[b-hebrew] Daniel 9:24-27

Rolf Furuli furuli at online.no
Mon Dec 22 03:42:46 EST 2008

Dear Yitzhaq.

Porphyry, the Neo-Platonic philosopher of the 3rd 
century C.E. wrote several books against the 
Christians. In his 12th book he attacked the book 
of Daniel. A principal argument was that the 
"prophecies" of the book must be history in 
prophetic disguise, because they had been 
"fulfilled," and no one can foretell the future. 
His book is lost, but Jerome presents many of his 
arguments and tries to refute them. A translation 
of Jerome's work was made by Archer, jr., so this 
is a basic source. Braverman is also an important 
source, because it comments on Jerome and 
Porphyry and refer to rabbinic sources as well. A 
tendency that we already see in Porphyry is that 
events in the life of Antiochus IV are colored 
and adjusted in order to let them fit the words 
of Daniel. Therefore, Mörkholm is an important 
source, because he  discusses all the sources we 
have about the life of Antiochus IV, and writes 
his history. All three sources have "a reputed 
non-religious position on the section". Mörkholm 
is a historian "supporting the view that the 
events mentioned in the verses were accomplished 
in the time of Antiochus IV". the book of Archer 
jr. is a translation of Jerome, and Braverman's 
discussion is descriptive.

Other works I would recommend and which I use in my studies are:

J.J. Collins (1993) "Daniel" in the Hermeneia series.
L. Wood (1973) "A Commentary on Daniel"
J.M. Montgomery (repr. 1972) "A Critical and 
Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel" ICC
C.F. Keil & F. Delitzsch (repr. 1976) "Commentary 
on the Old Testament in ten volumes, volume 7, 
Ezekiel and Daniel". this is an old but important 
F. E. Gaeblein general ed. (1985) The Expositors Bible commentary, volume 7
J. A. Goldstein (1976) "I Maccabees" The Anchor Bible
J. A. Goldstein (1984) "II Maccabees" The Anchor Bible

There are also many fine monographs that deal 
with Daniel and Antiochus IV. I am not aware of 
any modern scholarly work where the author argues 
against the view that several verses in the book 
of Daniel refer to Antiochus IV. However, there 
are too many parrots in the world who simply 
repeat what the authorities say. In my view, to 
challenge what is universally accepted is a fine 
scientific approach.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli Ph.D
University of Oslo

>On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>>  Dear Jason,
>>  Three sources that you may want to study are: [...]
>Dear Rolf,
>Are these really sources fit to be considered "a reputed
>non-religious position on the section, perhaps providing
>argumentation supporting the view that the events
>mentioned in the verses were accomplished in the time
>of Antiochus IV" that can be referenced in a research
>paper on the subject?  If not, and since you are writing
>a book on the subject, what recent scholarship would
>you recommend that appropriately addresses and
>explains the consensus point of view?
>Yitzhak Sapir
>b-hebrew mailing list
>b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list