RE: The Story
August 25, 2022 at 10:50 am
(This post was last modified: August 25, 2022 at 11:09 am by The Grand Nudger.)
That daniel is an a-historical character used to describe a real conflict is a conservative interpretation. It could just be considered full on fiction, like so much of the rest of the ot and nt. The notion that daniel was such a character actually predates christianity itself.
There's no need to even leave the abrahamic lit to see other examples of this. Think more in terms of all the books narrated by a moses (up to and including a narration of his own death and the events after) in the first person. Moses is also considered to be a legendary or mythical figure..but regardless of what you think about that you can probably accept that the author or orator describing the events after his death, in the first person, was taking some narrative liberties in order to make theologically important points. I'd liken it more to the tortoise and the hare than anything else, if we're going outside of abrahamic lit.. in all of it's derivations. It's not consequential to the message that neither can speak and that, therefore, we do not have the tortoise or the hares actual words - just as it's not consequential to the religions of abrahamism that there were ever a historical moses or daniel to speak, let alone say those words you find in the books. All are completely satisfied with moses/daniel-like-figures....of which, and particularly by the faithful..there were seen to have been many.
Christians would famously come to see jesus in just such a way, and, like the orators and narrators before them, would place in the mouth of this character what is very likely to be their own thoughts on some matter x. Que the sermons.
There's no need to even leave the abrahamic lit to see other examples of this. Think more in terms of all the books narrated by a moses (up to and including a narration of his own death and the events after) in the first person. Moses is also considered to be a legendary or mythical figure..but regardless of what you think about that you can probably accept that the author or orator describing the events after his death, in the first person, was taking some narrative liberties in order to make theologically important points. I'd liken it more to the tortoise and the hare than anything else, if we're going outside of abrahamic lit.. in all of it's derivations. It's not consequential to the message that neither can speak and that, therefore, we do not have the tortoise or the hares actual words - just as it's not consequential to the religions of abrahamism that there were ever a historical moses or daniel to speak, let alone say those words you find in the books. All are completely satisfied with moses/daniel-like-figures....of which, and particularly by the faithful..there were seen to have been many.
Christians would famously come to see jesus in just such a way, and, like the orators and narrators before them, would place in the mouth of this character what is very likely to be their own thoughts on some matter x. Que the sermons.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
