make such an error if he lived and wrote at the time indicated?
The author of the Book of Daniel seems to place the rule of Cyrus after that of Darius, again an inexplicable error for an author contemporary with these events. Furthermore he makes no mention of the fact that it was the Edict of Cyrus of 538 BCE. which finally allowed the Hebrews to return to Israel. This is a crucial event in the history of the religion of Israel and would surely warrant a mention from any author of that period.
Third it does not seem to be consistent with the facts that the Babylonians are presented as actively persecuting the Jews and attempting to destroy their religion. In fact the Jews lived quite peacefully and had plenty of opportunity to practice their faith in exile in Babylon. The synagogue and the canonization of the Torah have their origins in Babylonian Judaism, as, of course, does the Babylonian Talmud.
Fourth the predictions given by Daniel in the form of the interpretation of dreams and visions are remarkably accurate up to a point. He predicts the rise of four kingdoms (2:31-45). These can readily be identified as the Babylonian, the Persian, the Greek and the divided Greek empire (after the death of Alexander the Great). He continues to tell the “future” with great accuracy. He tells of “a mighty king who shall arise and rule with great dominion” who can be recognized as Alexander (336 – 323 BCE, (11:3). He “predicts” the division of the Greek empire after Alexander’s death and the wars between the Ptolemies who rule in Egypt (the “kings of the south”) and the Seleucids who rule in Babylon (the “kings of the north”). These general prediction become much more detailed and specific when he predicts the conquest of the king of the south by a king of the north who “shall do as neither his fathers nor his father’s fathers have done, scattering among them plunder, spoil, and goods” (11:24). (See also 7:7-10, 8:9-12). This king is “predicted” to cause the sacrifices of the Temple to cease (9:27)and to set up a “desolating sacrilege” in the Temple (12:11) This can be non other than Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid ruler of Babylon who profaned the Jerusalem Temple in 167 BCE and set up a statue of Zeus with whom he identified himself. Unfortunately, after these remarkably accurate “predictions” Daniel goes awry at (11:40) when he predicts that this king will be attacked by the king of the south etc. This does not accord with any historical event.
Finally, and of considerable significance, is the fact that the Book of Daniel was never grouped with the Hebrew Nevi’im (the Prophets) but has always belonged to the Ketuvim (the writings). If the author had been accepted to be a sixth century Jew of the Exile his work would have pre-dated Ezra and Nehemiah and would certainly have been considered authoritative enough to group it with the other prophets.
What explanation could make sense of these inconsistencies? The most obvious conclusion would be that the Book of Daniel was written at the time of the profanation of the Temple by Antiochus IV, during the Maccabean revolt which that sacrilege provoked. That would explain why the author is not very precise about sixth century events, why he is so precise about the time of Antiochus, and why he was never counted among the prophets. What other evidence is there to support such a conclusion, apart from the fact that it answers our questions so neatly?
First, stories about Daniel had circulated before the time of Antiochus and had long been used to encourage faithful obedience to and observance of Jewish law. However, all the stories of the book of Daniel relate directly to the persecution under Antiochus: loyalty to the Jewish food laws and the refusal to worship images of other gods had become a question of life and death in Antiochus’ crisis-ridden empire.
Second, the name Nebuchadnezzar contains a disguised reference to Antiochus to those acquainted with Hebrew numbering. The Babylonian king of 605 – 562 BCE was in fact called nabu-kuddurri-usur which should be transliterated into Hebrew script as NeuchadRezzar (as it is in eg. Jeremiah 46:2, 39:11). The change of that one letter gives this name the same numerical value in Hebrew (which had no separate numbers and so used letters to represent numbers) as the name Antiochus Epiphanes. This is too coincidental to be accidental and too contrived to be miraculous.
Thirdly, the whole genre of Apocalyptic literature which Daniel represents only developed during the period of crisis and persecution under Antiochus. The few examples of Apocalyptic in the Old Testament are all late, and the popularity of Apocalyptic in the New Testament is indication that it was a relatively new and popular literary form around the time of Jesus.
Adam…… Remember the Jew only represent a small fraction of Israel, just one tribe out of thirteen tribes. They like People to think they are representing all of Israel, and our scriptures in the Old Testament. Was brought to us by them, they weren’t, there were many writers of the Hebrew Scriptures that were not Jews at all.
The Jew do not even begin to represent all of the tribes of true Israel, at the time of Jesus they only represented three tribes, the Jews, Benjamin, Levi. The other ten tribes were represented as the kingdom of Israel, not the Jews.
That is why , Jesus said they would not have preached unto all the cities before he returned, there are thousands of Cities of Israel that exist all over this world today, even whole nations of them exist today. There are probably more the a billion of them In existence today all over the earth. Also remember Jesus told his decides not to preach to the Gentle’s nor the Samaritans.
Mar 10: 5-6…..These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter you not. (6) But go rather to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” .
Jesusally did not consider the Jew of his day as lost, sheep of Israel, he witnessed to the Jews, and they rejected them ad killed him, as it is to his very day.Adam be careful brother, never forget the Jews are against Jesus today, even as they were in his day. Thy will do anything to discredit him or anyone who teaches what he said. So don’t expect any agreement of our New Testament text from them.
And be assured they only represent a small insignificant fraction of Israel, even though they want the whole world to believe they represent all of Israel , there are more Jews in New York City then actual the whole nation of Israel today, and were even given that land by other Israelite Nations , England , and the United States of America ,
Be careful of what they say brother.
peace and love to you and yours……….gene
Gadam
The 3 apostles did not see the Parousia but the glory of the divinity of the Son of God which will be manifested when He returns in the clouds of the heavens.
Amen come Lord Jesus
gadam: Matt 16: 27 “For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done. 28 Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Neither Enoch nor Elijah tasted death, so they too will not have ever tasted death before they see Jesus coming in his kingdom. Jesus means that some of those standing there with him at that time would be like Enoch and Elijah – who didn’t suffer death but were taken by God directly from life on earth to life in heaven.
Mike….Couldn’t the word “taste ” Apply to the actual word meaning to experience the process of dying? But say a person simply is suddenly taken by God , snatched from their body by God, they could still be dead or without consciousness and not even know it, right? I believe that happened to Stephen, when he was being stoned, I believe God just snatched him out of his body, and he still is waiting for his resurrection and a new body. Anyway just a thought.
peace and love to you and yours……….gene
Hi Mike,
When Jesus spoke these words, he was speaking to the disciples, not Elijah and Henoc.
