Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Shoshanna Walker <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
  • To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] To Yigal: Re: Daniel 11:22
  • Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:25:45 -0500

Dear Yigal:

1. I don't assume anything, I am drawing on others far wiser than me

2. Please cite to me Jewish interpretations that "DO understand these verses as referring to the Messiah."

3. I do have justification for opposing people putting Christian doctrine into Tanach, where it doesn't exist - it is OUR Bible, and our Bible does not teach Christianity. I would never tell a Christian what their New Testament means, I would never inject Jewish doctrine into it.

4. "Come on" - to where? I didn't make that up, I cited the Stone Tanach, tell THEM they are wrong.

5. The answer to your last question is that Judaism does NOT consider Daniel to be a prophet, even though his writings include visions of the future, which we believe to be true, he was not considered one of the 55 prophets, BECAUSE

a. Daniel never spoke directly to God. According to the Torah, prophets speak to God, not to intermediaries like angels. Daniel saw angels and never spoke to God. This is the primary reason Daniel is not considered a prophet.

b. His mission was not that of a prophet. In Judaism a prophet speaks to his or her generation, not to future generations. The Prophets in the Jewish Tanach (e.g., Isaiah, Ezekiel) spoke primarily to their generation, but their message was also pertinent to the future. Daniel's visions of the future were never intended to be proclaimed to the people; they were designed to be written down for future generations. Thus, they are Writings, not Prophecies, and are classified accordingly.

The Men of the Great Assembly (Sanhedrin) who codified the Jewish Bible (Tanach) argued about including Daniel in the Bible and placed him in Writings, not Prophets. They are our authority, not the Christian canon, which obviously has a different understanding than we do.

Shoshanna





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


_______________________________________________
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