Dear George, I will come back to this subject in the future when I have more time. Now I would just recommend one book, namely, Otto Mørkholm, "Antiochus IV of Syria", 1966. This book demonstrates that much of our "knowledge" of Antiochus IV can be questioned, and a lot of actions ascribed to him need not have happened. I have made a detailed study of Daniel's chapters 11 and 8 in the light of historical information that, according to my judgmenet, is rather certain, and I have not found i single verse or a single sentence in Daniel that naturally would be applied to Antiochus IV.
Best regards Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway Onsdag 24. Oktober 2012 02:28 CEST skrev George Athas <[email protected]>: > Karl, forget the Documentary Hypothesis. It has nothing to do with this. > > I have no problem with Daniel 9 predicting AD 70 or AD 33 or AD 2012. It's > just that I don't see the text doing this. It seems to be discussing the > concept exile in light of the Antiochene Persecution. Again, that has nothing > to do with the Documentary Hypothesis (which is about sources in the > Pentateuch). > > All our copies of Daniel reveal a uniformity about the content of Dan 9, as > far as I can see. > > > GEORGE ATHAS > Dean of Research, > Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia) > > > On 24/10/2012, at 9:29 AM, "K Randolph" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > George: > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:17 PM, George Athas > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Daniel 9 was redacted after Jesus? Interesting suggestion, Nir. However, > there are two major things against the suggestion. > > First, it presumes that the 70 weeks are about Jesus. They aren't. Please see > my blog post for further arguments: > > Daniel 9:24 defines the period of time. It’s about “your people and your set > apart city”. > > (http://withmeagrepowers.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/the-seventy-weeks-of-daniel-9/) > > > Second, the manuscript evidence is against it. I recommend Collins' > commentary on Daniel in the Hermeneia series for further details. > > What about the manuscript evidence? That should have been brought up earlier, > as that has import on this discussion (at least I think it should). My > understanding that Daniel in its present form dates from at least 160 BC. > Correct me if I’m wrong. > > >From the Christian viewpoint, there’s no problem with Daniel accurately > >telling about the destruction of Jerusalem in ca. 70 AD, as contrasted to > >the pagan view connected with the Documentary Hypothesis. The same as > >referring to “Messiah” as a reference to Jesus. > > > GEORGE ATHAS > Dean of Research, > Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au<http://moore.edu.au>) > Sydney, Australia > > > > Karl W. Randolph. _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
