Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>> I have always argued for a serious treatment of the OT/HB. [...]
>
>> So let's get going on a serious treatment of the OT/HB and stop with the
>> literal readings.
>
>
>
>Yes, Ian, I see that there was a continuation of your thoughts on the topic
>of the "serious treatment of the Hebrew Bible." But it is somewhat
confusing
>to me in that it seems that what you are writing---perhaps not what you are
>intending ---is that a serious treatment of the Hebrew Bible precludes a
>literal reading of the text. Is this in fact what you mean to communicate?

A serious treatment involves reading a text in its context. Without the
context you don't really know what you are reading. A literal reading in
today's understanding does not take into account the significances of the
ancient text. Perhaps by coincidence a modern literal reading does in some
way reflect the intentions of the writer, but how does one tell without some
context?

>Since you have offered to expound upon the Book of Daniel,

I never offered to "expound upon the Book of Daniel." I asked you to comment
on Daniel in the light of a contextualisation of the work during the
Hellenistic crisis.

>>How do you treat the second half of the book of Daniel when you know that
it
>>was written in Palestine during the Hellenistic crisis? What is the value
of
>>the citations of King Belshazzar in a literal reading? The resurrection
>>material in ch12 comes into a wider context of literature of the period
>>including 1Enoch's Animal Apocalypse and 2 Maccabees which also both
reflect
>>the period of the Hellenistic crisis. How does one read this sudden
interest
>>in life after death at such a time of extreme hardship, a theological
notion
>>that was not a traditional Jewish one?

You have to do something for yourself.


Ian

>I would be interested, particularly in the resurrection/ life after death
>text you reference, say beginning from chapter 10 to give it more context.