dwashbur at nyx.net
Thu Mar 16 10:12:30 EST 2006
On Thursday 16 March 2006 00:53, Yigal Levin wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> >> While you are correct in that there is no way to know whether the author
> >> of
> >> Daniel had any knowledge of the Ugaritic Dan'il (or a similar
> >> tradition), and there does not seem to be any connection, Ezekiel seems
> >> to be a different story. Ezekiel 14:14 and 20 mentions three "righteous
> >> men of old": Noah, Daniel and Job. Ez. 28:3 asks the ruler of Tyre "are
> >> you wiser
> >> than Daniel?". EVEN if the Daniel of the book of Daniel was a historic
> >> personality who lived during the 6th century BCE, he would have hardly
> >> have
> >> had the stature to be compared with Noah and Job as ancient righteous
> >> men,
> >> and of course he was never a ruler of anything.
> Dave Washburn:
> > Where do you get "of old"? Both verses say that even though these three
> > men
> > were there, their righteousness would only deliver them. There's no "of
> > old"
> > in either verse of chapter 14. Considering the deeds and knowledge that
> > are
> > ascribed to the prophet Daniel in the book bearing his name, I see no
> > reason
> > why such a one couldn't have had such stature, since there's no "ancient"
> > qualification given. And it's true that Daniel was never a ruler, but
> > 28:3
> > doesn't say he was. It refers to having hidden knowledge and extreme
> > wisdom.
> > It's not a comparison of rulers, but a sarcastic remark comparing this
> > arrogant king with one who, according to the story, had real wisdom and
> > understood deep secrets. So I see no reason why Ezekiel couldn't have
> > been
> > referring to the man described in the book of Daniel.
> You are right: no "of old". My interpolation. Sorry. But remember, most of
> Daniel's exploits happened (if they happened), after Ezekiel's time. Daniel
> was younger than Ezekiel. So my argument stands: to Ezekiel and his
> audience, Daniel would have hardly had the stature of Noah and Job. What
> Noah and Job have in common is that both were Gentiles, both lived in the
> distant past. So would a distant past righteous Dan'el, but the child
> Daniel of Nebuchadnezzar's' court would not.
Actually, the text tells us what they had in common. For Ezekiel, what they
have in common is a reputation for righteousness, nothing more. Anything
beyond that is more interpolation. For this particular context, it doesn't
matter whether they were Gentiles or how far in the distant past they lived.
The point is HOW they lived, period. So I don't think your argument stands.
I agree that the matter of Daniel's age vis a vis Ezekiel presents a problem,
but it's been a long time since I paid much attention to Ezekiel, so I'll
have to look into that further before I can really say much more about it.
At the moment I would be relying on the seriously faulty LTMLV.
> And of course, you are ignoring the very good evidence, that the book of
> Daniel is a much later (yes, Hellenistic) composition in any case. I won't
> repeat the evidence - I'm sure that you're familiar with it. If not, read
> any good introduction.
I'm familiar with it. I just don't buy it, for several good reasons that
other introductions have set forth. This is clearly a case of "you pays your
money and you takes your pick." You choose one, I choose the other. That's
one of the true beauties of this field.
Fame is fleeing, as good old Whatsisname used to say.
More information about the b-hebrew