Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 11:22

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 11:22
  • Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 06:56:48 +0200

Dear Shoshanna,

Daniel is obviously not a "Christian" book, since it was written many years before there was such a thing as Christianity. That's not the issue. Both you and John B. Senterfitt seem to assume that the book contains prophecies about the future. John quoted a common Christian understanding of Daniel as foretelling the coming (and return) of Jesus. You quote a Jewish understanding of it foretelling events in later Jewish history - and there are Jewish interpretations that DO understand these verses as referring to the Messiah. Both interpretations are equally legitimate in their own religious contexts. What you forget and John may not know, is that this list is neither a Jewish list or a Christian one - you have no justification for opposing "foreign doctrine into OUR (meaning Jewish) scripture", just as John has no justification for assuming that the Christian interpretation is the only one that is legitimate.

Besides, "Rome will be able to conquer the countries surrounding the Land of Israel without fear of Hashmonean Intervention" - come on!

And now a serious question: if "the rabbis" (of the "great assembly") considered Daniel to be prophetic, why was it not included in the Nevi'im (as it is in the Christian canon - that is, together with the "prophetic books")?

Yigal


----- Original Message ----- From: "Shoshanna Walker" <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Cc: <millenia05 AT earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:07 AM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Daniel 11:22


NONE of these verses refer to any "anti-christ" - which is a foreign
concept after all, if this were a Christian book, the rabbis would
not have included it in our Tanach.


Verse 22 refers to the covenant that the Jews made with the Romans -
ie; they will also be crushed by them - this does not refer to
Mashiach.

Verse 21 refers to the Roman Empire, not to an "anti- christ"
("contemptible one" = Roman empire)

Verse 20: The Hashmonean Dynasty will succeed Antiochus in
Jerusalem, but it will eventually fall as a result of a battle of
succession between the two brothers, Aristobulos and Hyrcanus.

Verse 23: By signing a "holy covenant" of friendship (see verses 28,
30) with the Hashmoneans, Rome will be able to conquer the countries
surrounding the Land of Israel without fear of Hashmonean
Intervention.


PLEASE don't put foreign doctrine into our scripture, where it does not exist.


Thank you

Shoshanna




Seeing as how I am quite new to this endeavor I would appreciate it
if I am not acting according to b-hebrew protocol, that you let me
know.

And so, assuming I am ok, I will go ahead and ask my question.

Is there any conceivable way that Daniel 11:22 and the last statement
"also prince of covenant" could be in reference to Messiah?

I know the verses before and after are obviously referring to the
antichrist but could it be that verse 22 is a nugget so easily
overlooked?
John B. Senterfitt
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page