Freethought & Rationalism Archive

FunkyRes · 07-23-2002, 08:14 PM

[quote]
I'm interested in what your Cyclopaedia says about belshazzar.

I'm searching on google- so far, I haven't it.

Here, though, is a page discussing Belshazzar and his history with skeptics:

Quote:

For many years Bible critics pointed to the Biblical mention of Belshazzar as an evidence against the authenticity of the book of Daniel. All available records at that time indicated that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon, and no mention was made of Belshazzar. But archaeology has since that time confirmed the accuracy of the Bible. We now know that from the third year of Nabonidus' reign, his son, Belshazzar, reigned as a co-regent with him. For over a decade Belshazzar actively ran the kingdom while Nabonidus was away in Tema.

In 1861 the first cuneiform tablet was published mentioning Belshazzar by name as the oldest son of Nabonidus. (H. Fox Talbot, "Translation of Some Assyrian Inscriptions," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 18 (1861):195.)

In 1882, the Nabonidus Chronicle was published, which showed that for several years Nabonidus was in Tema while his son, the princes, and the troops were in Babylon. (Documented in Raymond Philip Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar. Yale University Press, 1929, p. 103.)

Then, in 1924, the Verse Account of Nabonidus became available, which clearly states that when Nabonidus left Babylon, he "entrusted the kingship" to his oldest son. (British Museum tablet 38,299; translated in James B. Prichard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 2d ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1955. p. 313.)

<a href="http://www.patmospapers.com/daniel/dan5.htm" target="_blank">http://www.patmospapers.com/daniel/dan5.htm</a>

FunkyRes · 07-23-2002, 08:55 PM

I found an online version on this Cyropaedia.

Regarding the "disputed feast" this is from Book VII chapter V

Quote:

[20] "My friends, the river has stepped aside for us; he offers us a
passage by his own high-road into Babylon. We must take heart and
enter fearlessly, remembering that those against whom we are to march
this night are the very men we have conquered before, and that too
when they had their allies to help them, when they were awake, alert,
and sober, armed to the teeth, and in their battle order. [21]
To-night we go against them when some are asleep and some are drunk,
and all are unprepared: and when they learn that we are within the
walls, sheer astonishment will make them still more helpless than
before. [22] If any of you are troubled by the thought of volleys from
the roofs when the army enters the city, I bid you lay these fears
aside: if our enemies do climb their roofs we have a god to help us,
the god of Fire. Their porches are easily set aflame, for the doors
are made of palm-wood and varnished with bitumen, the very food of
fire. [23] And we shall come with the pine-torch to kindle it, and
with pitch and tow to feed it. They will be forced to flee from their
homes or be burnt to death. [24] Come, take your swords in your hand:
God helping me, I will lead you on. Do you," he said, turning to
Gadatas and Gobryas, "show us the streets, you know them; and once we
are inside, lead us straight to the palace."

[25] "So we will," said Gobryas and his men, "and it would not
surprise us to find the palace-gates unbarred, for this night the
whole city is given over to revelry. Still, we are sure to find a
guard, for one is always stationed there."

"Then," said Cyrus, "there is no time for lingering; we must be off at
once and take them unprepared."

This agrees with the Daniel account of the feast.

Further- I found this: (same book/chapter)

Quote:

[29]
Gadatas and his men, seeing the gates swing wide, darted in, hard on
the heels of the others who fled back again, and they chased them at
the sword's point into the presence of the king.

[30] They found him on his feet, with his drawn scimitar in his hand.
By sheer weight of numbers they overwhelmed him: and not one of his
retinue escaped, they were all cut down, some flying, others snatching
up anything to serve as a shield and defending themselves as best they
could. [31] Cyrus sent squadrons of cavalry down the different roads
with orders to kill all they found in the street, while those who knew
Assyrian were to warn the inhabitants to stay indoors under pain of
death. [32] While they carried out these orders, Gobryas and Gadatas
returned, and first they gave thanks to the gods and did obeisance
because they had been suffered to take vengeance on their unrighteous
king, and then they fell to kissing the hands and feet of Cyrus,
shedding tears of joy and gratitude.

Um, if Nabonidus wasn't in Babylon at the time Cyrus took it (we know he wasn't)- then why does the text say they killed the king?

