Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 10-31-2003, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roger Pearse
[B]Thank you for the link.

NB: The chap was called Ferdinand HITZIG; i.e. Hitzig was his surname.

Today is NOT my day.

Maybe the quote is made up....but a Fundy whackjob gives the cite from a BAR article which in turn is citing Hitzig in a debate with Till

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../2/992dan.html

"Nebuchadnezzar had, of course, ruled over Babylon, but Belshazzar's name was nowhere to be found outside the Biblical text. The Greek chroniclers who had preserved lists of ancient kings identified Nabonidus, a successor to Nebuchadnezzar, as the last native ruler of Babylon; Belshazzar was not even mentioned. Belshazzar, declared one commentator named Ferdinand Hitzig in 1850, was "obviously a figment of the Jewish writer's imagination" (Ferdinand Hitzig, Das Buch Daniel, Leipzig: Weidman, 1850, p. 75, as quoted by Millard, "Daniel and Belshazzar in History," Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1985, pp. 74-75)."

Was the Cyropedia found after this?

Steven Carr · 10-31-2003, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Maybe the quote is made up....but a Fundy whackjob gives the cite from a BAR article which in turn is citing Hitzig in a debate with Till

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../2/992dan.html

"Nebuchadnezzar had, of course, ruled over Babylon, but Belshazzar's name was nowhere to be found outside the Biblical text. The Greek chroniclers who had preserved lists of ancient kings identified Nabonidus, a successor to Nebuchadnezzar, as the last native ruler of Babylon; Belshazzar was not even mentioned. Belshazzar, declared one commentator named Ferdinand Hitzig in 1850, was "obviously a figment of the Jewish writer's imagination" (Ferdinand Hitzig, Das Buch Daniel, Leipzig: Weidman, 1850, p. 75, as quoted by Millard, "Daniel and Belshazzar in History," Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1985, pp. 74-75)."

But this doesn't mean that HITZIG was claiming Belshazzar's name was nowhere to be found outside the Biblical text. That the name was missing outside the Bible is a fundy myth. Hitzig probably knew Belshazzar was named elsewhere (in at least 2 places I know of)

And the fundy quote of Hitzig misses off what Larmore quoted that Belshazzar, AS KING, was a figment.

Of course, we only have fundy quotes of half a sentence of what a Biblical critic supposedly wrote, so it is a pretty good guess that they are chopping it out of context, or else why would they not quote the whole sentence?

Jim Larmore · 10-31-2003, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr
I do if what I am quoting sounds weird. (Quoting Grannt Jeffery is always weird :-)
1850 (!) Roll on the floor laughing.

Weird is a relative word. I didn't consider Grant Jeffrey weird and I dare say there are a lot of people who would agree with me. I don't embrace his beliefs in the Bible codes and some other issues but I had thought his research on archeological findings was valid. Grant is in an adversarial relationship with all Biblical critics ( I'm just now finding this out) and I think this is unfortunate. Critical thinking is great as long as it is fair and honest, but like many things fairness and honesty often is sacrificed to gain an advantage in debate or what ever as long as it serves the agenda embraced.

I know 1850 is a stretch. I used it to show how things were and even would be today if archeological evidence hadn't proved otherwise. Besides you had basically called me a liar and that my claims were not backed up with supportive evidence. Well, the support was there and it was a critic even if it was back in 1850.

As far as Nebuchshadnezzar not being Bellshazzar's father, I will continue to believe what the book of Daniel wrote until I prove otherwise. I think he was a grand son or in some way linked to the royal line or Daniel wouldn't have said it.

Roger Pearse · 10-31-2003, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Today is NOT my day. ...

"Nebuchadnezzar had, of course, ruled over Babylon, but Belshazzar's name was nowhere to be found outside the Biblical text. The Greek chroniclers who had preserved lists of ancient kings identified Nabonidus, a successor to Nebuchadnezzar, as the last native ruler of Babylon; Belshazzar was not even mentioned. Belshazzar, declared one commentator named Ferdinand Hitzig in 1850, was "obviously a figment of the Jewish writer's imagination" (Ferdinand Hitzig, Das Buch Daniel, Leipzig: Weidman, 1850, p. 75, as quoted by Millard, "Daniel and Belshazzar in History," Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1985, pp. 74-75)."

Was the Cyropedia found after this?

I do not think so, although information about the recovery of Greek texts is not as readily available as I would like (and have tried to do something about).

Does Xenophon, Cyropaedia ('Education of Cyrus'), contain the *name* of Belshazzar? I found the account of the fall of Babylon in book 7, ch. 5, verse 15, if that helps.

While looking, I saw vague references to the name turning up in a cuneiform tablet with Nabonidus in 1924.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Carr · 10-31-2003, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Larmore

I know 1850 is a stretch. I used it to show how things were and even would be today if archeological evidence hadn't proved otherwise. Besides you had basically called me a liar and that my claims were not backed up with supportive evidence. Well, the support was there and it was a critic even if it was back in 1850.

I was talking about Pilate, and so far you have not come up with a single sceptic, let alone your original claim that sceptics still maintained this up to 1961.

