Pummeling Porphyry to Defend Daniel's "Evidence"?

[2PhiloVoid]

[WARNING: The following Apologetic OP summary is ... looooooooooong! So, if you're the type who'd rather just do less than the scholarly thing, then maybe read the paragraph in bold black below and watch the first video, and maybe (just maybe?) you'll be good to go, even if you won't catch me then saying that I really think you're "in the know." ]

If there's one book in the Bible that is often touted by Christians to count as possible evidence for the validity of both the Christian faith and for aspects of thought within Judaism, it's the book of Daniel.

Why should Daniel count as evidence to the truth of the Christian faith? Well, on the one hand, we see when reading the book of Daniel that it expresses a literary phenomenon known as "apocalyptic," a form of writing that usually contains futuristically inclined predictions, among other things, and in the case of Daniel, there are supposedly predictions within it that not only told ahead of time about what was to transpire in the history of empires of the ancient world, but hold possible relevance even for the times in which we live today.

Not surprisingly then, a number of Christians, along with some of their spiritual cousins in Judaism claim that Daniel "counts" as a form of evidence for their respective forms of religious faith. Why? Because, if we realize that no one can know the future other than God, and if the writer(s) of book of Daniel indeed received his prophecies by way of Divine revelation, this would seem to indicate to us that, however incredible it may seem, God may very well be involved in the message we find in the ancient pages of Daniel, and if this is the case, we thereby may infer that God is in some way active as well in, through, or around the workings of our world today as He has been ever since the time of Daniel and earlier.

But enter the non-christian philosopher known as Porphyry: a man of the 3rd century A.D. who essentially attempted to undermine the central support offered in the book of Daniel in one fell, philosophically abrasive swoop! By introducing the argument (still in use today) that the book of Daniel was essentially "made up" long after the supposed historical facts for which it is famously cited to have foretold, Porphyry delivered what he thought was a death-blow to the Christian religion. Needless to say, various early Christian commentators such as Augustine and Jerome, among a few dozen others, took up the gauntlet that Porphyry laid down in challenge regarding the prophetic claims found in the book of Daniel.

Below are two videos which I'm adding for initial contextual 'education' to engender deeper thought on the relevance (or for skeptics, the irrelevance) of the book of Daniel as a form of evidence for faith. The first video, by Dr. Tim Mackie, is only several minutes long, and it quickly explains the structure and the contents of the book of Daniel for those who might not yet be overly familiar with it, and he does so while leaving various conclusions about it open for further discussion among Christians.

However, for the sake of deeper discussion and hermeneutical consideration, and to directly challenge skeptics who like to use Porphyr's essential argument, I've also included a longer, 2nd video offered by the Lanier Theological Library, featuring the non-Christian but Jewish scholar, Rabbi Benjamin Scolnic in a talk he gave entitled, "The Book of Daniel and the Nature of Biblical Truth," a talk that was specifically geared to address the epistemological, historical, and/or apologetic issues that were prompted by Prophyry's arguments. Dr. Scolnic's talk, while informative about Porphyry, challenges both Christians and Skeptics to consider other possible hermeneutical ways to understand the structure of Daniel.

So, for those of you who want to also take up the gauntlet, join me as we explore and contend with Porphyry's skeptical arguments about the extent to which the book of Daniel can be seen as any kind of evidence (or set of multiple evidences) for the Christian (or Judaic) faiths...........................

Video 1 - Summary of the book of Daniel (by Dr. Tim Mackie)

Video 2 - Lecture by Rabbi Benjamin Scolnic "The Book of Daniel and the Nature of Biblical Truth"

 

[Dave-W]

There was a similar argument by early 20th century rabbis about the book of Isaiah, claiming it was a post-christian document.

However, copies of Isaiah and Daniel were both found at Qumran in the Dead sea scrolls, dating about 200 bc.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There was a similar argument by early 20th century rabbis about the book of Isaiah, claiming it was a post-christian document.

