Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear George,

See my comments below.


> Rolf Furuli wrote:
>
> And please note that in my previous
> post I have not defended a 15th century writing of the Pentateuch, an
> 8th century writing of Isaiah, and a 6th century writing of Daniel,
> but I have claimed that there are no compelling evidence that can
> falsify these dates- this is a negative (and scientific) standpoint
> and not a positive one.
>
> ---
>
> My apologies, Rolf, but I thought you were advocating those dates. 
> However, the key word in your statement above is 'compelling'. I 
> would disagree with you and say that there is compelling evidence. 
> Once again, it comes down to the difference between possible 
> theories and plausible theories. Anything is possible, but not 
> everything is probable (how's that for a Pauline-like statement!).

I try to present my arguments i a balanced scientific way, without 
stating my own opinion. So I am have neither said that I defend the 
dates nor that I doubt the dates. IWhat I would do in another thread 
is another matter. The only exception to stating my own view is that 
I have given a sketch of the scientific reasons for my conclusion 
regarding the origin of life.

> You also wrote:
>
> I am not aware of any historical difficulties in Daniel that would
> falsify any prediction of the hypothesis. The only problem is "Darius
> the Mede". But we know very, very little about the last days of the
> Neo-Babylonian Enpire and the beginning of the Achaemenid Empire, and
> there are some candidates for this king.
>
> ---
I must say I am very, very surprised to read this. There are numerous 
historical difficulties with Daniel. And contrary to your claim, we 
know quite a lot about the last days of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. We 
have documents aplenty. And the difficulties are not limited to 
Darius the Mede. And even if they were, your position above sounds 
quite evasive.

The phrase "historical difficulties" is rather ambiguous and can 
refer to many different things. We need to approach this issue from 
two different angles. First,  we need to analyze the words in Daniel 
that are problematic in relation to the accepted view of history, in 
order to find what they really mean. Second, we have to ask  how 
"historical" (undisputable) is the history that we find in lexicons 
and textbooks. I have a full day at the University today, but later I 
will return to the historical question


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



Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo