Dear George, I know that my conclusion is brave, because most scholars believe that Antiochus IV plays an important role in the book of Daniel. I have always tried to avoid the Systemzwang of tradition, and I like to challenge views that are universal.
I think that we in the Humanities should use the principles of the hypothetic-deductive method to a greater degree than is done, and in accord with the Duhem-Quine thesis keep in mind that it is impossible to test a scientific hypothesis in isolation. Auxiliary assumptions and auxiliary hypotheses that are taken for granted, must be used. One such auxiliary hypothesis related to this subject, is that the information found in the book of Daniel about the date for its composition is false, and that the book was written, or at least, the latest redaction occurred, in the middle of the second century BCE. My analysis of Daniel 11:21-45, which often is applied to Antiochus IV, gave the following results: The verses contain 43 propositions (prophecies). Of these I assess that 15 are ambiguous and cannot be used as identifications of Antiochus IV. About half of 28 specific propositions cannot be applied to Antiochus IV (if our present knowledge of him is correct). The other half CAN be applied to Antiochus IV, but NEED NOT be applied to him. And in view of all the propositions that do not fit this king in vv. 21-45, alternative interpretations of this half are more likely. In other words, I do not find anything in the mentioned verses that definitely identify Antiochus IV. Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Torsdag 25. Oktober 2012 10:55 CEST skrev George Athas <[email protected]>: > That's a very brave conclusion, Rolf. I too have done a detailed study of the > sources. I recommend the recent study by Anathea Portier-Young, "Apocalypse > Against Empire"). I've come to the exact opposite conclusion to you: Daniel > is definitely talking about Antiochus IV. > > GEORGE ATHAS > Dean of Research, > Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia) > > > On 24/10/2012, at 10:58 PM, "Rolf" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Dear George, > > I will come back to this subject in the future when I have more time. Now I > would just recommend one book, namely, Otto Mørkholm, "Antiochus IV of > Syria", 1966. This book demonstrates that much of our "knowledge" of > Antiochus IV can be questioned, and a lot of actions ascribed to him need not > have happened. I have made a detailed study of Daniel's chapters 11 and 8 in > the light of historical information that, according to my judgmenet, is > rather certain, and I have not found i single verse or a single sentence in > Daniel that naturally would be applied to Antiochus IV. > > > > Best regards > > > Rolf Furuli > Stavern > Norway > > > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
