[b-hebrew] RE-Dating Daniel

Stoney Breyer stoneyb at touchwood.net
Fri Jul 8 17:11:17 EDT 2005


Oh, dear - I should not have posted when on the verge of leaving for
vacation! But . . . 

Stoney
-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Medina, Vincent

VM: There is a difference between the human inspiration of a poet or
bard,
and divine inspiration as this is traditionally understood by believers
when they speak of scripture. While I marvel at the achievements of a
Shakespeare or Elliot, I do not put their works in the same category as
Scripture, which, I believe, has its origin in God. While the works of
poets certainly owe their inspiration to God's gift, the inspiration of
Scripture not only different in degree, but also in kind. I realize that
you may not share my rather conservative/orthodox faith commitments, and
that's fine. But I wanted to be sure we were talking about the same
thing.

SB: I think we are. Perhaps by the 18th Century invoking the Muse had
degenerated into a mere literary flourish, but I see no reason for
thinking that Homer or Milton regarded his inspiration as different in
degree or kind from that you attribute to the author of Daniel, or that
believers attribute to scripture - EXCEPT:

VM: As far as the question of pious fraud being "resolved centuries
ago,"
perhaps you could enlighten me. I know that many assert that the
ancients were not concerned with such things, but I am not at all
certain that simply asserting such a thing makes it so, or "resolves" it
to everyone's satisfaction.

SBL OK, I confess to (and apologize for) being a little elliptical (and
possibly a little frivolous) here - but the equation of poetic truth and
prosaic fact pretty much disappeared with the Renaissance (Sidney is
only the most readable critic on the subject). In that context the
notion of "fraud" simply evaporates.

Stoney Breyer
Writer/Touchwood, Inc.
 







More information about the b-hebrew mailing list