Memorial Day

I've been reading a little more of the book of

Daniel and thinking things over some more.

There's so much more groundwork to lay out that

it's hard to tell where to begin. The afternoon

was spent at a birthday celebration and pool

party kinda' deal. So it was spent by me just

sitting around in a shaded spot making sure none

of the youngsters drown or manage to hurt

themselves. It was a little time to think things

over.


Probably the most puzzling point that I pondered

today was the comparison of Daniel and Ezekiel to

Babylonian literature, in the sense that this

scriptural text is just another form of

Babylonian legend. All I can say is that it's a

conclusion that strikes me as wildly imaginative.

I'm stunned. If Daniel is just another ancient

text and is a product of human origin, the big

issue then is to call into question the origin of

all scripture. Because, either scripture is of

Divine origin, or it isn't. There isn't any

middle ground. If it's just another form of

Babylonian literature, then it's not sacred text.

But the proof is in the pudding. The simple fact

that the prophetic passages about future world

events are too accurate to originate as fictional

literature. That's the point that the critics

attack on the authenticity of the book of Daniel.

That it couldn't have been written at the time

that Daniel claimed to write it, it had to be

written after the fact because it was too

accurate in the description of future events. So

we are left with two alternatives, either it is

authentic and of Divine origin, or it is just

another text of babylonian legend and myth.


OK, I will grant that if the idea is to lend

credibility to the authenticity of the origin of

the scriptural text being during the period of

the Babylonian Empire, then I can see it -- the

idea that the text of Daniel is another style of

Babylonian literature. But in terms of the

origin, content and context of prophetic

scripture, all I can suggest is, forget about it.

This suggestion that Daniel is contemporary babylonian

style literature is immediately refused by

the next liberal criticism that the accuracy of

future foretelling of the passages in Daniel were

written after the fact, which would certainly

place the date of origin outside of the period of the

Babylonian Empire. So, which is it?


The comparison of scripture to babylonian

literature seems to be a favorite of the critic.

So, that I understand. Taking shots at the book

of Daniel would follow the playbook. On the part

of the critic, what alternatives do they have?

The problem that really crops up is the material

that we just went over in the twelfth chapter of

Daniel. There is the final vision of the

preincarnate Christ. (Are you seeing a prototype

emerge here?) If you follow the symbolism

it's not just another story. It's the same story

told over and over again in the text of hebrew

scripture. There is a consistent overall theme,

and that theme is the redemption of man. In a

word, the story of scripture is Jesus.


Next is the suggestion that the hebrew were NOT

enslaved by the babylonians. This strikes me as

another example of genuine Orwellian doublespeak.

My jaw can't drop that far. The commentary said

that during the babylonian captivity the hebrew

were not slaves, they were just relocated. Hmmm.

How does that work? Sorry, that theory just

won't wash. But I guess it might correspond to the

idea that some hebrew were writing these babylonian

style tales to humor their hosts, eh.


Personally, as I attempt to work through all of

the objections that are thrown in the direction

of criticism at the text of scripture, I arrive

at the point that I have to conclude that there

are really only two alternatives, and they are

mutually exclusive. Either the text of scripture

is of Divine origin, or it's not. Since we find

in the book of Daniel, a preincarnate Christ --

something that we find in other passages of

scripture, there is a really tough spot for the

critics to bluff their way out of. And it hones

in on what appears to be the genuine objection --

that the critics just don't believe in Jesus.

(Some don't believe in hell either, but that

doesn't mean there isn't one.)


One of the reasons that I write this stuff is

because, over the years I've heard and read alot

of the nonsense that modern myth is composed of.

Then on the other hand, I see the product of

modern myth as it works it's way through society.

In my humble opinion, it ain't working out too

well. In other words, over the course of my

lifetime, I'd suggest that society has not

advanced along an ever rising trajectory and all

the ills of society have not been remediated

under the influence of modern myth. It appears

to be quite the opposite, in almost every

category with the notable exception of science

and technology of the sort that allows me to type

this blog, and things like tattoo technology.


Like Daniel said, 'many shall run to and fro and

knowledge shall be increased'. And even though

the commentary says that the 'knowlwdge' that

Daniel refers to is related only to the knowledge

of Daniel's prophecy, I have to observe that the

idea of running to and fro seems to suggest that

there is the implication that the 'knowledge'

Daniel refers to is more general in scope. You

see, the same hebrew word is used in Daniel 12:2

and Daniel 12:4 that's translated 'multitudes'

and 'many'. So, when the text says that 'many

will go here and there to increase knowledge' it

seems odd that the first 'many' mentioned in

verse two, are the righteous and the unrighteous,

while in verse 4, the 'many' are only those who

study Daniel's text. Rather, it seems to

emphasize a context for the 'time of the end' --

when 'many' will be running to and fro to

increase knowledge. I find it hard to believe

that 'many' in verse four doesn't include the

clear description of the 'many' who are in verse

two. But it is an unusual way to characterize

the 'time of the end'.


We can go round and round about hebrew

translation, but my goals are to avoid popular

cultural myth as I approach holy scripture. It's

the wrong context to use for accurate

interpretation. And all that interests me is

accurate interpretation, not the advancement of

my favorite academic or social theory. They will

arise to their shame and everlasting contempt

soon enough. But the wise will shine and those

who lead many to righteousness. I'm not concerned

about my brilliance nearly as much as I'm

interested in cutting through the muck and mire

of popular myth, which I personally find very

tiring and boring beyond belief.


Let me wish veterans a Happy Memorial Day. My

plan is to celebrate in traditional American

style with steaks on the grill, in recognition

that G-d has graciously provided all good things

for our benefit.