However, copies of Isaiah and Daniel were both found at Qumran in the Dead sea scrolls, dating about 200 bc.

So, Dave, what might this infer to those here who may be of a more 'skeptical' bent in their thinking? [2PV hands the mic over to Dave.......]

 

[Oncedeceived]

[WARNING: The following Apologetic OP summary is ... looooooooooong! So, if you're the type who'd rather just do less than the scholarly thing, then just maybe read the paragraph in bold black below and watch the first video, and maybe (just maybe?) you'll be good to go, even if you won't catch me then saying that I really think you're "in the know." ]

If there's one book in the Bible that is often touted by Christians to count as possible evidence for the validity of both the Christian faith and for aspects of thought within Judaism, it's the book of Daniel.

Why should Daniel count as evidence to the truth of the Christian faith? Well, on the one hand, we see when reading the book of Daniel that it expresses a literary phenomenon known as "apocalyptic," a form of writing that usually contains futuristically inclined predictions, among other things, and in the case of Daniel, there are supposedly predictions within it that not only told ahead of time about what was to transpire in the history of empries of the ancient world, but hold possible relevance even for the times in which we live today.

Not surprisignly then, a number of Christians, along with some of their spiritual cousins in Judaism claim that Daniel "counts" as a form of evidence for their respective forms of religious faith. Why? Because, if we realize that no one can know the future other than God, and if the writer(s) of book of Daniel indeed received his prophecies by way of Divine revelation, this would seem to indicate to us that, however incredible it may seem, God may very well be involved in the message we find in the ancient pages of Daniel, and if this is the case, we thereby may infer that God is in some way active as well in, through, or around the workings of our world today as He has been ever since the time of Daniel and earlier.

But enter the non-christian philosopher known as Porphyry: a man of the 3rd century A.D. who essentially attempted to undermine the central support offered in the book of Daniel in one fell, philosophically abrasive swoop! By introducing the argument (still in use today) that the book of Daniel was essentially "made up" long after the supposed historical facts for which it is famously cited to have foretold, Porphyry delivered what he thought was a death-blow to the Christian religion. Needless to say, various early Christian commentators such as Augustine and Jerome, among a few dozen others, took up the gauntlet that Porphyry laid down in challenge regarding the prophetic claims found in the book of Daniel.

Below are two videos which I'm adding for initial contextual 'education' to engender deeper thought on the relevence (or for skeptics, the irrelevance) of the book of Daniel as a form of evidence for faith. The first video, by Dr. Tim Mackie, is only several minutes long, and quickly explains the structure and the contents of the book of Daniel for those who might not yet be overly familiar with it, and he does so while leaving various conclusions about it open for further discussion among Christians.

However, for the sake of deeper discussion and hermeneutical consideration, and to directly challenge skeptics who like to use Porphyr's essential argument, I've also included a longer, 2nd video offered by the Lanier Theological Library, featuring the non-Christian but Jewish scholar, Rabbi Benjamin Scolnic in a talk he gave entitled, "The Book of Daniel and the Nature of Biblical Truth," a talk that was specfically geared to address the epistemological, historical, and/or apologetic issues that were prompted by Prophyry's arguments. Dr. Scolnic's talk, while informative about Porphyry, challenges both Christians and Skeptics to consider other possible hermeneutical ways to understand the structure of Daniel.

So, for those of you who want to also take up the gauntlet, join me as we explore and contend with Porphyry's skeptical arguments about the extent to which the book of Daniel can be seen as any kind of evidence (or set of multiple evidences) for the Christian (or Judaic) faiths...........................

Video 1 - Summary of the book of Daniel (by Dr. Tim Mackie)

Video 2 - Lecture by Rabbi Benjamin Scolnic "The Book of Daniel and the Nature of Biblical Truth"

Nice! Now you have all this that I really want to dive into and I have to leave for a while and can't...

 

[Dave-W]

So, Dave, what might this infer to those here who may be of a more 'skeptical' bent in their thinking? [2PV hands the mic over to Dave.......]