And you have failed to come up with a reference to Hitzig saying that Belshazzar was a figment. As far as I can see, Hitzig was claiming that Belshazzar being called king was a figment (Belshazzar's title was crown prince)

As yoo so rightly point out, we should look at the archaeological evidence , which says he was a prince and never calls him a king.

Quote:

As far as Nebuchshadnezzar not being Bellshazzar's father, I will continue to believe what the book of Daniel wrote until I prove otherwise. I think he was a grand son or in some way linked to the royal line or Daniel wouldn't have said it.

Daniel said he was the son of Nebuchadnezzar, many, many times.

He was actually the son of a usurper , Nabonidus, as proved by the documents you referenced, and there is no evidence he was related to Nebuchadnezzar at all.

I see you abandon archaeological evidence when it goes against you, and revert to saying 'The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.'

Now about Darius the Mede......

Steven Carr · 10-31-2003, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roger Pearse

Does Xenophon, Cyropaedia ('Education of Cyrus'), contain the *name* of Belshazzar? I found the account of the fall of Babylon in book 7, ch. 5, verse 15, if that helps.

If I remember rightly, no.

But he is mentioned in the Book of Baruch and Josephus, and the fundy claim is that the named only appeared in the Bible.

Toto · 10-31-2003, 09:36 AM

Hitzig and the racial theories that were the basis of anti-semitism

Quote:

Basically the Aryan Race is identified as a particular ethnological group who supposedly lived long ago on the Iranian Plateau of southern Asia. These advanced peoples, who are related to an Indo-Germanic division of an older Indo-Iranian group, later branched out and migrated throughout Europe. According to this line of thinking the descendants of this Aryan race started with the lost "Arctic" civilization of Blavatsky, who were probably survived by the Philistines of the Bible. Because they were a "seafaring people" and their origins are never fully expressed in the Bible [7] the Philistines held a great fascination for the Germans. Ferdinand Hitzig, a German biblical scholar set forth the idea that the Philistines were a group of Indo-Aryan seafaring people who settled on the coast of Canaan [8] and migrated outward from there. Traditionally, the Philistines were seen as the invaders of Canaan, who came from Crete or other Greek islands. They also had one remarkable trait, they were giants. Goliath, the giant in the Bible, was a Philistine, therefore the Gods of Viking mythology were also seen to be related to the Philistines. Clearly the Germanic people saw the descendants of the Philistines as the ancestors of the Vikings and so, linking themselves to the Aryan race was easy. But, who were the Aryans? Some believe they were related to the Anunnaki.

But Hitzig himself is quoted as saying:

Quote:

With such a volume in hand, the reader is all the better prepared to hear the often cited advice that Ferdinand Hitzig gave to his students, "Gentlemen, have you a Septuagint? If not, sell all you have, and buy a Septuagint"

Steven Carr · 10-31-2003, 11:43 AM

I doubt Hitzig was an atheist

Toto · 10-31-2003, 12:32 PM

Hitzig was a 19th century German theologian and scholar, of the sort who might as well have been atheists to some Christians because they planted the seeds of doubt as to the accuracy of scripture.

From the Enc. Britannica of 1911

Quote:

As a Hebrew philologist he holds high rank; and as a constructive critic he is remarkable for acuteness and sagacity. As a historian, however, some of his speculations have been considered fanciful. He places the cradle of the Israelites in the south of Arabia, and, like many other critics, makes the historical times begin only with Moses (F. Lichtenberger, History of German Theology, p. 569).

But there is no evidence that he considered Pilate a myth.

Toto · 10-31-2003, 12:55 PM

And getting back to Pilate, we have this Bible History site which can't get the story straight:

Quote:

It wasn't long ago when many scholars were questioning the actual existence of a Roman Governor with the name Pontius Pilate, the procurator who ordered Jesus' crucifixion.
. . .

The only information regarding Pontius Pilate is the New Testament and two Jewish writers: Josephus and Philo of Alexandria. By far our greatest amount of information comes from the Jewish writer Flavius Josephus . . . .

Tacitus, when speaking of the cruel punishments inflicted by Nero upon the Christians, tells us that Christ, from whom the name "Christian" was derived, was put to death when Tiberius was emperor by the procurator Pontius Pilate (Annals xv.44). Apart from this reference and what is told us in the New Testament, all our knowledge of him is derived from two Jewish writers, Josephus the historian and Philo of Alexandria.

So apparently "many scholars" "not long ago" doubted the existence of a man who was described in detail in the standard Jewish history of the day, also described by another Jewish writer who did not mention Jesus, and mentioned by a pagan historian.

This source ends with:

Quote:

The Evidence of Archaeology

The evidence of archaeology helps to give us:

Confidence that the places and people mentioned in the Bible are accurate, even though those places and people existed thousands of years in the past.
Confidence that the details of the Biblical accounts have not changed over the centuries since it was written as we have a "fixed fact" in history.
Confidence that everything that the Lord speaks will be fulfilled in its time.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-31-2003, 11:43 AM	#38
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	I doubt Hitzig was an atheist

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.