Another great article, Andrew. I find it interesting how the interpretation you suggest still involves a "prophecy proper" prediction even given the date the Maccabean hypothesis requires, which is why like you said, virtually any liberal scholar will instead say that the events in 11:35-36 and on is when the writer switched from talking about past events and tried to make an actual prediction, but failed. While I hold to the early date (which I believe has much stronger evidence besides just linguistics like we discussed in the last post, which I actually see as relatively weak evidence used in favor of an early date [compared to the historical and manuscript data]), this interpretation still gels with that. I have to admit I had never seen this interpretation before, but it does seem very compelling. We are both in agreement on other things in Daniel, such as the interpretation of the 70 weeks (great articles on preterism by the way, they're my go to whenever I need a reference), so I'm glad to have been challenged on my views on some of other topics these last few posts.
My beliefs about the seventh weeks of Daniel have actually changed since I wrote that series of posts. I now think that the seventieth week took place at the same time the rest of Daniel’s prophecies were fulfilled (171-164 BC), as I will argue in next week’s post. But it’s okay if we disagree about this; it‘s a very peripheral issue compared to, say, the salvation of all.
One last thing I forgot to mention is that even though you give good evidence in support of the view that these verses describe the end of the Seleucid kingdom, I do not think that if the futurist view is correct, it renders the book useless to the readership. A good parallel I see here would be the Book of Revelation. We are both in agreement that the readers of John's day did not see virtually any fulfillment of his prophecies. The only difference I can see would be the higher level of persecution of the Maccabean Jews compared to the churches of Revelation (and a higher need for comfort), so I'm wondering to hear your thoughts on this point. Again, I think you provide very good evidence otherwise, and it's made even more confusing by the fact that there is clearly some typology going on here (such as when Jesus mentions the abomination of desolation as a future event), so it can be hard to determine what is past and will not be repeated vs. what is past, but can also be seen as a hint towards the future. Again, very good post!
You bring up a good point about Revelation. It's surprising that John's readers didn't see any fulfillment of his prophecies, especially in light of the fact that those prophecies were to be fulfilled "soon" (Rev. 1:1; 22:6) and "for the time is near" (Rev. 1:3; 22:10). I still don't think any of his prophecies were fulfilled in the first century AD, but it's harder to get around these time indicators than I initially thought (and wrote in my "Refuting Preterism" series). I really need to do a lot more studying of this book.
Another great article, Andrew. I find it interesting how the interpretation you suggest still involves a "prophecy proper" prediction even given the date the Maccabean hypothesis requires, which is why like you said, virtually any liberal scholar will instead say that the events in 11:35-36 and on is when the writer switched from talking about past events and tried to make an actual prediction, but failed. While I hold to the early date (which I believe has much stronger evidence besides just linguistics like we discussed in the last post, which I actually see as relatively weak evidence used in favor of an early date [compared to the historical and manuscript data]), this interpretation still gels with that. I have to admit I had never seen this interpretation before, but it does seem very compelling. We are both in agreement on other things in Daniel, such as the interpretation of the 70 weeks (great articles on preterism by the way, they're my go to whenever I need a reference), so I'm glad to have been challenged on my views on some of other topics these last few posts.
ReplyDeleteHi Chris,
DeleteThanks for commenting :)
My beliefs about the seventh weeks of Daniel have actually changed since I wrote that series of posts. I now think that the seventieth week took place at the same time the rest of Daniel’s prophecies were fulfilled (171-164 BC), as I will argue in next week’s post. But it’s okay if we disagree about this; it‘s a very peripheral issue compared to, say, the salvation of all.
Andrew
One last thing I forgot to mention is that even though you give good evidence in support of the view that these verses describe the end of the Seleucid kingdom, I do not think that if the futurist view is correct, it renders the book useless to the readership. A good parallel I see here would be the Book of Revelation. We are both in agreement that the readers of John's day did not see virtually any fulfillment of his prophecies. The only difference I can see would be the higher level of persecution of the Maccabean Jews compared to the churches of Revelation (and a higher need for comfort), so I'm wondering to hear your thoughts on this point. Again, I think you provide very good evidence otherwise, and it's made even more confusing by the fact that there is clearly some typology going on here (such as when Jesus mentions the abomination of desolation as a future event), so it can be hard to determine what is past and will not be repeated vs. what is past, but can also be seen as a hint towards the future. Again, very good post!
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a good point about Revelation. It's surprising that John's readers didn't see any fulfillment of his prophecies, especially in light of the fact that those prophecies were to be fulfilled "soon" (Rev. 1:1; 22:6) and "for the time is near" (Rev. 1:3; 22:10). I still don't think any of his prophecies were fulfilled in the first century AD, but it's harder to get around these time indicators than I initially thought (and wrote in my "Refuting Preterism" series). I really need to do a lot more studying of this book.
Delete