Opmerkings oor die BDV (Bybel: Direkte Vertaling) (deel 8: Die boek Daniël – wie was die menslike skrywer?) | Pro Regno
Posted by: proregno | November 13, 2017
Opmerkings oor die BDV (Bybel: Direkte Vertaling) (deel 8: Die boek Daniël – wie was die menslike skrywer?)
Deel 8: Die boek Daniël – wie was die menslike skrywer ?
“The book of Daniel purports to be serious history. It claims to be a revelation from the God of heaven which concerns the future welfare of men and nations. If this book were issued at the time of the Maccabees (2de eeu vC – slc) for the purpose of strengthening the faith of the people of that time, and the impression was thereby created that Daniel, a Jew of the 6th century were the author, then, whether we like it or not – the book is a fraud. There is no escaping this conclusion.” dr. EJ Young
Sien die res van my reeks van opmerkings op die beoogde BDV, hier: Direkte Vertaling. Die doel van my reeks is nie om in detail op alle aspekte in te gaan nie, maar slegs ‘n paar sake te vermeld wat my opgeval het in my lees van die BDV vertalings. Die nuutste BDV vertalings is hier beskikbaar:
Die Bybel: ‘n Direkte Vertaling
Vertaalwerk is natuurlik geen ‘neutrale’ proses nie, die vertaler se siening van die Skrif, Skrifbeskouing en Skrifgesag sal ook duidelik blyk in hoe hy met die Teks omgaan, en dit nie net in die vertaalwerk vanuit die oorspronklike taal nie, maar in die inleidende notas en verklarings wat deel uitmaak van die betrokke Bybelvertaling.
Om dit vir u aan te dui, gaan ons kyk na die vraag wie die boek Daniël geskryf het. Ek gaan eers vir u aanhaal uit die BDV, en dan vanuit die BVA (Bybel met Verklarende Aantekeninge*), en daarin sal u die groot verskil sien waarmee die betrokke Bybels die boek Daniël benader. Sien ook die 3 Studiebybels hier onder se sienings oor die skrywer van die boek Daniël, in vergelyking met die BDV se sienings.
1 BDV se inleidende notas oor die skrywer van die boek Daniël
“Die skrywers of samestellers van die boek, is onbekend. ‘n Deel van die
boek is in Aramees geskryf (Dan 2:4 — 7:28), wat tot die gevolgtrekking lei dat die boek ‘n samestelling is van tekste uit verskillende tye. Die vertellings in Daniël 1 tot 6, in hulle oorspronklike vorm, is waarskynlik heelwat ouer as die apokaliptiese deel met vier visioene of gesigte oor die toekoms in Daniël 7 tot 12. Verskillende sake in die boek dui daarop dat die finale samesteller bekend was met gebeure in Jerusalem in die tyd van Antiogus IV, wat van 175 tot 164 vC die maghebber oor Judea was, en wat homself as goddelik beskou het. Die eerste lesers van die boek in sy huidige vorm, sou van die vroom Jode in Judea gewees het, waarskynlik kort ná die dood van Antiogus IV.”
Opmerking: Dus, volgens die BDV is dit nie eers moontlik dat Daniël die ‘eerste skrywer’ of deel van die skrywers was nie, die skrywer of skrywers is ‘onbekend’ en vanuit die 2de eeu vC, nie die 6de eeu vC nie.
2 BVA se inleidende notas oor die skrywer van die boek Daniël
“Skrywer en ontstaanstyd
Die Joodse sinagoge sowel as die Christelike Kerk het in oue tye nie daaraan getwyfel dat Daniël self die skrywer was nie. Reeds in die derde eeu Christus het die filosoof Porphyrius, die groot bestryder van die Christendom, dit betwis. Volgens hom bevat die boek geen profesieë nie, behalwe wat die tyd na Antiochus Epiphanes, 175—163 v.C., betref. Die boek is, volgens hom, dus opgestel in die tyd van Antiochus en bevat geen profesieë nie, maar ‘n relaas van wat tot op daardie tyd gebeur het. Dit word so voorgestel asof die profesieë deur Daniël vier eeue tevore in Babel ontvang was, d.w.s. gedurende die sesde eeu v.C. Waar die profesieë verder gaan as Antiochus, is dit pure fantasie, want niemand kan die toekoms voorspel nie — aldus Porphyrius.