👇
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
[25] For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
[26] For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
[27] For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
[28] Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.Hebrews 9:27-28
Just as man is appointed to die once, and after that to face judgment…
Since Adam, every man has been appointed to die once. In the entire history of mankind, there were only two (we know of) whom God considered so righteous that He exempted them from tasting death: Enoch and Elijah.
But then…
Hebrews 2:9
But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
Jesus tasted death on behalf of the rest of us. As I see it, Jesus “lowered the righteousness bar” by dying on our behalf and casting our sins away. So while the vast majority of us still taste death before being raised to judgment, people like John, Peter, Paul, Stephen – who on their own weren’t quite as righteous as Enoch and Elijah – can skip the death part and go right from life on earth to life in heaven… because Jesus already tasted death for them. I believe that some of the souls under the alter in Revelation are the ones to whom Jesus said the words in question: “Some standing here will not taste death…” While they weren’t righteous enough to go right from life on earth to life in heaven by their own merits (like Enoch and Elijah), they did enough that they could make the grade after Jesus lowered the bar by already tasting death on their behalf. So maybe John didn’t taste death, but went right from earth to heaven. Maybe Peter too. Maybe Paul and Stephen – or any number of the disciples who were standing there when Jesus said those words.
In my understanding, those are also these…
Revelation 6:9-11
When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants were killed just as they had been.
These people are alive in heaven right now… not sleeping in death. It doesn’t say how many there are, or what their final number will be, but I believe some of them are the very ones who were standing there when Jesus said those words. So they will eventually witness the Son of Man coming back to earth in glory – having never tasted death before seeing that sight.
Cheers
Hi Mike, thanks for coming to this new thread on Parousia.
You: Matt 16: 27 “For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done. 28 Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Neither Enoch nor Elijah tasted death, so they too will not have ever tasted death before they see Jesus coming in his kingdom. Jesus means that some of those standing there with him at that time would be like Enoch and Elijah – who didn’t suffer death but were taken by God directly from life on earth to life in heaven.
Me: Again you made me laugh. Thanks for that. I don’t know where from you get these strange ideas. Do you think Enoch and Elijah were standing in the crowd when Jesus was uttering the above saying?
Sorry I can not go for such strange interpretation of yours and even others in this Forum may not buy your logics.
Thank you…..Adam
Hello brother Gene, thanks for your lengthy post to me.
You: Mar 10: 5-6…..These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter you not. (6) But go rather to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” .
Jesusally did not consider the Jew of his day as lost, sheep of Israel, he witnessed to the Jews, and they rejected them ad killed him, as it is to his very day.Adam be careful brother, never forget the Jews are against Jesus today, even as they were in his day. Thy will do anything to discredit him or anyone who teaches what he said. So don’t expect any agreement of our New Testament text from them.
Me: Thanks for your caution about Jews but I am not for them and I am only interpreting the NT writings in the light of its original source the Hebrew Bible. That is the only way to end these unending debates on Jesus. I question you and others here whether you could prove your arguments on Jesus? No. The reason behind this is the NT had deviated much from its original source. The result is confusion. So I am now standing outside the NT and seeing the things clearly with unbiased manner. I hope that will answer your query. Please see the Bible I mean Hebrew Bible and understand the NT you will realise that how far it has gone away from its original scriptures.
Thanks and peace to you……Adam
Adam……There are many things Jesus said that the OT did not say and even spoke against some thing written in it. Things like Divorces, And lusting for women (married women) like , “whosoever looks upon a women to lust after he , commits adulatory with her in his heart”, and things like “you have heard it said , but I say unto you”. Jesus changed our concepts and in many cases about things written in the OT.
you also must remember all those writers were writing things as they saw them, take place from their point of view, that is why I believe the New Testament translators who were “trinitarians” used words that could be taken in different ways, trying to push their own religious concepts in the scriptures, but the original writers the disciples were being lead by the Spirit of truth, and were also eye witness of the things they wrote about. The book you are talking about, pits the “original” scriptural writers as contradicting each other, And giving false accounts of what took place and was said, but give no consideration to how this those things may have been altered during translation, by translators, but ignores that completely, and makes his point that it was the “original writers ” themselves that did it, in that I disagree, I am not saying it is impossible for that to have happened, but to me if they were truly converted and had the Spirit of truth working in them, I find it highly unlike they would contradict themselves in what they testified about. Having said that I do know errors do exist in our present text , both in the New as well as in the Old also. As many critical scholars have brought out over the years, like Bart Ehrman and others.
peace and love to you and yours………gene
Hello brother Gene thanks again for your patience in replying my posts.
You:
And giving false accounts of what took place and was said, but give no consideration to how this those things may have been altered during translation, by translators, but ignores that completely, and makes his point that it was the “original writers ” themselves that did it, in that I disagree, I am not saying it is impossible for that to have happened, but to me if they were truly converted and had the Spirit of truth working in them, I find it highly unlike they would contradict themselves in what they testified about. Having said that I do know errors do exist in our present text , both in the New as well as in the Old also. As many critical scholars have brought out over the years, like Bart Ehrman and others.
Me: I am not saying that there are errors in the Hebrew Bible. But that was the only primary source available to the NT writers. Take for example the Book of Daniel, it was not listed as prophetic book in the Hebrew Bible because its compilation was disputed at the time of Biblical(Hebrew Bible) canon. So they had included it among the Writings (Ketuvim). Its date of compilation was in 2nd BCE and not 6 BCE as for the Biblical Scholars. Even the authorship of Moses for the first Five Books of Hebrew Bible also now disputed stating that they were written by more than 4 authors (JEPDR) with different versions. I even don’t count the Hebrew Bible as fully inspired by God or God’s Spirit like other fundamentalists.
But what I am arguing here is that the whole confusion of Christian doctrines arisen due to change of basic concepts of Hebrew Religion in the context of Jesus, supposed to be the Jewish Messiah. So I am not for any side and I am neutral and searching these writings with critical mind to find the truth. Please don’t mistake me for these rational arguments I put forth here.
Thank you and peace to you….Adam
The Four Kingdoms and Other Chronological Conceptions in the Book of Daniel (by Michael Segal)
1 Introduction:
The four kingdoms scheme plays a prominent role in the book of Daniel itself, and lies at the foundation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2 and Daniel’s vision in chapter 7. The motif of four earthly empires followed by a heavenly kingdom, whose roots can be traced to surrounding cultures, serves both chronological and ideological-theological functions within Daniel itself. In the current study, I want to focus on the former, and place it in the larger context of chronological conceptions throughout the book as a whole. At the same time, the discussion of the ideological worldview of the Danielic authors will be discussed as it relates to these chronological conceptions. All of the chronological schemes in Daniel to be discussed here share a number of basic features, although specific aspects and emphases vary from chapter to chapter.
