spin

And people have been telling you that ad nauseum. It doesn't get through. Please take your helmet off. The baseball bat will be more effective.

This doesn't deal with the issue.

Grains are simply not short-lived. They can be kept in storage for years. They are still usable for planting even. What was the exact context of the grains and cereals?

How long had it been in storage?

Just sit down and try to explain how you can use Syncellus as a meaningful source for well over two thousand years before his time.

I'm not a reading consultant.

Have you seen the film Memento? You remind me of the protagonist. You should learn to keep notes for yourself to help you know what happened before.

I don't want to get RSI.

How many times do I have to watch you ignore everything? How many times to I have to remind you that I've watched you ignore everything? How many times have you simply restated your unsupported claims?

Debate is the wrong word. You don't debate. Debate usually implies interacting with evidence.

Your credibility was shot with Aristotle and Phaedo, with claims about Plato, with Darius's 6 year reign, with Xerxes suddenly becoming Artaxerxes, with Xenophon unaccountably revising Thucydides, with outlandish use of C14 data. And the list goes on, but just like in Memento six minutes later it's all gone and you can start again clean as though nothing had been said.

Go back and read the threads where it was cited to you and ignored by you.

I cited epigraphic evidence for at least 35 years. You ignored it. Here for you to ignore once again.

You don't read references. You ask for them. You get them. You ignore them. The reference is in the post I linked to above for you to ignore again.

It does neither. I didn't bring it into the debate. You have a red herring.

If you'd been to Persepolis, you'd know just how fucking big these buildings were. It doesn't look like much on an internet plan.

Check out the architectural difference between your basic box temple and your high Persian palace. And do think a bit before using walls as a yardstick. there is not much architectural complexity in a wall.

Again, you need to go and look rather than sitting in front of your computer talking through your hat.

OK, find me archaeological evidence of a comparable palace that was built in two years.

It is normal that works begun in one reign get finished by later rulers for utilitarian purposes.

What is your exact epigraphic, archaeological or literary source for this?

Because it wasn't simply an effort to document the reign. Successful usurpers tend to justify themselves somehow.

Oh, so sometimes something remains despite the external appearance that nothing penetrates?

When you get over Behistun let us all know so we can move on -- at least past that. It doesn't help your case. It is merely a point for you to fixate on.


spin

Larsguy47

Thanks for the references, Peace, but the above reference to "Ai" needs to be updated because the brilliant archaeologists have assigned "Ai" to a city that is not the city the Bible describes. The "Ai" of the Bible is right next to Bethel, ajacent to it and dependent to it. So info about "Ai" is ignored.

As far as the WALLS for the late Bronze Age city of Jericho having no remaining evidence, that doesn't mean the wall was never there. Because the Bible is not specific about just what the condition of the collapsed wall was, we can't presume it simply fell over or an earthquake caused it to fall. For all we know it may have crumbled into dust. Since this was a miraculous destruction of the walls when the complete wall just collapsed, archaeologists can't presume the actual nature of the fallen walls and thus have no basis to claim they were never there, only that nothing of them remains now. If the walls disintegrated into dust, then there would be nothing left of those walls at this late date.

Thanks, again, for the reference.

LG47

Larsguy47

Yes. He says as much at Behistune and you can see in the bas reliefs at Persepolis how many different groups he conquered. Remember, Darius was rich and had a huge army at his disposal.

in the meantime we are looking for EPIGRAPHIC information that mentions the 36-year rule of Darius.

LG47

Larsguy47

EPIGRAHIC INFORMATION:

Thank you, so much, for this information. I apologize for not having seen it earlier. These are the quotes of documents found dated to various years of Darius up to year 35:

Then we come to Larsguy47's insistence that Darius only reigned for six years. Check this page out for the documents dated during the reign of
Darius:


From the thirty-second year of the reign of Darius
One talent one qa of dates from the woman Nukaibu daughter of Tabnisha, and the woman Khamaza, daughter of _______, to the woman Aqubatum, daughter of Aradya. In the month Siman they will deliver one talent one qa of dates. Scribe, Shamash-zir-epish, son of Shamash-malku. Shibtu, Adar the sixth, thirty-second year of Darius, King of Babylon and countries.
From the thirty-fifth year

Six talents of wheat from Shamash-malku, son of Nabu-napshat-su-ziz, to Shamash-iddin, son of Rimut. In the month Siman, wheat, six talents in full, he will deliver in Shibtu, at the house of Shamash-iddin. Witnesses: Shamash-iddin, son of Nabu-usur-napishti; Abu-nu-emuq, son of Sin-akhi-iddin; Sharru-Bel, son of Sin-iddin; Aban-nimiqu-rukus, son of Malula. Scribe, Aradya, son of Epish-zir. Shibtu, eleventh of Kislimu, thirty-fifth year of Darius king of countries.

