Sauron

Really? Based upon what?

Some caution: in some sources, “Ugbaru” is given as “Gubaru”, which is very close in spelling to Gobryas. It is important to distinguish Gubaru from Gobryas. Gubaru (Ugbaru) was one of Cyrus’ military generals. He was present at the conquest of Babylon, taking the city and preparing it for Cyrus’ entry. This same Gubaru (Ugbaru) died about a month after the conquest. Gobryas was an entirely different personage, installed as governor by Cyrus himself.


Correct. And there is no way historically or linguistically to bring them together.

That's good - because there is no basis for such a speculation. Indeed, the only ones who make such speculations are biblical inerrantists who need some mechanism to make these two men become a single individual.

*sigh*

He was a satrap, according to Babylonian records. If you have a better source, then by all means, bring it forth.

But before you do so, you might want to take the time to find out what a satrap *was*, and exactly what their responsibilities were.

Sauron

Let me add the following items:

1. Decline of the Medean kingdom and presence, by the (alleged) time that these events would have taken place (and hence, even more reason why "Darius the Mede" would not have been reasonable;

2. Transposition of the "madness in the wilderness" episode; history shows that Nabonidus left Babylon on a religious quest (with possible military/political overtones) and was gone for several years. However, the book of Daniel describes this to Nebuchadnezzar. The verses in the Book of Daniel (4,28-33) which attribute to Nebuchadrezzar a period of madness are clearly a corruption of the stories about Nabonidus; indeed a fragment from the recently discovered Qumran scrolls shows that other Jewish traditions assigned this long sojourn in the desert to the correct Babylonian king, ascribing to him a seven-year illness brought on by divine wrath. [42]

3. The feasting scene with Belshazzar being totally nonhistorical and flying flatly in the case of evidence

Michael Ledo

Earlier metions of the name Daniel, does not mean Daniel existed 580BC since his first mention comes from 1500 BC (see my previous post). The name Daniel was a legend. The Jews simply took the legend and placed it in an historical setting. In fact the whole f@#$ing Bible follows this basic formula from Adam to Jesus.

FunkyRes

Belteshazzar's existance was doubted by critics of Daniel until we FOUND these early documents, such as the one referenced.

I believe this happened in the nineteenth century, possibly eighteenth.
Keep in mind- of course there are records earlier than Christ of Belteshazzar- if there weren't, we wouldn't have found them to vindicate Daniel.

What historians said (I'll look for a reference- don't have one at the top of my head) is that there was no evidence that he reached adulthood, and speculated that he might not have.

Until they found that he did.

I will find a reference.
I thought this was common knowledge.

No.
I'm saying in our cultural context it would be incorrect to call him king because he was only second in power, not first in power, over Babylon.

That is why all this doubt exists about Daniel, because Daniel calls him King and he was never first in Power.

That does not mean that it was incorrect to call him King to the audience Daniel wrote to, and scholars of that culture and language have testified to this.

Skeptics to this that I have seen are not scholars of Aramaic nor do they ever site a scholar of Aramaic. Instead, they insist that modern culture of who can be called a King be applied to an ancient culture.

What is being analyzed is the text.
Therefore it is well within scholarship to use the text to see what the text really was indicating.

It is NOT circular to state that the text does not demand that Belteshazzar was the #1 spot based upon evidence in the text that he could only offer the #3 power spot.

Sorry, try again.

Had he offered the #2 spot to whoever could read the writing on the wall (which he didn't) then that would be indication that the text DID indicate he was the number 1 spot.

You must look at the text and see what the text suggests before assuming that the text suggests what you THINK it does- especially when the text is written in the context of a different culture, where King was not an inapropriate title for the person ruling Babylon, even though a higher king has higher authority.

Guburu and Ugbaru are both translated as Gobyras when they are distinctly different characters.

The Naboniduc Chronicle specifies that Guburu is the one that Cyrus set up over Babylon. Ugbaru is the general who took Babylon and then died shortly after.

They are different people.
This has caused confusion because people read that Gobyras was set up over Babylon, and then they read that Gobyras died. But they are two different people in the Cuniform.

