Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 02-12-2008, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Jeez, this is just...

... ahh,... hysterical. So that's where you've been mining your crap from. Too bad there's no blind leading the blind smilie. I do get the idea that you won't read a modern scholarly commentary on Daniel, but thank you for this gem. Others should be able to get a good laugh out of it just as I have.

You seem to favor a translation from 100 years ago (Young) to prove that "Many Nations" is only refering to Nebby.

I don't favor any translation here. The text says GWYM RBYM. That's what you've gotta deal with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Besides, have you even read the book which you are ridiculing?

Enough to see its nutter ideas being muddled further by you. The internet isn't going to supply you with the tools you need here because there is very little scholarly material on Daniel available on the net. You've just got nutters defending Daniel and other nutters slagging it. It's a waste of time pissing about with 6th c. BCE errors and with so-called prophecies that people force-fit to their own desires. But that seems to be all you're capable of, due to your religious commitments. Christians have stolen Jewish literature and proceed to screw it up.

Your source may have been a professor of Semitic languages, but first and foremost he was an apologist who was not a historian by practice whose interest was explaining away inconveniences, finding for believers credible loopholes to plain statements. He was playing without a full deck and certainly with none of the aces. Go to a decent library and look for a modern scholarly commentary on Daniel. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

spin

Sheshonq · 02-12-2008, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Who, *precisely*, calls it by that name?

Herodotus.

Moving the goalposts? Your claim, which was "Why do WE call it....". Clearly "we" do not call it by that name hardly at all.

Quote:

A google search for "the Median Wars" shows only 3,400 hits.
But a google search for "the Persian Wars" shows 112,000 hits.

At approximately 30 to 1 ratio in favor of "Persian Wars", it appears that your question can be answered as "almost nobody calls it by that name".

Besides, your question assumes that commonplace nomenclature always reflects the historical reality. Do you really need a lesson to show you that isn't the case? Here's a freebie that's especially appropriate for your education: why do they call it "The French and Indian War" when the main protagonist was the British in America?

Anachronic. The closer the source to Daniel the better.

1. The French and Indian War was called by that name close to the time of the event, thus demonstrating that chronological proximity is no safeguard against confusing nomenclature;

2. Being close in chronological proximity means something entirely different in the context of the ancient world than it does today;

3. At 440 BCE, Herodotus' histories are 300 years before the authorship of Daniel - not much help for your argument there;

4. Your claim ("the closer the better") isn't necessarily true anyhow. "First contact" records usually get a lot of things wrong about the culture in question; items that don't get sorted out until later years and with the benefit of study and hindsight.

Quote:

The words ‘Persian’ and ‘Persians’ occur 666 times in Herodotus’ Histories,

Who cares? Mistakes by Greek authors do not support the usage in Daniel. How 5th century Greeks viewed Persia has no bearing upon how Jews of 2nd century BCE viewed Persia.

Cyrus began his reign by organizing the Persian Empire and, only after consolidating his realm, did he begin to expand its domain. His first major conquest was that of the Medes, a people who lived immediately to the north of the Persians. Because Media (the land of the Medes) is closer to Greece than Persia, the Greeks confused the Medes and the Persians—Herodotus and most Greeks in his day referred to the Persian Wars as "the Median affair"—which only goes to show how little the Greeks prior to the Classical Age understood of the world around them. Surely, this is part of the impetus that lies behind Herodotus' Histories, the need to find out more about who's out there and why they attack.

And if pigs fly and you ever succeed in getting the problems in that all worked out, then you still need to find a historical figure for "Darius the Mede" who the author(s) of Daniel claim was installed by Cyrus as governor over Babylon. Considering that we know who was installed by Cyrus - and it wasn't "Darius the Mede" - you have your work cut out for you.

arnoldo · 02-12-2008, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

You seem to favor a translation from 100 years ago (Young) to prove that "Many Nations" is only refering to Nebby.

I don't favor any translation here. The text says GWYM RBYM. That's what you've gotta deal with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Besides, have you even read the book which you are ridiculing?

Enough to see its nutter ideas being muddled further by you. The internet isn't going to supply you with the tools you need here because there is very little scholarly material on Daniel available on the net. You've just got nutters defending Daniel and other nutters slagging it. It's a waste of time pissing about with 6th c. BCE errors and with so-called prophecies that people force-fit to their own desires. But that seems to be all you're capable of, due to your religious commitments. Christians have stolen Jewish literature and proceed to screw it up.

Your source may have been a professor of Semitic languages, but first and foremost he was an apologist who was not a historian by practice whose interest was explaining away inconveniences, finding for believers credible loopholes to plain statements. He was playing without a full deck and certainly with none of the aces. Go to a decent library and look for a modern scholarly commentary on Daniel. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

spin

I agree with you that perhaps a library is a better source of info however the net does have its advantages. The professor of Semitic languages successfully refuted basically the same arguments you are making today. Anyway here is a "book" which gives the book of daniel an early date to due lingustic analysis.

Dating the Old Testament By Craig Davis, Jr.

Amazon link to Dating the Old Testament by Craig Davis, Jr.

Toto · 02-12-2008, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

...
Dating the Old Testament By Craig Davis, Jr.

Amazon link to Dating the Old Testament by Craig Davis, Jr.

