Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>]

Hi Rolf!

I have no qualms with the epistemology you've outlined. I'm in complete 
agreement with you. This is why I said I could not dismiss your forthcoming 
theory on Daniel before having considered it. Nonetheless, you would have to 
admit that there is strong evidence for the current scholarly consensus on 
Daniel. This does not mean it cannot be challenged; quite to the contrary -- 
this is what our discipline thrives on. As such, I encourage you in your 
efforts to challenge the consensus. However, we also need to have a healthy 
dose of epistemological humility and realise that there must be some good 
reasons why the current scholarly consensus is the current scholarly 
consensus.

The moral of the story: You don't just need to prove your point of view, but 
also show why it trumps previous points of view. That's standard methodology 
if you want to dethrone the current consensus.

I look forward to your work being published. All the best with it.

BTW - your analysis of NGS in no way prevents seeing Heliodorus in the text.



Regards,
GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney)
www.moore.edu.au