Sunday, November 30, 2008

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.

No comments: