Vorkosigan

Please, though- I want to know where the references are to him in the Cyropaedia.
Yeah- I must have missed the post that refers to an aramaic scholar by Vorkosigan.

Would you mind telling me the name(s) of the scholar he cited?

I'll look, but just in case I don't see it- it would be helpful.

Please re-examine my first post, you'll find a cite there.

Vorkosigan

FunkyRes

I see you mention John J. Collins, though not reference on the Father/Son Aramaic thing.

There, you use Till, who seems to have zero scholarship in the field of Aramaic.

-=-
Edit:
Would it really be that hard to just post the name of a scholar that says "Father/Son" could not have been used they way it was?

Does John J. Collins say this in any of his works? (I know he's a late dater)
If so, which one?

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: FunkyRes ]</p>

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FunkyRes:
I see you mention John J. Collins, though not reference on the Father/Son Aramaic thing.

There, you use Till, who seems to have zero scholarship in the field of Aramaic.

-=-
Edit:
Would it really be that hard to just post the name of a scholar that says "Father/Son" could not have been used they way it was?

The issue is not whether it could have been used that way, but whether, in the passage adduced by Till in my first post, it is meant that way. Till points out several references to father and son in Dan 5:1-23. The plain meaning of the text is clear. Additionally, Till also locates another document, the Book of Baruch, that also refers to Neb as Bel's father, in which both "father" and "son" are used to describe the relationship. The plain meaning of the text is clear.

I am sure that "father" was used metaphorically in Aramaic and Hebrew, because it is used so in many languages. The issue is whether it is used in that way here, in Daniel. The plain meaning of the text is that it is not.

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1999/4/994know.html" target="_blank">As Till asked</a>:

• On the other hand, those who read the 5th chapter of Daniel would certainly think that the words father and son were being used in their primary senses to express the relationship between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. If I am overstating my case here, I would like for Hatcher to demonstrate it by citing a biblical passage comparable to this one in which the writer went on verse after verse referring to someone as the "father" of so-and-so in a context that clearly shows that father was being used to denote only ancestor or successor. Until he can do that, he has no case.

Yes, FunkyRes, do this for us. Cite an equally long passage from the Bible in which the writer goes on and on about the father of a son where there is no such direct relationship.

In any case, the Collins cite shows that the Aramaic is not of the sixth century, so your arguments from Joyce Baldwin about the meaning of "father" and "son" are irrelevant, since sober scholarship makes a sixth century date impossible based on linguistic grounds. That is the whole point of Collins.

Vorkosigan

FunkyRes

Till, without any scholarship of Aramaic, has no way of knowing that a primary use is demanded in that usage.

Let Till offer what should be used if father/son could not be used for "non primary" use in the manner it was used in Daniel.

He can't, because the man is not an Aramaic scholar- of either 2nd Century or 6th/5th century.

FunkyRes

Please post the reference where Collins says that it must be 2nd Century.

This would be very surprising, because Collins has been to Qumran and seen the actual KNOWN second century Aramaic documents that radically differ with Daniel.

Sauron

1. Check Vork's post of posted July 18, 2002 11:44 PM.
2. Check the sources quoted by the Till article that Vorkosigan quoted.
3. Also note that linguistic evidence is not sufficient and cannot stand alone; if the other kinds of evidence contradict the conclusion, then it isn't sound.

It wouldn't do any good. Listing Medians doesn't refute my point. I never said that Medians didn't play a part in the empire. What I said is that it was NOT the "Medo-Persian Empire".

Besides, anyone who perouses the Cyropaedia will quickly see that the references to Persians are far and away the most numerous. If you really want to quote something relevant, why don't you count up the number of times the word "Mede" appears, and then compare it to how many times the word "Persian" appears?? Maybe that will be enough to demonstrate my point.

No, it's very relevant. Your description does not accurately reflect either the history of the conquest, nor the political and power relationship in the Persian Empire. So yes: the name of the empire is important.

No, it wasn't. It was a Persian kingdom, that (for a short time) had a joined monarchy. But the Persians were always in control. Why do you think the period is called "The Persian Empire", or why do historians call it the "Achamaenid Persian Empire"?


I'm not attaching this to any biblical imagery - you can if you want.


Sheesh. There's no support for it.

