OST is closed for business but its spirit survives on my blog.
It is this dimension of the Spirit, rather than the historical
judgement on Israel, which seems to me to be the significance of the
Spirit (and therefore Pentecost) for today.
That may be true. I was merely commenting on its apparent significance for Peter on the day of Pentecost.
What lies behind Acts 2:33 is not Daniel 7 but Psalm 110 (cf. Acts 2:34). Of course, there is a convergence of these OT themes in the NT, and perhaps I am being pedantic, but I just don’t think that Daniel 7 is used to explain the giving of the Spirit. The reason for this is that the Spirit of the Christ who suffered is given to the suffering church in advance of the vindication and transfer of sovereignty that is associated with the coming of the Son of man. The church which had been given the Spirit still cried out for vindication (cf. Rom.8:12-27). I would disagree with you, therefore, that the giving of the Spirit was ‘the practical implementation of the transfer of power’ - that only comes theologically and eschatologically with the judgment on the enemies of the people of God and the ending of the affliction.
Again the issue arises: which of the bible’s own self-interpretive theology are we going to strip out in order to get at ‘the irrelevance and oddity and historical particularity of the original narrative’?
I’m not sure what you mean by this. I don’t see it as a matter of stripping out the Bible’s own self-interpretation - it’s a matter of recognizing that that interpretation is as historically conditioned as what it interprets.