Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 9:21?27 (George Athas)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>
  • To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 9:21?27 (George Athas)
  • Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:17:27 +0000

Daniel 9 was redacted after Jesus? Interesting suggestion, Nir. However, there are two major things against the suggestion.

First, it presumes that the 70 weeks are about Jesus. They aren't. Please see my blog post for further arguments:

(http://withmeagrepowers.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/the-seventy-weeks-of-daniel-9/)


Second, the manuscript evidence is against it. I recommend Collins' commentary on Daniel in the Hermeneia series for further details.


GEORGE ATHAS
Dean of Research,
Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia


From: "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>
Date: Wednesday, 24 October 2012 5:17 AM
To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: [b-hebrew] Daniel 9:21?27 (George Athas)

george,

i understand that the issue is extremely sensitive: was jesus'
birth predicted in the book of daniel? in this case, a lot of
importance is placed on the exact interpretation of the temporal
count.

i wish to put forth an alternative hypothesis: that this verse
(and similars in the OT) was edited posthumous to
jesus. in this case, any deviation in the temporal count may be
explained as a truly historical error, or a numerical simplification,
comitted by the anonymous scribe/author, possibly one associated
with the early christians.

this is a mere hypothesis for discussion with no underlying
ideological conviction except, perhaps, a certain dose of atheism.
i hope i am not pushing the limits of b-hebrew to too stormy waters...

nir cohen




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page