It will be suggested that one aspect, common to the chronological worldview of most early Jewish and Christian apocalypses, is in fact not present in all of the Daniel apocalypses, and this serves as a litmus test for the milieu and historical background in which they were composed. The following five characteristics or features are common to some or all of the Daniel apocalypses.
2 Chronological Span:
These characteristics relate to a chronological span of time, and not to an event at a specific moment. Within an apocalypse one finds allusions to individual incidents, but the apocalypse as a whole refers to a longer period that includes the individual event. This is common among contemporaneous apocalyptic compositions, such as Jubilees or the Apocalypse of Weeks. However, those are different in that their span of history begins from the creation of the world. In contrast, throughout Daniel the starting point for this span is a specific historical referent and, in particular, a point in time related to the rise and reign of a foreign empire. Thus, the four kingdoms dream in chapter 2 and vision in chapter 7 begin explicitly with the Babylonian kingdom and reach historically until the Hellenistic empire. The “70 weeks” vision in Daniel 9 covers a period of 490 years, generally assumed to start with the final years of the Babylonian empire. I have argued that it in fact begins with the rise of the Persians, and continues once again through the Hellenistic period. Daniel 8 covers a similar period, from Media and Persia through Greece. Daniel 11 also begins with Persian kings and then offers a detailed description of the complex interactions between the Seleucids and Ptolemies.
This short survey of the historical periods covered in the Daniel apocalypses leads to the unsurprising conclusion that the primary interest of their authors lay in their contemporary condition. In all of the passages, the current empire (Greece) is the focus of the apocalypse, but is always complemented or contrasted with the immediately prior empire (Persia, and sometimes Media). In the four kingdoms passages, the historical perspective is expanded back even further to include Babylonia. The expanded perspective to include at least one, but sometimes multiple, additional empires, including their rise and fall, is part of the internal logic and argument put forth—the current oppressive empire might have the upper hand, but they too will fall one day, just as previous empires did before them.
3 Periodization:
The succession of empires is at the same time inherently related to periodization, which has a chronological conception at its core. Many Second Temple Apocalyptic texts can be characterized by their use of set divisions of times according to which the events of history occur, along the chronological span described above. Thus, the Apocalypse of Weeks divides all of universal history into ten weeks, and each of these can be further subdivided into “days.” Jubilees dates the events from the creation of the world to the return to the land of Israel according to a system of jubilees and weeks. The Apocryphon of Jeremiah dates the period between two blasphemous kings, presumably Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus IV, as ten jubilees.
This final period is equal in length to the “seventy weeks”, or 490, years of Daniel 9. In that sense, one finds the notion of periodization in Daniel as well. However, the scheme in that chapter is different than what is found, for example, in the Apocalypse of Weeks, since, in the latter, the periods are of generally equal length and, therefore, divide history according to a predetermined schematic plan (see section on determinism below). In Daniel 9, the periods in question are not of equal lengths, but are rather divided into seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week (9:24–27). This uneven division is the result of an attempt by this author to fit the events of the Persian period (parallel to the seven weeks) and those of his immediate context (the final week) into a larger typological timeframe. In the context of this apocalypse, it is not the periodization itself which is ideologically or theologically significant, but rather the beginning and end of that longer period.
The four kingdoms pattern is also based on a conception of periodization, although they are not of standard, unified length. Instead of a week or jubilee, or some multiple of these periods, the kingdoms are of varying lengths and characters. In this sense the divisions into periods loses some of its deterministic implications, according to which the periods were all part of a carefully devised divine plan. This, however, is achieved through a different approach, since the four kingdoms are predicted in both chapters as part of a divine revelation which is presented as having taken place before most of the chronological span in question, and thus it too is determined, although no more than any other ex eventu prophecy.
4 Determinism:
Throughout the book, the span of history is presented in the context of prophetic revelations to Daniel (or in the case of chapter 2, to the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar). Based upon historical-critical analysis of these passages, and primarily based upon the argument that the time of their composition can be determined by the accuracy of their “predictions,” we can determine when each of these passages was composed. When the prophecy is correct across extensive details, then it is likely that it was written ex eventu of the events alluded to throughout. When the prophecy begins to diverge from what we know to actually have taken place, then we can safely conclude that it was composed at the point in the passage at which the divergence begins. The best example of this (in the entire Bible) is the detailed description of interactions between the Ptolemies and Seleucids in Daniel 11, which is accurate through v. 39, and then diverges at v. 40, demonstrating that it was authored right after the events presented up to that point. The correspondence to the events, which are presented as if they are predictions, has the result of significantly raising the predictive value of the revelation in the eyes of the reader. If the events that appear in the first part of the apocalypse, which reflect the author’s past, came to fruition, then there is a high probability that the truly future predictions will occur as well. When combined at times with the notion of periodization described above, they reflect a developed conception of the nature of the divine control of chronological history.
5 Geopolitical Transformation:
An important, fundamental difference between the four kingdoms motif and standard periodization schemes is frequently overlooked.10 According to Daniel 2, the striking of a stone on the foot of the statue led to its destruction in one fell swoop, and to its replacement by a mountain that fills the whole earth.
This mountain represents a theocracy in which the God of Heaven rules over the entire world, replacing the earthly empires:All at once, the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold were crushed, and became like chaff of the threshing floors of summer; a wind carried them off until no trace of them was left. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. Dan 2:35 (njps)
In contrast to earthly empires that rise and fall, according to Daniel 2, the Heavenly Kingdom will lead to a complete change in world order. Note that, in fact, according to this vision, the entire statue continues to stand until the appearance of the stone, and then comes crashing down in its entirety, indicating that the empires will continue to coexist until the rise of the heavenly kingdom. In this scheme, the periods do not mark the ends of each empire, since they continue even after the next one rises. Like the destruction of the statue in chapter 2, which leads to the downfall of all of the earthly empires in one fell swoop, so too chapter 7 envisions a single universal heavenly judgment against all of the same political entities,
with a similar result:I looked on. Then, because of the arrogant words that the horn spoke, the beast was killed as I looked on; its body was destroyed and it was consigned to the flames. The dominion of the other beasts was taken away, but an extension of life was given to them for a time and season. Dan 7:11–12(njps)
The judgment of the empires is meted out to all of them together, and at a specific time. Their dominion was taken away at this time of collective judgment, and the fourth beast is consigned to fire before the other beasts are put to death. Ultimately, therefore, the emphasis in both the dream and the vision is first and foremost not on the appearance and disappearance of the empires in succession, but on the radical geopolitical transformation that will occur at the time of the heavenly judgment. While this does not negate the notion of periodization, the continued persistence of each of the kingdoms until that endpoint suggests that the most important division is not between the periods of each kingdom, but the overall difference between earthly, historical time and the eschatological period that follows.
The picture is different elsewhere in the Daniel apocalypses, and in particular in chapter 8. The depiction there is indeed of the rise and fall of successive empires, one at the hand of the next. The two-horned ram representing Media and Persia was unassailable by other beasts (8:4—“and there was none
to deliver from his power”), but is ultimately toppled by the he-goat, representing Greece:I saw him reach the ram and rage at him; he struck the ram and broke its two horns, and the ram was powerless to withstand him. He threw him to the ground and trampled him, and there was none to deliver the ram from his power. Dan 8:7(njps)
That vision does in fact describe the deposing of one empire by another, and I suggest that this later apocalypse has generally influenced the interpretation of chapters 2 and 7 to mean the same. However, the vision in chapter 8 is fundamentally different in three ways from those earlier passages:
(i) It does not reflect the four kingdoms motif. Media and Persia are presented as one kingdom in this vision, but even if they were to be counted separately, there would be only three, and not four, kingdoms. While they overlap in the identification of some of the empires, this is due to the significance of these specific kingdoms to the geopolitical reality, and not because of the dependence upon a specific literary genre or scheme.
(ii) Unlike the four kingdoms motif, in which the kingdoms persist, here there is no doubt that the previous kingdom is removed from the world stage. As noted above, the second kingdom destroyed and deposed the first (that is, it “threw him to the ground and trampled him, and there was none to deliver the ram from his power”).
(iii) Chapter 8 offers a fundamentally different perspective regarding the eschaton than chapter 2 and 7. While the latter place the global transformation and salvation from persecution at a far-off, indeterminate time (see below regarding the interpretation of 7:25), the former specifies a predetermined, relatively short, period of time until the salvation. This difference will be discussed in the following section.6 Eschatology:
In a number of apocalypses, history culminates in an eschatological moment or era, which is temporally beyond the historical span discussed above. However, the eschaton was not perceived of as a far-off event, but rather the authors of these apocalypses viewed themselves as standing at the cusp of their imminent arrival. This eschatological worldview is fundamental to the conception of Daniel 2, according to which the striking of a stone on the foot of the statue will lead to the transformation into a mountain that fills the whole earth. This mountain represents a theocracy in which the God of Heaven rules over the entire world, replacing the earthly empires:
And in the time of those kings, the God of Heaven will establish a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, a kingdom that shall not be transferred to another people. It will crush and wipe out all these kingdoms, but shall itself last forever. Dan 2:44(njps)
This major transformation of the world order is characteristic of the eschatological era as conceived in contemporaneous compositions. Note that there are no dates or precise chronological data regarding the eschaton in this dream and interpretation.
I have recently suggested a similar understanding of Daniel 7, based on a new interpretation of a key expression in 7:25. This chapter is probably the most intricate in the entire book, including its mythic background and complex theological picture, as well as basic questions of interpretation. I have argued that this chapter should first be interpreted independent of the subsequent apocalypses, in chapters 8– 12. This methodological approach is a result of the general consensus that Daniel 7 is the earliest of the apocalypses (preceded only by the composition of the dream in Daniel 2, dated according to its historical allusions; see especially the Old Greek version of 2:41–42), as can be demonstrated based upon both its historical allusions and its linguistic differentiation from the later chapters. In my opinion, these later chapters, which according to all scholars were composed subsequent to chapter 7, read and interpret this earlier chapter and, therefore, will at times change its original meaning and message. Analysis of the second half of Daniel frequently proceeds from the assumption that each of the four apocalypses (chs. 7; 8; 9; 10–12) reflects the same viewpoint, emanating from a single author, or else from a likeminded and interrelated “school” of authors. This assumption is then applied in a harmonistic fashion in the exegesis of the book, both by traditional interpreters and critical scholars, who interpret one apocalypse with the aid of the other. However, if the apocalyptic visions were not all composed by one author and at one time, then a later apocalypse might be based upon an earlier one.
This inner-Danielic interpretation has led to an almost absurd situation, in which the latest layers of the book are those that have determined how exegetes and scholars have interpreted the earlier stages of the book. This is perhaps an unavoidable result for any composition that has developed incrementally through a redactional process. But it is our responsibility to attempt to untangle these complex processes, and avoid the pitfalls of harmonistic, synchronic interpretation that does not distinguish between early and late, and between a source and its interpretation. I offer this pointed critique at many existing studies and commentaries to Daniel, because such an approach silences the voices of these earliest authors, and prevents us from appreciating their writings in a nuanced fashion.
I suggest that this methodological approach is crucial for understanding the chronological conception of Daniel 7, which shares a number of basic characteristics with Daniel 2 already mentioned above: the four kingdoms scheme and the radical geopolitical transformation of the world, culminating in the transfer of dominion from the empires to the עליונין קדישי( עם) )7:18, 22, 27). As I have argued, contrary to the standard translation as “(the people of) the holy ones of the Most High,” this title should perhaps be translated as “(the people of) the Most High Holy one(s),” referring to God and His nation Israel.
