Robert said
Sapiensape43 said
My understanding is that the Old Testament stresses that God rewards the faithful and righteous with immediate blessings, NOT deferred blessings, as is the case with Christianity. The OT teaches that God will NOT allow a righteous man to be destroyed by his enemies, instead his enemies will be delivered into his hands for destruction. David said he knew he was acceptable to God because caused him to be victorious over his enemies! Christianity, in opposition to the Old Testament, says Christians must expect revilement, scorn, persecution, poverty, and death, but if faithful till their deaths, they will receive deferred rewards in a life after the ressurection. Jesus’ revilement, scourging, mocking, and execution would be regarded as proofs he was NOT righteous, for God in the OT said he would NOT allow the righteous to be overcome by the unrighteous! God in the OT showed Israel His favor by rewarding them with prosperity, healthy children, abundant crops, victories over national enemies. In the OT God showed Israel His disfavor by having famine for his people, disease, crop failures, and spontaneously aborted children (still births). The NT turns upside down and inside out the understanding of God’s signs of favor and disfavor for his followers in the OT! Jesus’ “poverty” would be regarded as a sign of disfavor from God in the OT.
I would not rely too heavily on a black-and-white dichotomy between the so-called ‘Old Testament’ and Jesus in the New Testament. The Hebrew scriptures, correctly understood, present a variety of viewpoints and perspectives and one can find an apocalyptic viewpoint emerging in the latest books and additions to the Jewish scriptures (eg, Daniel and deutero-Zechariah) as well as in second-temple Jewish literature that did not make it into the Hebrew scriptures (eg, Maccabean literature and the composite books of Enoch). Rather, Jesus and the earliest strata of ‘Christianity are best understood as a part of this later phenomenon of apocalyptic Judaism.
I understand that Where the NT is “foreign” to the OT (contradicting the OT notions about God) in its portrayal of God, this “foreigness” is traced to Hellenistic Greek thought. The NT was written in Greek, uses Greek terminology (the Logos), and was pitched to a Greek-speaking audience/world. The NT’s apocalyptic notions were also borrowed the Hellenistic Greek world. Daniel is dated to circa 154 BC, a Hellenistic Greek world, which promoted Apocalyptic literature.
Stephen said
Jesus’ “poverty” would be regarded as a sign of disfavor from God in the OT.This is precisely the attitude, riches as a sign of God’s favor, that Jesus is critiquing in Matthew 19. Interestingly this is exactly the attitude of most modern Americans is it not? Who privileges “success” more than Americans? (Even the Christians.)
Prosperity Christianity is an especially pernicious scourge. A more sober evaluation suggests that evil is all too often rewarded with comfort and riches, and goodness and generosity with poverty and more sacrifices. (If I ever meet God face to face, my other complaint will be that things that are good for us should taste better than things that are bad for us, instead of the other way around.)
Robert said I have never seen anyone defend Jewish apocalyptic literature as Hellenistic. Can you give some examples or arguments for this perspective?
Definitely got my popcorn hoping someone has a good answer for that one.
Meanwhile… Daniel, like most books of scripture seem to be assumed to be written by those in power or their allies. Not sure Daniel was anti-hellenic as much as it was anti-foreign rule: especially Antiochus IV of Syria. Even then there could be Ptolemaic sympathies as Antiochus had just utterly embarrassed Egypt to the point he would have had to take over it. A Roman envoy headed by his childhood friend (Antiochus was raised in Rome) gave him an excuse to turn back to the east where the heartland of Seleucid wealth lay – Babylonia. But not before trampling through the Temple in Jerusalem and throwing a raucous party in Anatolia to show off for his Roman peers. It was here he named himself Epiphanes – God manifest!
Of course Daniel is dated to before Antiochus IV’s death in 164 BCE because Daniel gets the death wrong.
(As a complete aside, trampling through a temple and dissing it was not generally what conquerors did in those times. We really have three examples and they have odd overlap. Our sources for Antiochus IV have him matching east to reestablish dominance there. At Elyses he disrespects the Temple of Bel, the people rise up, and Antiochus dies there.
However, the path taken and the disrespect of Bel are almost identical to that if his father, Antiochus III. 1) Did Antiochus IV really die in the east or was Daniel correct, changing the time Daniel was written?
But wait! More questions abound.
2) Did the author of Daniel borrow this motif of a great Antiochus condemned to death for disrespecting a temple of the local high God?
3) Did the author of Bel and the Dragon make the connection between Daniel having Antiochus dis YHWH and ancient historians having the two Antiochii dis Bel? )
That’s all the mystical woo I have for ya today 😉
Just curious for your thoughts on this.
Perhaps the message of Daniel is more about “proper worship” of whatever god is your god or the god. Rereading it, Daniel does not seem to use the idea of “the god.” Instead, the message is “your god” or “my god”, especially as pertains to a kingdom and its leader worshiping that kingdoms god.
In the supposedly “bad history” of early Daniel, we see the king of Babylon erect a statue for everyone to worship. Why would he need to tell everyone to worship an idol? Didn’t they do that regularly anyway? Replacing Nebuchadnezzar with Nabonidus answers this question nicely. Nabonidus preferred worship of Sin, the moon god, to the longstanding lead god Marduk. Perhaps he angered the priesthood in Babylon by trying to have Sin take over the Marduk temple. This would explain why in the book of Daniel the king of Babylon would have to decree for his subjects to worship an idol. He abandons ruling from Babylon for 10 years to live in a town where Sin is the lead god, sort of like Nebuchadnezzar abdicates the throne to eat grass for 7 years. The son of Nabonidus, Belshazzar, rules from Babylon in Nabonidus’ absence.
Historians tell us Cryus proclaimed to the Babylonians that the reason Babylon fell to him is because of improper worship of Marduk by the Babylonians. Cyrus is supposedly Zoastrian. There are Zoastrian names throughout his family lineage. He is worried about Babylonians worshipping Babylon’s proper god.
Historians tell us Antiochus iii faced his demise after despoiling the temple of Bel in Elam.
Daniel tells us of the demise of both Antiochus iii and Antiochus iv, but with no real details at all. Just before Antiochus iv’s demise, he despoils the temple. “The temple” inferences abound to holy people, holy promises, and Antiochus iv’s death happens between the sea and the holy mountain. We all assume these are references to Israelites or Judeans. But we know Antiochus iv died in the heart of Asia, reclaiming territories such as Elam. Therefore this last prophecy must be wrong and the book of Daniel is dated to 164 BCE.
But we have already seen where the first part of Daniel is rewritten history, with changed characters and slightly changed incidences. There was a real story, Nabonidus, Belshazzar, and Cyrus, overwritten with Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius the Mede.
There is a strong hint that perhaps the same thing is happening in chapter 8. The author of Daniel has a dream where he finds out about the empires that will rise and fall. In this vision he is standing in the capital city of Elam, precisely in the city where Antiochus iii presumably died after committing his sacrilege.
I see where other prophecies are strictly about Judea arising from subjugation and being reclaimed by Yahweh, their national god. But the overall theme of Nabonidus and Antiochus iii (overwritten by Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus iv) is that the gods of nations are important to keeping order in the world. Remember Antiochus iv is a usurper and there and serious contenders for both the Seleucid and Ptolemy thrones as well as the 3 or 4 official high priests of Jerusalem’s Temple.
So the original subjects would be histories of Babylonian, Persian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid power and follies, lightly theologized and slightly changed as to names and specific incidences. I say lightly theologized because we cant put the fantasies of later authors about Daniel on the author of Daniel itself. Its not even completely converted to monotheism in its final format.
FocusMyView said
Robert said I have never seen anyone defend Jewish apocalyptic literature as Hellenistic. Can you give some examples or arguments for this perspective?
Definitely got my popcorn hoping someone has a good answer for that one.
Meanwhile… Daniel, like most books of scripture seem to be assumed to be written by those in power or their allies. Not sure Daniel was anti-hellenic as much as it was anti-foreign rule: especially Antiochus IV of Syria. Even then there could be Ptolemaic sympathies as Antiochus had just utterly embarrassed Egypt to the point he would have had to take over it. A Roman envoy headed by his childhood friend (Antiochus was raised in Rome) gave him an excuse to turn back to the east where the heartland of Seleucid wealth lay – Babylonia. But not before trampling through the Temple in Jerusalem and throwing a raucous party in Anatolia to show off for his Roman peers. It was here he named himself Epiphanes – God manifest!
Of course Daniel is dated to before Antiochus IV’s death in 164 BCE because Daniel gets the death wrong.
(As a complete aside, trampling through a temple and dissing it was not generally what conquerors did in those times. We really have three examples and they have odd overlap. Our sources for Antiochus IV have him matching east to reestablish dominance there. At Elyses he disrespects the Temple of Bel, the people rise up, and Antiochus dies there.
However, the path taken and the disrespect of Bel are almost identical to that if his father, Antiochus III. 1) Did Antiochus IV really die in the east or was Daniel correct, changing the time Daniel was written?
But wait! More questions abound.
2) Did the author of Daniel borrow this motif of a great Antiochus condemned to death for disrespecting a temple of the local high God?
