===>Check out ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE.

Sorry, Lib. I didn't realize your conclusions weren't your own work.
I will check it out.

"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:1r2570llchveud0aio72n5caq5136plmak@4ax.com...

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 23:56:25 +1000, "Diana Burgess"
<nburgess@(nospam)powerup.com.au> wrote:

I am really interested in finding out where the history errors are. I

have

read a few things in Daniel that lead to other places in history.....not
recent. So I would really like to pinpoint the errors so I can get a
bearing.
I am asking because it is harad to find literature that "excuses" those
errors...if you know what I mean.

So please keep a look out for me. I really need to know this stuff or any
reference you can give.
Diana

This is from Metzger & Coogan's Oxford Companion to the Bible-
[Oxford University Press 1993] See that work for the whole article.

"The strongest arguments for multiple authorship are these. First, the
literary style of chaps. 1-6 differs radically from that of chaps.
7-12. The former have all the flavor of heroic tales of the kind that
would emanate from courtly or wisdom circles (compare Daniel 2 with
the Joseph story and with Esther); the latter chapters belong to
that late descendant of prophetic eschatology, apocalyptic
literature. Second, the stories about Daniel in chapters 1-6 reflect a
diaspora outlook. By their language and their knowledge of cultural
details, they show considerable exposure to both Persian and
Hellenistic influences.

I understood Daniel to be two books in one.That is the same book but written
in two different languages. One Hebrew the other Greek.
The Greek, from what I remember is the part that embellishes on the
prophecy. I seem to remember reading the scholars feel this would be because
Greek is a much more "informative" language.

"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:1r2570llchveud0aio72n5caq5136plmak@4ax.com...

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 23:56:25 +1000, "Diana Burgess"
<nburgess@(nospam)powerup.com.au> wrote:

I am really interested in finding out where the history errors are. I

have

read a few things in Daniel that lead to other places in history.....not
recent. So I would really like to pinpoint the errors so I can get a
bearing.
I am asking because it is harad to find literature that "excuses" those
errors...if you know what I mean.

So please keep a look out for me. I really need to know this stuff or any
reference you can give.
Diana

This is from Metzger & Coogan's Oxford Companion to the Bible-
[Oxford University Press 1993] See that work for the whole article.

"The strongest arguments for multiple authorship are these. First, the
literary style of chaps. 1-6 differs radically from that of chaps.
7-12. The former have all the flavor of heroic tales of the kind that
would emanate from courtly or wisdom circles (compare Daniel 2 with
the Joseph story and with Esther); the latter chapters belong to
that late descendant of prophetic eschatology, apocalyptic
literature. Second, the stories about Daniel in chapters 1-6 reflect a
diaspora outlook. By their language and their knowledge of cultural
details, they show considerable exposure to both Persian and
Hellenistic influences.

I understood Daniel to be two books in one.That is the same book but written
in two different languages. One Hebrew the other Greek.
The Greek, from what I remember is the part that embellishes on the
prophecy. I seem to remember reading the scholars feel this would be because
Greek is a much more "informative" language.

In their essentials, these stories are assumed
to come from the third century BCE or even somewhat earlier. The
apocalypses of Daniel 7-12, on the other hand, focus on Judah,
Jerusalem, and the sanctuary.

Herein lies the problem. This is not an earthly sanctuary that is being
discussed.This is the sanctuary that is not of this world. God could care
less about earthly sanctuaries. Daniel is not about the Jewish temples
demise. Well not its demise anyway. But the abomination that makes desolate
may fit the temple.........


They can be dated rather more precisely

(see below) to the first quarter of the second century BCE. If they
were not composed by one writer who supplemented and revised the
earlier work several times during a period of two or three years, then
they were composed by persons working in close proximity in time and
place. The writer(s) of Daniel 7-12 knew of the earlier cycle of
Daniel stories, and for reasons of their own they used that collection
as a basis from which to extend its ministry into their own realm of
apocalyptic dreams and visions.

This seems to be when the Hebrew scripture was translated into Greek by 70
Jews in Alexandria.So maybe the book of Daniel was also translated then as
well.
And from my limited study of history,AFTER Antiochus Ephipanes, the rest of
history seems to fit well. If you are prepared to acknowledge that the vile
person may actually be Jewish,that is.