It means that the scrolls the Essene community bottled up in the first century could NOT be the product of a later revisionary effort to lend false support to either Judaism or Christianity.

The archeology just cannot support such a concept.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It means that the scrolls the Essene community bottled up in the first century could NOT be the product of a later revisionary effort to lend false support to either Judaism or Christianity.

The archeology just cannot support such a concept.

And why do you suppose that some of the more skeptical archaeologists decline in accepting such a concept, Dave?

 

[Dave-W]

And why do you suppose that some of the more skeptical archeologists decline in accepting such a concept, Dave?

They have an agenda which is clouding their judgement.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

What should be kept in mind is that we don't have Porphyry's work extent. It is only in quotations that it survives. Jerome covered this admirably though.

Porphyry makes a number of historical mistakes, as he is using an inferior source for the period. For instance, he thinks the Temple was defiled for three and a half years, instead of just under three as recorded by Josephus and the books of the Maccabees. He also mixes around the campaigns of Antiochus IV against Artaxias of Armenia and against Ptolemy VII of Egypt to fit his scheme for the horns of the beast. There is also a random selection of Diadochoi kings to make up the ten horns, not a clear succession of them as such.

Most damning though is the omissions this implies. One of the most celebrated events of the period was Popilius Laenas arriving with an embassy at Antiochus' camp and telling him to withdraw from Egypt, a Roman client/ally. The King tried to prevaricate and play for time, upon which the senator drew a circle around him and told him to decide before leaving it, or a state of war would exist with Rome. Antiochus duly withdrew, and this became a much celebrated dusting down of a king by a Roman magistrate.
The entire Daniel narrative is seen by Porphyry as against Antiochus IV, yet this great reverse is absent? Why wouldn't there be a more detailed prophecy regarding this? It is argued as perhaps subsumed in the little horn being 'brought low', but this is ludicrous. It would be the equivalent of a polemic against Napoleon in which the entire Russian campaign debacle is covered in three words.

So Porphyry's argument starts wearing thin and appear to consist mostly of special pleading. When it was picked up after the Enlightenment, thinking it written nearly contemporaneous to Antiochus seemed implausible. If written prior to his reverse in Egypt, the events prophesied thereafter fitted to the Antiochus narrative become a problem. So people started assuming an even later date, written under the Hasmonaean kings then. This gave sufficient time for the historical errors to sneak in, but it doesn't address the absence of Popilius' embassy nor why more contemporary things wouldn't also then have been 'prophesied'. Why wasn't more stress laid upon the Maccabees then? So assumptions of an anti-Hasmonaean bias have to be made, or a parochial attitude that ignores the precarious position Judaea then stood in, between Parthia and Rome. Where is the narrative of their squabbles over their respective Hasmonaean clients in Daniel then? Not even mentioning the raising of the dead and such.

All in all, thinking the prophesies of Daniel to be written after the fact based upon Seleucid historic events, is a bit silly. It requires massive amounts of special pleading and appeal to motive.

You perhaps have to see Daniel as a prophetic narrative which is then fitted to historic events (as people do with Nostradamus) by various coincidences or arguments; or see legitimate prophesy here. This says little about its date of composition though, so an argument that the narrative could have been inspired around Seleucid dynastic events isn't impossible. The Porphyry style argument doesn't hold much water though, but that doesn't prove the prophetic nature of Daniel otherwise. It could just be someone writing an apocalyptic piece which Porphyry then retrofit to Antiochus IV, similar to how Pseudo-Methodius was connected to Mongols or such later. The thing with prophesy is that you have to believe the thing until it happens, for it to be prophesy instead of just imaginative writing; and after the fact there are always ways of excusing or arguing it or assuming it still to be fulfilled. Personally, this seems suitably Apocalyptic to me, so I think we can only really say if it was real prophesy, rather than literary license, when the Son of Man descends at the Parousia.