Craig Davis

Quote:

Craig Davis is a 1982 graduate of Baylor University. He works as a Systems Engineer for Cimarron, a NASA contractor at Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. He is married, has three children, and is a member of University Baptist Church in Houston.

Davis is an amateur who published his book himself, avoiding peer review and dealing with the scholarly consensus (except to reject it.) I don't think this is the sort of book that spin recommends.

mens_sana · 02-12-2008, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

As long as we're using authorities whose expertise was the sine qua non of 1917, why not take a look at Raymond Philip Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar: A Study of the Closing Events of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929. Yale Oriental Series, Researches, Vol. 15. Dougherty goes into considerable detail in showing that the Book of Daniel is extraordinarily accurate about certain aspects of the Babylonian period. He also presents incontrovertible evidence — in the form of overlapping, change of government cuneiform tablets — that show that Darius the non-existent Mede did NOT conquer Babylon and was never its governor. You will have to get the book through InterLibrary Loan (I went to the trouble to do so). Most collections are neither specialized enough nor budgeted enough to carry it.

He is an a true scholar who wrote his book in 1917 using archaelogical evidence to prove his claims. What is even more amazing is that the archaelogical evidence obtained since 1917 has further demonstrated that Nabonidus and Belshazzar are both historical, not fictional persons.

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL by ROBERT DICK WILSON, PH.D., D. D., WM. H. GREEN PROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM, PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 1917

Gee, Arnoldo, why did you completely ignore the "overlapping, change of government cuneiform tablets — that show that Darius the non-existent Mede did NOT conquer Babylon and was never its governor"?

I can go into that farther, if you like. Just let me know.

mens_sana · 02-12-2008, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

You neglect the fact that the Greeks referred to the Persians as simply the Medes . . .

Please cite examples from Herodotus to support your assertion. (I doubt that your "copy&paste" ever said that.) And, by the way, no one argues any more that Belshazzar didn't exist, so your evidence that he did exist is a waste of space.

spin · 02-12-2008, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I agree with you that perhaps a library is a better source of info however the net does have its advantages. The professor of Semitic languages successfully refuted basically the same arguments you are making today. Anyway here is a "book" which gives the book of daniel an early date to due lingustic analysis.

Dating the Old Testament By Craig Davis, Jr.

Amazon link to Dating the Old Testament by Craig Davis, Jr.

You've been dragging these crap sources out of the woodwork for a little too long to give the impression that you are being serious. Ken Kitchen is an Egyptologist, but at least he has an understanding of scholarship. Nobody in the field takes his work on Daniel seriously, but at least he's a scholar. He attempts a rearguard defense of Daniel's Aramaic in order to say that it could have been old. That's the best on offer for you regarding the language issues. (Davis shows no interest in the differences between the dialects found at Qumran; he just looks for data to support the conservative position.)

Then you go to antiquated sources or non-scholarly sources and you show no discrimination. Why do you try to talk about things you don't know anything about?

spin

arnoldo · 02-12-2008, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Who, *precisely*, calls it by that name?

Herodotus.

Quote:

A google search for "the Median Wars" shows only 3,400 hits.
But a google search for "the Persian Wars" shows 112,000 hits.

At approximately 30 to 1 ratio in favor of "Persian Wars", it appears that your question can be answered as "almost nobody calls it by that name".

Besides, your question assumes that commonplace nomenclature always reflects the historical reality. Do you really need a lesson to show you that isn't the case? Here's a freebie that's especially appropriate for your education: why do they call it "The French and Indian War" when the main protagonist was the British in America?

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.

Yup, the Medes is generally how the Persian were known around the time of Daniel.

spin · 02-12-2008, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Yup, the Medes is generally how the Persian were known around the time of Daniel.

I know you can't help talking rot, but Herodotus, you have been shown, doesn't "generally" refer to the Persians as Medes. You probably haven't opened .

Herodotus, when dealing with races, knows the difference between Medes and Persians and never ever uses anything similar to "the kingdom of the Medes and Persians". His sources either

talk of the Persians as Medes (given that the Persians were once part of the now-defunct Median empire), or
make it clear that the Medes as a people were under the Persians:

There is no nation which so readily adopts foreign customs as the Persians. Thus, they have taken the dress of the Medes...

Cyrus: "and you [men of Persia], I am sure, are no whit inferior to the Medes in anything, least of all in bravery. Revolt, therefore, from Astyages, without a moment's delay."...

Thus after a reign of thirty-five years, Astyages lost his crown, and the Medes, in consequence of his cruelty, were brought under the rule of the Persians... Afterwards the Medes repented of their submission, and revolted from Darius, but were defeated in battle, and again reduced to subjection. Now, however, in the time of Astyages, it was the Persians who under Cyrus revolted from the Medes, and became thenceforth the rulers of Asia. ...

Never yet, as our old men assure me, has our race reposed itself, since the time when Cyrus overcame Astyages, and so we Persians wrested the sceptre from the Medes. ...

from Histories - Herodotus

You can't pretend that Herodotus is any help to your willful lunacy. At every stage the crap you present has been shown to be inadequate. Will you ever wonder why? Don't tell me: that's what willfulness is about.

spin

Sheshonq · 02-12-2008, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Yup, the Medes is generally how the Persian were known around the time of Daniel.

1. Historically incorrect.

2. Agreeing with a statement means nothing if you don't know squat about the topic. The accord of the ignorant is worthless.

3. You don't know squat about the topic.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.