ynquirer

That is what KJV says. The Revised Standard Version says as I do. If you want a serious discussion of the issue, try the Hebrew.

Still pointless unless you explain how an Elamite word ‘Ulai’ could arrive in Da 8:2,16.

makerowner

Strong's concordance lists the meanings as "1) palace, castle; 2) temple", though it's translated as 'palace' throughout the KJV. A few translations:

So of the 12 translations here, only two translate it as 'capital', and one give the alternate translation 'fortified city'. Your case seems rather weak. And besides that, Sheshonq has shown that it wasn't the capital at Belshazzar's time.

ynquirer

A plea of linguistic democracy?

Your case is dead weak if you don't check the Hebrew.

makerowner

I did check the Hebrew; as I indicated above, Strong's defines the word in question as ""1) palace, castle; 2) temple". I don't speak Hebrew, so I'm relying on various scholars who do, of whom the vast majority translate the term as something other than 'capital'. In any case, what's your point about the capital?

ynquirer

Most translations render the Hebraic word, ‘palace’ because they are largely dependent on KJV - so is Strong. This is usually fair though sometimes goes too far, as in this case. At any rate, it is fun to see some of you now wielding KJV and Strong against the RSV.

Let’s go to the point about the capital. If in III Belshazzar the capital of the empire was already in Susa, the implication then is that Belshazzar reigned after Cyrus’ takeover of Babylon. Belshazzar would have been a sort of vassal king, such as those integrated in the Median empire and also in the Persian empire until Darius’ reform to establish satrapies - mentioned in Da 6:1-3.

makerowner

I don't trust the KJV or Strong's which is why I included several other translations. The Vulgate is similar: "vidi in visione mea, cum essem in Susis castro, quod est in Aelam regione: vidi autem in visione esse me super portam Ulai." You're not going to claim that the Vulgate is dependent on the KJV are you?

That's not really much of a point. You're trying to prove that Daniel shows knowledge of 5th century history that wouldn't have been available in the 2nd century right? But all you've is speculate more about who Belshazzar could have been.

ynquirer

It is obvious that KJV is dependent on the Vulgate, isn’t it?

My point is that you really don’t know when Daniel places Belshazzar in Babylon, and that you may not substitute prejudice for knowledge. The bold assertion that it is not much of a point is implied in your prejudice.

spin

The word in question, late Hebrew word BYRH is clear, being related to birta "fortress" in Akkadian according to BDB and is related to the Greek word "baris", used not only in Josephus but in the LXX for both BYRH and HYKL, "palace, temple". BYRH doesn't mean the anachronous "capital" (a word only needed in English in the 17th c -- why did the translators of the NRSV feel the need to drag that idea in?).

If we look at David's words to Solomon in 1 Chr 29:1f, "And David the king said to all the congregation: ‘Solomon my son, whom alone God has chosen, is yet young and tender, and the work is great; for the fortress [ie BYRH] is not for man, but for the Lord God. So I have provided for the house [BYT] of my God..." BYRH is clearly a building here and is paralleled with BYT. (See also 1 Chr 19:19.)

One has to do better than a problematic translation or Strongs to get to the meaning of the word.


spin

ynquirer

Too quick a survey. It is true that the Akkadian root means ‘fort, fortress, castle’, but its origin is far enough back in the past as to have borrowed news uses - as quite frequently happens in the evolution of languages. It is false that Hebraic BYRH is related to Greek baris - a case of cross-breeding between Indo-European and Semitic languages? Naaaaa.

BYRH does bear several meanings. In addition to the oldest one - possibly out-fashioned at the time Daniel was written - ‘temple’ is another one. By the way, 1 Ch 29:1, instanced as an example of ‘fortress’, rather is an example of ‘temple’.

Yet, the main mistake is to believe that BYRH always denotes a single building. The parallel with BYT is an invention. Furthermore, many times in the Tanakh the notion of ‘palace’ is conveyed by means of BYT MKL, the ‘king’s house’.

As regard usage by Josephus and the LXX, the former twice uses en thi Sousois thi mhtropolis ths Persidos, Josephus AJ 10:269 (10.11.7), 11:159 (11.5.6), which looks like a literal translation of the phrase in Da 8:2. The LXX for several repetitions in Esther of B$W$N HBYRH - which is the exact wording of Da 8:2 - more frequently than not renders it en Sousois th polei, which is closer to Josephus’ and my own translation than to your stringent ‘a single building’.

In particular, a phrase in Ezr 6:2 that is structurally almost identical with Da 8:2 is rendered en th barei ths Mhdwn polews kefalis, which, unnecessary is to say, means without any doubt “in the palace of the capital of the Medes.”

Sheshonq

Which doesn't change my point: you selected a translation that helped your cause, even though 10 out of 12 translations differ with you.

1. There is no evidence that you are capable of a serious discussion.

2. Moreover -- and in light of your performance on this thread, and the frequency of your unsupported claims -- I'd be far more inclined to trust the judgment of a bible translator of Hebrew than your personal musings.

So if you think you know more about the Hebrew in Daniel 8 than the translators of NKJV, NLT, NIV, NASB, ASV, Young's, Darby, Webster, or HNV - then you should sit right down now with quill in hand and write them of their mistakes. I'm sure they're give you a pat on the head, a bit of candy, and tell you to run along.

Not at all pointless. It's an anachronism that you cannot explain.

1. Explain? What is there to explain? I have no evidence -- except your bruised and tattered claim -- that the name fell out of usage at all. Therefore I have nothing to explain.

2. Moreover, I gave more than sufficient reason why a Jew, surrounded by Hellenism, might want to reject a Hellenistic nomenclature. Hell; we even see that today, where Jewish settlers on the West Bank persistently refer to the area as "Judaea and Samaria", hoping that by invoking the ancient nomenclature it will somehow strengthen their claims to the territory.

3. I also showed that the word had not, in fact, fallen out of usage - perhaps you missed the link showing that Ulai was referred to as Eulaus by the Greeks?

4. Oh, and just for fun: remember our little lesson about how no amount of successful results can prove a hypothesis, but it only takes one contradictory bit of evidence to disprove it? The presence of the anachronism above - tying the reign of Belshazzar to a capital at Susa which hadn't been built yet - is your downfall. Whether or not the usage of Ulai is a problem, the anachronism is the negative evidence that destroys your hypothesis for a 5th century dating.

Good luck!