Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
OT - Daniel 9
The passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke are dealing with similar subject matter some accounts give details that others leave out.  For example, Luke 21:7 specifically asks the question about the destruction of the temple, when would it happen and what would be the signs.  When Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies, its destruction would be near.  Notice there is no mention about anything happening with, in or over the temple with abominations.  And then it jumps right to the very end when the Son of Man arrives in a cloud.  There is no reference to Daniel that I can see.

Mark 13 starts off with a very similar question about the time of the destruction of the temple.  In v 8 you have the reference to "birth pains" - the same word as in Daniel 9.  In v 14, the direct reference to Daniel 9 and the "abomination of desolation" seems to be a continuation of his answer about the destruction of the temple.  But there's a gap between v 13 and v14.  This is plain to see later in v24 when He says "But in those days, after that tribulation" which refers back to the events in the section between v 14-23.  In "that" tribulation it won't be like anything that has ever happened before or since.  There is a series of false christs doing signs and wonders.  These things did not happen in 70 AD.  So from v14-27, it is talking about Daniel's last Week, something still to happen in the future.

Matthew 24 gives even more detail than in the other two accounts.  But the initial question is different.  v3 says "when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"  When will the temple be destroyed, when will the Anointed come and when will be the end of the age?  I can just imagine Jesus sitting there with a playful grin saying ok, I'll tell you what you want to know.  The disciples assumed all these things would happen at the same time.  But obviously that has not been the case.  He first ties Daniel 9 directly to the return of the Anointed.  Then He answers what He knows about the end of the age in v35-36.
"35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.  36But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only."
Most people don't read those verses together because Bibles usually put a section header between the verses - something that was not in the original manuscript.

So Jesus answered their questions - but not in the way they were assuming the timeline would happen.  This is a pretty common thing in prophetic fulfillment.  Remember the time when Jesus was in the synagogue and read the portion from the Isaiah scroll.  He read the first part of the verse, stopped and handed back the scroll.  He only fulfilled part of the prophecy.  There is a gap until the entire thing will be fulfilled.

The same is true in the Daniel prophecies.  Things are partially fulfilled in Daniel 11.  Antiochus only went so far.  The verses at the end were never fulfilled and are still to happen.

Btw, I found that the Peshitta is missing half of Dan 11:29.  Both the Masoretic and LXX contain more of the verse.  This is quite disappointing.  I haven't been able to find anyone who has investigated why this would be. Also Dan 11:28 Peshitta is also much different and missing a phrase. The Masoretic says the King returns with much wealth but the Peshitta says he returns with his large army.
The armies that were going to bring desolation, were the sign.

I know all about the dispensational and preterist interpretations of these passages. There were many false anointed ones claiming to be from God, who were doing false signs and lying wonders. Simon Magus and his followers under Menander for instance were deceiving the people in those days, among others The Apostles were warning about.

The King came with clouds. Do a study on when God is said in The Scriptures to come with clouds against His enemies. Also, see Mark 12:9, Luke 20:16
Ok. I think it's clear where you stand. Not going to go down the road about arguing various interpretations. Much more interested in the actual text. Do you have any thoughts if that word I'm unclear about is singular or plural. Much appreciated.
It is singular.

Yes, please stick to textual matters, if you don't want to discuss non-textual matters.

Perhaps you have a false impression of what I actually believe, if so, don't assume anything, until you ask what exactly I believe on any subject. And if you don't want to do that here, then you are welcome to ask me in a PM. I hold to what has always been taught by The Church, and those subjects which have not been determined, can be discussed. I don't come to The Scriptures with a preconceived idea, trying to make them fit it.

The recent "blood moons" false teachings are an example of this tendency in some, not to mention all the others who have set various dates for Christ's return, and claimed they knew who the anti-Christ was.

