Karl:
Would you be good enough to explain “Sisaq” to me as it relates to
Tuthmosis (Djehuty-mes)II? Although I don’t totally discount some portions in
the Hellenistic Period, the Aramaic of Daniel points to the last two centuries
BCE. Isn’t it possible that the author of Daniel was inventing a midrash for
the Seleucid/Maccabaean Period?
Jack
Jack Kilmon
Houston, TX
From: K Randolph
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 5:20 PM
To: George Athas
Cc: B-Hebrew
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 9:21?27 (George Athas)
George:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:52 PM, George Athas <[email protected]> wrote:
You've totally misunderstood my argument, Karl (seems to happen often — I
must be a very poor communicator).
It’s more than that—it appears that I’m a poor understander of your argument.
I argue that Dan 9 is not simply about the end of exile, but about redefining
exile.
That makes no sense to me.
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.
The reason it makes no sense is that during much of the divided kingdom period,
Judea was under foreign rule. From the time of Sesiq (Thutmosis II) through the
Amarna Letters period and later, Judea was under the heel of Egypt. So being
ruled by foreigners was not unique to Daniel’s period. Therefore this
“redefining exile” idea doesn’t make sense.
More importantly, the time period is defined as starting at the time the
command was given to rebuild Jerusalem, given to Nehemiah. That is specifically
stated concerning the starting of the two sub time periods of 7 sevens and 62
sevens (verse 25), and by context for the whole 70 sevens period.
And the Antiochene Persecution of the second century BC highlights this fact.
They're in Jerusalem, but they are still oppressed.
See above, not new.
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.
Most of what I know of the second temple period is found in the Bible, which in
Hebrew ends before the Greek period.
But I find your attempt at redefinition of exile even weaker, as the text in
the pre-Second Temple Daniel specifically refers to the rebuilding of
Jerusalem, not just the temple (and some support structures) contained in
Cyrus’ command as reproduced in Tanakh.
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
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
