George: The only reason I discuss what follows is in how it may be connected to an understanding of Daniel 9. Other than that, I’d consider this way off topic.
The tradition is that Jesus was in his early 30s when he was executed. The New Testament doesn’t say that in exactly that terminology, so it’s possible that the tradition is wrong. Modern historians now say that Jesus was born either 4 BC or 7 BC, so by your dates, he’d have been in his late 30s to early 40s when he was crucified. On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 2:06 AM, George Athas <[email protected]>wrote: > Karl, > > Briefly… > > The date of Jesus' death is calculated on a few things: the governship > of Pilate (AD 26–36) > As I understand John 18:28 – 19:16 is that this occurred early in Pilate’s rule as governor. Pilate was a cruel man, Jesus meant nothing to him other than to be used as a pawn to get concessions from the priests. Once he got that concession, he then disposed of his pawn. > and the marriage of Antipas to Herodias in AD 31. > This date is open to questions: How long did they have an affaire before officially getting married? Is this date connected to the reign of Tiberius? > This puts Jesus' death in either AD 33 or AD 34. Also, given the likely > connection between Pilate and Sejanus (regent), the intrigue and toing and > froing regarding Jesus' death is likely to mean that it occurred closer to > AD 31 when Sejanus fell from grace and was executed for treason. As such AD > 33 is most likely. > This connection with Sejanus is speculation, as there’s nothing from the text to back that up. > > The interpretation of Dan 9 that connects the decree to return and > rebuild Jerusalem with Artaxerxes I in 445 BC suffers from two things. > More than that. > First, by my calculation, 483 (69 x 7) years after 445 BC is AD 39. So > actually, we're significantly out in terms of the dates about Jesus already. > You should see some of the mental gymnastics that have been proposed to get around that one. > Secondly, this is connecting the rebuilding with Nehemiah, but the way > you're reading the text here means that the rebuilding occurs 49 years > later, in 396 BC. If you're not doing this, then you're not considering the > text itself and have to read it another way. Whichever way you go, if you > put the 7 weeks on the front of the 62 weeks for a total of 69 consecutive > weeks, there's a problem with Nehemiah, who built the walls of Jerusalem in > 52 days in 444 BC. This hypothesis just has "problem" writ large across it. > I'm happy to be persuaded by it, but it really has nothing going for it > that I can see. > I have problems, big problems, with the two periods being consecutive. But if they were concurrent, then it adds up. > > The decree to return to Jerusalem and rebuild was issued by Cyrus. Karl, > are you claiming that the decree to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the > temple did not involve any dwellings in Jerusalem? > Rebuilding the temple would have required that at least a few other buildings would be built to support the services of the temple. Further, we find in Nehemiah that when the walls were rebuilt, that they connected with the walls of some buildings that were already in Jerusalem. However, before Nehemiah rebuilt the walls and forcibly by lot repopulated the city, most of the city was still an uninhabited ruin. > Haggai certainly has a decent go at the folk in Jerusalem for being busy > building their own house while neglecting the temple. So your claim that > Cyrus' decree doesn't count here is really stretching it. > Haggai had a lot of targets, not just the people in Jerusalem. > > No, I don't believe I contradicted myself when I said we can make > precise calculations. We are spoilt for choice when identifying an anointed > one in 538 BC. Take your pick: Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Joshua… I don't > mind which. Either one you choose still gives you precision. Besides, the > text doesn't say THE anointed one. It uses an indefinite noun at that > point. So it could mean one of these guys, or perhaps even all three. But > the precision of the year remains. Cyrus' decree came in 538 BC. > > You keep referring to THE anointed one. Show me in the text where it > talks about THE anointed one. > This is in answer to Samuel Nunez, where I understand him as trying to say that any reference to “Anointed one” must refer to Jesus. But I noticed that “Anointed one” is used for several people, including idolaters such as Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1). However, there’s one who is referred to merely as “Anointed one” without contextual clues pointing to other people. > I can show you two references to AN anointed one (משׁיח): see 9.25 and > 9.26. But the text does not talk about THE anointed one. Are you claiming > that my interpretation, which sees these indefinite nouns as, well, > indefinite nouns is precluded by the text itself? Can you at least see how > I'm deriving my interpretation from the text itself? > No, I don’t see how you are deriving your reading from the text itself. To me it appears that you are starting out with an agenda, no less an agenda than those who want to read the text as indicating two consecutive periods adding up to 69 sevens of years. Then I see you twisting the text to fit your agenda. > > When Nehemiah returns to Jerusalem, he rebuilds the walls in 444 BC. > Where do you get this date? Why not closer to 415 BC? Nehemiah and Ezra were contemporaries, and from what I have heard is that Ezra did his ministry from about 410 to 390 BC, give or take a few years. So that means that Nehemiah would have lived during Atarxerxes II. > Sure, it's possible that more construction went on, but can you show me > the evidence for this? > Nehemiah 11. > Where in the text are you getting this from? It strikes me that in order > for your hypothesis to stand, you have to point to things that are simply > not in the text. In other words, you have to make up evidence. I'm trying > to steer well clear of this and just stick what the text is saying. > > > *GEORGE ATHAS* > *Dean of Research,* > *Moore Theological College *(moore.edu.au) > *Sydney, Australia* > > Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
