FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page Debunking Hitzig and historicity of Belschazzar
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 2 of 2 1 2
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-12-2008, 09:57 AM   #11
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
...
I'm afraid that you're having difficulty with your English, so I am having difficulty understanding you.

Are we saying that you have looked at the BAR issue, and found that the quote is not on p.74-5?

Are we saying that we have looked at Hitzig and verified whether he said this? (Is Hitzig online?)

Do you have the original thread? I don't recall any of this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
You can find the original thread here, from 2003.

If you go to the wikipedia site, the Hitzig book is online on Google Books-France, in German. The OP has apparently scanned it for key words there.
Toto is offline  
Old 09-12-2008, 01:53 PM   #12
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default
The Sheshbazzar-Jeffrey Gibson digression on the divine birth of Jesus has been split off here.

Please stay on topic.
Toto is offline  
Old 09-12-2008, 02:06 PM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
The Sheshbazzar-Jeffrey Gibson digression on the divine birth of Jesus has been split off here.

Please stay on topic.
In the interest of accuracy, it was Pat Cleaver who initiated the "digression".

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 09-13-2008, 05:57 AM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default
On p 74 of Hitzig's book we have (slightly modified)
Quote:
Der name Belshazzar dag. wird nur vom Buche Baruch noch bezeugt und steht unter dem Verdachte aus Belteshazzar erst geworden hebraisch abgewandelt derselbe Name Zu sein (s. zu 5:1) die Verss sammtlich halten vermuthlich mit Recht beide Namen fur identisch. Nabonidus scheint gesichert.
This seems to mean (heavily paraphrased) "the name Belshazzar is only found outside Daniel in Baruch and the name is suspiciously similar to Belteshazzar of which it is only a Hebrew modification. Nabonidus seems clearly correct."

From p 72 and p 77 Hitzig seems to hold that Belshazzar=Nabonidus and on p 74 that the name Belshazzar for Nabonidus was invented by the Jewish writer of Daniel. This is part of a discussion of how the name of Nabonidus was corrupted in various sources (eg to Labynetos in Herodotus).

This is wrong but not, at the time, unreasonable; ie Hitzig is not denying a historical Belshazzar but suggesting that the historical Belshazzar was really Nabonidus and that, like Herodotus changing this to Labynetos, the Hebrew tradition changed this to Belshazzar.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 09-13-2008, 08:12 AM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by patcleaver View Post
If I were to claim that Doug Shaver was the mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorist strike against the world trade center, then I would be lying
Not if you really believed it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patcleaver View Post
I would be lying because I have no reasonable evidence that its true.
I have checked several dictionaries. Not one of them provides any support for the notion that lack of evidence makes a statement a lie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patcleaver View Post
It is possible to innocently believe that you have good reason for a belief when you do not
Right. It's called being mistaken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patcleaver View Post
When fundamentalists make claims, when they should know that they have no reasonable evidence that they are true, then they are simply lying.
Evidence is irrelevant. If they believe it, then they are not lying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patcleaver View Post
When someone says something as though it were true, then they are warranting that they have reason to believe its true
Everybody has a reason for everything they believe, even if they cannot articulate it. Your opinion about the adequacy of someone's reasons does not constitute grounds for a moral judgment against them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patcleaver View Post
if they have no reason to believe that its true, then they are lying.
Their reasons do not convince you. That doesn't mean they don't believe what they say, and if they believe it, then they are not lying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patcleaver View Post
Why shouldn't we point out that someone is lying when they are lying?
I have no problem with doing just that. But before I call someone a liar, I need first to be convinced that they are aware of the falsity of what they say. Not that they should be aware, but that they are in fact aware.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 09-13-2008, 08:18 AM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Please stick to the topic of Hitzig and Belshassar
I'm sorry. I responded to Pat before seeing this post. I'll understand if you think the thread should be split.
Doug Shaver is offline  
 
Page 2 of 2 1 2

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:57 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.