Julian

Xenophon was "compliant with Persian influence"...?!?!?! That is one of the funniest things I have read all day. One of the paragons of Greece who fought and killed Persians...?! Riiiight...

Julian

Larsguy47

Whether the Wikipedia is representing the truth or not is the issue. Is their statement about Babylonian practice in dating incorrect or not? Obviously you don't know, otherwise you'd provide a reference. The Wikipedia is correct about Babylonian dating, which you'd know if you studied Babylonian astronomical texts.

The Babylonian Chronicle was "copied" in the 22nd year of "Darius" it is not contemporary. The writing style of both the Nabonidus Chronicle and Cyrus Clyinder make them datable to the late Persian Period, and thus they are automaticallyc excused as effective references when challenged because they are not CONTEMPORARY documents. When a "copy" of a clay tablet or clay cylinder is made, most of the time it's to make a revision. This is quite clear in this case.

Ktesias disagrees here. And so does the Bible. But be my guest, you can be as incorrect as you wish. Bothers me not.

LG47

Larsguy47

Herodotus and Xenophon wrote the history of CYRUS? Why were these Greek icons of this chronology so into Persian history? Thucydides wasn't, so he's considered more reliable.

Herodotus was called the "Father of History" and the "father of LIES." I wonder why.

Darius, the Great recorded the history of his first 3 years on a sheer cliff face at Bisitun, in three languages. I wonder if he was afraid of the ease of "revisionism" of the times?

The histories have to stand for themselves behind the historians. Of course, I realize the concept of "revisionism" slips past some.

LG47

Sauron

Yes, I'm afraid it is the issue. Nobody gets to use bad sources.

1. The wikipedia source doesn't mention dating. It mentions a legendary family relationship.

2. If you knew how to read for context, you'd see that I already provided a source (Britannica) that pointed out that the family relationship was not historical, but legendary.

Keep shooting yourself in the foot, Walmart Messiah.

1. The Wikipedia entry repeats a legend.

2. You still haven't plugged the holes in your fantasy dating techniques, so you until you do they are nothing but regurgitated nonsense.

And as I just demonstrated, Ktesias is a totally unreliable source. The disagreement of an unreliable source is meaningless.

Yes, and the bible gets many historical claims incorrect, no newsflash there.

I'm 100% correct here - you just can't bring yourself to admit that none of your homemade crackpot theories could stand up to scrutiny.

Sauron

Still waiting for you to produce a modern scholar of this material who is attacking Herodotus and Xenophon based upon revisionism and excessive Persian influence.

Are you planning on providing that scholar's name anytime soon, poptart? Or is this just another long, drawn-out thread where you exercise your dodge and duck technique?

Larsguy47

The dating you use is the revised chronology. Plato was 25 years old when the PPW began, it is well-known he was consulted to try to stop the plague. The correction would make Ari 19 when Socrates dies in 366BCE. Deal with it.

LG47

Sauron

"Deal with it"?

My, such Interesting advice from a self-proclaimed messiah who refuses to acknowledge that zero evidence exists for the Exodus.

Julian

1) I didn't comment on Herodotus.
2) I didn't comment on revisionism.

You do understand that the Cyrus whom Xenophon fights for was Cyrus the Younger, NOT the famous Cyrus, right? Yes, I know Xenophon wrote the Cyropaedia, more on that later.

You do understand that Cyrus was heavily involved in Greek affairs, right?

You do understand that the Peloponnesian War was over and there were lots of soldiers ready to fight so they stepped one realm to right and picked up their old trade, right?

The answer to your question as to why Xenophon was so into Persian history is an obvious one, but I will give you two answers.

1) Xenophon wasn't into Persian history.
2) Xenophon was into Xenophon and wrote about his exploits, some of which happened to take place in Persia. While the Cyropaedia relates to Persia one cannot argue that Anabasis does since the Persian element is incidental. He did write a great number of other works which have nothing to do with Persia.

While I can appreciate the sheer entertainment value you bring to IIDB I am beginning to wonder if you have some sort of embarrassment threshold. Surely, you do not think that anyone here, having the ability to read and think (for the most part), are at all swayed by any of your other-worldly explanations?

Julian

Larsguy47

NOW, you're getting some where! Part of the reason is because they don't know about it, and part of the reason is because the current information out there, such as the translation of the VAT4956 by Sachs/Hunger provides false information. They misrepresent what's in the text. And "experts" are busy in their own fields so simply rely on some other "experts" in a chosen field for their input.

Secondly, many scholars only make biased comparisons. For instance Israel Finkelstein is an archaeologist who reports on the dating evidence from the Iron Age during the Solomonic Period, but then he compares it to just one timeline, when there are several timelines under consideration, particularly Biblical timeline lines. So the bias continues.

Finally, these are specialized topics that people generally don't know about and the experts in the field have died, such as Robert Newton who blasted Ptolemy's amalgast and Otto Neugebauer who did most of the astronomy research from the Seleucid Period texts. It was his opinion that there was no way Thales could have predicted a solar eclipse. But I've proven otherwise!

But of course, here is that IMPOSSIBLE cycle Neugebauer doesn't know about:



DO YOU SEE the consistency of these eclipses? They occur every 54 years and 1 month apart (exeligmos cycle). In any given area three major eclipses occur. The total eclipse location can be used to predict the location of the next in the series. This is how the Thales eclipse was predicted.

Only how slow academic review in the area of chronology for this period is.

NOW, since you brought it up. I've shown you how a solar eclipse can be predicted. Question is, do you UNDERSTAND how this works? And if so, do you realize the "expert" opinion in the field is outdated and needs to be updated?

I contacted the British Museum myself and reported on the "errors" in the VAT4956 published by Sachs/Hunger and all they told me was "He who writes no books, make no errors." They could care less about calling Hunger on the carpet to correct this.

So no WONDER the academics trail behind the facts.

HA!!! Which part of the history? The VAT4956 double-dating in a single text forces the redating of year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511BCE. I need only tell you the lines where the 511BCE references are: They are Line 3 and Line 14. That's all that's needed to dismiss the Babylonian astronomical texts dating this period otherwise, particularly to 568BCE. Once 511BCE for year 37 is established for Nebuchadnezzar, you can redate everything according to this realignment, including Shishak's invasion which works out much better in 871BCE than 925BCE. As you well know, the RC14 dating for Level City IV at Rehov, associated with the Solomonic level at Megiddo confirms a higher probability for dates falling between 918-823BCE for that event. 925 BCE is outside that range.

So if you want to ignore RC14 dating and the VAT4956 redating, go ahead.

Oh, by the way, 763BCE eclipse would normally be month 2, not month three:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/760s_BC

"June 15, 763 BC - A solar eclipse at this date (in month Sivan) is used to fix the chronology of the Ancient Near East. However, it should be noted that it requires Nisan 1 to fall on March 20, 763 BC, which was 8 to 9 days before the vernal equinox (March 28/29 at that time) and Babylonians never started their calendar year before the spring equinox. Main article: Assyrian eclipse"

And oh yeah, Plato was 25 when the PPW war began. Right now history shows him being consulted in 431BCE when he wasn't born until 428 BCE.
Oh yeah. I just should accept that people can be consulted 3 years before they are born and leave it at that like the rest of the world.

Dream on...

Riiiight!

Sauron

Damn you, Hex.

You gave him an opportunity to trot out the charts and busted chronologies again.:devil: