Robert said
robbeasley said
Different greek authors perhaps. Perhaps Nerva did not find the corrections worthwhile or its part of a deliberate smoke screen. The only thing I feel confident about is Nerva having a lead roll.
I’ve yet to see a single reason offered for any confidence at all in proclaiming Nerva to be the author of so much NT material, let alone the entire corpus of Josephus. As for equating the hypothetical Q-source with the gospel of Thomas, that is demonstrably false.
Alas all I have is my instincts and the figures who were in the right place at or near the right time. Also Isaiah has a dating issue and man made text that favours the Emperor Cyrus. Further Daniel seems to be a false attempt at prophecy. Pinning down the authors is no easy feat or perhaps impossible.
Angel Gabriel is a product of the book of Daniel and I ‘d suggest a fake. Gabriel is first mentioned in Daniel. Doesn’t this mean that any downstream use of Gabriel including Islam are also fakes?
I still think I am closer than most to what really happened. I’ll grant you this you are very good at finding the weak points in my case. And there are plenty.
Would you have a link to the demonstrably false case equating “Q Source to the Gospel of Jesus(Thomas)
Thanks again
The thing about Cyrus writing Isaiah is that it does not seem to have created a religion, did it?
When I started looking into this type of stuff (religion creation), I noted that Ron Hubbard and Mohamed wrote slightly different or completely new cosmologies and primeval histories. Joseph Smith of course uses the Bible cosmology but invents a 1800 year narrative from Jesus to his time and day. The writer of Genesis sort of does this, though it is mostly based on ANE or perhaps even Greek motifs. Isaiah mentions early cosmology, as does the Psalmist and Job, but these are mentioned in passing as exhibits of who God is and the extent of his power, not as a detail of cosmology or primeval history. It assumes the knowledge of these (ANE) myths instead or restating them as the writer of Genesis did.
On that context I personally see Isaiah as unable to fulfill the desired role of “religion creator.”
Robert said
Well that’s a little better. Have you seen any linguistic arguments that the Hebrew versions of Genesis and Exodus show signs of being translated from Greek?
But of course. The term Pentateuch, or five books, is a more fitting name for the first five books than is Torah. Of course the Yehud had a Torah of some sort, and it seems that name was preferred. But the Pentateuch is Greek for five books.
Seriously though. I plan on learning some Greek and Hebrew before going much further. I probably need at least two recently written JEDP books that are more thorough than polemic as well, to really learn the bases for people’s reasonings for their preferences in divvying up the authors. I will probably use these bases to help identify sources rather than schools of thought or “proto” books.
FocusMyView said
The thing about Cyrus writing Isaiah is that it does not seem to have created a religion, did it?When I started looking into this type of stuff (religion creation), I noted that Ron Hubbard and Mohamed wrote slightly different or completely new cosmologies and primeval histories. Joseph Smith of course uses the Bible cosmology but invents a 1800 year narrative from Jesus to his time and day. The writer of Genesis sort of does this, though it is mostly based on ANE or perhaps even Greek motifs. Isaiah mentions early cosmology, as does the Psalmist and Job, but these are mentioned in passing as exhibits of who God is and the extent of his power, not as a detail of cosmology or primeval history. It assumes the knowledge of these (ANE) myths instead or restating them as the writer of Genesis did.
On that context I personally see Isaiah as unable to fulfill the desired role of “religion creator.”
I don’t see as a religion creator either. It served role of shaping the Judeans to follow Cyrus as well scare them from offending their ever watchful and vengeful God Yahweh . The one that sits enthroned (like an emperor) in the sky watching grasshoppers down below .
The religion creation may have been step 2 by combining the Pentateuch . Tweaking it or not.
Based on results, I would say Cyrus was much more successful than Nerva was.
1. Cyrus’s writing of Isaiah grounded a high priesthood that would rule for 300 years. (To put this into context, look how long any one dynasty ruled any kingdom, ever.)
2. The Yehud would not rise up and rebel against its oppressors for those 300 years.
godspell said
‘Possible but not known’ would be a good summation for the whole thread. Bart can think what he likes, as can the many other qualified scholars, none of whom post on this thread. Catching a plane this morning. Have fun, kids. 🙂
Robert said
Personally, I will go with the opinions and historico-critical methodology of the scholars I have the most respect for as to what is judged to be most probable. As far as I’m concerned, that’s much better than merely giving authors the benefit of the doubt.
That’s a viable option, but not much of a discussion.
So why do you think the author of Daniel put two entirely different stories about Daniel in the Lion’s Den into the book he supposedly wrote to convince people he had the straight dope on Daniel?
It’s self-evidently an anthology of pre-existing material, full of continuity problems. Is it possible that the section with the convenient prophecies was just something he found, and far as he knew it was as legit as all the other stuff? Can scholars prove the editor of this anthology wrote that suspect material himself? (Actually, it’s all pretty suspect, but clearly Bart and most other scholars don’t think most of the book was forged. Because a forger would have done a better job keeping the story straight.)
robbeasley said
Further Daniel seems to be a false attempt at prophecy. Pinning down the authors is no easy feat or perhaps impossible.
So it may be impossible to identify who wrote these works therefore I know instinctively who wrote these works? That’s not really evidence, just unjustified assertions.
Afraid so.
robbeasley said
Angel Gabriel is a product of the book of Daniel and I ‘d suggest a fake. Gabriel is first mentioned in Daniel. Doesn’t this mean that any downstream use of Gabriel including Islam are also fakes?
Robert said
Is this a discussion of whether or not angels actually exist, and one specific archangel named Gabriel? Or is it a discussion of the authors of various texts, most notably Cyrus, an unknown Roman, and Nerva, and whomever you claim wrote/redacted the Qur’an.
robbeasley said
This part of the discussion is of one specific archangel named Gabriel because he is first mentioned in Daniel which is fraudulent work. I suggest that Gabriel is a work of fiction and therefore any downstream use of this archangel are also fakes.robbeasley said
I still think I am closer than most to what really happened. I’ll grant you this you are very good at finding the weak points in my case. And there are plenty.
Robert said
To construct your scenario, you rely on some points of scholarship about the dating of deutero-Isaiah and Daniel, but you also completely ignore so much more scholarship around these works, the various New Testament authors, and Josephus. I would just encourage you to be more open to the abundance of scholarship in these other areas.robbeasley said
Noted
robbeasley said
Would you have a link to the demonstrably false case equating “Q Source to the Gospel of Jesus(Thomas)
** you do not have permission to see this link ** has written the most recent defense of the alternative scholarly view that the gospel of Thomas is in fact not only later than but also dependent upon the synoptic gospels. Bart mentioned recently that he may ultimately end up being persuaded of this view, which I think has already been the tendency toward consensus among most scholars outside of the American Jesus Seminar viewpoint.
Thanks.
Robert said
godspell said
That’s a viable option, but not much of a discussion.
So why do you think the author of Daniel put two entirely different stories about Daniel in the Lion’s Den into the book he supposedly wrote to convince people he had the straight dope on Daniel?
It’s self-evidently an anthology of pre-existing material, full of continuity problems. Is it possible that the section with the convenient prophecies was just something he found, and far as he knew it was as legit as all the other stuff? Can scholars prove the editor of this anthology wrote that suspect material himself? (Actually, it’s all pretty suspect, but clearly Bart and most other scholars don’t think most of the book was forged. Because a forger would have done a better job keeping the story straight.)
