Larsguy47

Xerxes claimed he was his own son for political reasons. Of course, building inscriptions and other documents would have been created to reflect that. Which is why we are looking at bas-reliefs of artwork, the tombs at Naqshi-Rustam and the writing of Darius at Behistun. You can't go by the inscriptions claiming Xerxes was the father of Artaxerxes, since that is the issue in contention. Xerxes lied to save his life.

LG47

Sauron

I already know what a cupbearer does. Telling me what I already know (i.e., duties of a cupbearer) may buy you some time, but in the end it does will not save you, or your argument.

You claimed that Nehemiah was the cupbearer.

1. Your only source for that is the bible - that's a circular reference.
2. The person in the bas-relief is not carrying a cup anyhow.

Still your move.

spin

Xerxes claimed to be his own son. You've got such an awfully complex cover up to justify your ridiculous analysis. You mightn't see how hysterical it is, but most others can.



You can't go by inscriptions. You can't go by historical texts. You have to go by your unlearned opinions as to Persian iconography that you haven't shown anyone in the field supporting, because of your a priori commitments. Isn't that a red flag to you, Dave? It seems to be all presupposition to you and no evidence.


spin

Larsguy47

Go ahead, laugh. But the VAT4956 hides the true original dating for year 37 of Nebuchanezzar to 511BCE and the Bible's chronology requires the 1st of Cyrus to fall in 455BCE. That means the Persian Period is 82 years too long. I've found out where those extra years came from and it is seated in Xerxes claiming he was Artaxerxes. The bas-reliefs at Persepolis, as far as the art and architecture support only a 6-year for Darius, but of course, the inscriptions were changed to reflect the propaganda that Xerxes was a different king than Artaxerxes.

But the fact that you find this funny and can't understand it merely means you know little about historical revisionism. Go be my guest, laugh it up. You're in a dark room with no light switch.

LG47

3DJay

I don't have to disprove anything. You have to prove it is who you say it is. So far, you've only asserted. You've got no real evidence stating anything you've asserted. I've heard the Bible is written only for the "inside" croud. So, obviously, it can't be used as a source to prove anything to us, "outsiders". We won't understand it. You need another source.

1. Prove the person in the reliefs is the second most powerful person, in the Persian Empire. Instead of one of these...

Intaphrenes, Darius' bow carrier.

He was later killed, which left...

Gobryas, Darius' lance carrier.

Pharnaces, Darius' uncle and the treasurer of Darius.

Hystaspes, Darius's father.

Artabanus, Darius' younger brother.

Artabanus survived both his brother Darius I, and his nephew Xerxes, who he helped kill...

Artabanus


2. At least, prove your eunuch is the highest ranking eunuch.

Prove it's not the eunuch Bagapates, who helped Darius rise to the throne, and is said to have guarded his tomb, for seven years.

Prove it's not Xerxes' most trusted eunuch advisor, Hermotimus. Or, the most influential, Matacas, the eunuch general. Or, the eunuch chamberlain, Aspamitres, described above.

Prove it's not Artoxares, said to have been the highest ranking eunuch, under Artaxerxes I.

Prove yours is the highest ranking eunuch, and not any of the other highest ranking eunuchs. Match a relief with an inscription. Find some Persian text, saying so. Please give us something, besides a Bible, us "outsiders" can't comprehend.


Peace

spin

I suppose you're not interested in Persepolis treasury texts, one of which talks about Darius's 30th year. Others include 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th and 28th years of Darius's reign. (See JNES 1 [1942], pp.230-231.) Oh, then also include 66 tablets from the reign of Xerxes I and tablets from the first seven years of Artaxerxes I. Then there's the Persepolis fortification texts which are from the 13th to the 28th years of Darius's reign. (Vetus Testament 1992, Yamauchi, pp.272-275.) You can get a little Wiki info here: Persepolis_Fortification_Tablets.



There's not enough room in there for me. You and your crap take up all the space.



When you are not prepared to look at the evidence available before your blaze out into la-la-land, you never know where you end up and it certainly won't be of any use to anyone.


spin

3DJay

No. Occam's razor: Is the Bible wrong, or was there a giant conspiracy, between Persians, and Greek historians, that is still being supported by modern historians?

The Bible is wrong.

They reliefs don't support any such thing. You can't prove they're the exact same attendant. You can't prove they're even Hebrews. You can't prove their names. You can't prove they're the second most important person in Persia, instead of just a servant. You've got ziltch...nadda...nothing.

You don't even understand the word revisionism. Revisionism: Advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, especially a revision of historical events and movements.

You're the one doing it.


Peace

FatherMithras

This is his problem. As a priori, it can't be, so we get the delightful little leaps of logic we see here, coupled with the absurd "You have to disprove the negative" assertion. It's insanely unscholarly.

Sauron

Bumping this for Larsguy. Still waiting on you to fix the problems in this crippled, diseased argument of yours.

Larsguy47

I already explained this somewhere in the thread but to save time:

1. Mordecai in the Book of Esther who is a cryptic reference to Nehemiah, whose Babylonian name may have been Marduka, is said to have been second to Artaxerxes. That is consistent with the position of cupbearer.

2. Of course, he is Jewish, and even if you we didn't know specifically Jewish attire, we know specifically Persian and Mede-specific attire represented at Persepolis.

3. We have a positive ID of Artaxerxes with his cupbearer who is neither Mede nor Persian. Therefore the presumption is that he would be Nehemiah. That would also confirm the attire he wears would be the national Jewish-specific attire for Judea.

At this point, upon correct historical identification of Nehemiah, who indeed is seen second to Artaxerxes when there's a line up, the only issue is whether or not the person following Xerxes at the time Darius was ruling is the same person.


Compare with same attire and position following behind Xerxes during the rule of Darius I:



LG47