Sheshonq

You have the burden of proof reversed. You're the one claiming he did exist. It's your job to show that is true.

The historical and archaeological evidence for his existence is zero. Not only that, but there is contradictory evidence that you'll have to explain away.

If that's your idea, then get busy trying to prove it. We aren't required to disprove a whole laundry list of your "what if" scenarios.

Sheshonq

Which doesn't matter. Did the Greeks write the bible? No. Did the Jews take their culture from teh Greeks? No - in point of fact, they hated the Greeks and avoided Hellenization.

Not at the time of the invasion of Babylon - no, they were not.

Wrong. The Medes were subjugated because they revolted against the Persians.

Interesting claim - where is your proof?

Very few did, actually. Only the upper class, the royalty, and those with skills that were valuable. The vast majority were never deported.

Which proves nothing.

"Only 85 years of age" :rolling: :rolling:

arnoldo

Yes, the Jews kept strict dietary laws and maintained good sanitary and living conditions (as required by the Torah) which helped them to remain healthy and live long lives. While Europeans were dying from the plague in the Dark Ages the Jewish communities stayed healthy.

Sheshonq

As to this particular charge, your source totally misses the historical problem. Here in a nutshell is the issue:

Jeremiah 25:1 says, that Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne in Babylon in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. How then is it possible, that according to the composer of this biographical sketch of Daniel, the King Nebuchadnezzar could already in the third year of Jehoiakim have besieged and taken Jerusalem?1


The problem here is busted chronology. If Nebuchadnezzar became king in the 4th year of Jehoiakim, then how could he have besieged and taken Jerusalem in Jehoiakim's 3rd year?

Instead of addressing this issue directly, arnoldo's source (Wilson) tries to create linguistic 'wiggle room' by hiding in the semantics of the word "king":

1. That one cannot truthfully refer to a man as king, unless he was reigning at the time referred to.
2. That a man related to a king may not have been called king for the sake of distinction or honor.
3. That the word for king as used by Daniel must have had the same meaning, the same connotation that we would assign to it to-day.


But the historical and archaeological problem is that we know from Babylonian sources that Nebuchadnezzar ascended the kingship in 604/603 BCE. Jerusalem was sacked and Jehoiakim captured in 598/597. No amount of linguistic wiggle room can give Nebuchadnezzar a time machine to go back in history and sack Jerusalem a year before (598/597) he became king (604/603). Additionally, it was more than just a year between his kingship and the sack of Jerusalem: it was 6 to 7 years.

It's just bad chronology and bad history all the way around. But arnoldo's source misses the thrust of the objection, preferring to root around in the minutiae of linguistics and ignore the larger elephant in the room.

Sheshonq

Ah. So that is your 'escape hatch' here?

Is there anything you won't fabricate out of thin air?
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Wrong. They were dying just like the rest of Europe.

arnoldo

So you are denying that Jews keep strict dietary and sanitary laws which help them to stay healthy?

Sheshonq

And again you can't even be trusted to understand your source. Here are the facts:

1. Your claim was "While Europeans were dying from the plague in the Dark Ages the Jewish communities stayed healthy."

2. What your source says, however, is that the Jews WERE dying from the Black Plague, albeit at a lower rate. In other words, your claim ("stayed healthy") is bullshit. They were still dying from the disease.

3. Your source is making an assumption that a lower Jewish mortality rate was due to dietary laws. It might have been. However, it's just as likely that the lower Jewish mortality was due to being segregated into their own neighborhoods and away from the majority Christian population; a point made here.

4. Finally, chronicles of the time indicate the Jews suffered as much as the Christians did:

Though the Jews appear to have suffered quite as much as their Christian neighbors (Höniger, "Der Schwarze Tod in Deutschland," 1882; Häser, "Lehrbuch der Gesch. der Medizin," iii. 156), a myth arose, especially in Germany, that the spread of the disease was due to a plot of the Jews to destroy Christians by poisoning the wells from which they obtained water for drinking purposes.

arnoldo, arnoldo, arnoldo......
Debating your lame ideas is like shooting fish in a barrel....

arnoldo

You still have no reason to believe that Daniel could not live to be 85 years old which was your lame argument.

Sheshonq

No, it was your source's lame argument that Daniel could have been "only 85 years old" and done all the things claimed by the author(s) of Daniel.

In other words, your source is having trouble shoe-horning (a) a historical record of a Belshazzar and force-fitting it onto (b) the bible myth about Daniel. That's why he's trying to downplay the mismatch in the chronological timeframes by saying "only 85 years old".

ynquirer

Herodotus.

Anachronic. The closer the source to Daniel the better.

The words ‘Persian’ and ‘Persians’ occur 666 times in Herodotus’ Histories, while ‘Median’, ‘Mede’ and ‘Medes’ do 129. In many contexts they are interchangeable, as in the following instances:

The Athenian generals were of divided opinion, some advocating not fighting because they were too few to attack the army of the Medes; others, including Miltiades, advocating fighting.
[Bk.6, Ch.109, Sect.1, in reference to the eve of Marathon.]

… up to then just hearing the name of the Medes caused the Hellenes to panic. [Bk.6, Ch.112, Sect.3, in reference to the aftermath of Marathon.]

He found the army yet undivided in Thessaly, came into Xerxes' presence, and spoke as follows: “The Lacedaemonians and the Heraclidae of Sparta demand of you, king of the Medes, that you pay the penalty for the death of their king, whom you killed while he defended Hellas. [Bk.9, Ch.114, Sect.1, in reference to Leonid’s death in Thermopiles.]

The first quotation is especially revealing: “… just hearing the name of the Medes…” Not the name of the Persians, but of the Medes. It is clear indication that up to the First Persian War, the Persian army was known by the name of ‘the Medes’. And that this usage endured, at least time and again, until the Second Persian War, as shown in the last quotation.

The overall ratio in Herodutus’ Histories of ‘Persian’+’Persians’ to ‘Mede’+‘Medes’+‘Median’ occurrences is 5 to 1 - a little better than Google’s 30 to 1.

If one focuses on the last four books (Books 6 to 9), which narrate the Persian Wars themselves, the ratio reaches 4 to 1. In books 6 and 7, which depict the campaigns of Marathon and Thermopiles, the ratio peaks 2 to 1. This quite strongly suggests that during the First Persian War and the first part of the Second, ‘Medes’ was a common name for the Iranian invaders, a synonym for ‘Persians‘. In all likelihood, books 6 and 7 were the first to be written as a chronicle of what had recently happened. After the battles of Salamis and Plataea the Greeks learnt to distinguish between Persians and Medes - as we do - and the name became increasingly old fashioned, being used less frequently (ratio 8 to 1 in books 8 and 9). Occasion for that learning was realization that the Medes were “not such stout fighters” as the Persians. (Bk.8, Ch.113, Sect.3.)

If this analysis is correct, there is evidence in Herodotus and the Book of Daniel that during the rule of King Darius I the nation he ruled was called ‘the Medes’, and that this usage endured until the crushing defeats suffered by King Xerxes in Greece. This would tie up provided that Daniel was written under Darius’ rule, possibly in the mid-to-late 6th cent. BC.