- "Daniel 1-6 and History" by A.R. Millard
- "Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel" by D.J. Wiseman
- "Daniel and Contacts Between the Aegean and the Near East Before Alexander" by Edwin Yamauchi
- "The Aramaic of Daniel" by K.A. Kitchen
Friday, January 09, 2009
The historicity of Daniel
Four articles (PDF) on the historicity of Daniel:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Do you have anything on the historicity of the Jericho story?
ReplyDeleteOff-hand I don't know of any good online material.
ReplyDeleteThere's plenty of written material which defends the historicity of the Conquest, from commentaries on Joshua (Hess) and Judges (Block, Younger), to monographs, such as Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament and Hoffmeier's The Archaeology of the Bible.
Can any of you good Calvinists harmonize Paul with Paul?
ReplyDeletePaulSceptic said...
ReplyDelete"Can any of you good Calvinists harmonize Paul with Paul?"
This has already been done. Read a good commentary on Acts (e.g. Bock). Read a good commentary on Galatians (e.g. Bruce, Longenecker). Read a good biography on Paul (e.g. Bruce).
It has not been done. So do it, if you can. http://egopaulus.blogspot.com/ And even if it has been done, is it on the Internet for the poor? Jesus preached the gospel to the poor, not just a bunch rich snob seminarians who alone can afford $100 a pop books.
ReplyDeleteAnd surely if Bock is a man of God and not just a business man, he won't mind if you summarize his harmony of Paul with Paul online, now will he? He probably is just a scheister and will sue your pants off for copyright infringement even if you paraphrase!
ReplyDeletePAULSCEPTIC SAID:
ReplyDelete“It has not been done. So do it, if you can. http://egopaulus.blogspot.com/ And even if it has been done, is it on the Internet for the poor? Jesus preached the gospel to the poor, not just a bunch rich snob seminarians who alone can afford $100 a pop books.”
You’ve backed yourself into a nice little dilemma here:
i) You’re in no position to say it hasn’t been done unless you’ve read the relevant literature. If you’ve read the relevant literature, then you obviously have access to the relevant literature, in which case your claim of poverty is moot.
You’re denial could only be true if you’ve read the relevant literature, in which case you’re not as poor as you claim to be.
Or, conversely, if you haven’t read the relevant literature because you’re so poor, then you’re too ignorant to claim that it hasn’t been done.
ii) Since you apparently own a computer, you can’t be all that poor.
iii) The books I mention don’t cost $100 a pop. And you can always buy used copies.
iv) You can also get lending copies for free via the interlibrary loan service at your public library.
v) Most seminarians I know are far from rich.
“And surely if Bock is a man of God and not just a business man, he won't mind if you summarize his harmony of Paul with Paul online, now will he?”
I’m not your butler. I don’t exist to cater to your whims and demands. You have your life and I have mine.
It’s not my responsibility to spoon-feed you or do your homework for you because you’re too lazy to read for yourself. I’ve pointed you to the relevant resources. If you’re a genuine truth-seeker, get off your duff.
No one does my homework for me. I have to read for myself.
“He probably is just a scheister and will sue your pants off for copyright infringement even if you paraphrase!”
Why would I waste any time on someone as prejudiced as you are?
If Bock wanted to make a killing, he could have become a corporate lawyer or Wall Street banker. Teaching at a seminary is not a lucrative career option.
Would it take more than two seconds for a perfect Paulinist like you to spin off a harmony of Acts and Galatians? It shouldn't since you Calvinists know it all. But you don't do it because it cannot be done.
ReplyDeletePAULSCEPTIC SAID:
ReplyDelete"Would it take more than two seconds for a perfect Paulinist like you to spin off a harmony of Acts and Galatians? It shouldn't since you Calvinists know it all. But you don't do it because it cannot be done."
Of course it takes more than two seconds to discuss the relationship between Acts and the Pauline letters.
PaulSceptic's attempt to pick a fight are pretty hysterical. He even resorts to name-calling! Heh, I have to wonder what schoolground he hangs around in his spare time.
ReplyDelete"Of course it takes more than two seconds to discuss the relationship between Acts and the Pauline letters."
ReplyDeleteI'll give you all the time you need.
PaulSceptic said...
ReplyDelete"I'll give you all the time you need."
And I'll give you all the time you need to read the books I recommended. Stanley Porter's Paul in Acts (chap. 9) is another useful resource.
All the Calvinists books in the world can't save the one "born out of due" season from the fact that he has nothing upon which to claim an apostleship but a vision of a light and a voice, and yet he calls the inner circle of the twelve (Peter, James, and John) nobodies who only "seemed to be something" (Gal 2:6,9) and then takes another jab at them saying "if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself." (Gal 6:3) Ok, so who is the nobody deceiving himself into thinking he is somebody? Paul who saw a light and heard a voice he didn't even recognize as Jesus' voice and had to ask "Who are you Lord?" or Peter, James, and John, the inner circle of the twelve who alone got to see Jesus's glory on the mount of transfiguration (Mat 17:1-2), and see him raise Jairus' daughter from the dead (Mark 5:37), and who alone he took closest to him in Gethsemane the night in which he was betrayed (Mark 14:33)? Who's the nobody deceiving himself (not to mention his followers)? It ain't Peter. It ain't James. And sure ain't John. There's only one name left.
ReplyDeleteOf course, given your line of reasoning and absent other criteria, this would disqualify the other apostles as well. The other apostles didn't see Jesus' transfiguration, nor did they see Jesus raise Jairus' daughter from the dead, etc. Are you suggesting the following men weren't Christ's apostles: Andrew (who, BTW, was Peter's brother and introduced Peter to Jesus, Jn. 1:42); Philip; Bartholomew; Thomas; Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus; Thaddaeus; and Simon. Not to mention Matthias too?
ReplyDeletePaulSceptic wrote:
ReplyDelete"All the Calvinists books in the world can't save the one 'born out of due' season from the fact that he has nothing upon which to claim an apostleship but a vision of a light and a voice, and yet he calls the inner circle of the twelve (Peter, James, and John) nobodies who only 'seemed to be something' (Gal 2:6,9) and then takes another jab at them saying 'if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.' (Gal 6:3) Ok, so who is the nobody deceiving himself into thinking he is somebody? Paul who saw a light and heard a voice he didn't even recognize as Jesus' voice and had to ask 'Who are you Lord?' or Peter, James, and John, the inner circle of the twelve who alone got to see Jesus's glory on the mount of transfiguration (Mat 17:1-2), and see him raise Jairus' daughter from the dead (Mark 5:37), and who alone he took closest to him in Gethsemane the night in which he was betrayed (Mark 14:33)? Who's the nobody deceiving himself (not to mention his followers)? It ain't Peter. It ain't James. And sure ain't John. There's only one name left."
I've responded to you here.