In later tye is ook enkele stemme gehoor wat die egtheid van die boek betwis, maar eers sedert die begin van die negentiende eeu word die kritiese stemme altyd sterker wat die tradisionele opvatting verwerp.
Teenswoordig is die grootste deel van die geleerdes oortuig dat die outeurskap van Daniël nie gehandhaaf kan word nie en word ook deur gelowige Christene in dieselfde rigting as dié van Porphyrius gedink.
Die gedagte is dan dat ons met ‘n bepaalde stylvorm te doen het, analoog aan dié van die boek Prediker, waar ‘n wysheidsleraar, volgens die gedagte van die meeste hedendaagse geleerdes, sy woorde in die mond van Salomo lê, sonder dat hy self Salomo is. So is die gedagte ook hier dat die boek Daniël nie bedoel om werklike feite mee te deel nie, maar wysheid in die vorm van voorgewende profesieë wat aan ‘n sekere fiktiewe persoon met die naam Daniël te beurt sou geval het.
Tot stawing van hierdie gedagte word beweer dat in die gedeeltes wat oor die ballingskap handel, baie historiese onjuisthede sou voorkom, waaruit sou blyk dat die skrywer slegs vae herinneringe van daardie tyd sou hê, terwyl sy gegewens altyd noukeuriger sou word namate hy die tyd van Antiochus nader. Hierdie opvatting word deur behoudende Skrifverklaarders verwerp.
In verskillende kommentare word breedvoerig oor al die besware teen die betroubaarheid van die gegewens van Daniël gehandel en die historiese geloofwaardigheid van die boek duidelik in die lig gestel.
Die verklarende aantekeninge wat hier aangebied word, gaan op hierdie vraagstukke nie in nie. Hulle aanvaar die getuienis van die Skrif dat ‘n persoon, Daniël, soos in die boek beskryf, werklik ‘n belangrike posisie aan die Babiloniese en die Persiese hof beklee het en openbaringe van God aangaande die toekoms van die wêreldmagte en die Godsryk ontvang het. Oor die historiese mededelinge vgl. die inleiding by elke hoofstuk.
Daarmee is nie gesê dat Daniël ook die skrywer van die boek, veral in sy huidige gedaante, is nie. In die eerste gedeelte word daar dan ook van Daniël in die derde persoon gespreek. Goedskiks kan aangeneem word dat die kern van die boek in die eerste eeue van die Persiese ryk ontstaan het, met gebruikmaking van die skriftelike nalatenskap van Daniël (vgl. die gedeeltes waar hy in die eerste persoon spreek). Dit is ook nie uitgesluit dat, deur die beskikking van die Here, latere bewerkinge van die boek plaasgevind het nie, veral van die taal. Dan verbaas die aanwesigheid van Persiese en enkele Griekse woorde ons nie. Vgl. ook die verklaring van 3 : 5.”
Opmerkings: Volgens die BVA was Daniël ten minste moontlik een van die skrywers waaruit die finale boek sy vorm gekry het, maar nie noodwendig in die ‘huidige gedaante’ nie. Daar word ook ‘n baie sterk klem geplaas op die historisiteit van die boek, terwyl hierdie historiese erkenning blyk te ontbreek by die BDV se inleidende notas.
