How not to interpret the Book of Daniel. Part 6

John S. Evans and Daniel 7
Because texts are polysemic, it's possible to manipulate any given (Biblical) text to meet a certain view of what one feels it should be. Thus, if the natural reading of a text does not support your interpretation, you either have to reject your (mis-) understanding or try making the text say something else, something which supports your theory.

According to John S. Evans:

Although it is natural to assume that in Daniel 7, verses 13-14 come after 11-12 chronologically, I have tended to argue in the past that this assumption is not necessarily correct. Verse 13 begins: "I kept looking in the night visions"; i.e. the "vision" of chapter 7 is actually a collection of visions. Given this, one can argue that verses 11-12 are part of a vision pertaining to the beasts that is presented in verses 2-8 while verses 13-14 are part of a vision belonging with the judgment scene of 9-10. It then becomes possible to understand 11-12 as occurring in time after both 9-10 and 13-14. (John S. Evans: The Prophecies of Daniel 2, p. 131; Evans' emphasize)

His point about the "visions" in Dan 7, however, is without merit – it only demonstrates that he has misunderstood the Aramaic expression. But of course, as the progression of events suggested by the natural reading of the text does not support his position, he has to come up with an alternative.

(If the text does not support your position, you should change your position instead.)

The natural flow of events suggested by Dan 7 is supported by the dream "visions" (sic!) in Dan 2; the arrival of the stone (= Christ's first advent) is the real course for the downfall of all four empires. But Rome did not fall ca. 7/6 BCE. (Of course, Rome did not fall in 70 CE either!) Thus, the fourth kingdom cannot be identified with the Roman Empire.

How not to interpret the Book of Daniel. Part 5

If you want to identify the fourth kingdom in the Book of Daniel with the Roman Empire, the following 'hermeneutical principles' might come in handy:

(1) First, there is absolutely no need to know the languages in which the Biblical texts are written in. Liberal scholars tend to know the Biblical languages, and, hey, we all know what that leads to.

(2) Second, you really do not need to have any formal training in Biblical or religious studies. True, if you want to say something about psychology or economics you should probably have some done some academic studies within this field, but when it comes to reading the Bible, there's no need for that! If you have to back up your interpretation, you just need to read what others have said (in English) and pick and choose what ever seems to support your interpretation. Use the following device: "N.N. made the following observation [which, of course, supports my argument]"...

(3) Do your research on the Internet – only if you do not find anything supporting your theory, you should try some of the commentaries.

(4) You should always be guided by the following religious bias: The Bible cannot be wrong in any way. Thus, if a natural reading supports an interpretation which may create problems, you should try twisting the words so that they could indicate something else.

(5) Finally, you should never forget: You may always manipulate any given (Biblical) text to meet a certain view of what we feel it should be. It is with this type of 'hermeneutic' that a guy like Nostradamus still remains popular to this day. So, if there in the text exists a problem for your interpretation, you can simply say it is a "future" event, or it is "metonymous", or "symbolic", or at least it is "spiritual", or "allegorical", and then you should be able to walk away and believe that you have the only correct interpretation.

;o)

How not to interpret the Book of Daniel. Part 4

John S. Evans and the metals of the statue in Dan 2

Following the fantasies of Charles Boutflower (In and Around the Book of Daniel, 1923), John S. Evans argues that the four metals and the clay either historically (the metals) or Biblically (the clay) are associated with the kingdoms and people they represent. According to Evans, the Neo-Babylonian Empire was uniquely associated with gold. Likewise, silver and bronze were historically associated with Medo-Persia and Greece respectively. The Roman Empire is supposed to have uniquely been associated with iron. Finally, Evans thinks Isaiah 64:8 demonstrates that the Jewish people was associated with clay.

Although Kurt M. Simmons subscribes to the very same "Roman Sequence" advocated by John S. Evans, he has recently presented valid criticism of Evan's thesis regarding the four metals of the statue in Dan 2. In his review of Evans' book on Dan 2, Simmons (correctly) states:

Although Babylon may have been the richest and therefore possessed the most gold, yet the only historical association of silver with the Persian Empire is that it was allegedly used it to pay the army. However, it is probable that each of the empires used silver this way and that Persia was not unique in this regard. In any event, the historical association seems too tenuous for this to be an identifying feature of the Persian Empire. But even if an historical association exists and could be adequately demonstrated, this ignores the symbolical association of the metals. Daniel says that the fourth empire would be “strong as iron” (Dan. 2:40) not that it made the most abundant use of that metal. Thus, it is the inherent symbolism of the metals that should guide us, not an ambiguous historical association. Moreover, why are only the metals historically associated with their respective kingdoms? Shouldn’t the clay have an historical association also? Yet, there is nothing in history that makes “clay” an identifying feature of the Jewish nation.

And:

Evans’ relies instead upon an asserted biblical association identifying clay with the Jews. However, we found this unpersuasive. For example, Isaiah says “we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand” (Isa. 64:8). We would suggest that it would be a case of one’s paradigm driving his interpretation to say that this passage is uniquely applicable to the Jews. Isaiah uses the same parable elsewhere saying “Woe to him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands” (Isa. 45:9). The context of this passage suggests that it refers to Cyrus and the Persians whom God would raise up and ordained to release the captives (Isa. 45:1, 13). The point of the parable is the impropriety of men and nations questioning God’s judgment in raising the powers of the earth. God has a purpose and it is not for man to call God to account for his work among the nations. The other passage cited by Evans is Jeremiah’s famous parable of the potter. But this parable is expressly applied to all nations by the prophet, not just the Jews. “At what instant I shall speak concerning a kingdom to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it,” etc (Jer. 18:7-10).

Clearly, these verses provide no basis for identifying the Jews as the clay to the exclusion of other people and nations. Allowing one’s paradigm to drive his interpretation is a common mistake. (...) Obviously, a “good argument” can always be made, but the test is what did the author intend? It seems fairly obvious that neither Isaiah nor Jeremiah intended to uniquely identify the Jews with clay. Rather, all peoples and nations are clay in God’s hands, and this is precisely how Daniel uses it. In any event, the biblical association is beside the point. It is the historical association Evans builds his case upon and here there simply is none connecting the Jews with “clay.” (Kurt M. Simmons: "Review of John S. Evans' The Prophecies of Daniel 2", The Sword and The Plow 10:10 (2008), p. 2-3.

There are several ways in which we can understand the symbolism of the four metals; we find traces of this symbolism in different ANE sources (Hesiod, Ovid, Zoroastrian texts). In some of these texts, the iron or something iron-mixed is used to signify Macedonian rulers!

Much more could be said on this; suffices to say that historically, the iron-mixed seems more suitable for a Macedonian kingdom than for Rome. Thus, based on the relevant ANE background, it is possible to link iron to the Seleucid dynasty.