Another supplying the thirty-fifth year thus

Dated at Shibtu, the twenty-first of Kislimu, the thirty-fifth year of Darius.

3DJay

Blah, blah, blah, they're are a few possibilities for both Ai, and Bethel. The post was for its Jericho content anyway...you were supposed to ignore Ai.
No, no. You stated...
...prove it.


Peace

3DJay

Are you debating yourself?


Peace

Larsguy47

EPIGRAHIC INFORMATION:

Thank you, so much, for this information. I apologize for not having seen it earlier. These are the quotes of documents found dated to various years of Darius up to year 35:

Then we come to Larsguy47's insistence that Darius only reigned for six years. Check this page out for the documents dated during the reign of
Darius:

From the thirty-second year of the reign of Darius


One talent one qa of dates from the woman Nukaibu daughter of Tabnisha, and the woman Khamaza, daughter of _______, to the woman Aqubatum, daughter of Aradya. In the month Siman they will deliver one talent one qa of dates. Scribe, Shamash-zir-epish, son of Shamash-malku. Shibtu, Adar the sixth, thirty-second year of Darius, King of Babylon and countries.
From the thirty-fifth year

Six talents of wheat from Shamash-malku, son of Nabu-napshat-su-ziz, to Shamash-iddin, son of Rimut. In the month Siman, wheat, six talents in full, he will deliver in Shibtu, at the house of Shamash-iddin. Witnesses: Shamash-iddin, son of Nabu-usur-napishti; Abu-nu-emuq, son of Sin-akhi-iddin; Sharru-Bel, son of Sin-iddin; Aban-nimiqu-rukus, son of Malula. Scribe, Aradya, son of Epish-zir. Shibtu, eleventh of Kislimu, thirty-fifth year of Darius king of countries.

Another supplying the thirty-fifth year thus

Dated at Shibtu, the twenty-first of Kislimu, the thirty-fifth year of Darius.


Fortunately the first reference here gives away that this must be Darius II, because it calls him "King of BABYLON and countries" and this is a Babylonian text.

The Persian empire was huge and there was was a co-ruler at Babylon. When Cyrus became king over all of Persia, Darius the Mede served as co-ruler with him for 8 years until he died. Then his son, Cambyses became "king of Babylon" for one year of co-rulership, then Cyrus died.

Artaxerxes I ruled for a long time, for 41 years beginning at age 18. I made a general comparison for a potential 37-year of of Darius II, ending 19 years after the rule of Artaxerxes II. In that case, he could have begun a 37-year rule at age 23 in the 25th year of Artaxerxes.

The basis of this presumption is because the king of Persia is usually titled "King of King, King of Lands" as Darius is here in the latter part of his rule, the title of "King of Babylon" establishes his title in relation to that rulership.

The second is a question I've always had that never worked out. The "Babylonian Chronicle" itself claims it was copied in the "22nd year of Darius." This contradicted the 19-year rule generally assigned to Darius I, as he dies the same year the Peloponnesian War ends, which is only 19 years after the death of Artaxerxes who dies in the 9th year of the war. So I could never rectify the "22nd year of Darius" when the text was copied. So that supposes that there was a co-rulership of at least a few years if the 22nd year of Darius was his last year.

But if we presume he began a 37-year rule around the 25th of Artaxerxes, ruling from Babylon as "King of Babylon", then his year 22 would have fallen about 5 years after the death of Artaxerxes I. That is a very critical and important comparison since it is assumed the reason for copying the Babylonian Chronicle was to make revisions in the text, and if this was done by Darius II it is logital it was done after the death of Artaxerxes I, since by then Artaxerxes I would have been claiming all his 41 years of rule and not subtracting the 21 years he ruled as Xerxes.

So the numbers for Darius II have always been too high for his sole rulership. If we presume these Babylonian texts are thus in reference to the rule of Darius II, then his 35th year of being King of Babylon would be the same as his 18th year of sole rule.

Again, this makes sense because the empire was so large. It is clear that Artaxerxes began to rule as co-ruler when he was 18 so if Darius was 18-23 years of age when he became co-ruler over Babylon that would not be unusual.

So thanks for those EPIGRAPHIC TEXTS, they help explain something I've always wondered about.

GREAT!!!

Again, sorry I didn't see this particular post with this information.