You say that “clearly Bart and most other scholars don’t think most of the book was forged.” I already provided you with a quote from Bart that clearly speaks of the major import of the whole book as forged:
Bart, November 24-25, 2019
It’s a well established view that the author is living in the 2nd c BCE, pretending he’s an author from the 6th c BCE and making “predictions” (but of things that have already happened). …
Oh yes, the evidence is completely overwhelming. The only ones who don’t buy it are people who for theological reasons can’t believe it could be true. …
As for some of the continuity problems, these can and have been well explained by proposed dual, parallel concentric and progressive structures that overlay the entire book, overlapping the change in language, and which necessitated some changes in timeline to fit the overall pattern. Timeline issues would become commonplace in the whole developing genre of apocalyptic.
There isn’t much discussion among those familiar with critical scholarship of the book of Daniel because this is such a widespread opinion that no serious critical scholar really disputes it. You are the only critical thinking person I’ve ever heard of disputing the pseudepigraphic/forged character of the book of Daniel. You keep trying to minimize the amount of material purporting to be by Daniel by speaking of a few specific verses or perhaps a chapter or here ‘less than most of the book’. You also seem to be thinking here that the critical issue is only if ‘the editor wrote the suspect material himself‘ as opposed to ‘something he found, thinking it was legitimate’. That does not matter. Unless you want to claim that the material purporting to have been seen and heard and authored by Daniel was really seen, heard, and authored by Daniel, those major sections (half the book) are forged by an author of the text. It does not matter if he was the final author or an editor or the redactor of the entire book, ‘though that is most likely the case. And the amount of material purporting to have come directly from Daniel in the first person is not merely some specific verses, or a stray chapter, or a mere speech here or there, but the entirety of the second-half of the book. Have you read the whole book of Daniel? It is the second half of the book that pertains to the interpretation of the entirety of world history, including the most recent events that are practically contemporary to the final form of the book. If you haven’t already, read the book. Look at all the first person references. I haven’t counted them but there are surely hundreds and they end in the final chapter with a command to Daniel regarding the whole book:
“But you, Daniel, keep the words secret and the book sealed until the time of the end.”
That isn’t an answer. Why are there two stories about Daniel being thrown into a den of lions who don’t eat him?
Because the person who put this book together put in everything he could find about Daniel, even if the stories call each other into question. And they do. Which is lousy forgery, if that’s what it is. Who would be convinced by this? Nobody who wasn’t already.
The entire book isn’t forged, if most of it is drawn from earlier sources. And if the compiler didn’t know the prophecies were forgeries, because he didn’t write them himself, he wasn’t a forger.
The problem is that Daniel is used to justify Jesus being the Son of Man, so everybody gets touchy about it, on all sides. Clearly, forged or not, those prophecies had nothing to do with Jesus.
Good call. NRSV, kindle edition, Catholic. Why would I opt to have multiple books of the bible left out, as in the Protestant editions? Only Protestant edition I’ve ever owned is the King James, and I don’t think you’re advocating for that. 🙂
But of course for Bart, Jesus (what he believed, what others believed about him) is the principle point of interest with regards to Daniel. Otherwise, it’s not his area. He’d be interested, as a biblical scholar, and as someone who has written about forgery, but that’s the primary attraction
So in what we believe to be the original version, how many times did Daniel convert a king who tried to kill him to Judaism?
I understand, but could you please clarify what parts of Daniel are considered forgery?
Because in a recent article here on the main blog, Bart responds to a comment and very clearly indicates he doesn’t consider all of it to be forgery. And of course, he mentions parts being written in Aramaic.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Robert said
But suppose that Daniel’s visions of Gabriel were actually written by the real Daniel rather than a 2nd-century author pretending to be Daniel, then the book of Daniel would not be forged/pseudepigraphic, but would that make the angel Gabriel into an actually existing being rather than a fictional character? Likewise any later author who might recount a vision of Gabriel he genuinely believed in or not–if this author were to use his real name as the author, his work would not be pseudepigraphic or forged with respect to his authorship of the work.
Popular scholarship and common sense(prophecy isn’t a reality) would suggest it was written 2nd Century BC. Three mentions of Gabriel all occur between the later “predictions”. Chapters 8,9 and 10.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)