Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 20:32:46 -0700
I wrote the following reply to someone. Since most of my e-mail is
private, I have not included the querant's address, nor his name.
I was discussing the book "Who Wrote the Gospels?" by Helms.
>> used Daniel as his sourse). It adds aditional compelling evidence for
> Oops, I forgot to ask what was the "additional compelling
Three good reasons that I can think of off-hand. The first is the reason
why the author of _Daniel_ wrote the book. The Temple had been defiled
by having a Pagan idol (Zeus) installed circa 160 BCE, which the author
appears to have taken as a sign that the "kingdon of god" (in the Jewish
sense, which is, of course, quite different than the later Christian
sense) was very near at hand. Daniel was therefore a apocalyptic work
by an author who very much believed that he was living in the last days.
While dozens of generations preceeding the author's believed that the
kingdon of god was "near" (because they were occupied) the defilement of
the Temple seems, to my mind (naturally I could be wrong), the greatest
crisis of Judaism since The Captivity, exceeding the Roman occupation.
I think it was this impetus behind the reason the author of _Daniel_
wrote the book. _Daniel_ seems to be a political critique of 2nd
century political powers, with the end of the text ensuring that the
Jews would eventually over-some their persecutors.
The second reason is, of course, that the pseudohistory in _Daniel_
is blatently wrong when discussing 6th century BCE, but becomes
inceasingly more accurate up to circa 168 BCE. After that date the
"prophesy" once again becomes historically wrong: strong evidence
that the text was written around that date.
The third is that there is no such thing as "prophesy," and the correct
history of _Daniel_ (circa 300-160 BCE) is extremely accurate, though
couched in poetic words. The "great horn" (Alexander the Great)
breaking into "four little horns," none of which were his progeny
(Alexander's four generals), each taking a cardinal (compass) region
to rule, is too accurate for "prophesy."
Regarding the latter, naturally one who is a believer in "prophesy"
will object the argument as "anti-supernatural bias." In this I
agree 100%. I am biased against all things supernatural. I also have
the added benefit of supporting a "prophesy" claim by pointing out
that all of the other "prophsies" in the Hebrew and Christians
Testaments are false (those that can be historically checked). Why
_Daniel_ should be valid "prophesy" while the other "prophesies"
are not I can not imagine.
---
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
From: David Rice <shydavid@net999.com>
Subject: _Daniel_ prophesy
>> a second-century BCE origination of the text. (Mark, of course, being
>> 70 CE and writing as an apocalyptic who expected the Son of Man to
>> show up in 73-74 CE.)
> evidence" the book produces?
David Michael Rice
The world's second biggest glutton! (Next to Godzilla)
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.