Dit is werklik jammer dat so baie mense, ook ‘gelowige geleerdes’ die teorieë van Porphyrius begin volg het, en mens kan net wonder of die BDV wel die boek Daniël as ‘n historiese boek sien wat in die 6de eeu afgespeel het tydens die ballingskap, en of hul nie dalk Daniël en sy vriende as bloot fiktiewe karakters sien om net ‘n ‘morele boodskap’ oor te dra nie?
Maar waarom ontken so baie ‘geleerdes’ die bestaan en/of outeurskap van Daniël ?
Die eenvoudige antwoord is: ongeloof, ook die beoefening van ongelowige teologiese wetenskap.
Hulle kan blykbaar nie ‘glo’ dat iemand in die 6de eeu so noukeurig voorspellings kon maak van wat in die 2de eeu vC in die geskiedenis en later aangaande Christus self (die eerste eeu) sou plaasvind nie (die gebeure in hoofstukke 2, 7, 11). Verder blyk dit dat daar nie plek gelaat, of erkenning gegee word vir die supernatuurlike, die Goddelike ingrype en inspirasie van die Teks nie, soos dit veral in voorspelende profesie verskyn het nie ?
Wat openbaar die Teks self oor die historisiteit van Daniël ?
1 In die eerste jaar van Daríus, die seun van Ahasvéros, uit die geslag van die Meders, wat koning gemaak was oor die koninkryk van die Chaldeërs,
2 in die eerste jaar van sy regering het ek, Daniël, in die boeke gemerk dat die getal jare waaroor die woord van die HERE tot die profeet Jeremia gekom het met betrekking tot die puinhope van Jerusalem, sewentig volle jare was. – Dan. 9
1 In die derde jaar van Kores, die koning van die Perse, is ‘n woord geopenbaar aan Daniël wat Béltsasar genoem is, en die woord is waarheid maar groot swarigheid; en hy het die woord verstaan en insig gehad in die gesig. 2 In daardie dae het ek, Daniël, drie volle weke getreur. – Dan. 10
15 Wanneer julle dan die gruwel van die verwoesting, waarvan gespreek is deur die profeet Daniël, sien staan in die heiligdom—laat hy wat lees, oplet … – Matt. 24 (met verwysing na Dan. 9:17; 11:31; 12:11)
3 Dr. EJ Young oor Daniël se outeurskap
Die OT kenner, dr. EJ Young, verwys na die “positive” of “traditional view” van die boek Daniël (dat dit deur Daniel geskryf is in die 6de eeu en na daardie historiese gebeure verwys asook profesieë oor die toekoms) en die ‘negative view’ (nie deur Daniël geskryf nie, maar in 2de eeu voor Christus, met baie hier wat ook die historisiteit van Daniël betwyfel of verwerp). Hy erken ook dat daar gelowiges is wat laasgenoemde onderskryf op verskillende wyses, maar skryf dan as volg oor die belangrikheid van die outeurskap van die boek Daniël (beklemtonings bygevoeg):
“Nevertheless, it is true that the negative view of the book of Daniel took its rise in a non-Christian atmosphere, and has been ably advocated by men who were opposed to the supernaturalism of Christianity.
There are, indeed, difficulties in the traditional view of the authorship of Daniel. Not to acknowledge this would be to close one’s eyes to the facts. The present commentary does not profess to solve all the difficulties which are bound up in the traditional view. But there is, it would seem, a far greater difficulty in the negative position. If the book of Daniel is the product of the Maccabean age (2de eeu VC – slc), then it is not a book of predictive prophecy, but a forgery. Whenever one makes such a statement, he is usually taken to task and told that he does not understand the nature of apocalyptic literature.
Pusey, for example, has often been berated for his classic statement, “The book of Daniel is especially fitted to be a battle-ground between faith and unbelief. It admits of no half way measures. It is either Divine or an imposture” (p. 75). Pusey, “however, was right, and his critics are wrong. The book of Daniel is not a romance, nor was it ever intended to be. It was received into the canon, and made part of the rule of faith and life. The later Jewish apocalypses were not thus treated, but the Jews did not doubt the canonicity of Daniel for an instant.
The book of Daniel purports to be serious history. It claims to be a revelation from the God of heaven which concerns the future welfare of
men and nations. If this book were issued at the time of the Maccabees
for the purpose of strengthening the faith of the people of that time, and
the impression was thereby created that Daniel, a Jew of the 6th century
were the author, then, whether we like it or no-the book is a fraud.
There is no escaping this conclusion.
It will not do to say that the Jews frequently engaged in such a practice. That does not lessen their guilt one whit. It is one thing to issue a harmless romance under a pseudonym; it is an entirely different thing to issue under a pseudonym a book claiming to be a revelation of God and having to do with the conduct of men and to regard such a book as canonical. The Jews of the inter-testamental period may have done the first; there is no evidence that they did the second.
Furthermore, and this is decisive, the usage of the NT shows that the NT Writers did not look upon this book as a romance. It was none other than our LORD, the incarnate Son of God, Who spoke of Himself in terms taken from the book of Daniel. In the light of the decisive and authoritative usage of the NT, one is compelled to reject the idea that
Daniel is a mere romance.
Despite this fact, however, the negative view is most prevalent in scholarly circles today. It is probably not an exaggeration to say that most scholars now believe that the book of Daniel, as we have it, comes from the days of the Maccabees.” (A Commentary on Daniel)
Daar is egter ook ander Skrifgeleerdes vandag, in die 20 en 21ste eeu, wat nog steeds vashou aan die tradisionele siening van die kerk deur die eeue:
Reformation (New Geneva) Study Bible (redakteur: RC Sproul)
“However, representations in the book itself indicate that Daniel was its author (9:2; 10:2) and that is was written shortly after the capture of Babylon by Cyrus in 539 B.C. Also Jesus quotes the prediction of the “abomination of desolation” found in this book as having been “spoken of by Daniel the prophet” Matt. 24:15).
The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible (redakteur: Joel R. Beeke)
“Daniel, whose name means “God is Judge,” is the sole author of the book. A youth at the beginning of the book and an old man at the end, Daniel’s life spans the entire period from the preexilic to the postexilic eras of Judah’s history. … Conservatives date Daniel to the sixth century BC, most likely about 530 BC, toward the end of Daniel’s career and life. Most liberal scholars date the book to the second century BC, usually 168 BC, in the Maccabean period of Jewish history. This late date would obviously preclude the historic Daniel from being the author.
The significant discrepancy reflects a fundamental difference in presuppositions regarding the nature of supernatural inspiration and prophecy. Particularly troubling for those who deny inspiration is Dan. 11, that so minutely predicts events involving the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties of the divided Greek Empire that occurred in the third to second centuries BC. The liberal critics refer to this as vaticinium post eventum (prophecy after the event), claiming that whoever wrote it deceptively portrayed it as prediction. Those who believe in supernatural inspiration and revelation have no difficulty accepting Daniel’s predictions and are not surprised at the accuracy of fulfillment.”
The ESV Study Bible (redakteur: Wayne Grudem)
“Author and Title
The book of Daniel, named after and written by Daniel in the sixth century B.C., records the events of his life and the visions that he saw from the time of his exile in 605 (1:1) until the third year of King Cyrus (536; 10:1). Daniel, whose name means “God is my Judge,” was a young man of noble blood who was exiled from Judah during the time of King Jehoiakim (609–597 B.C.) and lived thereafter at the Babylonian court. After the fall of the Babylonian Empire, he served the Medo-Persian Empire that succeeded it.