Therefore, chapter 7 presents a similar picture of cosmological transformation as in chapter 2. But beyond that, I suggest that chapter 7 shares the same eschatological conception as chapter 2 (and other apocalyptic texts). Verse 25 is fundamental for recognizing this eschatological worldview in Daniel 7. Near the end of the apocalypse in Daniel 7, it is said that the final horn will speak words against the Most High and think of changing times and law:
וּמִ לִּ ין לְ צַ ד עליא)עִ לָּ אָ ה( יְמַ לִּ ל וּלְ קַ דִּ ישֵׁ י עֶ לְ יֹונִין יְבַ לֵּ א וְ יִסְ בַּ ר לְ הַ שְׁ נָיָה זִ מְ נִין וְ דָ ת וְ יִתְ יַהֲ בוּן ידֵ הּ עַ ד־עִ דָּ ן וְ עִ דָּ נִין וּפְ לַ ג עִ דָּ ן׃
He will speak words against the Most High, and will speak (against) קדישי עליונין) the Most High Holy One), and will think to change times and .עַ ד־עִ דּ ָ ן וְ עִ דָּ נִין וּפְ לַ ג עִ דָּ ן hands his into delivered be will they and, law Dan 7:25 mt The final clause is often translated as “until a time, and times, and half a time” (7:25). The term ן ָ דִ ּע is generally interpreted here as one year; the use of עדן to mean “year” is attested in Daniel 4, according to which Nebuchadnezzar lived like a beast in the field for עדנין שבעה) 4:13, 20, 22, 29), which seemingly refers to a period of seven years. If עדן reflects a basic unit of one year, then the plural
עדנין can be understood as two years. This can be accomplished either through revocalizing the Aramaic form as a dual ןִיַנ ָ דִ ּע,19 or by simply understanding the plural form here with dual meaning. Finally, עדן פלג is taken to be another half-year, taking the Aramaic פלג ,to mean “half,” which is its predominant
meaning.21 This leads to the sum total of 3.5 years.A synchronic reading of the book of Daniel seems to support this interpretation, because the length of time of the religious persecution is 3.5 years in other verses in the apocalyptic section of the book. Thus, for example, Dan 9:27 the to stop a put will he week a half for (“וַ חֲ צִ י הַ שָּׁ בוּעַ יַשְׁ בִּ ית זֶבַ ח וּמִ נְ חָ ה :reads
sacrifice and the meal offering”), corresponding to the period described in 7:25 during which the holy ones of the Most High were given into the hands of the little horn. In the context of the “seventy weeks” vision in Daniel 9, in which a week refers to seven years, then the “half a week” during which the sacrifices
were stopped can be calculated as 3.5 years. Returning to the methodological observation above, while this is the meaning of the expression when read in the context of chapters 8–12, I suggest that reading Daniel 7 on its own terms does not lead to the 3.5 years interpretation, and instead needs to be read in light of its apocalyptic and eschatological context.An internal analysis of the apocalypse in Daniel 7 leads to a different understanding of the expression עדנין(ו )עדן .The noun עדן appears twice in the apocalypse, in 7:25 (the verse under discussion) and in 7:12:
וּשְׁ אָר חֵ יוָ תָ א הֶ עְ דִּ יו שָׁ לְ טָ נְ הֹון וְ אַרְ כָ ה בְ חַ יִּין יְהִ יבַ ת לְ הֹון עַ ד־זְמַ ן וְ עִ דָּן׃
The dominion of the other beasts was taken away, but an extension of life was given to them until a time and season.Within the context of the apocalypse, the other beasts, which reflect the heavenly representatives (or function as symbols) of the first three empires in the four kingdom scheme, were removed from their positions of authority, but remain until ועדן זמן .The terms זמן and עדן function as a word pair (cf., e.g., 2:21
וזמניא עדניא מהשנא והוא”] he changes times and seasons”]), and their use here is not related to a yearlong period or any multiple thereof. Rather, they refer to a point in time, although that time is left unspecified. The use of the Aramaic preposition עד in this verse indicates that the extension will continue until a specific endpoint, and the use of the word pair serves as emphasis for this moment, which I suggest based on the context should be understood as the eschaton. Each of the three beasts was removed from dominion, and their empires fell from glory. However, they do not disappear completely until ועדן זמן ,
at which time all the empires will disappear and dominion will pass to the “one like a man” (vv. 13–14).This seems to be the sense of v. 22 that uses the term זמן by itself:
עַ ד דִּ י־אֲ תָ ה עַ תִּ יק יֹומַ יָּא וְ דִ ינָ א יְהִ ב לְ קַ דִּ ישֵׁ י עֶ לְ יֹונִין וְ זִמְ נָא מְ טָ ה וּמַ לְ כוּתָ א הֶ חֱ סִ נוּ קַ דִּ ישִׁ ין׃
(I looked on as that horn made war with the holy ones and overcame them,) until the Ancient of Days came and judgment was rendered in favor of the holy ones of the Most High, for the time had come, and the holy ones took possession of the kingdom. Dan 7:22 (njps)This verse describes “the time,” following the horn’s struggle with the holy ones, when the Ancient of Days will rule against the horn, and the holy ones will receive dominion over the kingdom. The use of זמן here in v. 22 matches that of ועדן זמן in v. 12, and both refer to the moment at which the kingdoms of the world will disappear, and dominion will be given to עליונין קדישי . Neither case refers to a measurement of time, such as a year, but rather to a turning point when the world will undergo dramatic change.
The textual witnesses to 7:25bβ attest to two slightly different readings, although I suggest this discrepancy is crucial for its interpretation.
Reading 1:
καιροῦ24 ἡμίσους ἕως καὶ καιρῶν καὶ καιροῦ ἕως og ≈ עַ ד־עִ דָּ ן וְ עִ דָּ נִין וּפְ לַ ג עִ דָּ ן mt (≈ Theod, Vulgate)
Reading 2:
ܥܕ Pesh[ = זמנין ודת ויתיהבון בידה עד עד[ן֯ עדני֯]ן [ו֯פלג עדן ̇ 25)4Q112 (4QDana ̈ܢܝܢ ܘܦܠܓܘܬ ܥܕܢ ܥܕܢ ܥܕ
The two versions are almost identical, with one minor difference: the presence of the copulative waw in between עדן and עדנין in Reading 1. I suggest that further evidence for Reading 2 can be adduced from the corresponding passage Four Kingdoms and Other Chronological Conceptions 25 Hebrew a certainly almost is expression That. כּ ִ י לְ מֹועֵ ד מֹועֲ דִ ים וָ חֵ צִ י :7:12 Dan in translation of 7:25,26 and it lacks a waw between מועד and מועדים.27 The small divergence between the two readings could admittedly be a minor
stylistic difference. If, however, we assess Reading 2 on its own merits, then we can offer an alternative, independent explanation of its meaning. Instead of taking the first two elements in Reading 2, עדנין עדן ,as individual components in a list, they can be understood as two nouns in a construct relationship. This
is, in fact, how both Theodotion and the Vulgate translate מועדים מועד(ל )in 12:7: Theod—(εἰς) καιρὸν καιρῶν; Vulgate—(in) tempus temporum, which as suggested above goes back to Reading 2 of 7:25. This reading, which can be translated as “time of times,” can be best understood as a superlative, “the ultimate/final time,” as in other instances of the use of a substantive followed by the same substantive in plural.28 In light of the analysis above of 7:12 and 22, this “time of times” or “final time” would similarly refer to the eschaton. The use of the superlative is appropriate to the style and context of Daniel 7, which
employs terminology and imagery such as )אלפין )אלפים אלף) v. 10); רבון רבו עד עלמא ועד ;(27, 25, 22, 18. vv (קדישי עליונין ;(14. v (שלטנה שלטן עלם ;(10. v( (רבבן( .(27. v (מלכותה מלכות עלם ;(26. v (עד סופא ;(18. v (עלם עלמיא
Thus the first part of the expression in 7:25bβ, according to Reading 2, can be translated: “and they will be delivered into his power until the final time.”This matches perfectly the apocalyptic worldview of this chapter, which stands at the end of the Aramaic section of the book. I suggest that Reading 1 was created by a copyist who misunderstood עדנין עדן in Reading 2 as two separate items in a list and, therefore, added a waw, which is linguistically justifiable in
such a case. However, it altered the text from its original meaning.What remains to be explained is עדן ופלג .Most translators and commentators suggest that this term should be translated as “half a time/year,” in line with the general 3.5 years interpretation. The translation of פלג as “half” reflects its most common meaning, and this translation is even more tempting in light of the use of the Hebrew term חצי(ו )in the parallel Hebrew expression in 12:7.
