Too Good To Be True - Story of Daniel :(

Post Reply New Topic

Just guessing here, but while much of Daniel is clearly apocalyptic, Daniel himself comes across more as a statesman than a prophet.

Also, being counted with the prophets or not is going to depend on who you ask. The LXX places Daniel with the prophets, as does Josephus (Against Apion).

Alexander, lighten up. At least I admitted to my mistake, which is something that most these days are unwilling to do, I've noticed. To attribute a simple mistake like this to 'a decline in Biblical knowledge' is misguided, to say the least. Besides, what kind of 'knowledge' can actually be found in the Bible? The 'fact' that pi is exactly 3 (1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2) perhaps? The many failed prophecies (ex. Matthew 16:27 - 28) perhaps? It's just mythology, no more relevant to today's world than the Epic of Gilgamesh which, by the way, the writers of the Bible plagiarised from.

Sorry, Lindar, I truly did not mean to come across as that harsh, and you are right that it takes courage and humility to admit a mistake. I am aware of the parallels with the Mesopotamian Flood and the Biblical account - closer than the numerous other flood accounts, which suggest there may be some basis in a historical deluge at least. To be frank, saying that the Biblical accounts are as irrelevant as the Epic of Gilgamesh is disingenuous. There are so far as I know, not many adherents of the ancient Sumerian or Akkadian pantheons (arguably same gods and goddesses with different names) in the present. Obviously we are indebted to the civilizations of that time and region, as to their successors, but I do not think I would like to revive some of their religious beliefs, though the philosophy of their wisdom literature is similar to the tradition in such canonical works as Job and Ecclesiastes. There are three diverse world religions with numerous followers of varying degrees of righteousness and rationality and influence whose beliefs bear at least some relation to the historical, doctrinal and ethical teachings contained either in the books of the canonical Hebrew Scripture alone, in the Hebrew Scripture/Old Testament or New Testament, or the retelling and revision in the Qur'an, so it seems a little short-sighted to be quite so dismissive to me, regardless of one's precise individual views.

I did not think my actual post sounded any more uptight than your subsequent response, just mildly frustrated and perhaps slightly amused. Sorry if you were offended.

I did come across a rabbinical account online that while the apocalyptic visions in Daniel are believed by Orthodox Jews to contain genuine insight into the future, Daniel does not meet one technical sense of the Hebrew word for prophet, as a messenger from God to his people with a specific message for one's own time. He was an interpreter of dreams, a dreamer of his own apocalyptic visions, and as you note a statesman under successive kings. Other Jews, such as the translators who arranged the order of the Septuagint and Josephus, appear to have differed. The section Nevi'im (Prophets) is in any case more than Isaiah-Malachi minus Lamentations and Daniel; it also contains Joshua, Judges and I Samuel-II Kings. Ketuvim or Writings is a miscellaneous section, containing Psalms, Wisdom Literature like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Job, Ruth, I and II Chronicles, Ezra Nehemiah and Esther. Both orders have their own logic.

Because they are not so entirely distinct, and the history of human ethics has been and continues to be influenced greatly by the Bible. Besides, I do not see why the study of the past and seeking wise and ethical responses to the present and preparation for contingently possible futures should be so necessarily opposed. I am not sure that I can take your extreme statement of the utter impossibility of understanding any part of the Bible lying down. Surely knowledge of accounts of the past is of worth to all of us, regardless of our views. You might as well say that Greek authors such as Herodotus should cease to be studied, or Chinese chroniclers, because they may not be a hundred per cent accurate. Neither is much reporting of the news, that does not make it worthless or utterly misleading. Not even deliberate fiction is necessarily that; it can at least be a literary work in its own right, and tell us something of the author and time that produced it.

Human ethical advance has neither been uniform nor is it necessarily safe to assume there will not be new declines. The notion that a document should be necessarily utterly worthless merely because it is old is as illogical a non sequitur as the notion that a document should be relied upon absolutely and taken at face value because it is new.

With regard to literalism, views on the historicity of certain passages differ considerably, even amongst those who will accept at least a part of the Bible as a sacred text and scepticism is no more a neutral stance than literalism.

The "built on sand" claim seems somewhat like hyperbole to me.

Excellent point, and indeed the confirmation bias can become quite extreme. In other branches of history primary texts from the period studied, secondary texts some time later, and supplementary evidence like archaeology are generally regarded as all valid sources of information about the past, at least how the past has been viewed if not for the original period studied; some scholars, and many who have not really studied the many disciplines, can take a degree of radical scepticism of and hostility to the Bible, which considering that it is more critical of Israel and Judah at times than many parallel texts by other civilizations generally are about their own people, seems curious.

I find this bit fascinating. Not that I'm advocating such a view, but what's interesting to me is that if you take into account progressive postmodern attitudes, you have to recognize that the Bible not only connects us with our own past but also our cultural roots in the Near East. The Bible is valuable for the very virtue of it's place in our own cultural diversity (together with wisdom from other global cultures) in addition to its antiquity.

Such an adamant or even casual dismissal of the Bible is reflective of an intense bias against it and is revealing of whether a person truly is progressive or not. Not even THAT many liberals or progressives really reject the Bible wholesale. To do so would place someone far out of touch with prevailing contemporary thought.

Looking back on my own response to your comment, I over-reacted. No need to apologise; in fact, maybe I should

In any case, the Bible being as long as it is makes it very difficult to know it at all well (unless one devotes one's life to the study of it).