Sheshonq

That is not what Casper said. His options were (a) a prophetic book, or (b) a historical lesson, using characters from the past.

Josephus is hardly a representative of 2nd century Jewish thought, either at the religious level or the level of the everyday Jew. Given that he was born in AD 37/38, almost two centuries after Daniel was composed in the mid-160s BCE.

And as usual, you intentionally misrepresent the skeptic's argument.

At its core, the skeptic's argument is not an action, but a reaction - a reaction to christian fundies claiming that Daniel is accurate history. Without the fundies' original wild claims, the skeptics would ignore Daniel (as most of the modern world does). You confuse the victim with the accuser here.

I might also remind you that (a) a chunk of text from 1st century AD Josephus does not substantiate anything about 2nd century BCE Jewish viewpoints on Daniel.

ynquirer

Josephus’ paraphrase of the Tanakh in relation to the beginning of Daniel chapter 8:

He here translates B$W$N HBYRH into “in Susa, the metropolis,” that is, “the capital.”

This way of translating BYRH is consistent with his paraphrase of another verse (Nehemiah 1:1) that includes B$W$N HBYRH. Josephus writes

However, he changes the way of translating BYRH in relation to Ezra 6:2. Here the RSV renders

I first endorsed this translation because of consistence with Da 8:2 but, as I’ve learnt from Josephus, it’s probably wrong. Versions are wholesale translations, so to speak, and if one wants more precision on a particular spot a closer inspection seems advisable.

The LXX renders

This is difficult to understand because polis occurs twice in the same sentence and Ecbatana has disappeared. Actually, the name of the capital of the Medes does not occur just once in the LXX. The translators ignored it and instead rendered Aramaic B)XMT) = en polei, that is, “in a city.” Thus, the second occurrence of polis may be translated according to its more abstract meaning. An English translation of the Greek might be:

I wouldn’t have been able to have this translation done if I hadn’t previously read Josephus, who translates straightforwardly from the Aramaic:

Which William Whiston translates into:

“Tower” in substitution for either “palace” or “fortress” is a choice by William Whiston, the translator of Josephus. Mediai for tês Mêdôn poleôs, that is, “Media” for “the province of the Medes,” and biblion for kephalis, that is, “book” for “scroll” are minor changes by Josephus himself.

This proves that Josephus thought both metropolis (‘capital’) and baris (‘fortress’, ‘tower’, ‘palace’) to be Greek words equally apt to translate BYRH, the better choice depending on the context. However, twice he found BYRH together with ‘Susa’ he both chose metropolis.

Toto

Split for spin.

spin

[..shields down..]

I don't really understand why you wanted to turn your simple blunder into an extended blunder, refusing to look at the Hebrew (or Aramaic), but here you go again:


It would be good if you'd read the whole passage to know that Josephus wasn't translating in any literal sense, it was an epitome of the work and he mixes in materials both from Dan 8 and Dan 10 (eg 10:7) to produce a final form completely of his own making. Your claim, '[h]e here translates B$W$N HBYRH into “in Susa, the metropolis,” that is, “the capital”', is simply unfounded.

If he is translating anything it is the whole phrase from Dan 8:2

B$W$N HBYRH )$R B(YLM HMDYNH
In Susa's citadel which (is) in Elam's province

en Sousois en thi mhtropolei ths Persidos
In Susa in the metropolis of Persia

Note the use of the preposition to help you understand your error. Josephus doesn't translate BYRH at all. His Greek for B$W$N HBYRH is simply en Sousois and his Greek for B(YLM HMDYNH is en thi mhtropolei ths Persidos -- well you can't call the second part a translation at all really. As the preposition B- marks off the two segments of the Hebrew, Josephus has done the same with en, omitting BYRH in the first part and substituting his own material in the second, ie he's gone his own way, as he does with the following:

Josephus never translates B$W$N HBYRH. Of the ten occasions in Esther he never provides more than the name Susa. I've shown above that your claim about Josephus's use of Dan 8:2 doesn't stand. The last case, that of Nehemiah, is just the same. With pro ths mhtropolews twn perswn souswn, he merely provides extra information, that Susa was the metropolis of the Persians, as with the previous case and just as he calls Jerusalem a metropolis in the following sentence, 11.160. It's plain that mhtropolis has nothing to do with any of the Hebrew.

It would help you if you understood the fact that Josephus didn't use Ezra as his source but 1 Esdras. His version of Ezra 6:2 was actually very close to 1 Esdras 6:22:

1E: kai eureQh en ekbatanois th barei th en mhdia xwra tomos...

AJ: kai eureQh en ekbatanois thi barei thi en mhdiai biblion...

LE: kai eureQh en polei en th barei thês mhdwn polews kefalis...

Ez: WH$TKX B)XMT) BBYRT) DY BMDY MDYNTH MGLH

The only major difference between the first two is that Josephus left out xwra (and he used biblion instead of tomos for MGLH, ie "roll", as LXX Ezra used kefalis, cf. Ps 40:7). AJ is obviously closer to 1 Esdras. Whatever the case, it is clear that each translates the Aramaic BYRTH (= Heb. BYRH) as baris. 1 Esdras translates MDYNTH as xwra while LXX Ezra has "polis". And as you point out the translator of LXX Ezra didn't seem to understand Achmeta (ie Ecbatana), so substituted polis. Obviously LXX Ezra is just another of your red herrings, having nothing to do with Josephus who is dependent on 1 Esdras for all his Ezra material, not from canonical Ezra or its dependent LXX translation. And your dragooning of Josephus into your attempt not to understand BYRH is just as much a red herring. He is simply no sustenance for your folly.



BYRH means what it always means, "fortress". Look at Esther 3:15 which talks of a decree given by the king in the fortress of Susa B$W$N HBYRH. This was where the king lived and feasted, "but the city of Susa [H(YR $W$N] was perplexed." Clearly, the writer is distinguishing between the fortress and the city. Another decree is issued "in the fortress of Susa", 8:14, "and the city of Susa rejoiced", 8:15.

There is nothing particularly new in your post. It is merely an expanded repetition of the same blunder, one which is an effort to hang onto a poor translation from Dan 8:2 for a particularly ridiculous interpretation of Susa as the capital for "king" Belshazzar, when

1. Belshazzar was never a king;
2. Belshazzar, according to the Nabonidus Chronicle, stayed in the heartland of Babylon, Akkad; and
3. you have no historical evidence that the Babylonians at the time ever held Susa.

[..for the last time hopefully:..]

[..shields up..]


spin

squiz

I guess I must have missed out on some context here. Could someone please summarise for me what this argument is all about. ie. what are the implications of the meaning of this word.

spin

First check out this post, which makes the initial claim. It relies on the NRSV translation of Dan 8:2, which has "capital" for the Hebrew word BYRH. It is also a backdoor attempt to make Belshazzar a king of something... umm, Elam... well, half of Elam, seeing as the Persians at least had the other half, Anshan. If we forget about the fact that Belshazzar was the regent for Nabonidus in Babylon, the idea hangs on the translation of BYRH.


spin

spin

Excuse me, but there is a long running thread just for teaching arnoldo about Daniel. This thread was to keep things clear by separating the silliness about BYRH from the Daniel thread. There is no point in mixing the two again. Please take this stuff back to the arnoldo/Daniel thread.


spin

Amaleq13

So let it be written, so let it be done.