spin

Of course, the reason why Daniel is now universally seen in academia as being from the 2nd c. BCE is because it knows little about the sixth century (and includes numerous errors if it had been from that century), yet knows a lot about the time up to but not including the death of Antiochus IV, as though the text had been written not long before the death of Antiochus and then foretells his death and gets it wrong.

Because most people are ignorant of the times of Antiochus IV they know nothing about his pollution of the temple, described in Daniel as the abomination of desolation. They know nothing about the struggles between the Seleucids (the kings of the north in the Jerusalem perspective) and the Ptolemies (the kings of the south), which are described in detail in ch.12.

It has been the nearly two millennia of christian perversion of the text, eg turning the simile of "one like a son of man" into "the son of man", disregarding the context, of christian reinterpretation of the text, turning pre-christian events into apocalyptic events, that makes Daniel nigh on impossible for an ordinary christian to read for what it says.

Daniel is clearly a book of its time, ie the early 2nd c. BCE. It doesn't help to argue from early 21st c. p.c. that such a date would make the text fraudulent; such an ethic is irrelevant to the necessities of the time of writing, which were to bolster the forces fighting for the freedom of Jerusalem from the Seleucid menace, to edify the fighters, to give them hope that they could win, that they could survive and that those who would die during the conflict wouldn't really die but would live again in the end of days when the kingdom had come.


spin

bfniii

first, what do you mean by "little" about 6th century bc? how much is little?

second, how much is daniel supposed to have known and written about in order to satisfy critics of our time? in other words, what standard are you using?

third, daniel demonstrates knowledge of the 6th century so that makes the point somewhat moot.

and those errors are?

is "as though" proof that daniel was written at that time?

hmm. what verses would you be referring to?

they are? how so?

spin

1) the writer doesn't know Persian Chancelry Aramaic;
2) the writer doesn't know his "contemporary" history;
3) the writer doesn't know much about Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldaean approach to religious tolerance.



The three items I mention above should be sufficient for you.

Umm, Darius the Mede?? Please, you must be joking. This is where diehard apologists attempt to say that this Darius is actually Ugbaru (Gubaru), tacitly admitting that there is an error, but that he was probably also known as Darius or somesuch fudge.

Belshazzar was never king and the epigraphy refers to him merely as "the son of the king". He was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, but the son of the king, Nabonidas (and no, the relatively young son of a then inconsequential general was not married to an old daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, which incidentlly would not -- if it were true for a moment -- allow someone to call him the son of Nebuchadnezzar.

Incidentally, the name is Nabu-kudurri-usur, ie Nebuchadrezzar, and a contemporary would know that.

Nabonidus was in Babylon when the city fell, so the report in Daniel labeling Belshazzar as king the "night" Babylon fell is overtly in error.

The text knows nothing tangible about sixth century Babylon.

See above.

In the context, it's a strong indicator. Put it with the others, such as the abomination of desolation, Antiochus's act of temple pollution or his removal of the prince of the covenant/anointed prince (the high priest, Onias III).

11:40-45.

Buy a copy of a history of the Seleucids, especially the period down to 164 BCE. A very old but still useful text is Edwyn Bevin's "House of the Seleucids".


spin

bfniii

not that he would have needed to know any of the chancelry aramaic dialects for the book to have been composed at that time. why do you insist that he need to know that specific form of aramaic? there are several others that match the style of the book that should be considered such as the elephantine papyri, assouan papyri and the sinjirli inscriptions

this is a general statement. what history are you asking him to know?

is there a reason why you feel like he should have reported on this cultural aspect?

that's not an admission of error. the word origin of darius is a title. therefore, gubaru could have been referred to as that, especially by people in the court.

but was made the equivalent by nabonidus while he was gone to teyma.

as i have already pointed out, the word 'ab means has a host of ancestral meanings. literal father is only one of those. in fact, other uses of that exact word in daniel and ezra are used in a non-literal father context.

but wouldn't necessarily transliterate the name that way.

not quite. beshazzar was left in charge of the defense of the country and was stationed in the capitol. to the people there, there was no break in continuity. nabonidus was out leading the troops against cyrus.

there is mention in chap 3 of greek musical instruments that were in vogue at that time. why is the existence of belshazzar not "tangible"?

evidently, he was a good prophet.

those verses are apocalyptic, they don't refer to antiochus. the word Qets means "at the end of time". some say that the apocalyptic prophecy actually begins in verse 35 due to the presence of the exact same word.

what i was asking is how chapter 12 describes the struggle you mention when it is clear that 11:40 begins apocalyptic prophecy?

spin

First you need to read the text. TRy from 2:4.

Rubbish.

Yes, it was in response to a general question. And I gave details below.

The unhistorial bit about worshipping the statue.

Inventive, but it is in its original form a name with the sort of meaning that fits into the Persian onomastica. Perhaps you have a source based on epigraphy which suggests differently.

All you need to do is give some epigraphic support to this otherwise total conjecture.

Point missed:

a) he wasn't king, and

b) he wasn't called a king.

As I have already pointed out

a) ['ab] has nothing to do with a female connection,

b) Belshazzar is of the wrong generation to have been married to a daughter of Nebuchadrezzar, and

c) Nabonidus was too insignificant during Nebuchadrezzar's reign to have been so honored as to have had his nothing son married to the king's daughter.

Oh, and d) This is only pure untinged conjecture on your part and the cadres who don't want to read Daniel historically.

It's not a transliteration.

Don't bullshit me. Babylon fell because the city was more in favour of Cyrus than of Nabonidus. They handed it over to the Persian. The Babylonian Chronicle has him in the city.

Some of the four Greek instruments mentioned are indicators of lateness, because of their late development.

The text, ie Daniel, shows nothing tangible about the sixth century. Bumbling conjectures on your part only show that you aren't interested in the sixth century and don't know anything about the history.[/quote]

Because the writer doesn't know much about the sixth century, but a lot about the third and the beginning of the second? This is called vaticinium ex eventu.

The end of time is indicated as the end of the last half week of years. The "anointed one" (9:36), the anointed high priest Onias III, was removed from office then killed in 171 BCE (the "prince of the covenant" in 11:22). After half a week of years, circa 167 BCE Antiochus IV polluted the temple (9:27, 11:31b), at the same time his forces occupied "the temple and the fortress" (11:31a) and abolished regular sacrifice (8:11, 9:27b, 11:31b). Antiochus had the support of some "hellenizing" Jews ("those who violate the covenant", 11:32). Jews were persecuted (11:35a). From the pollution there is half a week of years, or "a time, times, and half a time" (ie 3 and a half years).

Hey, you can label it apocalyptic, but that doesn't change anything. The text is quite specific.

You're right. I should have said chapter 11, the battles between the kings of the north and the kings of the south. My bad. Please reread my comments of the first post reading chapter 11 instead of chapter 12. Sorry for the confusion.


spin

bfniii

ok. what am i looking for?

is it rubbish because you say it is or do you have some reason why daniel isn't like the sources i cited?

what's unhistorical about it?

the word "Dar`yavesh" of persian origin was taken to mean "lord". even the derivative aramaic "Dar@yavesh" means "lord".

apparently not everyone agrees with you. all you need to do to support your claim is to provide sources that definitively show that no one called him king.

not that it has to. the masculine is merely referring to the fact that the ancestor in question is male.

not relevant.

hmm. and how do we know that this absolutely precludes the possibility?

N@buwkadnetstsar is a transliterated word.

sneaky. not that it matters. i said belshazzar was left in charge of the country while nabonidus was leading the troops. there was no break in continuity of leadership for the babylonians.

i count six instruments; horn, flute, bagpipe and three kinds of lyre/harp, all of which were around in the 5th or 6th century bc.

as i asked earlier, isn't the mention of belshazzar, nabonidus, nebuchadnezzar, et al something tangible about 6 century bc?

it can be called after the fact, but that's not tangible proof that the book was written so.

well that's a colorful representation of the 70 weeks prophecy. the first issue to be addressed is why you think onias is the anointed one. he wasn't a prince. the second is that his death in 171bc is too early for the date 32ad predicted.

ok, let's talk specifics. what are you expecting the author to know?

spin

Read the context. It was relatively clear. We were dealing with the subject of the Aramaic. Read from the point in the text I indicated and you'll know that one should expect Persian Chancelry Aramaic, not a patchwork Aramaic.

