Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

>Ian, you are back to your old "if" trick, plus calling your unproven
>hypothesis a "fact".

I presuppose given the vast amount of evidence that Daniel was written
centuries after the time it purports to represent. If it had been written at
that time, it couldn't have got so many things wrong. Therefore I take it as
reasonably certain that Daniel is vaticinio ex eventu (except for the last
parts of some of the visions in 7-12). No if here. The if was about Isaiah
following the tradition.


Ian

>If these prophecies are vaticinio ex eventu, then
>Jonathan and I are wrong, granted. But if they are genuine prophecies, or
>simply predicitions based on Isaiah's reading of the politics of his time,
>then Jonathan or I may be right. Your argument from one or perhaps two
cases
>of vaticinio ex eventu does not prove (though it might "suggest", the word
>you correctly used earlier) that none of the Biblical authors could ever
>make any predictions about the future. You also have a problem with dating.
>For your evidence about 1 Enoch to be relevant, you have to date Isaiah
6-12
>not too many centuries earlier, but in that case how did the author know
the
>facts (as he must do for vaticinio ex eventu) about what had happened in
the
>8th century BCE?