[b-hebrew] Daniel 9:24-27
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Sat Dec 20 07:08:36 EST 2008
Dear Jason,
When I read your first post, I overlooked your
words about Ptolemy. Regarding the canon of
Ptolemy, there exists what I would call
"scientific fundamentalism," which is just as
strong as the Christian fundamentalism. Ptolemy's
words are viewed as infallible; they are never
questioned! The list of kings presented by
Ptolemy has a certain pattern, that we also find
in some cuneiform documents, namely, that history
is viewed in the light of 18-year Saros periods
(the moon has about the same position every 18
years and 10 days (See A.K. Grayson (1975)
"Assyrian and Babylonian chronicles" pp. 195,
196). Ptolemy starts with Nabonassar, and from
this king and until 99 B.C.E. (Seleucid year 213)
there are 37 18-year Saros periods. Ptolemy was
interested in astronomy, and not in history. For
his purpose the total number of the regnal years
of the kings in his list had to be the same as
the years of his Saros periods, but the number of
the regnal years of each king was not necessarily
correct.
Because his focus was on the Saros period,
Ptolemy did not mention kings who reigned less
than one year. One such king is Bardiya (also
known as Smerdes and Gaumata). Most of the
business tablets dated in the reign of Bardiya
(who was king immediately before Darius the
great) are discussed in S. Graziani (1991).
"Testi editi ed inediti datati al regno de
Bardiya (522 a.c). Napoli. The first tablet is
from Bardiya's accession year, month II and the
last one from his year 1, month VIII. Taken at
face value the dated tablets show that Bardiya
reigned at least 18 months and not about six
months, as most historians believe. All kinds of
fanciful explanations have been used to explain
away this evidence, because it destroys Ptolemy's
chronological scheme. I would also mention that
the archaeoastronomer R.R. Newton in his book
"The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy" (1977) argues
that Ptolemy was a fraud, because he said he made
observations of celestial phenomena, while he
actually calculated these phenomena on the basis
of a particular scheme. Many astronomers today do
not agree with Newton, but in a study of the list
of Ptolemy, Newton's arguments and data deserve
to be considered.
Different starting points for "the issuing of the
decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (Daniel
9:25) have been suggested. One of these is the
20th year of Artaxexes (Nehemia 2:1-5). In the
19th century several expositors used this
starting point and placed it in 455 B.C.E. But
this was contradicted by Ptolemy, whose king list
show that 445 is the 20th year of Artaxerxes I.
If we look at the entry "Xerxes" in Encyclopedia
Britannica on line, we find the statement that
year 21 of Xerxes is astronomically fixed as 465
(and this accords with Ptolemy's king list). the
entry also says: "For many years both before and
after 465 bc, no such combination of eclipses can
be found" This statement can now be disputed! A
comparison of the Akkadian signs (not the English
translation) of the cuneiform tablets BM 32234 -
the tablet reporting the two lunar eclipses in
year 21 of Xerxes - and the celestial positions
on BM 33478 -which tentatively is applied to year
24 of Artaxerxes I, the reign of Artaxerxes I is
pushed back 10 years -475 being his accession
year. (The tablets are discussed in H. Hunger et
al. (2001). "Astronomical Diaries and Related
Texts from Babylonia, vol V, Lunar and Planetary
Texts" pp. 20, 21) and A. Sachs, H. Hunger
(1988) "Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts
from Babylonia, vol I, pp. 58-61.) This
astronomical information destroys the king list
of Ptolemy, and interestingly - it shows that
year 20 of Artaxerxes I is 455, the very year
that the 19th century expositors used as starting
point.
I use these examples to stress that we must avoid
scientific fundamentalism, i.e., we should not
accept conclusions because the authorities say
so. But we should go to the sources themselves.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli Ph.D
University of Oslo
>Dear Rolf,
>
>I read through the commentary by Jerome that I found online as
>translated by Archer. I'd like to get my hands on that book, so I'll
>make note of it and look it up in TAU library when I get the chance
>(if it's there). Thanks a lot for the references and the input.
>
>Yours,
>Jason Hare
>
>On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Rolf Furuli <furuli at online.no> wrote:
>> Dear Jason,
>>
>> Three sources that you may want to study are: G.
>> L. Archer jr. "Jerome's Commentary on Daniel"
>> (1977). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House; J.
>> Braverman (1978) "Jerome's Commentary on Daniel A
>> study of comparative Jewish and Christian
>> interpretations of the Hebrew Bible" The Catholic
>> Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 7; and O.
>> Mörkholm (1966). "Antiochus IV of Syria".
>> Köbenhaven: Gyldendalske Boghandel Nordisk forlag
>> AS.
>>
>> I am writing a book on the dating of the book of
>> Daniel from a philological, linguistic, and
>> historical point of view. Sad to say, regarding
>> the book of Daniel and Antiochus IV, there is an
>> overwhelming amount of traditional viewpoints
>> that are presented as facts, and which are
>> repeated over and over again without having any
>> real foundation. Mörkholm shows that much of the
>> history of Antiochus IV and his character is
>> unknown. In many commentaries what the old
>> sources say about Antiochus IV are manipulated to
>> fit their interpretations of the text of Daniel.
>>
>> A detailed study of Daniel 9:24-27 shows that the
>> abomination of desolation was not set up by
>> Antiochus IV in 167, but was set up in the first
>> century C.E., as Medieval Jewish writers and the
>> New Testament say. A detailed study of Daniel,
>> chapter 11 and a new translation of the chapter
>> has led me to conclude that contrary to the
>> universal opinion, Antiochus IV is not mentioned
>> at all in this chapter or elsewhere in the book
>> of Daniel.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Rolf Furuli PH.D
>> University of Oslo
>_______________________________________________
>b-hebrew mailing list
>b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list