3) Did the author of Bel and the Dragon make the connection between Daniel having Antiochus dis YHWH and ancient historians having the two Antiochii dis Bel? )
That’s all the mystical woo I have for ya today 😉
Dear Robert, see my articles posted to my website on the Hellenistic Greek borrowings in the New Testament as well as the Apocrypha,
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Robert said
Sapiensape43 said
Dear Robert, see my articles posted to my website on the Hellenistic Greek borrowings in the New Testament as well as the Apocrypha,
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I found ** you do not have permission to see this link **:
The Primary History (Genesis-2 Kings) does not know of punishments awaiting sinners in the underworld or Sheol. An unrighteous King Saul dwells there with a righteous Samuel the Prophet. There are apparently no rewards or punishments in Sheol in the Primary History. By the second century B.C. when Daniel is believed to have been composed by most Humanist scholars, mention is made of a resurrection in which the unrighteous will be shamed and held in contempt but nothing is said of torture or torments (Dan 12:2).
Greek myths however stress that the unrighteous will be tormented in the underworld. The book of Revelation’s imagery appears to be drawing on current Greek notions of torture and torment for the ungodly (cf. my paper titled “Hell’s Pre-Christian Origins” [on the book of Revelation]).
The Christian notion that all the earth is under Satan (the Devil) and his Demon’s control also appears to be drawing upon Hellenistic Greek notions. Plato understood that the supreme god had appointed “Daimones” to watch over mankind and the earth, to foster justice and fairness. He also posited that evil should not be attributed to God. So, in Post-Platonic times the notion arose that “some” Daimones were evil. Eventually it was posited that all the evil in the world was caused by evil Daimones, absolving the supreme Platonic God of all blame. Christians simply accepted this Greek myth or fiction, and accordingly portrayed Christ as coming to the earth to liberate man from the power of Satan and his Demons (Greek Daimon being rendered in English, as Demon). So, the Christians did not invent the notion that all the earth and mankind is under Daimonic control, it is Post-Platonic Greek fiction (cf. my paper titled “The Pre-Christian Origins of the New Testament’s Demons/Daemones/Daimones” for detai ls).
And ** you do not have permission to see this link **:
Of interest is the notion that the daimones were set by the Greek gods to be “watchers over mankind” as this notion crops up in the Book of Enoch which has “watcher angels” becoming demons, mating with human women and turning the world into an evil place. That is to say Hellenistic Greek ideas of “watcher daimones” apparently has been adopted and adapted by certain Jewish intellectuals into “fallen watcher-angels or demons”:
“DEMONOLOGY. The word demon (or daemon) is the Greek daimon, the etymology of which is too doubtful to explain its original signification (see Pott, Etym. Forsch., ii. 1, 947).
Anything else relating specifically to the book of Daniel or early Jewish apocalyptic? Have you read the books of Enoch or the Dead Sea Scrolls?
I read Enoch and the Dead Sea Scrolls many years ago (in the 1990s). At the age of 78 years now (born 1943) my memory fades on the details now.
Robert said
Is there anything else on your website that relates to the book of Daniel or other early Jewish apocalyptic works? What I’ve found there so far (see above quotations) does not really support a Hellenistic origin or significant influence on the book of Daniel or early Jewish apocalyptic.I totally agree with the Hellenistic influence on later, developing Christianity, especially with respect to the idea of hell and the existence of souls after death.
We can also agree about Hellenistic influences on Judaism, not just in the diaspora but also in Jerusalem and other cities of Palestine, especially among the higher classes.
But I’m not really familiar with Hellenistic influences in the book of Daniel or the earlier parts of 1 Enoch and at Qumran. If you could point to specific passages that would be helpful. Of course, some Hellenistic influence is likely, but I’ve never heard of it as foundational in the book of Daniel. On the other hand George Nicklesburg does point out Hellenistic motifs in the 1 Enoch and describes the final interpolator of 1 Enoch using Hellenistic mythology (p 172). One of the most striking seems to be the idea of souls having an interim existence in caves awaiting the final judgment.
I am afraid I have been misunderstood. I am not claiming a direct Hellenistic Greek apocalyptic influence on Daniel, only a general concept that such literature existed in Hellenistic times when Daniel was written. For some examples of Apocalyptic Egyptian Literature see the following url ( I note that Daniel mentions Egypt’s conquest by Antiochus and the Romans (Kittim ships) running him out of Egypt circa 164 BC,
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Just because you are anti-Greek doesn’t mean you aren’t already Greek without realizing it.
The first thing Mattathias does when he hears of the massacre numbering about 1000 in 2 Maccabees 6 is decide to fight on the Sabbath! We all know of the eventual Greek names adopted later on. Anti-Greek or just usurpers of power in Jerusalem who needed to justify it?
Jen said
Interested in *reliable* studies/info about dating of and archaeological evidence for proof that ancient Sumerian texts were written before the Hebrew bible and that Greek mythology was in place before Christians came to be. Any links pertaining to this, whether Dr. Ehrman’s writings or any other would be appreciated. Thanks.
Of some “possible” (?) interest is an article by Professor Ronald Hendel on Genesis 1-11 being a recast (and repudiation of) of Mesopotamian myths about the origins of the world and of mankind. It was written in 2005. See ** you do not have permission to see this link **
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert