Brandon. Samuel George Frederick Brandon (1907 – 21 October 1971) was a British Anglican priest and scholar of comparative religion. He became professor of comparative religion at the University of Manchester in 1951.
Born: 1907 in the UK
Died: 1971 in Egypt
Selected Works
- The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church (1951)
- Time and Mankind: An Historical and Philosophical Study of Mankind’s Attitude to the Phenomena of Change (1954)
- Man and His Destiny in the Great Religions: An Historical and Comparative Study (1962)
- Creation Legends of the Ancient Near East (1963)
- History, Time, and Deity (1965)
- The Judgment of the Dead: The Idea of Life After Death in the Major Religions (1967)
- Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity (1967)
- The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth (1968)
- Religion in Ancient History: Studies in Ideas, Men, and Events (1969)
- Ancient Empires (1970)
As editor
- The Saviour God: Comparative Studies in the Concept of Salvation (1963)
- A Dictionary of Comparative Religion (1970)
So, Dr. Price concludes this is the best proof of the existence of Jesus.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Not the best proof of the existence of the biblical Jesus.
Not the best proof of the existence of the biblical Jesus who by historical fiction lived in the late 20s and was crucified in the early 30s.
This is fascinating what Dr. Price is saying in Brandon’s book:
some failed Zealot Jesus and rebels became pacifists–when the Revolt was put down, a group of rebels became pacifists?
Which ones?
Simon was taken to Rome to march in the Triumph and John was imprisoned for life.
Jesus of Gamala was killed by the Idumeans.
Which group of rebels formerly led by whom became pacifists?
I checked Brandon’s table of contents, I cannot tell where this is discussed.
J G Ross-Martyn, amazon reviewer
The book argues that St Paul was losing his struggle to take the faith some way away from its Jewish roots, and so make it more accessible to Gentiles. His opponents in the church of Jerusalem were prevailing. Then came the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. The Jerusalem Church was virtually destroyed, and the way was open for the form of the faith worked out by St Paul to spread among the Gentiles.
Robert
By the way, at 5:30 in the video, Price refers to ‘El ‘Elyon as the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7, but ‘El ‘Elyon (אֵ֣ל עֶלְי֔וֹן) is Hebrew for God of the Heights or God Most High. The Aramaic in Daniel 7 for Ancient of Days is actually ‘attiq yomayya’ (עַתִּ֤יק יֽוֹמַיָּא֙).
Dr. Bob Price and Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Young’s Literal Translation
Ancient of Days not God Most High/God of the Heights
NET Bible
Ancient of Days not God Most High/God of the Heights
Text Analysis of Daniel 7:13 shows Ancient of Days
See: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Mechon Mamre
Here you will find the Hebrew Bible (Tana”kh) and the RaMBaM’s Complete Restatement of the Oral Law (Mishneh Torah): Together these give God’s full guidance for both Jews and Gentiles in all times and places detailing what God expects us to do and not do. Through the study and observance of these two guides to Torah (God’s instructions) we can all live richly rewarding lives and avoid painful errors. Both our online and offline Bible and Mishneh Torah texts have been carefully prepared, and they are as accurate as found in the very finest printed editions. (Additional materials are also provided, but they are not the heart of this site.)
Five free online resources for learning Torah:
- The Complete Hebrew Bible (Tanach) in five editions in ** you do not have permission to see this link ** with letter only text of the Torah and Megillat Esther with vowels and cantillation marks appearing when the mouse is over words and disappearing when the mouse moves off of them.
Mechon Mamre shows Ancient of Days, not God Most High/God of the Heights.
Masoretic/Massoretic Text of Daniel 7: 13 shows Ancient of Days, not God Most High/God of the Heights
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The url for this link is: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Robert said
Steefen said
Dr. Bob Price and Steefen, Argumentation Specialist …
Not sure if you realize this, but your links have merely confirmed what I said above, that Bob Price was wrong in using the Hebrew El ‘Elyon instead of the Aramaic ‘attiq yomayya’ when citing Daniel 7.
Robert
Price refers to ‘El ‘Elyon as the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7, but ‘El ‘Elyon (אֵ֣ל עֶלְי֔וֹן) is Hebrew for God of the Heights or God Most High.
Steefen
The link does not show El Elyon, it shows at-tiq yo-w may-ya: עַתִּ֤יק יֽוֹמַיָּא֙
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Dr. Price is correct in saying, “Ancient of Days” given the multiple references I supplied.
Robert said
Steefen said
Robert said
Steefen said
Dr. Bob Price and Steefen, Argumentation Specialist …
Not sure if you realize this, but your links have merely confirmed what I said above, that Bob Price was wrong in using the Hebrew El ‘Elyon instead of the Aramaic ‘attiq yomayya’ when citing Daniel 7.
Robert
Price refers to ‘El ‘Elyon as the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7, but ‘El ‘Elyon (אֵ֣ל עֶלְי֔וֹן) is Hebrew for God of the Heights or God Most High.
Steefen
The link does not show El Elyon, it shows at-tiq yo-w may-ya: עַתִּ֤יק יֽוֹמַיָּא֙
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Dr. Price is correct in saying, “Ancient of Days” given the multiple references I supplied.
Steefen, the issue is not whether or not Bob Price can read an English translation of Daniel 7. Of course he can. That was never in doubt.
The problem is that Price uses a different Hebrew name for God here than what is found in the Daniel 7. Price refers to El ‘Elyon (אֵ֣ל עֶלְי֔וֹן), which is Hebrew, and it means God Most High.
But this part of the book of Daniel is written in Aramaic, not in Hebrew. And in the Aramaic text of Daniel 7, it does not refer to El ‘Elyon. The Aramaic term used here for the Ancient of Days is ‘attiq yomayya’ (עַתִּ֤יק יֽוֹמַיָּא֙).
Price uses a correct English translation when speaking of the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7, but he mistakenly refers to a very different Hebrew name for God, which does not mean the Ancient of Days, and is not found in the Aramaic text of Daniel. He should have said ‘attiq yomayya’ (עַתִּ֤יק יֽוֹמַיָּא֙) and not El ‘Elyon (אֵ֣ל עֶלְי֔וֹן).
Capisce?
Because what do you think the difference is between Ancient of Days and the Most High?
Ancient of Days:
The Ancient of Days is the manifestation of the Ancient of Ancients within Creation. It refers to the most primary (“ancient“) source of creation in the divine will Keter (“Crown”).
The Ancient of Days is the most high sphere in the Kabbalistic spheres, tree of life illustration.
Steefen
This is fascinating what Dr. Price is saying in Brandon’s book:
some failed Zealot Jesus and rebels became pacifists–when the Revolt was put down, a group of rebels became pacifists?
Robert
You may be disappointed to learn that Brandon is, of course, speaking of “that Jesus, who lived in Palestine during the first three decades of the present era and was ‘condemned by Pilate’ and crucified sometime around 29-33 CE (see, eg, Jesus and the Zealots, pp. 11, 26, 68, 77, 328).
Steefen
That is historically inaccurate: Jesus being a failed Zealot rebel leader of the first three decades. History did not record a Zealot by the name of Jesus in the late 20s / early 30s. There were no insurrections during the reign of Tiberius. The was the Samaritan Redeemer who was slain by order of Pilate.
Second, this militant, zealot Jesus’ biography was rewritten 40+ years later, you say is Brandon’s hypothesis? The followers of this militant Jesus stayed out of trouble until the Jewish Revolt? Then their trouble making from 40 years earlier was remembered because their trouble making was so egregious that they needed to rewrite their history as pacifists. There trouble-making did not even rise to the level of insurrection to appear in the history of Tiberius.
(The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church was written before Jesus and the Zealots.)
In conclusion, Brandon can say the Platonic re-write gives us a Jesus backdated to 29-33, but not the original, militant Jesus band.
Robert said
Steefen said
Because what do you think the difference is between Ancient of Days and the Most High?
Ancient of Days:
The Ancient of Days is the manifestation of the Ancient of Ancients within Creation. It refers to the most primary (“ancient“) source of creation in the divine will Keter (“Crown”).
The Ancient of Days is the most high sphere in the Kabbalistic spheres, tree of life illustration.
I’m not talking about any kind of definition of what the Ancient of Days means vs what God Most High means, whether in the Kabbalah or elsewhere. The mistake on Price’s part is simply that he quoted the wrong Hebrew phrase instead of the correct Aramaic phrase that is used in the text of Daniel 7 when referring to the Ancient of Days.
I am not going to accept quibbling over synonyms. If that makes your day, that is your joy.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)