Sheshonq

No, he didn't. In fact, he misunderstood the arguments and ducked them, as I showed here.

You <edit> failed to address that post.

ynquirer

The French and Indians Wars parallel to the Median-Persian relationship is fine. However, the Macedonian-Greek relationship has also some bearing on the issue.

Never were the Macedonians regarded by the Greek as ‘Greek’ proper, but rather as rude barbarians occupying a mountainous country beyond the border of Hellas. Yet, as soon as they conquered Greece Macedonians called themselves ‘Greek’ as ‘Grecian’ or Hellenistic is styled the world they created.

In the pair Medes-Persians the former were the more civilized, as being closer to Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. The Persians, on their turn, lived in the harsh heights of the Iranian plateau extended farther to the East. They took over Media likewise the Macedonians took over Greece, just because they were tougher, less civilized warriors. They copied many of the customs and fashions of the Medes - dresses, for instance (Herodotus, Histories 1.135.1) - as well as their weaponry. We know that the Medes were reputed because of their bows (Herodotus, Histories 7.64.1, 7.66.1). Civilized nations usually hate hand-to-hand fighting, and that turns them found of bows and arrows and artillery whatsoever that enable them to fight from afar. The Persians, instead, liked massive foot charges with long spears and heavy shields as carried on by the famous ‘Immortals’. Nevertheless, the Persians admired the Medes on account of their higher culture and superior technology.

According to Herodotus congruently with Daniel, the Persians enjoyed for a while being called ‘Medes’ as much as the Macedonians enjoyed being called ‘Greek’. And exactly for the same reasons.

Sheshonq

Except that it fails to identify the protagonist, thus demonstrating that nomenclature isn't always reliable. Which, working backwards to your question ("Why do we call it the Median War"), can be answered by:

1. "We don't call it by that name".

2. It doesn't matter if your source -- which does use that term in a minority of cases -- uses that appellation, since nomenclature isn't always reliable anyhow

I don't see how. The Greeks misidentified the two groups, based upon misconception rooted in geography. It's similar to Christopher Columbus calling native Americans "Indians", based upon his misconceptions about geography.

Interesting claim. Let's see the proof?

Another ad hoc assumption?

Citation?

1. Daniel makes no such claim of "enjoyment".
2. You have provided no such citation from Herodotus, either.

arnoldo

FYI not everyone is in agreement that Collins evaluation of the Aramaic dates Daniel to the 2nd century. Is Collins even a professor of Semetic languages?

Source: Book of Daniel From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

spin

You'll note that there were three names on the commentary. I've also recommended other commentaries in this thread. There is also a vast body of discussion on Daniel in scholarly journals. Kitchen, an Egyptologist, seems to be one of the few conservative scholars who wanted to discuss Daniel in a scholarly way and his task was to say that the Aramaic could have been written early.

It would be good if knew how to spell the words you were trying to be meaningful about.

John J. Collins is Professor of Hebrew Bible and Post-Biblical Judaism at the University of Chicago.

Zondervan is a well-known apologetic, not scholarly, press. If you would like to cite the argument to defend the opinion above I'd deal with it for you.

This is the Kitchenesque approach: "The character of the Hebrew and Aramaic could support a date in the fifth or fourth century". It doesn't provide any substantive evidence, does it? Lucas says his book "is written primarily for those who have the responsibility of teaching and preaching the Bible, particularly those who do it in a Christian context".


spin

arnoldo

Sorry SEMITIC languages. So you agree that Collins does not make any claims that the Aramaic of Daniel requires dating it to the 2nd century,right?

spin

That was done in scholar circles over the last century. Collins doesn't need to. He builds on what the scholarly world already knows.

The work I referred you to was an exemplary scholarly commentary on the book of Daniel. It is aimed at dealing with all aspects of the book. It is also the most respected in the field. I merely point you to it so that you can have something useful to read, rather than the plethora of biased material on the web. You obviously have no access to historical or linguistic methodology or how it works, so you need to start somewhere. You should realize that starting with your conclusions will not help you understand anything about the text. Conclusions come after investigation. The best place to start such an investigation is with relatively neutral material, such as that generally used by scholars.


spin

ynquirer

1. Who cares if you don’t call it the Median Wars? Whether or not you call it like this is wholly irrelevant to the issue of whether the Jews in Babylon called Darius the Persian ‘a Mede’.

2. Wrong. Of course, it does matter whether Herodotus, a near-contemporary of Daniel called the Persians ‘the Medes’ at least in a minority of cases to help decide if Daniel might have done likewise.

So might Daniel call Darius ‘a Mede’ upon a “misconception” about geography. Why not?

Halys River, in Asia Minor, was since 585 BC the border between Caria and Media, as agreed by Croesus’ father Alyattes and the Median leader Astyages. Herodotus mentions the fact.

Observers noted that the Americans [in the Civil War] would rarely close with the enemy but chose instead to fight at ranges of a quarter mile or more and throw enormous quantities of lead at each other, often for hours without end. What these observers witnessed first hand has become immutably associated with the American way of war - the willingness of Americans to spend firepower freely to conserve human life. (R.H. Scales, jr., Firepower in Limited War, pp. 3-4.)

That the Persians admired the Median culture is apparent from the fact that the former copied the Median dresses, their admiration for the Median technology being naturally inferred from the Persians’ copying the Median weaponry, as attested by Herodotus:

The Medes in the army were equipped like the Persians; indeed, that fashion of armor is Median, not Persian. (Histories 7.62.1)

See also this:

The Persian stole, as it is now called, the pursuit of archery and horsemanship, the court paid to their kings, their attire, and veneration fitting for gods paid by the subjects to the prince,—these the Persians derived from the Medes. (Strabo, Geography 11.13.9.)

Of course, I have. This one:

[He] came into Xerxes' presence, and spoke as follows: “The Lacedaemonians and the Heraclidae of Sparta demand of you, king of the Medes…(Histories 9.114.1)

These are the words of an ambassador. And it is a universal rule of diplomacy that ambassadors make use of words that coax the counterparty so as to prepare the latter to yield.

arnoldo

Yes, one of the other authors, Cross, has an interesting book on the DSS which mentions a writing called, "The prayer of Nabonidus" (it's on page 124)which parallels a similar writing in the book of daniel.

The Ancient Library of Qumran By Frank Moore Cross

Amazon URL (or via: amazon.co.uk)

makerowner

Because he supposedly lived in his court and was one of his advisors. How many people don't know what country their king is from?


Which does nothing to show that the Medes were "more civilized".

Which shows that in one civilized nation more than 2000 years later than the time in question, people avoided hand-to-hand fighting.

1. Herodotus wasn't there; he makes up what he thinks the people said
2. The Spartans would probably have been speaking to Xerxes through an interpreter.
3. He certainly wasn't being diplomatic: "O king of the Medes, the Lacedemonians and the sons of Heracles of Sparta demand of thee satisfaction for murder, because thou didst kill their king, fighting in defence of Hellas."
4. It's in book 8
5. In 5.49, king Cleomenes is shown to be completely ignorant of Persian geography, which Aristagoras explains to him. This was only 20 years before the time of the quote you gave.