"Date. The book of Daniel is one of the few books of the Bible that
can be dated with precision. That dating makes it the latest of all
the books of the Hebrew Bible, and yet it is still early enough to
have been known by the sectarian community at Qumran, which flourished
between the second century BCE and 68 CE.
The lengthy apocalypse of Daniel 10-12 provides the best evidence
for date and authorship. This great review of the political maelstrom
of ancient Near Eastern politics swirling around the tiny Judean
community accurately portrays history from the rise of the Persian
empire down to a time somewhat after the desecration of the Jerusalem
Temple and the erection there of the "abomination that makes
desolate" (Dan. 11.31) in the late autumn of 167 BCE by the
Greco-Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes. (The story of this first of
all pogroms of the Jews is told in 1 Macc. 1.41-61; see Maccabees,
The Books of the.) The portrayal is expressed as prophecy about the
future course of events, given by a seer in Babylonian captivity;
however, the prevailing scholarly opinion is that this is mostly
prophecy after the fact. Only from 11:39 onward does the historical
survey cease accurately to reproduce the events known
to have taken place in the latter years of the reign of Antiochus IV.
The most obvious explanation for this shift is that the point of the
writer's own lifetime had been reached. Had the writer known, for
example, about the success of the Jewish freedom fighters led by Judas
Maccabeus in driving the garrison of the hated Antiochus from the
temple precincts (an event that occurred on 25 Kislev, 164 BCE,
according to 1 Macc. 4:34-31 ), the fact would surely have been
mentioned. But evidently it had not yet happened!

Maybe( the Maccabee revolt) it never did happen........

Did they
" exalt themselves to establish the vision;"

A closer translation of this phrase......
"also the robbers of thy people " would be "sons of the violent ones of
your people"
So either the revolt never happened or the Maccabees choose to embelish it
to "exalt themselves."
Why is it not in Daniel well it is in that small verse?

also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the
vision; but they shall fall.

I have a longer response in the making if you are interested.

Diana





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.655 / Virus Database: 420 - Release Date: 8/04/2004

I understood Daniel to be two books in one.That is the same book but written
in two different languages. One Hebrew the other Greek.

The Greek, from what I remember is the part that embellishes on the
prophecy. I seem to remember reading the scholars feel this would be because
Greek is a much more "informative" language.

In their essentials, these stories are assumed
to come from the third century BCE or even somewhat earlier. The
apocalypses of Daniel 7-12, on the other hand, focus on Judah,
Jerusalem, and the sanctuary.

Herein lies the problem. This is not an earthly sanctuary that is being
discussed.

This is the sanctuary that is not of this world. God could care
less about earthly sanctuaries. Daniel is not about the Jewish temples
demise. Well not its demise anyway.

They can be dated rather more precisely
(see below) to the first quarter of the second century BCE. If they
were not composed by one writer who supplemented and revised the
earlier work several times during a period of two or three years, then
they were composed by persons working in close proximity in time and
place. The writer(s) of Daniel 7-12 knew of the earlier cycle of
Daniel stories, and for reasons of their own they used that collection
as a basis from which to extend its ministry into their own realm of
apocalyptic dreams and visions.

This seems to be when the Hebrew scripture was translated into Greek by 70
Jews in Alexandria.

So maybe the book of Daniel was also translated then as well.

And from my limited study of history,AFTER Antiochus Ephipanes, the rest of
history seems to fit well.

If you are prepared to acknowledge that the vile
person may actually be Jewish,that is.

"Date. The book of Daniel is one of the few books of the Bible that
can be dated with precision. That dating makes it the latest of all
the books of the Hebrew Bible, and yet it is still early enough to
have been known by the sectarian community at Qumran, which flourished
between the second century BCE and 68 CE.
The lengthy apocalypse of Daniel 10-12 provides the best evidence
for date and authorship. This great review of the political maelstrom
of ancient Near Eastern politics swirling around the tiny Judean
community accurately portrays history from the rise of the Persian
empire down to a time somewhat after the desecration of the Jerusalem
Temple and the erection there of the "abomination that makes
desolate" (Dan. 11.31) in the late autumn of 167 BCE by the
Greco-Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes. (The story of this first of
all pogroms of the Jews is told in 1 Macc. 1.41-61; see Maccabees,
The Books of the.) The portrayal is expressed as prophecy about the
future course of events, given by a seer in Babylonian captivity;
however, the prevailing scholarly opinion is that this is mostly
prophecy after the fact. Only from 11:39 onward does the historical
survey cease accurately to reproduce the events known
to have taken place in the latter years of the reign of Antiochus IV.
The most obvious explanation for this shift is that the point of the
writer's own lifetime had been reached. Had the writer known, for
example, about the success of the Jewish freedom fighters led by Judas
Maccabeus in driving the garrison of the hated Antiochus from the
temple precincts (an event that occurred on 25 Kislev, 164 BCE,
according to 1 Macc. 4:34-31 ), the fact would surely have been
mentioned. But evidently it had not yet happened!

Maybe( the Maccabee revolt) it never did happen........

Did they " exalt themselves to establish the vision;"