Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 09.59 23/02/00 +0200, Silver Eiger wrote:
>I would (humbly) remind that in a previous message it was pointed out that
>Belshazzar offered Daniel the *third* place in the kingdom. Why not the
second?
>Because the first two were already occupied. 

One may read into the text what one likes. The simple facts are clear:
Belshazzar is called "King Belshazzar" and, to argue that it doesn't mean
what a literal reading says, one has to supply indications from the text
that show that it was not the writer's intent to be literal. I see nothing
at all to suggest a non-literal reading, so those who want to suggest a
non-literal reading seem to me to have nothing to support them.

In contrast, if one reads one of the visions, one is invited to read the
texts non-literally.

>Thereby Daniel indicates his
>awareness of both Belshazzar and his actual father Nabonidus. 

The text indicates no such thing -- especially when one thinks that chapter
5 seems convinced that Nebuchadnezzar is Belshazzar's father. Note: 5:2,
11, 18, and 22. One might consider NPL's comment about someone saying, "X
is my father" indicating a non-literal significance to father, which is
credible in the first person, but becomes almost impossible to apply in the
third person.

>It seems that
>Professor E. B. Pusey of Oxford got quite appropriately one possible
reason why
>it may be pretty hard to accept any amount of evidence for the statements of
>Daniel. 

I see nothing appropriate about it. It is really easy if one takes the time
to look at the text in its historical context. Do you have **any**
objections to the following:

Chapter 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3: Alexander's conquest of Persia
4: Alexander's sudden death and the separation of his kingdom into four
5: Ptolemy I & II
6: Berenice's marriage to Antiochus II and the problems arising
7: Ptolemy III's invasion of Syria (3rd SYrian War)
8: Results of invasion
9: Fourth Syrian War
10       ""
11 Ptolemy IV
12 Antiochus III & temporary setback at Raphia 
13 Antiochus III follows up previous campaign making gains
14 (Problems in Jerusalem)
15 Antiochus III takes Gaza
16 Antiochus III in Judea
17 Antiochus III's marriage with Cleopatra
18 Antiochus III's defeat at Magnesia
19 Death of Antiochus III
20 Seleucis III and Heliodorus
21 Antiochus IV comes to power
22 Antiochus IV success, removal of Onias III
23 Antiochus IV's contacts with pro-Seleucid faction in Jerusalem
24 Antiochus IV's successes
25 Fifth Syrian War: Antiochus IV invades Egypt
26 Failure of Ptolemy VI against Antiochus IV
27 Peace agreement between Antiochus IV and Ptolemy VI
28 Antiochus IV returns to Antioch
29 Second season of Antiochus IV's activities in Egypt
30 Roman intervention forces Antiochus IV to leave Egypt
   On way back to Antioch, A.IV quells Jason's rebellion
   and carries out heavy represssion in Jerusalem
31 Seleucid supporters control the Akra, tamid stopped
   temple polluted
32 Antiochus IV's policies in Jerusalem get support from
   a sizable part of the Jerusalem population
33 - 35 Description of the resistence movement and its hardships
36 - 39 Description of the state of affairs at time of writing
40 - 45 Genuine prediction about the end of Antiochus IV's reign
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The historical links between Dan 11 and the events related to the Seleucid
domination are so strong, I can only imagine that people have either not
had the opportunity to notice them or they have some better reconstruction
of the events surrounding the text. I must admit, though I have read widely
on the text, I have seen nothing at all in the last thirty years that deals
with the content of the text in any way comparable in accuracy to the
Seleucid history.

I challenge anyone who has anything more comprehensive to offer as an
explanation to forth now. 

I can only imagine that those who *refuse* to contemplate the historical
context do so for non-scholarly reasons.

>He put it this way: "Nothing is gained by a mere answer to objections,
>so long as the original prejudice, 'there cannot be supernatural prophecy,'
>remains" (Daniel the Prophet--Nine Lectures, preface). 

We are talking about history, not prophecy. Noone has said there cannot be
"supernatural prophecy". Yet, doing history, we have no way of verifying
the "supernatural prophecy" aspect of the text.

If one wants to put aside the historical significance of a text, they are
not interested in history.

>That may have some
>bearing on the pointlessness of discussing the matter of Daniel's
historicity by
>this List.

The only "pointlessness of discussing the matter of Daniel's historicity"
is that some people may have made their minds up that historicity has no
importance. The importance for me is simply to show that the text was
written late, which explains why the text is not historically accurate,
though its interest was never the time of the exile, but that of the
Hellenistic crisis. To miss this fact will render the understanding of the
last five chapters of the book unintelligble. Please feel free to negate my
analysis, but please do so using comprehensive evidence.


Cheers,


Ian