I doubt Daniel can prove the Christian or Jewish position, that seems a Petitio Principii to me. The attempt to discredit it as prophesy on historic grounds is deeply flawed though.

 

[gaara4158]

If the dead sea scrolls include Daniel, then obviously Daniel is not a post-Christian document. Saying that it is doesn't make you a skeptic, it makes you wrong. We can't fault Porphyry for trying, since the discovery of the scrolls came long after his time, but I'd like to know what people who use his arguments today are thinking.
I'm far more interested in how you think Daniel can serve as evidence of the Christian/Jewish faith.

 

[Theo102]

I'm far more interested in how you think Daniel can serve as evidence of the Christian/Jewish faith.

Symbols of a Christian empire:

Daniel 7:4
Lion = England (Barbary Lion)
Eagle's wings = U.S. (Bald Eagle)
Daniel 7:5
Bear = Russia (Misha the Bear)
Daniel 7:6
Leopard = Germany (Leopard tank)
4 heads = 4 Reichs (reich = realms or empire)
4 wings (associates fourth reich with U.S. wings)

The Fourth Reich began with operation Paperclip, in which Nazi scientists brought advanced "aircraft" eg Hannebau to the U.S.

Squadron Models 1/72 Haunebu II - German Flying Saucer - SQM0001

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What should be kept in mind is that we don't have Porphyry's work extent. It is only in quotations that it survives. Jerome covered this admirably though.

Porphyry makes a number of historical mistakes, as he is using an inferior source for the period. For instance, he thinks the Temple was defiled for three and a half years, instead of just under three as recorded by Josephus and the books of the Maccabees. He also mixes around the campaigns of Antiochus IV against Artaxias of Armenia and against Ptolemy VII of Egypt to fit his scheme for the horns of the beast. There is also a random selection of Diadochoi kings to make up the ten horns, not a clear succession of them as such.

Most damning though is the omissions this implies. One of the most celebrated events of the period was Popilius Laenas arriving with an embassy at Antiochus' camp and telling him to withdraw from Egypt, a Roman client/ally. The King tried to prevaricate and play for time, upon which the senator drew a circle around him and told him to decide before leaving it, or a state of war would exist with Rome. Antiochus duly withdrew, and this became a much celebrated dusting down of a king by a Roman magistrate.
The entire Daniel narrative is seen by Porphyry as against Antiochus IV, yet this great reverse is absent? Why wouldn't there be a more detailed prophecy regarding this? It is argued as perhaps subsumed in the little horn being 'brought low', but this is ludicrous. It would be the equivalent of a polemic against Napoleon in which the entire Russian campaign debacle is covered in three words.

So Porphyry's argument starts wearing thin and appear to consist mostly of special pleading. When it was picked up after the Enlightenment, thinking it written nearly contemporaneous to Antiochus seemed implausible. If written prior to his reverse in Egypt, the events prophesied thereafter fitted to the Antiochus narrative become a problem. So people started assuming an even later date, written under the Hasmonaean kings then. This gave sufficient time for the historical errors to sneak in, but it doesn't address the absence of Popilius' embassy nor why more contemporary things wouldn't also then have been 'prophesied'. Why wasn't more stress laid upon the Maccabees then? So assumptions of an anti-Hasmonaean bias have to be made, or a parochial attitude that ignores the precarious position Judaea then stood in, between Parthia and Rome. Where is the narrative of their squabbles over their respective Hasmonaean clients in Daniel then? Not even mentioning the raising of the dead and such.

All in all, thinking the prophesies of Daniel to be written after the fact based upon Seleucid historic events, is a bit silly. It requires massive amounts of special pleading and appeal to motive.

