Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>]

Dear George,

I will come back to this subject in the future when I have more time. Now I 
would just recommend one book, namely, Otto Mørkholm, "Antiochus IV of 
Syria", 1966. This book demonstrates that much of our "knowledge" of 
Antiochus IV can be questioned, and a lot of actions ascribed to him need not 
have happened. I have made a detailed study of Daniel's chapters 11 and 8 in 
the light of historical information that, according to my judgmenet, is 
rather certain, and I have not found i single verse or a single sentence in 
Daniel that naturally would be applied to Antiochus IV.



Best regards


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway


Onsdag 24. Oktober 2012 02:28 CEST skrev George Athas 
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>:

> Karl, forget the Documentary Hypothesis. It has nothing to do with this.
>
> I have no problem with Daniel 9 predicting AD 70 or AD 33 or AD 2012. It's 
> just that I don't see the text doing this. It seems to be discussing the 
> concept exile in light of the Antiochene Persecution. Again, that has 
> nothing to do with the Documentary Hypothesis (which is about sources in 
> the Pentateuch).
>
> All our copies of Daniel reveal a uniformity about the content of Dan 9, as 
> far as I can see.
>
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Dean of Research,
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
>
>
> On 24/10/2012, at 9:29 AM, "K Randolph" 
> <kwrandolph AT gmail.com<mailto:kwrandolph AT gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> George:
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:17 PM, George Athas 
> <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au<mailto: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<http://moore.edu.au>)
> Sydney, Australia
>
>
>
> Karl W. Randolph.