Sheshonq

In point of fact, nothing is known for sure about Cyrus II's early years. What you (and your site) are repeating is part of a body of stories called the Cyrus Legend. Britannica:

The unreliability of the story about Cyrus' mother being Median is likewise confirmed here:

Not that any of it matters. Even if Cyrus were half-Median, Babylon was still conquered by Persians. Capturing a city or creating an empire is an act of a state; a political power representing a people. But Media no longer existed as a political power having been subjugated by the Persians years before. So in this case, the conquering power is Persia, not Media.

Not that your example makes sense anyhow. The royal house of England (Windors) are actually of German descent; they are, however, British.

Edited to add: arnoldo, are you getting the feeling yet that the skeptics are way ahead of you? That they can respond to your flurry of (unread) citations a lot faster than you thought they would be able to? Maybe that should tell you something. Like, oh, we've heard all this shit before and have already researched it and discovered that it fails?

spin

Doh! So now you're going to champion the matrilineal cause.




spin

spin

Which part of the linguistics here do you claim is bogus? Do you doubt that Gobryas is a Greek form, while Gubaru is an Akkadian form? Do you doubt that Ugbaru is a variant form of the Akkadian Gubaru? Did you think before opening your mouth? Apparently not. Apparently you didn't read the full post. Apparently you went off half-cocked as usual, just as apparently clueless of what you are talking about.


spin

arnoldo

The Encyclopedia Iranica:

It is probable that Cyrus had then adopted the titles of the Median rulers. . and patterned his court after that of the Medes.

ynquirer

Good point.

ynquirer

Daniel carefully mentions certain events because he wishes to date the different dreams. He is obviously addressing someone who does not need to be told the full story in the chronological sequence - because he knows it too well - but in the order most apt to convey the message.

Pointing at alleged mistakes is tantamount to begging the relevant question. And the relevant question to understand Daniel’s order is, Who is the addressee and what is the message?

By the way, my LXX Da 6:29 says:

και Δανιηλ κατευθυνεν εν τη βασιλεια Δαρειου και εν τη
βασιλεια Κυρου του περσου

Which does not translate into what you say.

mens_sana

Ah, I see. It is an ordered account, except for when it is not an ordered account. Why are you supporting any kind of order at all if conveying the message is the most important factor?

However, you still have not dealt with the fact that Daniel dates by means of regnal years — and those regnal years (and the previously mentioned cuneiform tablets) — establish a royal succession that has no room for a Darius the Mede.

ynquirer

A special order, that is, an order other than chronological is simply what other users have suggested in this same thread. Therefore, one may use the argument in support of a second-century but not a sixth-century dating. Double yardstick?

That “Darius the Mede” is the father of Xerxes, whom at least twice the Spartan ambassadors called ‘king of the Medes’ - according to Herodotus. What’s the problem with him in cuneiform tablets?

And you have not yet told me where you got your XXL Da 6:29 from.

Sheshonq

Not really. The Persians had no court protocols. Realizing their need, they borrowed the Median forms. Opportunistic theft of 'intellectual property' from the group of people you just finished conquering is hardly novel or noteworthy. In fact this opportunistic borrowing (i.e, stealing whatever works) is one of the points of genius of the Achamaenid Persian Empire. Britannica:

The culture that developed under the Achaemenids was in reality the collective societies and cultures of the many subject peoples of the empire. From this mosaic it is sometimes difficult to sort out that which is distinctively Persian or distinctively a development of the Achaemenian period and therefore perhaps an early Iranian contribution to general Middle Eastern society and culture.


When Cyrus II rolled into Babylon, he took the hand of Marduk (the chief Babylonian god) in a ritual practice, signaling his intention to rule not as a Persian king, but as a Babylonian king. The Persians also did not insist on primacy of Persian language; the written languages were Persian, Babylonian, and Elamite, as on the Behistun inscription. ynquirer mistakes the Persians' recognition of simple utility and political expediency for some kind of admiration.

Sheshonq

First you say that Daniel "carefully" mentions certain events, to date the dreams. Then you say that his audience doesn't need the dates, because the story is already known. If the audience can leave off the dates (due to familiarity with the story) then for what reason was Daniel "carefully" mentioning dates? You just said the audience wouldn't find that information necessary.

Moreover, if the person Daniel is addressing "knows the story too well" then regnal dating wouldn't even be invoked at all; it would be left off. The story would be recognizable merely from its own distinctive internal details.

That was a totally unconvincing bit of reasoning on your part.

On the contrary. The mistakes - verified, not alleged - go to the heart of the claim for a 5th century date.