Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>]

Dear George,

 I know that my conclusion is brave, because most scholars believe that 
Antiochus IV plays an important role in the book of Daniel. I have always 
tried to avoid the Systemzwang of tradition, and I like to challenge  views 
that are universal.

I think that we in the Humanities should use the principles of the 
hypothetic-deductive method to a greater degree than is done, and in accord 
with the Duhem-Quine thesis keep in mind that it is impossible to test a 
scientific hypothesis in isolation. Auxiliary assumptions and auxiliary 
hypotheses that are taken for granted, must be used. One such auxiliary 
hypothesis related to this subject, is that the information found in the book 
of Daniel about the date for its composition is false, and that the book was 
written, or at least, the latest redaction occurred, in the middle of the 
second century BCE.

My analysis of Daniel 11:21-45, which often is applied to Antiochus IV, gave 
the following results: The verses contain 43 propositions (prophecies). Of 
these I assess that 15 are ambiguous and cannot be used as identifications of 
Antiochus IV. About half of 28 specific propositions cannot be applied to 
Antiochus IV (if our present knowledge of him is correct). The other half CAN 
be applied to Antiochus IV, but NEED NOT be applied to him. And in view of 
all the propositions that do not fit this king in vv. 21-45, alternative 
interpretations of this half are more likely. In other words, I do not find 
anything in the mentioned verses that definitely identify Antiochus IV.


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern


Torsdag 25. Oktober 2012 10:55 CEST skrev George Athas 
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>:

> That's a very brave conclusion, Rolf. I too have done a detailed study of 
> the sources. I recommend the recent study by Anathea Portier-Young, 
> "Apocalypse Against Empire"). I've come to the exact opposite conclusion to 
> you: Daniel is definitely talking about Antiochus IV.
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Dean of Research,
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
>
>
> On 24/10/2012, at 10:58 PM, "Rolf" 
> <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no<mailto:rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>> wrote:
>
> Dear George,
>
> I will come back to this subject in the future when I have more time. Now I 
> would just recommend one book, namely, Otto Mørkholm, "Antiochus IV of 
> Syria", 1966. This book demonstrates that much of our "knowledge" of 
> Antiochus IV can be questioned, and a lot of actions ascribed to him need 
> not have happened. I have made a detailed study of Daniel's chapters 11 and 
> 8 in the light of historical information that, according to my judgmenet, 
> is rather certain, and I have not found i single verse or a single sentence 
> in Daniel that naturally would be applied to Antiochus IV.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
> Rolf Furuli
> Stavern
> Norway
>
>
>