You've totally misunderstood my argument, Karl (seems to happen often — I must be a very poor communicator). I argue that Dan 9 is not simply about the end of exile, but about redefining exile. Dan 9 redefines exile so that it is no longer just about absence from the land (the classic understanding from Jeremiah that you seem to be employing). Daniel seems to have this understanding at the start of the chapter, but this is corrected through the re-interpretation given to him. Exile becomes a situation of being under foreign rule, regardless of where you are. So even though many people might return physically to the land, their exile of 70 weeks of years continues because they are still ruled by foreigners. And the Antiochene Persecution of the second century BC highlights this fact. They're in Jerusalem, but they are still oppressed.
I also suggest you brush up on some basic history of the Second Temple Era, including as it's presented in the biblical literature. Many of your counter-arguments are impressively weak. GEORGE ATHAS Dean of Research, Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au) Sydney, Australia
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
