Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dear Rolf,

You wrote:

>I cannot resist the temptation to make a few comments.

Grin. I can understand that!

>IH
>>>>... There was no "Darius king of the Medes", Belshazzar was never
>>>>a king...
>>>
>>>RF
>>>I would not call this errors as long as they can be explained in a
>>>plausible way. Remember that before 1924 (and the publication of "The verse
>>>account of Nabonidus") the argument regarding Belshazzar was that he had
>>>never existed (argument from silence). The inscriptions give Belshazzar the
>>>title "Crown Prince"[..]
>>
>>Do you think that something will come along that will make Belshazzar the
>>son of Nebuchadnezzar instead of the unmentioned Nabonidus? [..]
>
>RF
>The Hebrew and Aramaic word )B ("av") can refer to one's father,
>grandfather, great grandfather etc. Some researchers have claimed that
>Nabonid was married to to Nitocris, the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. So 
>there is no real evidence against the designation "son".

This is of course itself an argument from silence, as are all those you
have put forward on this matter. The text says that Belshazzar was son of
Nebuchadnezzar. The text also shows the immediate successor of
Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar. To make all this fit with what we know of
the history, we have to assume that the writer didn't mean that Belshazzar
was sired by Nebuchadnezzar although there is no indication to take "av"
any way other than the literal sense. We have to assume that Nabonidus, who
is not known in the text, was married to the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. As
there is no evidence to contradict the assumptions necessary to arrive
here, the logic holds sort of, yet I think the relevant literal
understanding of the indications of the text are being put aside for
tendentious reasons and nothing else.

>>>You are right that no indication of "Darius the Mede" has been found. Only
>>>the year when Darius became king is mentioned in Daniel. If we do not
>>>reject the account before we have seen what it says, the text would suggest
>>>that the rulership of Darius was not long-lasting. Some have connected
>>>Darius with Gurbaru, the governor of Cyrus,[..]
>>
>>I would be highly suspicious of another renamed character, wouldn't you?
>>This Darius the Mede is portrayed as a king of kings in 6:1ff, not some
>>mere satrap.
>
>I am more suspicious about arguments from silence than you are. 

I would not be so sure! What you seem to be proposing is not that we lack
information for a Darius the Mede so much as that we should think some
fellow with a different name was in fact our hitherto "unknown" king.

>The fact
>that Cyrus did not take the title king of Babylon  (according to clay
>tablets), could indicate that another filled this position. 

(According to which clay tablets? I was using an old history of the
Persians -- Ghirshman, 1951, English: "Iran" Pelican 1954 -- which says
that Cyrus took the title of "king of Babylon, king of the land", p. 132,
with no footnotes to say the source.)

>Note also that
>the verb used in 6:1 is QBL which means "to receive", i.e. someone gives
>something that you receive. Below I give the three references in Daniel
>where this verb occurs. The meaning of the verb suggests that someone else
>*gave* Darius the kingdom, and he can therefore have been a "king" ruling
>because of the will of Cyrus (remember what I wrote in my last post about
>the meaning of the Aramaic MLK "king"). In any case, those who deny that
>"Darius the Mede" ever existed should be able to explain why Cyrus did not
>take the title "king of Babel" at the time when the city was captured.
>
>Dan. 2:6 But if ye show the dream and the interpretation thereof, ye shall
>receive (QBL) of me gifts and rewards and great honor: therefore show me
>the dream and the interpretation thereof.
>Dan. 5:31 And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about threescore
>and two years old.
>Dan. 7:18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive (QBL) the kingdom,
>and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.
>
[..]
>>>RF
>>>I will not comment on the case of Antiochus, I will only say that other
>>>interpretations are equally possible or even better.
>>
>>I would be curious to know what could be a better interpretation of the
>>struggles between the king(s) or the north and the king(s) of the south
>>than for it to refer to the conflicts between the Seleucids and the
>>Ptolemies including such things as the marriage between Antiochus II and
>>Berenice (11:6), the battle of Raphia (11:11-12), the battle of Magnesia
>>(11:18), the brief reign of Seleucus III who sent Heliodorus (11:20).
>>
>>>My experience so far
>>>is that only in a few verses in chapter 11 can a good case be made for a
>>>connection with Antiochus.
>>
>>He does only come to the throne in v21, but then he's the central figure
>>from then till the end of the chapter.
>
>RF
>It is quite easy to find the identity of the king(s) of the north and the
>king(s) of the south in the first part of chapter 11, but while I think
>that quite a good case can be made for the identification of Antiochus IV
>from verse 20, there are several problems, and alternative interpretations
>are possible.

Is the semantic content of v20 not true for Antiochus IV, ie that he wasn't
destined for kingship (ie "royal majesty had not been conferred")? Wasn't
the prince of the covenant, Onias III, swept away before him? Did he not
have an accord with "a small party" in Jerusalem? Did they (ie Menelaus,
Lysimachus, et al.) not make a load out of their arrangement with
Antiochus? Did he not make war against Egypt and come to a "peaceful",
though advantageous, conclusion? We've reached v29: Did he not try again
with Egypt, but get stopped (by the Romans)? Was he not forced to withdraw
and on the way back he quelled Jason's revolt? Did he not cause the Akra to
be taken into control, along with the temple, stopping the tamid? This maps
so strongly onto a known historical space.

>[..]
>
>What I have in mind, are the viewpoints that the writers Matthew and Mark
>ascribe to Jesus. 

I'm a little at loss to know how people who were writing at least 200 years
after the document we are dealing with can be shown to have any relevance
to that document's writing and significance, especially when those writers
seem to be reinterpreting the texts, yielding pesher-like conclusions for
their own specific context.

>In Matt 24:15 and Mark 13:14 the Hebrew words of Dan
>11:31 (9:27 and 12:11) $QWC M$MM (Greek: BEDELUGMA ERHMWSEWS) "the
>desolating abomination" are not applied to the sacrifices of swine that
>Antiochus made on his altar atop of the temple altar, but they are applied
>to something that should happen in the future (from the point of view of
>the first part of the 1st century CE)! 

While I appreciate that this might be relevant to the pesher process found
in the gospel writers, it seems to have very little relevance to the
historical turn of events that can be shown to have happened related to
Antiochus IV and seemingly consistently appropriate for that king

>(See G.L. Archer, G. Chirichigno,
>1983, "Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament", Chicago: Moody
>Press, pp 140,141) Luke also render the words of Jesus, and he helps us to
>interpret them. If you compare Luke 21:20-24 with Matt 24:15-22 and Mark
>13:14-19, you will find that the same *future* situation is described. 

As all the passage is apparently written in the future (just as Enoch's
Animal Apocalypse, which seems to be of a quite similar tradition dealing
with some of the same material, down to the same time), I can't see what
can be made out of the fact that a new testament writer puts the phrase
into the future.

>What
>is interesting is that Luke uses the words "Jerusalem being surrounded by
>armies (STRATOPEDWN)" and further speaks of "her /Jerusalem's/ desolation
>(ERHMWSIS) where Mark and Matthew use "the desolating abomination". 

What this desolating abomination actually is isn't made clear in Daniel,
though I think it's worth contemplating the fact that the temple was
converted into a temple of Jupiter, and the order of the day for Greek
temples was to place a statue of the god in the temple. (With Jupiter being
the sky (shameem) god in mind, this would be in keeping with that which
makes desolate (shamem). However, the simple notion that the altar was used
for swine sacrifice I think would be enough of a sacriledge to stimulate
the term.

>The
>only reasonable interpretation I can see, is that Jesus, as Luke portrays
>his words, says that these Roman armies, that were to come, was identical
>with the "desolating abomination". Note also the words of Daniel 9:26-27
>that corroborates this interpretation. Right or wrong, these evangelists
>did not believe in the swine fulfillment of Daniel´s words, 

They probably knew nothing about Antiochus's pollution of the temple. This
is usually the case when a text gets reinterpreted: the old context has
become lost, allowing for a new one to be applied. (I'm sure you've seen
the process often enough going from OT to NT.) Still, the NT is irrelevant
to the significance of a text written 200 years or more before. 

(Can you find anything tendentious about Josephus's comments on Daniel 8?)

>but applied
>them to the second part of the 1st century CE - and they lived closer to
>Antiochus than we do. Many years ago I studied Daniel 11 thoroughly from an
>historical point of view, and my conclusion was that, even though the
>Antiochus application is appealing, it must be rejected when the whole
>situation is taken into account.

I don't think you can sustain a case to justify this, unless you can
explain why the good fit with Antiochus is inappropriate, down to quite
fine details from v21 to v32, with a break for the state of the opposition
and what they suffered v33-v35, to return to Antiochus v36-v45, moving into
a more generic tone and final becoming predictive.

>RF
>Thank you very much for the footnotes.

You're most welcome. You gave me the prod to make me complete the task I
had started!

Cheers,


Ian

mc2499 AT mclink.it
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/histreli.htm