arnoldo

LOL, that might not be a very popular guide since it's up to debate if Daniel was made a eunuch! Anyway I'm trying to find out if the following statement is true and would appreciate any feedback.

Source:Introduction to The Book of Daniel

Toto

Is this going to be another case where Christian apologists claim that skeptics think no such person existed until archeology discovered the proof? Do you know of such skeptics? Do you have any more information on this supposed monument?

This is from a Christian site: There is another derivation of the name here.

mens_sana

I just finished an internet search using Asphenaz/Ashpenaz Berlin Museum. Several sites state that Ashpenaz is on a tablet in the Berlin Museum, but none go beyond that bald statement to any source. One site does give a Berlin Museum index number for a tablet from Nebuchadnezzar's court, but it is an astrology text and does not mention Ashpenaz. I also ran a digital search of the complete Biblical Archaeologist and Biblical Archaeology Review (1977-2005). Considering that such a find could let people jump to a number of enthusiastically unfounded conclusions, I thought surely it would have been referenced there. It wasn't.

The Noble Lie has seen a lot of use since Plato's day.

arnoldo

Thanks, Ashpenaz seemed to be a title of some sort and it will be interesting if that title is eventually found written in some ruins. In the meantime the British Museum has archaelogical evidence that the events/persons named in the bible were real.

Neo-Babylonian, about 550-400 BC

Johnny Skeptic

That is not surprising since many religious and secular books mention real events and people. As far as know, all historians believe that King Nebuchadnezzar was a real person.

If a God exists, and wanted to convince people to believe that he exists, he would easily be able to do a much better job of that than Chrisitians ever could.

Sheshonq

There is no evidence of that.

In fact, no evidence of the name or title at all, outside of the Daniel reference.

And as usual, your source doesn't prove what you claim it does.

arnoldo

Uhhh... read the source again (I'll quote it for you)
Source: The British Museum

A museum in Istanbul is alleged to have the following information according to this source: Was Daniel an Eyewitness of 6th-Century B. C. Events Part Two by Everette Hatcher III

Sheshonq

Don't bother; I know far more about it than you'll ever come to know in your entire life. Let me quote Johnny here though, to make the point:

That is not surprising since many religious and secular books mention real events and people. As far as know, all historians believe that King Nebuchadnezzar was a real person.

Mentioning people isn't what you claimed. Go back and try again.

spin

How cruel! But then the stuff is worth a laugh. Here it is anyway:

Everette Hatcher, who was shredded by Farrell Till long ago, should have thought just a bit and then decided not to cite this schlock. I mean just think about it...

Daniel tells us that Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah were their Jewish names, though they were given Babylonian names, presumably so they would be able to be referred to more easily by the local potentates, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and we would expect, if W.H. Shea's premise were correct, that we find these latter names in official documents, yet what Shea provides us with are two forms he likens with the Hebrew names (contradicting his own implied logic) and one which is vaguely like the Babylonian name. Hanunu, supposedly Hananiah, is a common Semitic name, eg there was a king of Gaza with that name. Mushallam-Marduk, supposedly Mishael (though Hebrew actually has Meshallam), is only vaguely like Shea's claimed source. But worst is Aridi-Nabu, for the first part is almost nothing like Shea's claimed source and Nabu was a popular deity. Why could Abd-Nabu have not been preserved? It's simple enough, the "servant of Nabu". What we see here with Shea is another apologist shoehorning his wayward biblical data into a historical source, which shouldn't really be too hard -- he did after all have fifty names in the source to choose from and then he played mix and match with the biblical text's names, two of the Hebrew names and one Babylonian, but he did find three lookalikes -- sort of. What a dismal effort. Why are apologists so hopeless at their self-appointed task?


spin

arnoldo

*Sigh*, I guess if the book of Daniel is accurate in naming/alluding to any historical persons, such as Alexander the Great, it is only proof that is was written after the fact, right? :huh:

The reference to Alexander the Great was given in the following post: Alexander the Great with horns