Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

George:

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:17 PM, George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au> wrote:

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:

Daniel 9:24 defines the period of time. It’s about “your people and your set apart city”.

(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.

What about the manuscript evidence? That should have been brought up earlier, as that has import on this discussion (at least I think it should). My understanding that Daniel in its present form dates from at least 160 BC. Correct me if I’m wrong.

From the Christian viewpoint, there’s no problem with Daniel accurately telling about the destruction of Jerusalem in ca. 70 AD, as contrasted to the pagan view connected with the Documentary Hypothesis. The same as referring to “Messiah” as a reference to Jesus.

GEORGE ATHAS

Dean of Research,

Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)

Sydney, Australia

Karl W. Randolph.