Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

That's a very brave conclusion, Rolf. I too have done a detailed study of the sources. I recommend the recent study by Anathea Portier-Young, "Apocalypse Against Empire"). I've come to the exact opposite conclusion to you: Daniel is definitely talking about Antiochus IV. 

GEORGE ATHAS

Dean of Research,

Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)

On 24/10/2012, at 10:58 PM, "Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no> wrote:

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.

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew