Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

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