Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 9:24-27

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 9:24-27
  • Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 13:08:36 +0100

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page