Oh yeah- I remember.
A king could have another king over him- that wouldn't be inappropriate use of the word for king.

So here we have the death of King Belshazzar, on the same night as Cyrus took Babylon.

Just like Daniel says

btw- I did a search for Belshazzar in thy Cyclopaedia and didn't find him.

If he's in there- what's he called?

EDIT:
Er, I meant Cyropaedia, not cyclopaedia

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

Sauron · 07-24-2002, 10:40 AM

Quote:

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.

Very Good! You agree with Daniel!

wrong. Daniel's evaluation does not match what I said. History shows this was a PERSIAN Empire.

Characterizing it as "Medo-Persian" as you have done is incorrect.

Quote:

[bible quotes from Daniel deleted]

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

Except that this wasn't accomplished by "the kings of Media and Persia". It was accomplished by the Persians, who ran the entire show. You are deliberately ignoring what I indicated earlier:

* this was a Persian-controlled kingdom;
* "Medo-Persian" is not historically accurate (no matter how many times you repeat the phrase);
* the Medes were in secondary status, while the Persians were always in control;
* the Medes revolted when Darius I ascended the throne, and were smashed to bits and lost any special privileges

Quote:

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

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've seen this nonsensical idea mentioned also - but I've also seen creationism mentioned in many
places, and that is bogus. Which is another way of saying that nobody has mentioned this particular idea of yours, except for biblical literalists. There are absolutely zero serious scholars who hold this idea. In addition, Darius' own comments about himself (in the Behistun inscription) don't support the idea.

Quote:

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.

But the only reason why you are even going down this trail, is because you need this in order to avoid admitting a mistake in the text. There are no other reasons to create such a fairy tale explanation.

Quote:

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

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

On the contrary. A seven-year absence would have been documented, not only by internal Babylonian
sources, but by external sources as well. Nebuchadnezzar can't just vanish for seven years, without someone noticing it. We have excruciating details about the daily life of the Babylonian priesthood - if the king was unable to attend the New Year's feast, that would have substantially affected the kingdom - and before you respond, you should probably investigate Babylonian religion and rituals, in order to understand the importance of this ceremony.

Moreover, such an absence would have been noticed by external sources as well. That is why I mentioned Egypt. It would have been an opportunity for invasion, for encroachments on Babylonian territory, trade routes, etc. Yet there is no mention of anything like this.

And finally, we know the details of Nebuchadnezzar's life - where he was, what military campaigns he was engaged in, what monuments he constructed, etc. There is no place in his life to insert a gap of seven years. Period.

Quote:

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.

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

Actually, no. It does not take care of c,d or e. The description offered in Daniel corresponds to the New Year's feast. Again: you need to educate yourself on this event, before responding about it.

Quote:

To assume it had to be a New Years Feast is silly.

Incorrect. The only feast that fits the description of the scope and magnitude here is the Babylonian New Year's feast.

Quote:

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

Sorry, a single quote from Cyrus (especially when you cannot even give a reference for it) isn't sufficient here. One ruler trading insults with another doesn't prove a military mistake.

In the second place, there are other reasons why Cyrus might have thought the ruler of Babylon was a fool; I know of several. But that doesn't demonstrate that the rulers of Babylon would have been stupid enough to be feasting and drinking, while invaders were knocking down their gates.

Thirdly, by the time of the Persian invasion, Belshazzar wasn't even in control anymore. Nabonidus had returned from Arabia, in order to defend the empire against Cyrus. If you knew anything about the era, you would have realized that.

Fourth, there were factions in Babylon who would have seized on such a stupid maneuver, as a way to depose Nabonidus. Say what you will about Nabonidus, but he wasn't stupid enough to lose his kingdom. Nor would the Babylonian generals have permitted it.

Sauron · 07-24-2002, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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

Sorry - you need to provide several such authors. One person doesn't establish your position as solid.

Second, I believe Vorkosigan has indicated that Baldwin's credentials are insufficient. You need to present and defend them.

Third, what I actually asked for is for you to show me evidence that YOU can tell the difference between a real Aramaic scholar, and a bad one.