I tell you what, justify the following statements (you made) with your linguistic skills, ie don't just rehash someone else's opinions.

What exactly are the language features that match the style?

(Incidentally, what's the difference in reference between the Elephantine papyri and the "assouan" papyri? )

The sort of event involved was first historically noted in the imposition by Antiochus IV of the abomination of desolation in the Jerusalem temple.

The Babylonian approach to moved populations was to let them look after themselves and supply their needs. The Babylonians didn't interfere with moved populations, as they often became stabilising entities within the disparate realm.

The Persian meaning is well known and it certainly isn't "lord". You shouldn't trust crap like Strongs. The name comes from the Old Persian "(he who) holds to good", "Darayavaush".

His official efforts were all under the name of "son of the king". This precedent needs epigraphic evidence to offset. As the epigraphic evidence is unanimous, you need to cough up something in the way of contemporary historical data to suggest otherwise. You haven't done so, you haven't shown ability to do so.

Lines aren't passed through females. (If you don't believe me, try and find one example in Babylonian or Assyrian epigraphy.) You are hanging onto a false position only because you have nothing better. I have already indicated that there is no evidence to support the conjecture that Belshazzar was ever married to a daughter of Nebuchadrezzar. I have already noted that Belshazzar is not a worthy candidate for such a marriage. This is you saying you've got nothing better. Sad.

Why is not relevant that Belshazzar is of the wrong generation to have married a daughter of Nebuchadrezzar??

I suggest again that you read some history. There is a fair amount of data from this period.

You don't have to show your total linguistic incompetence by relying on Strongs. That is pathetic. All you need do is turn to a decent history of the Neo-Babylonian period and you might set yourself straight. But you won't do it. You are wasting everyone's time with your lack of interest in a decent scholarly approach.

There's nothing sneaky about using epigraphic sources. It's a necessity when doing history.

Nabonidus returned before the new year, celebrated the new year for the first time in many years, for only the king could do so, then was in the city for several months. Hanging on to the literal errors of Daniel means that you won't look at the actual history. (And understand, Daniel wasn't written to be a faithful history of the 6th century. That was never the intention.)

I'm glad you can count, but I said that there were four Greek instruments and there are four instruments with names transliterated from Greek. But you wouldn't understand this, would you? And why not check Liddell and Scott for some knowledge about those instruments?

Daniel doesn't mention Nabonidus, but history isn't your thing. Mention of Nebuchadnezzar in Judith must mean according to you implication that the book of Judith was also written in the same period. My mention of the name must mean that my work was written in the same period. No bfniii, it doesn't work that way.

No, not just the 70 weeks vision, but all four visions of the second part of Daniel, as they all refer to the same period. And there is nothing colourful about: it's fundamentally the scholarly analysis of the text. It's just that you don't know the scholarship.

I do note that you avoid looking at what I said about the visions, but that's only to be expected when you already know what the material means without ever having done the scholarship.

High priests were anointed. (Check for example Ex 28:41)

ngyd doesn't mean prince in the hereditary sense. It does mean ruler and the high priest certainly was a ruler. Just consider Yeshua son of Yehozedek, who was crowned in Zech 6:11. (This Yeshua incidentally is the anointed ruler of Dan 9:25.)

32ad is a false calculation to start with. Cyrus, who made the proclamation of the return, died in 530 BCE. 490 years (70 weeks of years) after that is 40 BCE. However, there is no reason to believe that the writer needed to be, or had the information to be, accurate in the literal sense, though he did need to be accurate in the final period, as the people were living in that period. Such figures as 490 years like 40 days and 40 nights are normal ballpark figures. You don't take them literally but as indicative.

In the context this statement and question from you came, it bears little meaning. Please reread the original context:

Note this was nothing to do with Daniel, but about modern readers who have difficulties understanding Daniel, because they don't know the historical (or purported) context.