Until you find some, then you are still left without any way to connect Darius to Gubaru/Gobryas. That is the central core of your claim: they are the same person. Yet the names are nowhere near the same - not to mention, their personal histories.


I *do* know.

Your argument is like saying, "Well, there could have been an invasion of Babylon from China during this time. There's no evidence for it, but we can't assume anything from silence." Both your argument, and my example, have absolutely zero evidence. And they both rest on the flimsy assumption that silence gives you some kind of "wiggle room" to assume whatever you need.

But the problem with such a desperate argument is that there must have been some reason to assume your fairy tale idea in the first place. What was that reason? Simple: because you want to avoid admitting a mistake in the text.


I've already read it. And yes, there are mistakes in the Cyropaedia. The story of diverting the Euphrates is one such mistake. And there are others; the early life of Cyrus II (as recorded in the Cyropaedia) contains a lot of legends and myths as well. Ancient historians were not documentary reporters; they sometimes reported local legends. Britannica:

The idealized biography by Xenophon is a work for the edification of the Greeks concerning the ideal ruler, rather than a historical treatise. It does, however, indicate the high esteem in which Cyrus was held, not only by his own people, the Persians, but by the Greeks and others. Herodotus says that the Persians called Cyrus their father, while later Achaemenian rulers were not so well regarded. The story of the childhood of Cyrus, as told by Herodotus with echoes in Xenophon, may be called a Cyrus legend since it obviously follows a pattern of folk beliefs about the almost superhuman qualities of the founder of a dynasty. Similar beliefs also exist about the founders of later dynasties throughout the history of Iran.


By the way: you claimed that Cyrus said that Babylon had been left in the hands of a fool. Where is that quotation?


1. Then find it in the Nabonidus Chronicle - we're waiting;

2. I saw your Cyropedia quote - and I have no problem telling you that there are parts of the Cyropaedia that are not fully historically accurate. That's why any historical conclusions have to be drawn from multiple lines of evidence: textual, archaeological, linguistic, even forensic.


Except that it doesn't say anything about such a change.


Because he made mistakes, used local legends, and half-remembered stories. It happens all the time, especially in ancient sources. Herodotus spoke of winged snakes in Arabia, and claimed to have gone to their nesting grounds. Xenophon wove legends about Cyrus into the birth stories of that ruler. These ancient sources did not view history the way we do: as an attempt to accurately record, like a journalist, everything that happened.

Furthermore, there *had* been a Median kingdom earlier, before the Persian kingdom arose. Jeremiah and Isaiah both talk about the Medes, 100-150 years prior to the Persian kingdom. In fact, it was the Babylonians and the Medes who dismembered the Assyrian Empire and carved up the city of Nineveh. Media used to be a great power in that area. But that was long before the events of Daniel (supposedly) happened. By that time, the Persian kingdom was far greater, and had absorbed the Median kingdom and subjugated them. If the writer of Daniel didn't get the dates/events correct, then they could have taken the early empire (Media) and accidentally matched it with the later ruler (Darius I of Persia). The end result would be Darius the Mede.

My, my, my. Suddenly you're quite demanding, especially for someone who is pretty thin on providing your OWN scholarly sources.

Anyhow:

1. You can find it in this book: Babylon. Joan L. Oates. Published by Thames and Hudson, 1986. Page 135.

2. I also gave a full quotation from the National Geographic article, indicating that Nabonidus had holed up inside the capital city of Bablyon. Here's the reference:
James Baikie, "The Cradle of Civilization, The Historic Lands Along the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers Where Briton is Fighting Turk", National Geographic, Volume XXIX, No. 2, February 1916. Page 161.

3. In addition, prior to Cyrus' march, Nabonidus had called for all the local gods and deities of hte various Babylonian towns to be brought to the capital, for an installation ceremony. He did this, in order to win back the people and establish himself as a follower of the true Babylonian religion. He couldn't have done that, if he had still been away in Arabia.

Reading all the signs, no doubt Nabonidus sensed the rope tightening around his neck. By emphasizing his role as the legitimate trustee of Marduk, Nabonidus hoped to improve his standing with the religious establishment and garner public support for his rule. In the spring of the year 539 BCE, a full six months prior to the actual Persian invasion, Nabonidus had already ordered that the local statues of the various Mesopotamian gods be brought to Babylon for safekeeping:

By the beginning of 539 BC it was apparent that an attack by Cyrus the Persian was imminent, and divine statues of major temples were brought to the capital, to prevent their falling into enemy hands. But Nabonidus had forfeited the support of the religious establishment, and when the Persian army, accompanied by a defecting Babylonian governor, cross the Tigris it captured first Sippar and then Babylon without a battle.