I have been watching all this nonsense take place since the 70s. And was caught up in some of that deception for a time. It's all very embarrassing and distracting for Christians to be doing. Certainly not glorifying to God.
I was hoping for more of an explanation of how you know it is singular. As I pointed out a few posts back, there is no difference between singular and plural other than the vowel markings - which didn't exist in the original - and actually are not in the Ambrosius manuscript. How can it be known for sure?
Jedi, look at the sentence the word is part of there, both the construct and the context will tell you. Do you know much about the Aramaic language? Also, please know, that some words may have the same letters, but are not spoken the same, and are not the same word at all. English is the same way with certain words.
I spent some time making my interlinear for Dan 11:29-45 (personal project).  Absolutely fascinating.  Of course the Hebrew and Aramaic are extremely close - but they aren't exactly the same.  For example, the Aramaic specifically calls out "Israel" where the Hebrew says "beautiful land".  This section is notoriously problematic and the English translations really have no clue in places.  But it's very interesting that in those trouble spots the Aramaic uses words that have additional meanings that the Hebrew doesn't.  When those alternates are used, the text makes a lot of sense.  It's makes me wonder if this is a similar case where we're dealing with chicken and egg translations again - which came first?  It's well known that Daniel has Aramaic in it.  But could it have completely been written that way?

He shall honor the god of fortresses instead of these.  (ESV)

and for his god
because of/due to
honor/consider precious

The previous verses describe how successful this ruler is and how he captures Israel and how he doesn't follow the gods of his ancestors.  The ESV translates here "instead of these" for the Hebrew word "place" or "pillar/base".  But the Aramaic has an additional definition describing "situation or state of being".  Also people are wondering who this "god of fortresses" is.  But Aramaic seems to be using it as an adjective describing that this god is showing himself to be powerful in helping this final ruler out.  And because the ruler is having great success and loves the situation he finds himself in, he gives his god honor.

he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts.  (ESV)

The final word in Hebrew is "pleasant things".  But what is used in the Aramaic is ܘܒܪܓܬܐ which can be translated "with lustful desire".  It gives more insight into his state of mind.

He shall deal with the strongest fortresses with the help of a foreign god. Those who acknowledge him he shall load with honor. He shall make them rulers over many and shall divide the land for a price.  (ESV)

Now this verse is very problematic and the Hebrew is not clear at all.  But take a look at what the Aramaic says:

and overcome/overwhelm
toward walled cities/fortifications
due to
who makes himself visible/appears
and dominates/takes possession
with many/numerous
and the land/country
for/in exchange

That phrase of a "god which is strange/unusual who makes himself visible/appear" isn't found in the Hebrew.  This is quite a different spin on the passage than I've ever come across before.

Those are the main things that struck me.

When we look at the oldest Hebrew OT text extant, we know that it is only about 1000 years old. The copy and its text/content, may or may not have been transmitted with 100% accuracy. So, we look at other ancient copies and ancient translations to see what is said there, like those found in Qumran, and the Septuagint, and the Peshitta. We can also look at any quotes found in the ancient teachers who may have expounded on a particular verse or passage.
In my research, there isn't much of Daniel that has been found in Qumran - a few scraps with hardly more than a few letters. Scholars who have compared say it matches the Masoretic very closely. The original LXX translation of Daniel is commonly considered to be corrupted by the translators' political beliefs. The translation by Theodotian took its place but still contains much interpretation. I don't trust LXX Daniel at all.

If Peshitta Daniel is a translation then the manuscript was different from what the Masorites had. It's extremely close but different enough to make you wish there was more effort made to find out what happened back then.
There is no doubt that the Masorites did indeed make changes to the Hebrew text. And I have read some comments by the ancient Church teachers that say some things were changed in the Hebrew text, during the early years of The Church, to make it appear less clear that Yeshua was The Messiah. Also note, that a number of times, what is quoted from the Old Testament books in the New Testament books, it is not always what is found written in the Hebrew text. It seems that even in the 1st century, other texts were thought by the Apostles, to be more correct in there wording, rather than the Hebrew text in certain places. Some people seem to think that the Hebrew text we have today is always and in every place error free, but, that isn't so.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)