Sauron · 07-24-2002, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FunkyRes:
For many years Bible critics pointed to the Biblical mention of Belshazzar as an evidence against the authenticity of the book of Daniel. All available records at that time indicated that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon, and no mention was made of Belshazzar. But archaeology has since that time confirmed the accuracy of the Bible. We now know that from the third year of Nabonidus' reign, his son, Belshazzar, reigned as a co-regent with him. For over a decade Belshazzar actively ran the kingdom while Nabonidus was away in Tema.
<a href="http://www.patmospapers.com/daniel/dan5.htm" target="_blank">http://www.patmospapers.com/daniel/dan5.htm</a>

The problem is that this person is merely doing what you have done: asserting that historians doubted the existence of Belshazzar.

However neither this website, nor you, have ever been able to point to a single historian that doubted Belshazzar's existence. Give me a name.

And before you find another website with an unsupported claim, let me save you a step or two: I am already aware that this is a frequently-repeated fundamentalist claim. It's all over the internet, to be exact. And people like Josh McDowell repeat it as well.

However, none of you have been able to come up with the name of a historian, or a history book, that ever voiced any such doubts.

Hope this makes your task clearer for you.

FunkyRes · 07-24-2002, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron:


Sorry - you need to provide several such authors. One person doesn't establish your position as solid.

Second, I believe Vorkosigan has indicated that Baldwin's credentials are insufficient. You need to present and defend them.

Third, what I actually asked for is for you to show me evidence that YOU can tell the difference between a real Aramaic scholar, and a bad one.

This is easily accomplished.
Would you like me to?

Both you and I know that they exist.

I have yet, btw, seen ONE scholar of ancient aramaic refute this.

-=-
btw- can you give me a reference in the Cyropaedia that mentions Belshazzar?

In the copy I have (the text file you can download off the net) he isn't called Belshazzar.

But if you give me the book, chapter, verse- I'm sure this claim of yours can be verified.

Sauron · 07-24-2002, 11:44 AM

I found an online version on this Cyropaedia.
Regarding the "disputed feast" this is from Book VII chapter V

Quote:

(excerpted)

This agrees with the Daniel account of the feast.

Actually, it doesn't. Or rather, I mean, both descriptions do talk about conquest of Babylon. But there is no mention of the key details of Daniel's account - writing on the wall, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, etc.

In addition, the historical records show that there was no destruction in Babylon; the take-over was almost bloodless, and was (in fact) welcomed by many of the inhabitants. The tales of massive slaughter, burning, etc. simply didn't take place.

Quote:

Further- I found this: (same book/chapter)

(excerpted)

Um, if Nabonidus wasn't in Babylon at the time Cyrus took it (we know he wasn't)- then why does the text say they killed the king?

I'm sure they did kill the king - because you're wrong about where Nabonidus was. Nabonidus was in Babylon at the time Cyrus took it. Here is a reference from a National Geographic article on the event:

When Cyrus with his Persians and Medes invaded Babylonia, Nabuna'id [Nabunidus] sent against them his son Belshar-utsur - - the Belshazzar of the book of Daniel. There is still extant a cylinder of Nabuna'id inscribed with a prayer to the gods on behalf of the young prince.

The prayer was not heard. Belshazzar was totally defeated. Nabuna'id shut himself up in Babylon, whose mighty walls and storehouses should have withstood siege for years, probably until the strength of the army of Cyrus was broken; but there was treachery within the gates. We are all familiar with the old story of how Cyrus diverted the Euphrates, marched his troops up the dry river-bed into the town and took it by surprise on a night of feasting. That is all pure romance.

The "treachery within the gates" refers to the priesthood of Marduk, who had been conspiring with Cyrus II for several months prior, to turn the kingdom over to Cyrus.

Notice also that this quotation indicates the story of drying up the Euphrates was merely a legend - not surprising, since a lot of ancient history (even the Cyropaedia) wove local legends into the text. This is furhter confirmed by Britannica:

When the Persians under Cyrus attacked in 539 BC, the capital fell almost without resistance; a legend (accepted by some as historical) that Cyrus achieved entry by diverting the Euphrates is unconfirmed in contemporary sources.

Quote:

Oh yeah- I remember.
A king could have another king over him- that wouldn't be inappropriate use of the word for king.

But as we saw, Nabonidus was already in Babylon.
Here is another quotation from Oates that substantiates that fact:

It would appear that Cyrus' liberal religious views were welcomed after the discontent aroused by the heresies of Nabonidus. Indeed an inscription of Cyrus from Babylon relates how Marduk, whom Nabonidus had neglected, marched with him and his army 'as a friend and companion.' Nabonidus was later captured in Babylon where, according to Xenophon, he was killed. Cyrus entered Babylon in triumph, forbade looting and appoint a Persian governor, leaving undisturbed the religious institutions and civil administration.