Cyrus, a Persian, conquored the Medes but made it into one kindom- the Medo-Persian Kingdom, and he did place medes in places of authority.

It is possible that the original text referred to Nabonidus and not Nebuchadrezzar BOTH with the sickness and with the Belteshazzar account.

There is evidence to suggest this in the Prayer of Nabonidus that was found at Qumran. But for me to speculate that happened woulb be presumptive.

I must admit, though, I am curious as to how close the Aramaic spelling of Nebuchadrezzar and Nabonidus are (without vowel points). But there is no evidence that the mixup occurred.

Still, a sickness on the part of Nabonidus does not exclude one on the part of Nebuchadrezzar, especially if the sickness was one caused by God.

What evidence flies in the face of this?

FunkyRes

If I'm not mistaken, the spelling in Ezekiel is different than in Daniel and no historical documents ever try to link the Daniel of the book of Daniel times with Danel mentioned in Ezekiel.

The link between the two has no historical evidence that I know of.

Would you care to provide some?

Vorkosigan

What evidence flies in the face of this?

Well, let's see...a Persian army is at the gates, so you have a feast and invite every noble in the land to it. Never mind that they nobles have to get through the army investing the city....the story is so obviously ahistorical, I'm surprised anyone of intelligence could defend it.

I'll get to your points above tomorrow, as I don't have much time today...

Sauron

Your claim makes no sense. That "early document" was never lost in the first place. We have known about Belshazzar since at least 350 BCE. Belshazzar's identity has been known since the Cyropaedia was written. In the 4th century BCE. Since the 4th century, historians have had independent evidence of Belshazzar.

Do you understand yet?
Your claim that Belshazzar's existance was doubted by critics means that those critics must have lived before 350 BCE. Because after that year, we had the Cyropaedia to give historical testimony about Belshazzar.

So do you have the names of critics that lived before 350 BCE? If so, produce them.


Fine. Prove it. Show me historians that doubted the existence of Belshazzar.


You claimed that historians doubted that Belshazzar existed, UNTILwe found these documents.

What I am telling you is that there is NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY HISTORIAN DOUBTED IT. And you have NOT PROVIDED ANY SUCH EVIDENCE.

The Cyropaedia was never "found", because it wasn't lost in the FIRST PLACE.
People have known about Belshazzar SINCE 350 BCE AT THE LEAST.

The claim that historians doubted the existence of Belshazzar is fundamentalist nonsense.

We didn't find these documents in order to "vindicate Daniel". We didn't find the Cyropaedia at all - it was never lost.

The Nabonidus Chronicle was a great archaeological find - but we didn't find it so that we could "vindicate Daniel". Its discovery was an accident.


As soon as you have a historian, let us know.

When we say that he was not king, we are not saying it because of our American or English cultural context. We are saying it because the historical record does not indicate that Belshazzar was king. Belshazzar was the caretaker of the throne, but he was not the king. THere was an entire complex ceremony that existed in Babylon, involving the installation of the king, his relation to the god Marduk, and the completion of certain royal duties in the temple. Belshazzar never underwent any of this. Therefore, it isn't just the modern historians who say he was not the king, but so did the ancient Babylonians.

In addition, your claim makes no sense. Since the bible was written in the same ancient middle eastern context as the Babylonian Chronicles, then Daniel's claim that Belshazzar was king has the same context. But the bible claim of Belshazzar being a king is incorrect.


Wrong. The ancient audience that Daniel (supposedly) wrote to would have understood that Belshazzar was not king, since Belshazzar did not fulfill the role of king, either in government or in religion.

And I'm still waiting on you to produce scholars of the culture and language, who will testify to this.


Your analysis is laughable.

In the first place, I don't think you would be able to tell the difference between who was, and was not, a scholar of Aramaic.
In the second place, being a scholar of Aramaic does not make someone a Bablyonian archaeologist.
In the third place, nobody is applying the modern standard of kingship to the Babylonian situation, and so far you have not produced the names of any historians doing this.


