Sheshonq

An interesting, claim (red above). Got proof? Especially since:

1. a sampling of the translators' introductions to these versions shows that they do not, in fact, rely on the KJV but instead go back to the mss. copies and work forward from them?

2. And probably the most obvious heir to the KJV -- the NKJV, where one would expect it to slavishly follow its predecessor -- that version does *not* translate it as "capital", preferring citadel instead?

I would say that your above claim of dependency on the KJV is just another self-serving, unsupported claim that you've tossed into the discussion, hoping to avoid the burden of proving it. How naive.

1. Capital? What capital? You haven't shown it was a capital yet, instead of a citadel.

2. Moreover, the majority of translations do not translate Dan 8 as as "Ulai river", but "Ulai canal". Were you planning to address that issue?

Wrong. The implication is that Belshazzar reigned after both Cyrus AND Cambyses II, who was the actual one to move the capital to Susa - remember?

That puts your hypothetical Belshazzar two rulers - probably THREE rulers, after where Daniel places him.

DAN 5:30 In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.
DAN 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

This makes the reference to Belshazzar in Daniel's story about the fall of Babylon even more laughable.

Except there's no evidence for any of this, and a mountain of unanswered problems that stand in the way of it. Not only that, but it flatly contradicts the picture and the timing of conquest events that are presented in Daniel.

Again I ask: would honest, objective scholars go to such lengths as you have done, to explain away a contradiction in any other ancient text? Or would they just accept it and move on? I think everyone knows the answer. I also think everyone recognizes that your agenda has totally clouded your judgment. :rolling:

spin

[* shields down *]


Perhaps you'd like to think about where the late Greek baris = "fortress" came from, checking all the examples given in Liddell & Scott.

Missing the point. BYRH doesn't mean "temple": the temple was a fortress (as demonstrated in the struggle with Pompey).

Yet as usual you don't demonstrate your claim.

Besides the quibbling, there's little wrong here. You have to accept that BYRH is no help to you here. In fact, you've got no Hebrew or Aramaic support for your claim about BYRH at all.

Interestingly not one of the Esther references to B$W$N HBYRH is translated as you would like it in Josephus. That's why you omit the fact. Josephus is obviously not translating B$W$N HBYRH as en thi Sousois thi mhtropolis. He's supplying extra information in your examples.

You'd be better off looking at the LXX of Esther, which uses things like en sousois th polei (2:5), though 9:18 does use en sousois th polei when the Hebrew only has B$W$N and 9:11 uses en sousois for B$W$N H:BYRH. However, the LXX of Esther is obviously late and unavailable to Josephus, who had to do his best alone and thus doesn't support the LXX. The Esther data here is incoherent.

The strange thing is that the earliest attempt at the Greek for BYRH was simple transliteration, Neh 1:1 gives abira for H:BYRH, (Neh 2:8 omits it,) and Neh 7:2 provides bira. This translator didn't have the benefit of knowing how BYRH should be translated.

And this is the poorest effort of all. Looking at the Aramaic of Ezra,

B:)XMT) B:BYRT) DY B:MDI MDYNTH

as expected baris is a translation of BYRT), ie in English "palace" (and polews kefalis is an attempt at MDYNTH). It should be obvious that "capital" is simply inappropriate. It is MDYNT, which is usually translated as "province" in English, that provides you with the word you want to have as "capital", not BYRT). And you should be aware that you indeed accept BYRH, given your preferred translation, as "palace".

The same problem exists in your attempt to deal with Dan 8:2.

B:$W$N H:BYRH )$R B:(YLM H:MDYNH

Yup, the fortress BYRH of Susa in the province MDYNH of Elam.

As I don't usually read your posts, I didn't know why you were trying to confuse BYRH with "capital", but it was misguided from the get-go. It should be obvious to you from the Hebrew and Aramaic examples that BYRH means "fortress" and hence the more colorful but less helpful "palace" and other less appropriate variants (as towns spring up around fortresses).

Now perhaps you'd like to change your story and argue that MDYNH means "capital", but you might look through the biblical examples of MDYNH and think again. Nevertheless, neither Dan 8:2 nor Ezra 6:2 is any help to your attempt at placing Belshazzar in a capital of his own. This is not only linguistically unjustified but a rather misguided idea, considering that Belshazzar the son of the king was acting as viceroy in Babylon while Nabonidus remained in Teima. ("The king stayed in Temâ; the crown prince, his officials and his army were in Akkad." -- Nabonidus Chronicle from the chronicle's 7th year onward.)



So, sorry for the interruption. I didn't expect you would deal with the Hebrew or Aramaic, so please carry on once again -- without my participation. Have fun.

[* shields up *]


spin

ynquirer

spin

You’ve have pathetically failed to prove that BYRH must be translated into ‘fortress’ or ‘palace’. In 1 Ch 29:1, 19, in particular, it may not reasonably translated but into ‘temple’. In a number of verses in LXX Esther it is rendered polis, that is, ‘city’. Far from being “anachronous,” as you say, the RSV’s and my own meaning of ‘capital’ is conveyed by Josephus’ metropolis and LXX polews kefalis.

All in all, it’s no use discussing with you. Lack of interest is reciprocal. Keep shields up, yeah. Nice flight.

:boohoo:

Sheshonq

Apparently 10 out of 12 translations disagree with you.

spin

I wouldn't bother with this one. He can't even see when he's been pwned.



Maybe he should try for "baris in the polis kefalis of Elam" in Dan 8. But he won't get the point. He didn't the first time.




spin

ynquirer

You could add to those two the following six also mentioning “the capital“ or related words:

Sheshonq

1. You're stretching the truth again. Of the six you listed, only four actually use the term "capital".

* The notation for the Amplified Bible is not part of the translation, it is an explanatory note - which is why it appears in brackets;
* The Contemporary English version does not say "capital"; it says "chief city"; there is a difference, contrast NYC vs. Wash DC;

2. With the exception of the RSV, the remaining versions you selected (New Century Version, The Message, Easy to Read Version) are lesser-known works, and are not strictly translations but dumbed-down paraphrases that purport to make the text easier or more understandable for 21st century people.

3. These same versions also reiterate the problem you've ignored twice now: not Ulai River, but Ulai canal.

spin

And you're wasting your time again. Your man has no argument. He's wrong about BYRH. Unwittingly, he's supplying a Greek translation not for BYRH ("fortress") but for MDYNH ("province") as his source for polews kefalis. The Greek is clearly wrong and he is apparently aware of this.

Fiddling with what translations have made of BYRH in Dan 8 doesn't get either of you closer to the Hebrew which is relatively straightforward.


spin

ynquirer

Please flog your straw man elsewhere, sir.

Not the way you'd wish. You're just ignoring Josephus - which is not surprising, as seen from your lack of original sources and relying in empty tit-for-tat remarks.

Sheshonq

1. The most authoritative translations seem to think so.

2. By the way - do you ever plan to address Dan 5:30 and 5:31?

* No mention of Cyrus II, the actual conqueror of Babylon;
* No mention of Cambyses II, who ruled after Cyrus;
* No mention of the almost two decades that intervened between (a) the fall of the Chaldeans and (b) the reign of Darius I (539 to 522);
* No "Darius the Mede" in any case;
* No conquest, no uprisings by spurious "Nebuchadnezzars", no revolt in Babylon against the Persians, no protracted military engagement to re-take Babylon - NOTHING

Dan 5:30 slides right into 5:31 and misses all these things.

Are you leaking air?

No, that's your distraction, it's not the problem though.

Rolling back to the top of the stack here - the problem is that you originally claimed that Daniel contained precise geographic location about the Battle of Ulai. Let me refresh your memory:

Historians have since long known that the battle of Ulai was fought somewhere in Elam, but it is Daniel that gives a precise location for it.

What you need to do is explain that statement in light of the fact that:

(a) it isn't clear whether a river or canal is meant here;
(b) the identification of which body of water is "Ulai" is not even agreed upon;
(c) the reference in Dan 8 doesn't mention a battle;
(d) the historical event (Battle of Ulai) was already known by that name and connected to the river - therefore, how did the Daniel reference create any more precision in the location than what already existed with the name of the battle already;