H. W. F. Saggs. Peoples of the Past: Babylonians. University of Oklahoma Press, 1995. Pages 171-172.


The account is not correct. Think about it for a minute: why would Nabonidus have returned to Babylon, if the city was already in the hands of Cyrus' army? Why would the enemy king return to the city, if he and his army were already defeated? How stupid do you think he was?

You seem to think that these ancient sources are all like eyewitness journalists. They are not. Here is some thing you should read and think about. It's another source that says Nabonidus was in the city, when the Persians arrived. But it also indicates the amount of discrepancy among the ancient sources on this topic:

<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02226c.htm" target="_blank">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02226c.htm</a>
On the 14th day the garrison of Sippar was taken without fighting. Nabonidus flies. On the 16th day Gobryas the governor of Gutium [Kurdistan] and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without a battle. Afterwards he takes Nabonidus and puts him into fetters in Babylon. On the 3rd day of Marchesvan [October] Cyrus entered Babylon" (Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments; Pinches, Capture of Babylon). In addition to this tablet we have the Cyrus cylinder published by Sir Henry Rawlinson in 1880. Cyrus pronounces a eulogy upon his military exploits and assigns his triumph to the intervention of the gods. Nabonidus had incurred their wrath by removing their images from the local shrines and bringing them to Babylon.

On comparing the inscriptions with the other accounts we find that they substantially agree with the statement by Berosus, but that they considerably differ from what is recorded by Herodotus, Xenophon, and in the Book of Daniel. (1) The inscriptions do not mention the siege of Babylon recorded by Herodotus and Xenophon. Cyrus says Gobryas his general took the town "without fighting". (2) Nabonidus (555-538 B.C.), and not Baltasar, as is stated in Daniel, was the last King of Babylon. Baltasar, or Bel­sarra­usur, was the son of Nabonidus. Nor was Nabonidus or Baltasar a son or descendant of Nabuchodonosor. Nabonidus was the son of Nebo­baladhsu­ik­bi, and was a usurper of the throne.

Sauron

Yes, it is. And it takes more than a single quotation to establish this - as I indicated, the main power was always Persian, and the various sources (Oates, Saggs, Kuhrt, etc.) all confirm this.

Your single quote, besides being insufficient to hang an entire argument upon, ignores the key points of the history here. To put this into perspective: imagine overhearing someone in a coffee shop make the comment that the American Revolutionary War was fought between two powers: the American Colonies and Scotland. Every American schoolchild would be competent to correct such an error; the American Revolution was fought between the American Colonies and England. Yet that is analogous to what you would like for us to accept here, with your explanation.

Scotland was unified with England, and became part of Great Britain (as Media was part of the Persian Empire). Scotland stood side-by-side in battle with England, similar to the relationship between Persia and Media. But anyone who tried to describe the American Revolutionary War as a conflict between the thirteen Colonies and Scotland would be grossly misrepresenting the facts of that war. In addition, by mis-identifying Scotland as the key antagonist, any such person would also be missing the historical reasons why the Revolutionary War ever happened in the first place. Those historical reasons were rooted not in Scotland, but in England: complaints against Parliamentary acts of taxation, complaints against King George, etc.

In like fashion, anyone (such as yourself) who tries to pass off the Persian invasion as an act of the Medes, or being a equal Persian-Mede event, would be totally mis-characterizing the nature of the invasion of Babylon. Such an explanation also ignores the historical reasons behind the invasion: the rise of Cyrus, consolidation of power among the Iranian tribes, expansionism beyond the borders of Persia, the amalgamation of his empire, attempts to seduce the Babylonian ruling class, etc. Again: the causes of war and the invasion of Babylon had roots in Persia, not in Media.

