Well, David, that was a fast shot, notwithstanding that the aim hasn't taken the bullet. Cover by a smoke screen tactics is rarely useful, esp. not as a cure of a crisis of believe. We'll never get any evidence for a historical Noah (both he and Ut-naps are based upon a much older novelle), a historical Abraham, Moses or Jesus (not to mention Danel 'the brother of' Daniel), simply because they are, different from secular figures, personificated messages, virtual messengers of a program of belief. Nevertheless, we get something different to investigate: the (emanation of the) theorems in the tractates of the (leading) believers. If that is not enough for the pious soul - well, then one has to avoid any research of the own belief.
Al, It is very difficult to prophesy, especially about the future, hence Ezekiel's Danel is seemingly equivalent with Daniel's Daniel, thus pseudepigraphical prophecy after the fact in both cases, whereas the form Daniel was declared kosher first in the later Sybilline Oracles, I think. On the contrary, the Ugaritic Dnil was doubtlessly an idolater of Baal, consequently no Tsaddiq that would fit into the idealizing Zadokite context of Ezekiel's theorem of Righteousness. Should we outflank now his ancient eisegesis? I don't think so. tz D. For private reply, e-mail to "Dierk van den Berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
