Robert said
Again, I’ve already corrected this misreading of the Hebrew of ‘Daniel’. You chose not to respond because, not knowing Hebrew, you are not capable of responding intelligently. If you ever change your mind and want to have an intelligent discussion of this text, let me know. I will again try to help you in whatever way I can.   

I am open to alternative POV’s. Got nothing to lose from learning. Not sure how Jews even read Daniel 9:26. What is your own take on the verse?

Robert said

I’ve already explained the Hebrew to you, starting ** you do not have permission to see this link **. You’re attitude at the time was not to trust “scholars,” which you put in scare quotes, and claimed they are also intellectually dishonest.   

Okay, YOU were the one I was discussing this with. “Anointed one” can be various people, but to be the high priest I am sure they would simply say that. It’s someone who dies for his people. The translation “and shall have nothing” isn’t a strong translation and most translators plumb for “but not for himself.”

The “people of the prince” is spot on – the prince being Titus. His Dad began the war but got promoted to Emperor. “Like a flood” accurately describes the extent of Roman invasion and occupation ca AD66. Destruction of the sanctuary happened – not just profaned but utterly destroyed (as Jesus said, not one stone upon another – something Babylon didn’t do.)

Don’t trust scholars until you know them personally and are sure they are being objective. If you have two scholars – one studies how the bible is different to all other religious books, and the other studies how it’s no different – who do we call the “scholar”? Answer – the one who accords with prevailing sentiments – in this case it’s the latter guy.

Robert said

Poohbear said

“Anointed one” can be various people, but to be the high priest I am sure they would simply say that.   

Absolutely not. Incorrect assumption. Daniel is highly symbolic and does not name many, many historical people. This is a trait not only of Daniel’s writing, but of all apocalyptic literature.

Poohbear said

The translation “and shall have nothing” isn’t a strong translation and most translators plumb for “but not for himself.”  

Sorry, but you’re in no position to decide what is and is not a ‘strong translation’. The Hebrew literally says, “There was not to him.” The most commonly used ancient Greek translation of Theodotion used by the church says, “He was not.” The so-called LXX version has, “there was not judgement in/by him.” If all you check are Christian translations that apply preconceived Christian theology, the majority, if not all, will confirm your own pre-conceived Christian ideas. There’s no substitute for learning the languages and reading critical scholars.

Poohbear said

The “people of the prince” is spot on – the prince being Titus. His Dad began the war but got promoted to Emperor. “Like a flood” accurately describes the extent of Roman invasion and occupation ca AD66. Destruction of the sanctuary happened – not just profaned but utterly destroyed (as Jesus said, not one stone upon another – something Babylon didn’t do.)

You are merely reading these ideas into the text. Completely circular ‘reasoning’.

Poohbear said

Don’t trust scholars until you know them personally and are sure they are being objective. If you have two scholars – one studies how the bible is different to all other religious books, and the other studies how it’s no different – who do we call the “scholar”? Answer – the one who accords with prevailing sentiments – in this case it’s the latter guy.  

I’ve been very fortunate in my life to have known quite a few world-class scholars as teachers or personally and to have worked very closely with some for several years. I certainly do not apply the standard you are suggesting.  

Questions – if you have those two scholars with opposing POV’s, who do YOU chose in my cited case?

Who do YOU think Daniel is speaking of concerning the destruction of Israel – both the adversary and the significant anointed one?

Do you think Daniel was written after the First Century AD, or did he just get lucky with his prophecy?

Why does the Orthodox Jewish bible also speak of the Messiah being cut off?

The Orthodox Jewish bible says the Messiah dies, “but not for himself” Does that mean he dies for others?

The Orthodox bible links Messiah to Isaiah 53 (suffering Messiah chapter) And seeing SOME Jews think Isaiah 53 refers to Israel, could this Messianic figure actually be Israel?

Link to Orthodox Jewish bible.

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Robert said

Poohbear said

Questions – if you have those two scholars with opposing POV’s, who do YOU chose in my cited case?

I choose whichever scholar has the most experience with a particular text, who has the most rigorous methodology, the best arguments, and who can best explain why the other scholar is less correct. If I cannot differentiate along these lines, I continue to entertain multiple potential perspectives.

Poohbear said

Who do YOU think Daniel is speaking of concerning the destruction of Israel – both the adversary and the significant anointed one?  

Do you think Daniel was written after the First Century AD, or did he just get lucky with his prophecy?

Again, already answered. You clearly have either not read or not understood my posts. No wonder you always ignore the valid points made by others. But, once again, you have not accused me or anyone else of dishonesty. Two posts in a row. Progress maintained.

Poohbear said

Why does the Orthodox Jewish bible also speak of the Messiah being cut off?

The Orthodox Jewish bible says the Messiah dies, “but not for himself” Does that mean he dies for others?

The Orthodox bible links Messiah to Isaiah 53 (suffering Messiah chapter) And seeing SOME Jews think Isaiah 53 refers to Israel, could this Messianic figure actually be Israel?

Link to Orthodox Jewish bible.

** you do not have permission to see this link **  

Hilarious. The so-called “Orthodox Jewish Bible” is a sham. It was prepared (not really translated) by a Christian named Phillip Goble. The fact that he fooled you is no great surprise, I guess, but it is fundamentally dishonest in its false claim to be Jewish Orthodox. Perhaps I should not assume. Were you fooled, did you honestly think this is an Orthodox Jewish bible? Or are you smart enough (and dumb enough) to be in on the attempt at deception?  

