Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>]

Dear Ian,

Two points here:

1) You write that "The historical links between Dan 11 and the events 
related to the Seleucid domination are so strong..." Now I admit that 
I have not looked into this in detail. But I wonder how much we know 
of these "events" which is independent of the book of Daniel. Please 
list your sources (and their dates, and the dates of the earliest 
surviving MSS) for your rather confident knowledge of these events, 
which so contrasts with your scepticism concerning reported events of 
earlier centuries.

2) You write: "If one wants to put aside the historical significance 
of a text, they are not interested in history." Well, does that apply 
to all texts? What about the prophecies of Nostradamus? Does anyone 
interested in history have to look at their historical significance 
and try to fit the alleged fulfilment of some of these prophecies with 
historical events? Now, although I would not want to link Daniel too 
closely with Nostradamus, could we not have a similar case of books 
presented as prophecy but with some (debatable and perhaps accidental) 
correspondence with actual events? Just as one would not try to 
interpret Nostradamus as prophecy after the event (and partly because 
we know when Nostradamus' works were written, or think we do), perhaps 
one should be careful before treating Daniel in the same way. Or 
perhaps you would argue that Nostradamus' prophecies must have been 
written after their alleged fulfilments and that it was all some 
strange conspiracy, complete with texts in forged archaic language, to 
attribute them to some earlier historical writer?

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Diachronic study (History in Daniel)
Author:  <mc2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date:    23/02/2000 14:28

<snip>

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