Please get a more credible source for your linguistic information than Strongs. It makes you look like a linguistic know-nothing. You need a history of the Neo-Babylonian period as well, along with a good Seleucid history. And your performance regarding Daniel so far has been less than mediocre.


spin

spin

Incidentally, bfniii, how come Jeremiah can get the name Nebuchadrezzar right (eg 21:2,7), when Daniel couldn't? Same answer, Daniel wasn't written anywhere near the time you'd like it to have been, whereas Jeremiah more likely was.


spin

spin

Here's the fall of Babylon according to the Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings, p204, ANE, Pritchard, Princeton 1958:

In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Nabonidus) massacred the confused inhabitants. The fifteenth day, Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The sixteenth day, Gobryas (Ugbaru), the governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards, Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned (there). Till the end of the month, the shield(-carrying) Gutians were staying within Esagila (but) nobody carried arms in Esagila and its buildings. The correct time (for a ceremony) was not missed.

Note that the protagonists are Cyrus, Nabonidus and Ugbaru. The "crown prince" Belshazzar is inconsequential, as he was only acting for Nabonidus, so naturally not mentioned.

An inscription by Cyrus reads, "Without a battle [Marduk] made him (Cyrus) enter his town Babylon, sparing Babylon any calamity. He (Marduk) delivered into his (Cyrus's) hands Nabonidus, the king who did not worship him (Marduk)." (Pritchard p207.)

Again, no Belshazzar. But in both cases Nabonidus was in Babylon.


spin

bfniii

i must admit i am not seeing anything pop out at me. i am sorry that i'm not catching your point. there is mention of the chaldeans speaking in aramaic (presumably syriac) but that doesn't apply to daniel.

are you suggesting that neither one of us use someone else's translation?

why? have you never referenced someone else's work? we both have to be completely self taught?

for convenience, let's start with:

this

this

for starters, they are from two different locations, although both are at nearly the same point along the nile. the assouan papyri are slightly older. is there a reason we're pursuing this tangent? it doesn't seem relevant.

which doesn't mean it couldn't have happened at an earlier time.

while this may have been true on the whole, it certainly doesn't mean it didn't happen nor does it mean that nebuchadnezzar wasn't capable of such.

but what you haven't refuted is that the word could have been a title. at the alleged time, the word apparently meant lord which lends credence to the word being a title.

you even include the word "king" in your epigraphic source further lending support that he was referred to as king by at least someone, along with our knowledge that nabonidus left him in charge for a significant time. extra-biblical accounts that don't contradict the biblical account or specifically state that he wasn't called king doesn't mean someone didn't call him king. he was in charge of the land and a disinterested nabonidus was elsewhere.

not that the ancestral designation is suggesting such.

even if the younger of herodutus' "Labynetos" is nabonidus, that still makes belshazzar related to nebuchandezzar in a pertinent way.

i haven't seen an account that has belshazzar married to a daughter of nebuchadnezzar. herodotus has nitocris as the mother or grandmother of belshazzar.

since strong's is a concordance, i'm not sure why you accuse me of using it for translation.

it's funny that you suggest that study on my part is going to resolve belshazzar's relation to nebuchadnezzar, something that's been debated for quite some time.

not that any of this suggests that belshazzar wasn't referred to as king.

nabonidus returning does not necessarily mean he relieved belshazzar of his duties or demoted him.

great. so we seem to still be at the point that daniel mentions instruments that were in vogue during the 5th century bc.

this is all beside the point. you asked for something tangible. i pointed out that daniel mentions people who were around during that time (in addition to the other elements of the book that appear to be from that time).

i'm not sure how you arrived at your numbers but the messiah being cut off is 33ad.

they were. but that sure doesn't make onias the one daniel referred to.

clearly you are taking the critical position which is neither irrefutable nor without peer; those being the dispensational or traditional positions.

prior to that statement, you claimed the author knew little about the 6th century; so clearly i was taking the comments in context. since you criticize the book, i'm asking you what you are expecting the author to have written.

as i said, since stong's is not a translation but a concordance, this accusation doesn't seem to be pertinent.

you make this accusation without even bothering to find out what source(s) i'm using for translations.

you seem to be convinced that the critical position is irrefutable fact. if you're honest, then you'll not only accurately represent the disadvantages of that stance, but be willing to discuss them as i am discussing the dispensational/traditional view. somehow i don't see that happening. until more information is available, the critical position is not superior.