You've demonstrated nothing relevant other than your refusal to read Zech 6 for what it indicates, including the fact that Zerubbabel is notably absent and that Yeshua receives not one crown but both crowns.Bernard Muller wrote:to spin,You are dead wrong. The fact that Zerubbabel is not mentioned in Zec 6 does not prove anything. I already demonstrated that when Zechariah wrote Ch. 1 to 7, Zerubbabel was alive and well in Jerusalem because he was expected to complete the temple.Period, indeed. You are still pretending to try to do history with the material. Zechariah scrubbed Zerubbabel from the scene, leaving only Yeshua being crowned with two crowns. Don't you understand this? Zechariah leaves the Jewish tradition with the notion of Yeshua as ruler.
You blundered into the topic of high priests and it blew up in your face. Your assumptions about the preservation of the Jewish past are baseless, as baseless as the trustworthiness of the priestly lists. It is wrong to assume historical accuracy. You must demonstrate it... for a culture with no tradition of historiography. (A functional historiography was pioneered by Herodotus and didn't filter into Judah for centuries.)Bernard Muller wrote:Just different lists of high priests does not make the situation in Israel unstable during the 2nd temple era up to Antiochus IV.But no, the situation in Israel was not rather stable, with an evolving tradition of high priests
No question about succession of high priests. You dragged the priests into it for their veracity, but it is inherently untrustworthy.Bernard Muller wrote:And there is no reason to think there was not an uninterrupted succession of high priests in Jerusalem.
Just another baseless assertion. We see the lack of accuracy frequently... four kings of Persia! Was Nehemiah under Artaxerxes I or Xerxes I or some other Persian king? You cannot assume accuracy or pretend it's there. You need to demonstrate it, though the evidence is against your assertion.Bernard Muller wrote:Further the info about dating the building of the second temple and when Cyrus' first year over Babylon could be transmitted by scribes to younger scribes. There is no way that kind of info, pertaining to the dear sacred temple, would be overlooked and not worth to be remembered & recorded.
A methodology you conceived. That's another example of eisegesis.Bernard Muller wrote:Nothing new. I already told on this thread of annotations on the sand. These annotations would be just to keep track of the tabulation of the "seven".You were caught out with the numerals and stuck with words. Now you've changed your discourse to "a few annotations." There is nothing scientific in your approach.
The "many" are those who are not part of the chosen "remnant", those against the will of God. It is typical Hebrew rhetoric.Bernard Muller wrote:If that was the covenant, so how come it was proclaimed to many? Menelaus is not many.The covenant with Menelaus was in 171. See 2 Macc 4:23-29.
You are a forced to follow whichever translation you want to be correct. There is no "for" as you have trumpeted. There is no "at". There is only "half of the week". Throughout the vision the writers have used durations and some christian translators decide that this phrase which appears like a duration is not a duration but a point in time. Instead of jockeying translators regarding linguistic structure, trust the known scholarly translations, the NRSV and the NJPS to get it right most of the time.Bernard Muller wrote:Maybe, but the "for" in the translation can be replaced by "at" as in "and at half of the week he will suspend both the sacrifice and grain offerings" (ISV except "at").It is representing the Hebrew better. Duration, as I have said, in Hebrew is indicated without preposition. We need one in English. You are arguing here form ignorance. Almost every time you depend on a translated word for your argument it is wrong.
The last week marks the duration of a covenant with many, which will be strong/prevail one week. Half the—that same—week (I'll try to be literal here), he [the prince who is to come] will cause sacrifice and grain offering to cease and at the corner [of the altar] the abomination that desolates, until destruction... is poured out on the one who desolates. The word indicated here as "corner" has a base meaning of "wing" which causes difficulty in translation, as the variety of versions show. But the temporal indications are straightforward, two durations, one week and half of that week. The translator has to overcome other difficulties including making sense of other terms (such as "wing") and the christianizing interpretation of the passage and so the translation is compromised.
You cannot make arguments based heavily on other people's translations, especially when the passage is complicated by language or theological disposition. Your whole case regarding Dan 9:25-27 seems to be you doing just that.