I cannot recall every post I wrote or received. I am numerous forums and sometimes do 20-30 posts per day while waiting for graphics to run (ordered new 16 core PC today… yay!!!)  I have learned a lot. I haven’t the time to trawl though previous posts.

Am I fooled by this guy called Goble? Apparently so. Never heard of him. Seeing how the Interlinear AND the Orthdox Hebrew is ‘suspect’ then what do YOU suggest I refer to? Please don’t say the Dead Sea Scrolls – the verses in question are not there.

Robert said
Congratulations! At least four posts in a row without calling any respectable people dishonest.

I just gave you the links to my previous responses. I did the same thing in our last discussion. If you’re over-extended and cannot participate thoughtfully and responsibly, I suggest perhaps you should read more and post less.

With respect to the book of Daniel, I’ve already referred you to the very best commentary on the Hebrew and Aramaic text. Here’s ** you do not have permission to see this link ** to the book on Amazon (you may be able to find it cheaper elsewhere). John J. Collins and his wife are both amazing scholars. He comprehensively summarizes the contributions of other scholars and provides his own opinion and commentary with good arguments and keen insight well informed by awareness of all of the related contemporary literature, especially from Qumran. No scholar can responsibly put forward new theories about the book of Daniel without first mastering this commentary. If you need any help understanding any parts of it, let me know.  

There’s a real problem with ‘scholarship.’ One complaint in the 1980’s, 1990’s concerned a slew of new books re-interpreting or revising common understandings of the bible – such publications could become the new received wisdom and future readers will build upon them rather than the original texts. And modern ‘scholarship’ has built this edifice, a new orthodoxy, in much the same way as the Catholics built their own understanding of the bible over centuries. Bart Ehrman quotes some of these works and it comes across as rehashed, inch deep ‘scholarship.’ And I don’t get many answers to my questions.

So I am happy to browse Dead Sea Scrolls, Interlinear texts and to even brush up on my bad Greek to read the earlier Gospels. Happy to be proved wrong too – how else can you learn? But I wont’ go down the ‘scholar’ rabbit hole. Did it once with Barbara Thiering if I recall. 

Anyhow, got to go find my kangaroo. Bed time and he can’t stay outside as he goes over the fence. No, really.

Robert said
Barbara Thiering is not John J Collins. As with anything, there’s good scholarship and poor scholarship, and every manner of variation and degree in between. Good scholarship is completely immersed in the text and ancient languages and contemporary criticism. Critical scholarship is constantly critiquing itself in a vigorous peer-review process by which disagreements and uncertainties are highlighted. You asked for a suggestion so I gave it. Avoiding good scholarship based on an experience of bad scholarship does not strike me a good path forward.  

Bart Ehrman, on one of his videos, spoke about how the Jews didn’t believe in heaven and hell. He quoted the position of the Sadducees to support his assertion.  We know almost nothing about the Sadducees, but we know a lot about the Pharisees, Essenes and common people of Israel, all of whom believed in heaven and hell. I ask Ehrman about this but he did not answer. Do YOU believe Ehrman is a good scholar?

Robert said
You seem to have misunderstood Bart’s video. He absolutely believes that the Pharisees, in contrast to the Sadducees, believed in the resurrection of the dead. And he cites a belief in something like a belief in something like heaven and hell (and a third place) in the book of Enoch. We’ve also discussed the view attributed to the school of Shammai about purgatory, but the dating of that belief is problematic.

I do think Bart is a very good scholar, but I disagree with him or hedge my bets sometimes when I think other scholars have stronger positions. I certainly agree with him on the broad strokes of NT textual criticism, his area of specialization.   

Well then I never got that stage in his last posted video. I was busy asking him questions about the stuff I had already seen. But he isn’t going to answer all the points, he said. I spoke about the two scholars – one showing how the bible is different to other holy texts and the other showing how the bible is the same. The question – who do you believe? Fact is we don’t minutely deconstruct every word and research every claim. Instead, in our age, many just say that one is a “scholar” and the other is a “conservative, reactionary, white-privilege, red-neck, bible-basher” who is out of tune with “modern understanding.”

Robert said
Surely, there are some who denigrate some scholarly views they don’t like, but true scholars do not do that. But if some are wrong to dismiss some scholarship, wouldn’t it be worse to dismiss all scholarship? For example, someone might say something like, “… I wont’ go down the ‘scholar’ rabbit hole. Did it once …”  

Frankly, I doubt a lot of modern biblical criticism is really “scholarly.” One of many questions Ehrman didn’t answer is would we take the Gospel claims seriously if we uncovered an Alexander library style trove of personal documents from the Apostolic Church. The obvious answer is “still no.” And that’s not scholarship.

Robert said
If I remember correctly, he could not answer all of your questions because you posed a whole bunch of them, way too many to answer intelligently on a quick response to a blog post. You’re really going to impugn Bart’s scholarship, and even all scholarship in general because Bart does not have the time to answer a whole slew of questions from one member of the blog? He asks that people only pose a single question at a time, but occasionally he will answer a couple. That’s not unreasonable.  

This particular question, if I recall, was a singular one – a hypothetical if you like. You have a vast library of hand written records from eye witnesses who make the same claims as the Gospels make. Do you believe them or not? You can’t get a ‘scholar’ to honesty answer that because to concede there’s a God is not ‘scholarly.’ And that’s the crux of the whole issue.