However, I suggest that this Aramaic expression can be best understood in the light of what I believe is its equivalent Hebrew expression. The Aramaic verb פלג means “separate, divide,” and is cognate with the Hebrew root חל״ק,29 with the verb carrying the meaning “divide,” and the substantive having the
meaning “part, portion.” I propose that the noun פלג in Dan 7:25 corresponds to the Hebrew תֶ לקֲ ֹחַ מ” division,”30 and the construct expression עדן פלג to the Hebrew עת(ה )מחלקת .Note, for example, the parallelism between פלגה and מחלקה in Ezra 6:18:וַ הֲ קִ ימוּ כָ הֲ נַיָּא בִּ פְ לֻ גָּ תְ הֹון וְ לֵ וָ יֵא בְּ מַ חְ לְ קָ תְ הֹון עַ ל־עֲ בִ ידַ ת אֱ לָ הָ א דִּ י בִ ירוּשְׁ לֶ ם כִּ כְ תָ ב סְ פַ ר מֹשֶׁ ה׃
They appointed the priests in their courses and the Levites in their divisions for the service of God in Jerusalem, according to the prescription in the Book of Moses. Ezra 6:18 (njps)Furthermore, the biblical Hebrew term מחלקת) in its different shades of meaning) is translated consistently in the Peshitta and in the Targumim, by nominal forms of ܦܠܓ/פלג. This formal equivalence becomes significant when we notice that the construct expression העת מחלקת” division/part of time” is attested in both singular (4Q228, see below), and in plural forms in Qumran manuscripts (the plural forms are attested primarily in Jubilees manuscripts from Qumran). These attestations are all found in apocalyptic contexts, according to which the events of history unfold according to clearly defined chronological periods and patterns, and occur according to set “divisions of times.”
The expression is especially prominent in the opening chapter of Jubilees (Prologue, 1:4, 26, 29) and at its conclusion (50:13), which emphasize that the “divisions of times” span from the time of creation all the way until the eschaton, at which time there will be a new creation. It also appears a number of times in a fragmentary scroll (4Q228), published in DJD 13. This scroll, dated paleographically to 50–25 BCE, was entitled “Text with a Citation of Jubilees,” but seems instead to be the remains of a previously unknown eschatological composition. Fragment 1, col. i, is the best preserved of the scroll and is the passage relevant to our discussion:
2 [the]m [in the divi]s[ion]s of the times
3 [and I tol]d you so that you may know
4 [and I recoun]ted before him the division of its/his time and all
5 [] mʿ[]bh in the judgment of times of wickedness
6 [] a fire burning, devouring in a council of evil
7 []t in the division of its/her time he will find it/her
8 [] snares of destruction, and the angel of his peace
9 [lif]e of eternity. For thus is it written in the divisions
10 []lm they will walk. And yo all theWhile the precise details of this passage are not fully clear, it appears to describe the events of various periods of history, including those of the addressee (line 4). These periods include “times of wickedness” (line 5) to be accompanied by judgment, with burning and devouring of a “council of evil” (line 6). There appears to be a transition in line 8 from a time of judgment and destruction to a more positive reality, accompanied by “the angel of his peace” and “eternal (life?)” (line 9). These are recorded in “the divisions [of times]” (lines 9–10), either a reference to an actual literary composition or, more likely in my opinion, a heavenly register of the periods of history. Here too, the eschatological context of the expression העת חלקת is palpable.
In light of this analysis, I suggest that it is preferable to translate עדן פלג in Dan 7:25 not as “half a year,” but rather, as “and the division of (the) time.” How does this phrase relate to the previous clause “and they will be delivered into his power until the final time”? The simplest approach is to posit that “the division of time” is synonymous to “the time of times,” and they both reflect objects of the preposition עד referring to the same final period of history. This repetition could then perhaps be seen as added for emphasis. This proposed interpretation for Dan 7:25, without recourse to the later chapters of Daniel, offers a completely different perspective of the end of this apocalypse than the general interpretation of 3.5 years until the end of Antiochus’s decrees, and broadens its original chronological horizon to an unknown end-point, consistent with other apocalyptic visions. This supports the conclusion that the apocalypse in its current form was composed at some point in time after the beginning of Antiochus’s decrees in 167 BCE, but prior to the rededication of the Temple in 164, at which time such a dramatic perspective was a matter of
speculation and wild hope.A similar situation obtains in Daniel 11, when one realizes (as scholars previously have) that the chronological data following this apocalypse, in 12:7, 11, 12, is secondary to the chapter. In fact, the original end of the apocalypse, and perhaps of the book of Daniel as a whole, was probably in 12:4 (“But you, Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal the book until the time of the end. Many will range far and wide and knowledge will increase”), followed by a secondary expansion or appendix in 12:5–13.40 This leaves us with another apocalypse, Daniel 11, which in its original form did not include a specific date by which Antiochus’s decrees would end. Rather, it refers more generally to times using the terms קץ) 11:27, 35, 40; 12:4, 9, 13) and מועד) 11:27, 35). Scholars have long noted that this apocalypse can be divided into 11:1–39, which refers to events that came to fruition, and 11:40ff., which does not match the historical reality. Therefore, the general scholarly consensus for dating the apocalypse in Daniel 11 is prior to Antiochus’s death in Persia in 164 BCE (since he perished under different circumstances than those described in 11:40–45), and consequently prior to the end of the decrees in December 164 BCE. We
can, therefore, identify a common characteristic of Daniel 7 and 10:1–12:4, both of which were composed prior to the end of Antiochus’s decrees, and neither of which hazarded a guess to predict their end. Instead both spoke generally of a time, עדן and זמן in Daniel 7, and קץ and מועד in Daniel 11–12.Before analyzing the other passages in the Daniel apocalypses that address the end of the persecution, it is important to briefly mention the extra Danielic sources that describe for how long it continued, and in particular the desecration of the Temple and its cult. The most explicit chronological information about the length of this desecration, including the dates of both the desecration and rededication, is found in both First and Second Maccabees.
1 Macc 1:54, 59: (54) And on the 15th day of Chaseleu in the 145th year, he constructed an abomination of desolation on the altar, and in the cities around Iouda they built altars … (59) On the 25th of the month they were sacrificing on the altar that was on top of the sacrificial altar.
1 Macc 4:52–54: (52) And they arose on the morning of the 25th of the ninth month, this being the month Chaseleu, of the 148th year, (53) and they offered sacrifice according to the law on the new altar of whole
burnt offerings that they made. (54) During the same time and on the same day on which the nations defiled it, on that day it was rededicated with songs and lyres and cinyras and cymbals.
2 Macc 10:5: It happened that on the same day on which the shrine had been profaned by allophyles the purification of the shrine took place, that is, on the 25th day of the same month, which was Chaseleu.According to 1 Maccabees, the profanation of the altar lasted for precisely three years from the 25th of Kislev in the 145th year of the Seleucid count (= 167 BCE) until the same date three years later in 164 BCE. Whether or not this information reflects historical reality, it is highly significant that the same (or a similar) tradition, and emphasis of that tradition, appears in both of these books.
At a minimum, we can conclude that following the rededication of the Temple, there was a widespread understanding that the profanation lasted for precisely three years. At a maximum, this indeed reflected the reality behind the events. Three passages in Daniel provide precise periods of time for the length of the persecution, although they are not identical to the three-year period of 1 Maccabees. I suggest that this discrepancy is the result of an attempt to conform the reference to the eschaton in Dan 7:25 to the historical reality, following the cessation of the religious persecution and desolation of the Temple.
6.1 Daniel 9:27:
The verse in the question reads: וַ חֲ צִ י הַ שָּׁ בוּעַ יַשְׁ בִּ ית זֶבַ ח וּמִ נְ חָ ה (for a half week he will put a stop to the sacrifice and the meal offering”). This is an allusion to Antiochus’s profanation of the altar in the final week of the seventy week scheme in the vision. Scholars correctly delimit this “week” between 171–164 BCE, beginning with the murder of the “anointed one,” the high priest Onias III (cf. Dan 11:22 and 2 Macc 4:30–38), and ending with the cessation of Antiochus’s decrees. Since this chapter refers to weeks of seven years, then a period of half a week can be easily calculated as 3.5 years. If this is the case,
then this would perhaps be early evidence for reading 7:25 as “a year, (two) years, and half a year.” This apocalypse, which assigns a finite measure to the period until the end of Antiochus’s profanation of the Temple, is most likely an ex eventu prophecy, composed following the end of the profanation. This explains the general accuracy regarding the length of the desecration.6.2 Daniel 12:11–12:
A more precise analysis is possible in reference to this passage:
וּמֵ עֵ ת הוּסַ ר הַ תָּ מִ יד וְ לָ תֵ ת שִׁ קּוּץ שֹׁמֵ ם יָמִ ים אֶ לֶ ף מָ אתַ יִם וְ תִ שְׁ עִ ים׃ אַשְׁ רֵ י הַ ֽ מְ חַ כֶּ ה וְ יַגִּיעַ לְ יָמִ ים אֶ לֶ ף שְׁ ֹלשׁ מֵ אֹות שְׁ ֹלשִׁ ים וַ חֲ מִ שָּׁ ה׃ From the time the regular offering is abolished, and an appalling abomination is set up—it will be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Happy the one who waits and reaches one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days. Dan 12:11–12 (njps).
Verse 11 counts a specific number of days from the time of the cessation of the daily offering and the erection of the “appalling abomination” and is presented as a further clarification of the response (12:7) to the question posed just a few verses earlier (12:6). Since we have the beginning and endpoint of this period, and the total number of days included, we can, therefore, calculate the number of years intended. Calculation according to either the lunisolar or solar calendars, both of which were employed by Jews in the second century BCE, lead to a “prediction” of almost precisely 3.5 years.
Here too, as in 9:27, the chronological datum in this verse is the result of inner-Danielic scribal exegesis, whereby 7:25 was interpreted in order to clarify the length of time during which the temple was profaned. This precise period of time is not based upon historical analysis or traditions, but is rather the result of a scholastic, hermeneutic investigation into the earlier Danielic passage. This insight offers an explanation as to the deviation between the length of the persecutions in 1 Maccabees and Daniel, and should obviate the (many) attempts to identify specific historical events that took place at the beginning and end of a 3.5-year (or 1,290 or 1,335 days) period, since these numbers are in fact unrelated to the historical reality. At the same time, it seems safe to postulate that these verses were composed after the events in question took place, when there was no risk of having the prediction proven wrong.
6.3 Daniel 8:13–14:
In the final verses under investigation here, there is an explicit heavenly question and answer about the length of time for the cessation of the daily offering:
וָ אֶ שְׁ מְ עָ ה אֶ חָ ד־קָ דֹושׁ מְ דַ בֵּ ר וַ יּ ֹאמֶ ר אֶ חָ ד קָ דֹושׁ לַ פַּ לְ מֹונִי הַ מְ דַ בֵּ ר עַ ד־מָ תַ י הֶ חָ זֹון הַ תָּ מִ יד וְ הַ פֶּ שַׁ ע שֹׁמֵ ם תֵּ ת וְ קֹדֶ שׁ וְ צָ בָ א מִ רְ מָ ס׃ וַ יּ ֹאמֶ ר אֵ לַ י עַ ד עֶ רֶ ב בֹּקֶ ר אַלְ פַּ יִם וּשְׁ ֹלשׁ מֵ אֹות וְ נִ צְ דַּ ק קֹדֶ שׁ׃
Then I heard a holy being speaking, and another holy being said to whoever it was who was speaking, “How long will [what was seen in] the vision last—the regular offering be forsaken because of transgression; the sanctuary be surrendered and the [heavenly] host be trampled?” He answered me, “For twenty-three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed”. Dan 8:13–14 (njps)As has been noted by many commentators, the verses refer to the תמיד ,the daily offering, offered twice daily, in the morning and in the evening (Exod 29:38– 39; Num 28:3–4). Therefore, the number explicitly noted here, 2,300, refers to the total number of offerings, which should be double the number of days.
