makerowner

Yep. And why do you think that supports your case? It in fact shows that works similar to Daniel were being produced in the 2nd century.
From your source:
Certainly doesn't sound like something written contemporaneously with these rulers, does it?

mens_sana

One of the really important rules in presenting an argument is NOT to ask questions that you DON'T want answered!

http://www.yale.edu/divinity/cv/JCOLLINS.pdf

mens_sana

I'm not quite sure why you would cite this study (an excellent one, by the way) as support for your "literal" Daniel.

The Prayer of Nabonidus appears to preserve some rare information. It states that Nabonidus stayed in Tema for seven years because he was afflicted with "an evil disease" that caused him to act like a beast. The reputations of both heroes and villains accrue mythological elements as the years go on — and Nebuchadnezzar was Israel's greatest villain for centuries. This illness of Nabonidus is thought to be the source for the biblical story of Nebuchadnezzar's insane munching of grass in the fields. It really doesn't do much to help Daniel, does it?

spin

Jesus, I wish you'd pay attention sometimes. Look here in this thread.




spin

ynquirer

This is the reason why I think Daniel's words to be deference to the king rather than "misconception."

If the Persians, being conquerors as they were, had to copy attire, weapons, ceremonies, and religion of the Medes, the conquered people, the reasonable conclusion is that the latter were more civilized than the former, right?

War is about killing. If you think that war with sticks is more civilized than with swords, with swords more civilized than with guns, and with guns more civilized than with missiles, I'll do nothing to persuade you of the opposite opinion.

Right. He thinks that a Spartan ambassador would have said exactly that.

Yet, they said in Greek - Herodotus' own language - what they think to be convenient.

You can also try this:

... they next said, “The Lacedaemonians have sent us, O king of the Medes, in requital for the slaying of your heralds at Sparta, to make atonement for their death,” and more to that effect. (Histories 7.136.1)

Harold Nicholson, Diplomacy is a good primer on what being diplomatic is.

True. the reference is book 8, chapter 114, section 1, not book 9, chapter 114, section 1, as I wrote. Thank you for the correction.

As I said before, I don't think knowledge of geography has much to do in the words of the Spartan ambassadors in both occasions. Diplomatic staff usually conduct a research on what title they must recognize to whoever is the decision maker, even briefly, by asking someone in his or her entourage. That's been the normal procedure since diplomacy was invented.

spin

This is not a "mistake" of that sort. The writer was reworking the past to fit his knowledge of the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah about the Medes conquering Babylon.

The writers have the Medes coming chronologically after the Babylonians in chapter eight as the first of the two horns of the ram -- the vision given "in the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar". This is simply not historical, but can be understood because of the prophecies of the Medes taking Babylon. Just as the Median conquest was not historical neither was "Darius the Mede", the Mede with the Persian name and father. But he was obviously correct to the writers as it follows from Isaiah and Jeremiah. Just as the first horn in Dan 8 is the Medes so is the second beast after the Babylonian lion-like beast in Dan 7. This is tradition dictating what history should be.

We know that Ugbaru was the Persian official who received Babylon without a fight. Cyrus soon entered the city and took up residence there (CC 22-23). Ugbaru died a few months later, in Arahsamna (NC Yr 17). Cyrus took on the title of "king of Babylon" (CC 20). There simply is no room to contemplate the "Darius the Mede" of Daniel.

Following people up the garden path regarding Herodotus is a complete waste of your effort.


spin

ynquirer

This is simply a conjecture as disputable as the mine is. Likewise I rely on historical reports, so you prefer to rely on the hyper textual analysis of Daniel. Personally, I don’t find the latter providing much univocal info on Daniel‘s date.

What you and other critics seem to be ignorant of is that Babylon was conquered twice in a short time, once by Cyrus and a second time by Darius the Great. Again Herodotus, our primary source on Darius’ rule, tells the event.

After Cambyses’ death a council of seven took over power in Persia and Darius, one of the seven was enthroned (Histories 3.140.1). Soon afterward the Babylonians revolted after careful preparations (3.150.1). “When Darius heard of this, he collected all his forces and led them against Babylon, and he marched up to the town and laid siege to it” (3.151.1). The siege lasted for longer than expected (3.152.1). Finally, a trick opened for Darius the gates of Babylon (3.158.1).

Thus Babylon was taken a second time, and when Darius was master of the Babylonians, he destroyed their walls and tore away all their gates, neither of which Cyrus had done at the first taking of Babylon; moreover he impaled about three thousand men that were prominent among them; as for the rest, he gave them back their city to live in.(3.159.1)

Thus Babylon was conquered by ‘Darius the Mede’.

Not quite, after all.

arnoldo

LAME. So Nebby wasn't famous, the one who destoyred Jerusalem and the Temple? :huh:

Jack the Bodiless

You really don't bother to read this stuff properly, do you?

Yes, NEBBY was famous. That's why some stuff pertaining to NABONDIUS (not so famous) was mistakenly assigned to NEBBY by the author of Daniel.

arnoldo

Have you read the Prayer of Nabondius? It clearly is an extra-biblical reference to Daniel who helped both Nebby and Nabonidus who apparently were afflicted with the same condition you appear to suffer from, MES.