Showing posts from 2018

Prophet Daniel the New Moses

by Damien F. Mackey

“… Jewish Talmudic writers viewed Ezra … as a second Moses …”. Lisbeth S. Fried

Whilst this is a commonly held view, Ezra the scribe as “a second Moses” or “a new Moses”, what has it to do with the prophet Daniel?
Daniel who, according to Sir Robert Anderson, was omitted by Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) from his list of famous men because Daniel stayed well away from Israel and its “struggles”:

The Coming Prince
"This panegyric [Sirach], it is true, omits the name of Daniel. But in what connection would his name be included? Daniel was exiled to Babylon in early youth, and never spent a single day of his long life among his people, never was openly associated with them in their struggles or their sorrows. …".

Well, it actually has everything to do with Daniel if I am right in my recent expansion of the great Jewish sage to embrace, in his very person, this same Ezra the New Mo…

Even more to Daniel than may meet the eye

Part One: Nehemiah and that ‘broken down wall’
by Damien F. Mackey Hence, in answer to my previous question: “Could this “Artaxerxes” have actually been a king of Babylon, but choosing Susa as, say, his (autumnal)-winter residence?”, I am inclined to answer, Yes. And the odds must now lie heavily in favour of Nehemiah’s “Artaxerxes king of Babylon” being Nebuchednezzar II ‘the Great’ himself. Nehemiah is traditionally thought to have served under a Persian king named “Artaxerxes” – with some preferring Artaxerxes I (d. 424 BC, conventional dating), whilst others would opt for Artaxerxes II (d. 358 BC, conventional dating). According to Nehemiah 1:1, the location was in Susa during this particular king’s 20th year: “In the month of Kislev in the twentieth year, while I was in the citadel of Susa …”. Why, then, is the king (and his location) referred to in this king’s 32nd year as “Babylon”? Could this “Artaxerxes” have actually been a king of Babylon, but choosing Susa as, say, his (autumna…

A nice symmetry about Ezekiel 4:5-6’s ‘390 days’ and ‘40 days’

by Damien F. Mackey “I have assigned you the same number of days as the years of their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the people of Israel. After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear the sin of the people of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year”.
Ezekiel 4:5-6

Israel’s period of Monarchy likened to servitude in Egypt

Rev. Arnold J. Tkacik (O.S.B), writing on “Ezekiel” for The Jerome Biblical Commentary (1968), has equated Ezekiel’s 430 (390 + 40) ‘years’ under monarchical rule with the 430 years of servitude experienced by the ancient Hebrews.
The Jews are to undergo a “second Exodus”.
Thus Fr. Tkacik writes (21:24):

The suggestion here [in Ezekiel 4] is that 390 years is approximately the number of years from the beginning of the monarchy to the great reform of Josiah (climaxed by the destruction of the altar at Bethel). From that point to the destruction of the Temple is another generation, or 40 years, when the se…

Did governor Nehemiah die the death of Razis?