Both Jewish and Christian (cf. Matt. 24:15) tradition have held that the author of this book is Daniel, a Jew who lived during the sixth-century B.C. Babylonian exile. Many of the chapters are dated and range from the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (605 B.C.; Dan. 1:1) to Cyrus’s third year (536; 10:1). But because of its detailed prophecies of events in the middle of the second century B.C. (see ch. 11) and alleged historical inconsistencies with what scholars know of sixth-century history (see note on 5:30–31), some scholars have argued that the book must be a second-century document, from the time when Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 B.C.) was oppressing God’s people. In that case, it would contain “prophecies after the fact,” put into the mouth of a famous historical character rather than being written by Daniel himself. Thus, the visions that “Daniel” saw would attempt to interpret rather than predict history. It has also been argued that the book must be dated later than the sixth century due to its language, especially the presence of Persian and Greek loanwords.
However, the facts do not require a late date. In the first place, current knowledge of sixth-century B.C. history is far from complete, and there are plausible harmonizations that explain the alleged discrepancies.
Second, the Bible asserts clearly that the Lord announces ahead of time his plans through his prophets as a means of vindicating his sovereignty and encouraging his people (see Isa. 41:21–24; 44:6–7), and there is no reason in principle why such prophecies should not be detailed and precise. Some scholars, who allow in principle that God can foretell events, nevertheless suggest that such detailed foretelling is unparalleled in the rest of the canonical prophets, and that it cannot be reconciled with the usual purpose of prediction (namely, that the first audience should be faithful to the covenant). In reply, note that Jeremiah did give a specific amount of time for the exile (Jer. 25:11; cf. note on Dan. 9:2).
Further, the high degree of specificity in Daniel’s prophecies does serve its first audience as well as those to follow: this shows how carefully God has planned events and governs them for his perfect ends; therefore the faithful can recognize that none of their troubles take God by surprise, and none will derail his purpose of vindicating those who steadfastly love him. This is quite relevant to the people of God in Daniel’s day, who are on the verge of horrendous devastations and persecutions (see notes on ch. 11); they must be assured that the story will continue to its appointed fulfillment, so that they do not lose heart.
Third, there were likely Greeks and Persians present at the Babylonian court as mercenaries and in other capacities, providing a ready explanation for the presence of loanwords.
Fourth, the book of Daniel was accepted as canonical by the community of Qumran (who produced the Dead Sea Scrolls). This is telling because this group emerged as a separate party in Judaism between 171 and 167 B.C., before the proposed late date. They would not have accepted the book if it had appeared after the split.
Fifth, some who favor a later date say that the author of Daniel represented Antiochus IV Epiphanes using the figure of Nebuchadnezzar. Literary studies, however, have shown that the book of Daniel puts Nebuchadnezzar in far too positive a light (e.g., he comes to acknowledge the true God) for him to be an effective image of the relentless persecutor Antiochus IV. Of course the book’s lesson, about God’s sovereignty over even the imperial forces, would have taken a heightened relevance in the days of Antiochus IV; but that is different from saying that the book was written for that particular occasion.
There are therefore no compelling reasons to deny that Daniel wrote this book.”
Uit bogenoemde is dit duidelik dat die BDV notas by Daniel kom vanuit ‘n skrifkritiese (liberale?) siening en omgang met die Skrif, teenoor wat mens lees in die BVA, Reformation Study Bible, Reformation Heritage Study Bible en die ESV Study Bible.
* Onder redaksie van proff. B. Gemser, A. S. Geyser, E. P. Groenewald, J. H. Kroeze, Jac. J. Müller, Adrianus Selms, W. J. Snyman, S. Du Toit, P. A. Verhoef, P. F. D. Weiss, J. N. Geldenhuys; Verenigde Protestantse Uitgewers, Kaapstad, 1958
Sien die reeks van opmerkings op die BDV hier.
Posted in 2016-vertaling, BDV vertaling, Die boek Daniël, skrifgesag, skrifkritiek, Skrifverklaring, vertaalmetode, vertalings
« Die Bybelse Evangelie: verloor deur Rome, herontdek deur die Reformasie
Boeke oor die regverdigingsleer »
By: volkshervorming on November 14, 2017