According to this calculation, the number of days during which the daily offering was forsaken was 1,150 (2,300/2). This period is less than the 3.5 years of 12:11, but more than the 3 years of 1 Maccabees. Due to the discrepancy with 1 Maccabees, Collins concluded that “the prediction, then, cannot be after the fact and must have been composed before the actual rededication of the temple.” Due to the seeming discrepancy with the 3.5-years tradition (which Collins identifies in 7:25 as well), he suggests that Daniel 8 was composed a short while after Daniel 7, and thus it starts its count from a later point.In contrast, in light of the analysis above, I suggest that 8:13–14 should be read as an interpretation of 7:25, since the latter in its original context did not refer to a specific time. As has been noted by many scholars, and can be demonstrated by the use of common language and motifs, the author of Daniel 8 is
aware of and even reuses material from Daniel 7 throughout the chapter (e.g., the motif of the horn battling against the heavenly forces). Thus it seems likely that he knew of the expression עדן ופלג עדנין(ו )עדן from 7:25. With this in mind, how does Dan 8:13–14 function as an interpretation of 7:25? I previously suggested that 8:13–14 is an attempt to bridge the chronological data found in Daniel (3.5 years) with that reflected in 1 Maccabees (three years), while interpreting the expression עדן פלג of 7:25 as “part of a year.”
In a future study, I will suggest a new approach—2,300 indeed refers to the number of tamid offerings.However, a specific reading of the biblical laws in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28–29 regarding the daily service, attested perhaps in the laws of the Damascus Document, allows for the possibility that they were not offered on sabbaths and festivals. When these days are discounted, then 2,300 tamid offerings can be mapped onto a period of 3.5 years, found elsewhere in the Danielic apocalypses, in 9:27 and 12:11–12.56
The use of specific, definite chronological details in these passages demonstrates that they were composed following the end of the Antiochian decrees. This chronological insight also corresponds to the culmination of each of the apocalypses. In the case of the four kingdoms is chapters 2 and 7, the final stage, at the eschaton, is followed by a radical geopolitical transformation of the world order. Similarly, 11:40–12:4 describes Antiochus’s predicted demise “between the sea the beautiful holy mountain” and ultimate judgment for the universe, as is common in eschatological compositions. In contrast, the apocalypses in chapters 8 and 9, do not describe a major transformation of the world order or general judgment, but rather, both describe the eventual demise of the persecuting king:By his cunning, he will use deceit successfully. He will make great plans, will destroy many, taking them unawares, and will rise up against the chief of chiefs, but will be broken, not by [human?] hands. Dan 8:25 (njps)
During one week he will make a firm covenant with many. For half a week he will put a stop to the sacrifice and the meal offering. At their corner will be an appalling abomination until the decreed destruction will be poured down upon the appalling thing. Dan 9:27 (njps, revised)
Both of these apocalypses describe supernatural interventions in order to overthrow the king and put an end to the desecration of the Temple. But this does not necessitate a dramatic, eschatological change in the world order.
The different nature of these apocalypses, chapters 2, 7, and 10–12 with an eschatological climax, and chapters 8 and 9 with a supernatural, yet historically bounded, end to the Antiochian persecutions, are a direct result of the dates of composition as outlined above. The former were composed during the height
of the persecution; therefore, the authors could only imagine a distant salvation. The latter were composed following their completion. Although these later apocalyptic authors credited God for their salvation, they could conceive of this delivery in historical terms. The Danielic authors’ chronological framework is, therefore, fundamentally bound up with their theological worldview, and in particular, their historical and eschatological perspective.Hi To all
If you really want to know the TRUTH ABOUT THE BOOK OF DANIEL RELATED TO THE ETERNAL GOSPEL
GO TO THIS LINK, GOD BLESS YOU IN YOUR READING.
AMEN!The Gospel in Daniel – Robert J Wieland
Hi Berean, thanks for posting on the Book of Daniel.
If you really want to know the TRUTH ABOUT THE BOOK OF DANIEL RELATED TO THE ETERNAL GOSPEL
Me: It is the wrong interpretation of SDA Church. This is not new to me even I am having my Co-brother who is from SDA Church. The interpretation of Little horn of Dan 7 to Papacy is another invention by the SDA Church. Please read my posts above on Daniel. Book of Daniel was not listed among the Prophetic books of Jewish canon because its date of compilation and authorship.
Christianity interpreted the ‘son of man’ spoken in Dan 7 as Jesus which is also wrong because it was talking about God’s people Israel to whom God would handover his kingdom which would be different from the beastly kingdoms.
Please come out of the dilemma.
Gadam
NO GADAM, IT IS YOU WHO BELIEVES IN LIES, WHICH WILL LEAD YOU TO PERDITION IF YOU DON’T REPENT.
JESUS IS THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE, NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT THROUGH HIM.Hi Berean, thanks for your advice and warning but here is the struggle of a Christian, in this Forum under the username ‘Lightenup’ on the thread called “The most High God?”;
Nick,
I gave you scriptures and you blow them off as if Christ was not aware that His followers were worshiping Him and then you come up with the idea of worshiping Him is no where in the Bible. It is just something I made up??? Wow! Christ did not teach His virgin birth but you believe that don’t you? Christ didn’t teach other things as well but we believe that they happened. Sometimes He just demonstrated truth in how He walked through life. He didn’t teach speaking in tongues yet you speak in tongues…right Nick.What do you say? I have been going through this thread for some time now. I could visualise the confusion and uncertainty every where. The arguments on “Who is the High God?” could not really fit Jesus the so called ‘a god’ or ‘God’ along with God almighty who was called as Father by Jesus. For securing the Eternal life you need to include Jesus along with the True God which is a strange concept when compared to the original religion of the Hebrew Bible. You say that I will perish if I don’t believe the son. Where is the question of belief in a Messiah except that he will be human being just like you and me? I don’t find it in the Hebrew Bible.
Thank you. Please concentrate on the theme of this thread “The Parousia”
Gadam,
You are either a deceiver or deceived!
Who is a liar but the person who denies that Jesus is the Messiah?
The person who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist. 1 John 2:22
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