There is another key point that you are forgetting here. Bible inerrantists insist that the prophets were merely recording what the Hebrew god told them, or showed to them, about the future. So if they saw the event, as it actually would happen, then why did they blunder in their description of that event? Why would these prophets name the Medes as the key power? That would amount to mistaking the chief nation involved in the invasion, as well as the nationality of the military leader who led the army against Babylon. What caused the bible prophets (like Daniel) to totally skip over the primary antagonist and coordinator of the invasion, and instead name the secondary partner in that invasion? If (as the bible inerrantists believe) these prophets actually see the future (or take dictation from the Hebrew god), then how did they so thoroughly confuse what they saw (or heard)? If they were news reporters, they would have been fired, for writing a story that focused on the minor player, instead of the major combatant.

Is "Media" an acceptable alternate way of referring to "Medes and Persians"? No. Media was always the junior partner in the military and political relationship; Persia was the clear senior. Describing a partnership by its junior member would be confusing and inaccurate. It was always Persia who ultimately held the reins of power - recall that Cyrus had conquered the Medes in 550 BCE and made them [b]subject to Persia.[b/] The most accurate description of the empire "Persian Empire". The second most accurate would be to call it "Achamaenid Persian". The least accurate, and actually misleading, way to refer to it would be "Persian-Mede". But "Medo-Persian" is simply wrong; it implies equality with the Persians, and that the Medes were in first position - both of which were incorrect.

You seem to think it is acceptable if the bible names an "associate invader", even while missing the mark on the principle military actor. Yet if the bible writers actually saw the future being played out (or were taking dictation from the Almighty on that topic), then they ought to be 100% accurate -- not trying to sneak under the wire with a flimsy technicality.

FunkyRes

OK-

Your objection to medo-persian seems purely semantical and has nothing to do with the text in Daniel (since Daniel does not use medo-persian - that is simply used by some people to describe the Kingdom of Cyrus, which borrowed HEAVILY from the medes and treated the medes a lot different than the other kingdoms they conquored)

So that seems to be a moot point.
The only thing Daniel says is that the horns of the goat represent the Median and Persian kings- with the longer horn growing up after the smaller horn.

And a bear that leans to one side.

And later, the law of the Medes and Persians (and I believe we have external evidence to things that were called by the law of the medes and persians)

So there is no conflict with Daniel and Encyclopaedia Brittanica.

Any conflict is in your mind.

Now- with respect to the Chronicle of Nabonidus.
If I'm not mistaken, it is older and far more accurate about many things than other documents from that we have.

I suspect that what happened is Nabonidus being in Babylon was already in textbooks before the Chronicle of Nabonidus was found, and it takes some time for these things to be worked through.

It certainly is possible to have multiple later sources that are incorrect, due to the fact that documents don't always fair well with time and are edited by later parties to change what history said.

The Chronicle of Nabonidus is quite old, that should give it some credit.

Why did Nabonidus return to Babylon?
His son was killed there, he may have known there was no chance of him raising up an army.

Why not return to Babylon where his son was slain?

--
I'll look for the reference to Cyrus stating that Babylon had been left in the hands of a fool.

FunkyRes

The medes are NEVER declared to be the key power, btw.

Darius is described as a Mede, yes- but Daniel 9:1 clearly states "In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over Babylon

Not the made ruler phrase.
That is NEVER used in conjunction with a conquoring ruler, but only with a ruler who was PUT IN POWER BY SOMEONE ELSE.

Just because it was a Mede put in charge of Babylon does NOT mean that Daniel claims the Medes were the dominant.

In fact- the prophecy about the goat with horns suggests the opposite- the longer horn grew up later.

Persia was subject to the medes unti Cyrus, and did not have "Kings" as such- which is why the Persians had to take their monarchy stuff from the Medes (as indicated in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica)

Thus, the longer (dominant) horn fits with Persia, of whom Cyrus was the first King.

FunkyRes

Oh- I think I know where you are coming from.
Second Century Authorship people want to make Greece the fourth kingdom in the Statue and the fourth beast in the dream of the beasts.

That way they can say it is history.

The only way to do this is to make the second part of the statue and the second animal be Median kingdom, and the third in both sets be the Persian kingdom.

But this interpretation doesn't make any sense- instead, the second in both (what late daters call median kingdom) is the one of Cyrus- which I call medo-persian, but you call something else, but regardless of what it is called- was the kingdom that Cyrus put together when he conquored the Medes.

This puts greece as the third kingdom, and Rome as the fourth.

But late daters can't accept that because they don't want to say Rome was prophecied.

To bad for them.
Internal evidence within Daniel states that the Author knew the medes and persians were one kingdom.