You perhaps have to see Daniel as a prophetic narrative which is then fitted to historic events (as people do with Nostradamus) by various coincidences or arguments; or see legitimate prophesy here. This says little about its date of composition though, so an argument that the narrative could have been inspired around Seleucid dynastic events isn't impossible. The Porphyry style argument doesn't hold much water though, but that doesn't prove the prophetic nature of Daniel otherwise. It could just be someone writing an apocalyptic piece which Porphyry then retrofit to Antiochus IV, similar to how Pseudo-Methodius was connected to Mongols or such later. The thing with prophesy is that you have to believe the thing until it happens, for it to be prophesy instead of just imaginative writing; and after the fact there are always ways of excusing or arguing it or assuming it still to be fulfilled. Personally, this seems suitably Apocalyptic to me, so I think we can only really say if it was real prophesy, rather than literary license, when the Son of Man descends at the Parousia.

I doubt Daniel can prove the Christian or Jewish position, that seems a Petitio Principii to me. The attempt to discredit it as prophesy on historic grounds is deeply flawed though.

You're right that Daniel can't "prove" the Christian or Jewish position; but I would just add for the sake of adding that if Daniel is "true" in some substantive, even if in some spiritual sense (whatever that might mean to any one of us), then it definitely doesn't count against it either.

Great post, Quid!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If the dead sea scrolls include Daniel, then obviously Daniel is not a post-Christian document. Saying that it is doesn't make you a skeptic, it makes you wrong. We can't fault Porphyry for trying, since the discovery of the scrolls came long after his time, but I'd like to know what people who use his arguments today are thinking.
I'm far more interested in how you think Daniel can serve as evidence of the Christian/Jewish faith.

...I very well understand that it would seem to be a strange thing to say that Daniel, if true, counts as "evidence," because we'd have to identify in what way it would so count, especially with it being a supposed record of a past example of someone who has foretold the future.

Unfortunately, just short of resorting to the (probabilistic) academic field of Futures Studies or to a pseudo-science like that which pertains to the study of E.S.P., we don't really have much in the way of a science that would conceptualize the nature of what a bona-fide Jewish or Christian prophet of God has prophesied about future events.

Our present scientific conceptualizations also probably prevent us in some ways from considering religious prophesying about the future to be a form of evidence, and even if we were to encounter such substantive prophesying, little to none of it would likely stop many people in their tracks and compel them to think more deeply about the reality in which we all live. No, if anything, we'd probably lock up people who claim to prophesy in an ultra-potent political fashion.

Nevertheless, if spiritual prophesying can play a role in a person's belief in God as God Himself may help that person come to see a biblical worldview as being coherent, then in that kind of epistemic format--one that is perhaps more existentially recognized--we might conceptualize something like the book of Daniel as providing "evidence."

But, I'm sure there's more to be said and more to be discussed about this. And let's face it, if "future telling" of a biblical sort is somehow tied up with the activities of God's Spirit and in His decisions to dispense revelation according to His own will where and with whom He chooses to do so........................then if follows that I, 2PV, could hardly be expected to "know" exactly how Daniel is "evidence" for faith in God, His Christ, and in His Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, I do have to say that if Daniel is even approximately true and expresses what I think it expresses, much in the same way that other biblical eschatological materials do, then subjectively speaking, all of this kind of thing does tug at the strings of my "brain" quite a bit and I'm not sure how the book of Daniel doesn't "count" as some form of evidence.

 

[Theo102]

I would just add for the sake of adding that if Daniel is "true" in some substantive, even if in some spiritual sense (whatever that might mean to any one of us), then it definitely doesn't count against it either.

That's a non-sequitur - proof of a theological position is relatively difficult, while disproof is relatively easy, eg by reductio ad absurdum. Daniel's contextual value is that it is written in reference to the dominion of the "King of Kings" Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:37), i.e. the king of Babylon. The king's dream relates to idolatry (the image), and to silver and gold (Psalm 115:4). Abraham's departure from Babylon was marked by the rejection of the idols of his father. The vanity of idolatry and the resulting deafness and blindness is a powerful theme here.

Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain; violence covereth them as a garment.
Psalm 73:6

As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.
Psalm 73:20

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's a non-sequitur - proof of a theological position is relatively difficult, while disproof is relatively easy, eg by reductio ad absurdum. Daniel's contextual value is that it is written in reference to the dominion of the "King of Kings" Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:37), i.e. the king of Babylon. The king's dream relates to idolatry (the image), and to silver and gold (Psalm 115:4). Abraham's departure from Babylon was marked by the rejection of the idols of his father. The vanity of idolatry and the resulting deafness and blindness is a powerful theme here.

Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain; violence covereth them as a garment.
Psalm 73:6

As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.
Psalm 73:20

Ok. And so, what do you think about what Rabbi Benjamin Scolnic has to say in his speech in the second video?

 

[Theo102]

Unfortunately, just short of resorting to the (probabilistic) academic field of Futures Studies or to a pseudo-science like that which pertains to the study of E.S.P., we don't really have much in the way of a science that would conceptualize the nature of what a bona-fide Jewish or Christian prophet of God has prophesied about future events.

That's simply a statement about the lack of value of the scientific method for the problem of interpretation of the book of Daniel. Due process is based on facts and reason, not simply what is scientifically provable.

 

[Theo102]

Ok. And so, what do you think about what Rabbi Benjamin Scolnic has to say in his speech in the second video?

I'm only 20 minutes into the video, but there's an interesting point concerning the issue of Porphyry's historical disconnect relating to the second half of Daniel 11, specifically that the resurrection of the dead that did not occur in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.

The resurrection of the dead is spoken of by Hosea (Hosea 6:2), and Yahushua endorses Hosea (Hosea 6:6 from Matthew 9:13 and Matthew 12:7), but Hosea's description of it doesn't conform to the sign of Jonah from Matthew 12:40. There are however two other descriptions of the sign of Jonah which don't suffer from this problem.

 

[Silmarien]

Porphyry, hm? This is my fault, isn't it?

You know that I'm terrified of the Old Testament, but I guess I'll have to bite the bullet and read Daniel and see if there might anything to it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Porphyry, hm? This is my fault, isn't it?

Well, you know what Dante Alighieri said, "From a little spark may burst a flame."

You know that I'm terrified of the Old Testament, but I guess I'll have to bite the bullet and read Daniel and see if there might anything to it.

I'd tell you to jump on into the water with the rest of us because it's warm, but...bring shark repellent with you if you do!

 

[Theo102]

Ok. And so, what do you think about what Rabbi Benjamin Scolnic has to say in his speech in the second video?

Scolnic alludes to his difficulty with the problem by relating his anecdote about the Rabbinical arbitration of a dispute, i.e. he hints that there's isn't enough context available to him to resolve the two opposing interpretations of the the facts, in context the interpretation of the believers vs the secularists. His explanation about a "second Daniel" sounds to me as though he is reaching.

IMO Scolnic is limiting his options for interpretation of Daniel 11 to those of a believer when he should be looking at prophecy from a theological perspective. From this perspective that fact that Porphyry's argument has some merit isn't a serious problem, since theology doesn't require that the purpose of prophecy is to provide an accurate depiction of the future, but can be interpreted as a warning.

For example, Jonah said: "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown", but when the people of Nineveh believed Elohim and acted on this belief, Elohim repented of the evil and didn't do it. Likewise Ezekiel 26 speaks of Nebuchadrezzar sacking Tyre, but it didn't happen.

Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:
Ezekiel 29:18

 

[gaara4158]

Symbols of a Christian empire:

Daniel 7:4
Lion = England (Barbary Lion)
Eagle's wings = U.S. (Bald Eagle)
Daniel 7:5
Bear = Russia (Misha the Bear)
Daniel 7:6
Leopard = Germany (Leopard tank)
4 heads = 4 Reichs (reich = realms or empire)
4 wings (associates fourth reich with U.S. wings)

The Fourth Reich began with operation Paperclip, in which Nazi scientists brought advanced "aircraft" eg Hannebau to the U.S.

Squadron Models 1/72 Haunebu II - German Flying Saucer - SQM0001

Ah, well, that settles it! Apex predators and flying saucers = God exists