NOW, REQUEST, MY TURN:

Does anybody have a copy of this:

Review: The Babylonian Astronomical Diaries
Reviewed Work(s):
Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, Vol. I: Diaries from 652 B. C. to 262 B. C. by A. J. Sachs, H. Hunger

This is a rare book not in many university libraries and I believe is out of print. But in it are astronomical texts dated to I believe year 26 and 27 of a king called "Artaxerxes also known as ARSES", Arses being an equivalent to "Xerxes."

I know there's a copy at the University of Arizona, Tuscon:

Record: Prev Next

Location Main Library
Call # AS142 .V32 v.195, etc.
Author Sachs, Abraham.
Title Astronomical diaries and related texts from Babylonia


LOCATION CALL NO. STATUS
Main Library AS142 .V32 v.195, etc. pt.1 IN LIBRARY
Main Library AS142 .V32 v.195, etc. pt.2 IN LIBRARY
Main Library AS142 .V32 v.195, etc. pt.5 IN LIBRARY


Other auth Hunger, Hermann.
Series Denkschriften (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse) ; 195. Bd., etc.
Publisher Wien : Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988-
Subjects Astronomy, Assyro-Babylonian.
Akkadian language -- Texts.
Contents V. 1. Diaries from 652 B.C. to 262 B.C. [pt.l. Text. -- pt.2] plates.
Note Akkadian and English.
Bibliography: v. 1, p. [39]-40.
Description v. : ill., facsims. ; 30 cm.
ISBN 3700112270


UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA AT TUSCON

Phone
520.621.6441

Address
University of Arizona
Main Library
POB 210055
1510 E University Blvd
Tucson, AZ 85721-0055


I don't know why the volumes were here and not at any of the Southern California Universities where I studied: Not at USC, UCLA, UCLB or even UCSD. If someone doesn't it have it, then I'll try to get a loan through the library or try to find a university library near me that has it.

But here are texts that survive that actually do name Artaxerxes with his alternative name of Xerxes. The text proves that though Xerxes did adopt a new name of Artaxerxes when he became king, he still was officially using Xerxes as well during his rule, which is interesting.

Thanks, much!!!

LG47

Larsguy47

What? You mean go back in my time machine and take a video of the wall before it gets destroyed? Umm, yeah, I would but my time machine is broke and in the shop right now. The repair man said I could get it back quicker if one of my good debate friends at IIDB was willing to hold their breath until it got fixed.

I have the Biblical reference that there were walls around Jericho and they collapsed mysteriously. We have confirmed that there was no occupation after the LBIIA level, little of which remains, but it is confirmed it was occupied into the reign of Amenhotep III, which agrees with my dating, and the Bible would date the fall in line with the last occupation followed by about 400 years of abandonment.

There was lots of erosion for this level with very little remaining and earlier levels presumably eroded away. No major walls per se from this level was found, but, again, we don't know by what mechanism of technique these walls mysteriously fell flat. If the walls turned to dust then there would be no bricks left to find. But if the archaeologists are looking for evidence of a normal wall that had fallen down instead of say unusual amounts of silt or something from a disintegraded wall then we are getting presumptions based upon presumptions.

So all I've confirmed is that there was an LBIIA occupation at both Bethel and Jericho, that's where the Bible dates these events, so that's great. I'm not worried about remains of a wall that fell miraculous may have been turned into dust. If that's not good enough for you, I understand. By all means continue to doubt.

Regardless, the 1550 BCE walls remain a separate level and incident.

LG47

RED DAVE

A fool and his obsessions are not soon parted.

So, for fun, back to the beginning.

1) 2 1/2 million people allegedly wandering around in the desert.

2) No evidence whatseover of their presence.

3) Therefore, they weren't there.

Until Larsguy47 presents evidence for their presence, this stands.

The burden of proof is on him.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

You know, I too think perhaps there should be something surviving, but that for some reason there is just not that much left. I don't know if that's usual or not. We don't know everything about them, and who knows if there is some way to confirm them that hasn't been realized yet.

So I don't blame you for holding out on this, but they had to go somewhere. They were in Egypt, the Ten Plagues really did happen, Akhenaten did trip out and become a monotheist, so. We're just missing the expect "archaeological" evidence. But as soon at the neighbors kick in and get their records going, the presence of Israel and Judah are right there paralleling everything. So again, I'm wondering why is it their have a rather straightforward history from the time of Solomon and Shishak through the Persian Period, and have to invent things for their stay in the wilderness?

So we'll see. We can't always expect a complete and comprehensive archaeological record.

LG47