mc2499 at mclink.it
Sun Dec 5 17:49:14 EST 1999
At 17.01 05/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
>It is clear to me that all the evidence on these matters is from books
>whose dating is speculative and controversial, especially if the
Which books are you referring to, Peter? (-:
>consensus of modern scholarship is rejected, and the evidence is
Consensus has no use other than to make the people whose opinions agree
feel good. Evidence is all that matters.
>unclear and capable of many different interpretations, including your
>one and the more traditional one. So the wise path, which I will take,
>is not to put forward any speculations about these matters, but to
>admit that we don't know.
If you can actually get over the hurdle and accept that the book of Daniel
can be successfully dated, then you must do better than this Millard
Fillmore know-nothing approach. It is your misguided simulation of ideas
you don't accept. Therefore it has no value for either of us.
>PS I did download Enoch fron your site some time ago. No idea when
>this was written, who by, who for etc. (you can speculate, but you
>have no proof). So it's valueless evidence.
What you don't know won't hurt you, right? If you want to know about it,
perhaps you might ask. But you might read the introduction to 1Enoch in
Charlesworth's Pseudepigraphic collection.
More information about the b-hebrew