Wrong. What is being analyzed are the claims you are making about the text.

However, you were using the same text you want to prove, as your argument. If you are a witness in court, your testimony about how honest you are is not evidence. You cannot testify about yourself. That is why it is circular. You are doing the same thing.


NO need to. You haven't proven your case yet.

You are trying to use this text to prove your earlier comment:

My understanding is that King did not necessitate that there wasn't a King over you.

In other words, you are trying to say that someone could be called king, without being the "top" king.
And you're using the story about offering Daniel the 3rd spot as proof of that.

However, that implies that Belshazzar ever made any such offer at all to Daniel. There is no proof of that offer, outside of the bible. So the claim is circular.


I assure you, I have read the text. Your claim is still circular, however.


I am not sure, but I think we are saying the same thing. Moving along, then......

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Sauron

No. It was not the "Medo-Persian" kingdom - interesting how you tried to bias the discussion, by placing "Medo-" as the first element of the name. Howver, it was the Persian kingdom; in fact, you will find it referred to as either the Achamaenid Persian Empire, or the Persian Empire. In THe Medes were a part of that empire, close cousins and influential, and for a short time they were united in a dual monarchy - but the Persians were still the #1 power, the Medes were in the junior position. And the invasion force that Cyrus led into Bablyon was the Persian force; there was no Median invasion of Babylon. And, as I indicated above, by the time of Darius, the Medians’ special status as co-equals in the empire had already evaporated, and they were subjects like other conquered peoples. Like most such relationships, it existed only at the whim of the senior partner, and was never meant to last. The Median equality ended several years later, when Darius I usurped the throne. The Medes rose unsuccessfully in revolt (522-521 BCE), were crushed, and then lost such privileged status as they had enjoyed.[109]


The only evidence that exists at all indicates that Nabonidus is the focus of both stories: the desert madness story, and leaving Belshazzar in Bablyon.


Your statement makes no sense. Are you implying that the only way that stories get mixed or confused, is through bad spelling?


However:
1. there is no evidence for any such sickness, so to assume it happened is just special pleading and rather silly;

2. Moreover, we know the details of Nebuchadnezzar's reign - what he did, what buildings he commissioned, where he went on military campaigns, etc. Like most absolute monarchs, he loved to leave behind records of his accomplishments. We also have records from other countries, such as Egypt. There isn't any space in his personal history to insert a seven-year absence from the throne, and mad wandering in the desert.

This was supposed to be the Babylonian New Year's feast, with lots of revelry, drinking, etc. and celebrating the military victories of the Babylonian army against the Persians. Josh McDowell talks about this in Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

However the historical evidence says that none of this was true.

(a) No such feast would have been occurring in Babylon during a time of military crisis, such as a imminent siege.
(b) The record of Babylonian performance in battle did not warrant feasting.
(c) There was ample precedent for canceling the New Year's Feat during dangerous times.
(d) Proceeding with the New Year's feast during an invasion would have been an act of hypocrisy with dangerous political consequences.
(e) The Babylonian New Year feast did not chronologically coincide with the Persian invasion.

FunkyRes

Very Good! You agree with Daniel!

Seems your view on history AGREES with Daniel's view on the medo-persian empire.

No- I am implying that if they are close, then it _could_ have been a scribe error.
Like other known scribe errors.

At any rate- I've never seen it mentioned, and I doubt I'm the first with that idea.
I don't assume that Nabonidus is the King anyway, but I don't discount that it is possible that the original text (if written 6th century) could have read Nabonidus in those places.

To assume it couldn't have because of silence is also silly.

I do not believe it is identified as a New Years Feast in Daniel.
That takes care of c,d,e

To assume it had to be a New Years Feast is silly.
Also- if I recall, Cyrus scoffed that Babylon had been "left in the hands of a fool" or something to that effect, which would explain a,b

FunkyRes

btw- I JUST noticed you stating you are waiting for me to produce the scholars on Aramaic regarding the Father/Grandfather thing.

If you read back in this thread, I already did.
Joyce Baldwin