So you have neither historical nor linguistic evidence for your position that a king could have another king over him.

Quote:

So here we have the death of King Belshazzar, on the same night as Cyrus took Babylon.
Just like Daniel says

Actually, no. Belshazzar was killed in battle, as indicated above. He was not killed in the temple, or inside the walls of Babylon. And Cyrus II did not enter Babylon for another 17 days afterwards. Again, Britannica:

Belshazzar died after Babylon fell to the Persian general Gobyras without resistance on Oct. 12, 539, and probably before the Persian king Cyrus II entered the city 17 days later.

Quote:

btw- I did a search for Belshazzar in thy Cyclopaedia and didn't find him.

If he's in there- what's he called?

Send me the link for the online Cyropedia. I am betting that they are using an alternate spelling of his name:
Neo-Babylonian Bel-shar-usur, Greek BALTASAR, OR BALTHASAR.

Sauron · 07-24-2002, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FunkyRes:

This is easily accomplished.
Would you like me to?

Both you and I know that they exist.

Then stop talking about it and start doing it.

Quote:

I have yet, btw, seen ONE scholar of ancient aramaic refute this.

You must have missed Vorkosigan's post.

Quote:

btw- can you give me a reference in the Cyropaedia that mentions Belshazzar?

In the copy I have (the text file you can download off the net) he isn't called Belshazzar.

But if you give me the book, chapter, verse- I'm sure this claim of yours can be verified.

See my last post. Note - this isn't just "my claim". Britannica:

Belshazzar
Neo-Babylonian Bel-shar-usur, Greek BALTASAR, OR BALTHASAR, coregent of Babylon who was killed at the capture of the city by the Persians.
Belshazzar had been known only from the biblical Book of Daniel (chapters 5, 7-8) and from Xenophon's Cyropaedia until 1854, when references to him were found in Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions.

FunkyRes · 07-24-2002, 11:57 AM

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.

At any rate-

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Quote:

wrong. Daniel's evaluation does not match what I said. History shows this was a PERSIAN Empire.

Characterizing it as "Medo-Persian" as you have done is incorrect.

Reading the Cyropaedia that I have, Cyrus sure does mention an awful lot of Mede's under his command.
If you like, I can make a listing of several of them.

Yes- Persia was dominant, but Cyrus joined the two kingdoms under Persian rule.
Call it what you want, that's irrelevent.
It was a kingdom that was combined medians and persians.
Yes, with the Persians dominant- as indicated by the horn that grew up later being longer.

Quote:

I've seen this nonsensical idea mentioned also - but I've also seen creationism mentioned in many
places, and that is bogus. Which is another way of saying that nobody has mentioned this particular idea of yours, except for biblical literalists. There are absolutely zero serious scholars who hold this idea. In addition, Darius' own comments about himself (in the Behistun inscription) don't support the idea.

No, there is no support for it.
I don't think it's the case, either- though I don't reject it as a possibility.

Quote:

But the only reason why you are even going down this trail, is because you need this in order to avoid admitting a mistake in the text. There are no other reasons to create such a fairy tale explanation.

No. You do not know the "only reason I'm going down that trail"
Please cut the BS in that department.

Quote:

Actually, no. It does not take care of c,d or e. The description offered in Daniel corresponds to the New Year's feast. Again: you need to educate yourself on this event, before responding about it.

So then are saying that Book VII of the Cyropaedia is incorrect?
Specifically, read Chapter 5

Quote:

Sorry, a single quote from Cyrus (especially when you cannot even give a reference for it) isn't sufficient here. One ruler trading insults with another doesn't prove a military mistake.

I am 99% sure that is recorded in the Chronicle of Nabonidus.
At any rate- did you not read the portion of the Cyropaedia that I quoted above?

You got some explaining to do with how accurately the Cyropaedia fits the description in Daniel of the change in power.

I suppose you'll say Daniel used the Cyropaedia as a source, and that the Cyropaedia is incorrect.
But if the author used the Cyropaedia- then why did he use Darius the Mede?

Quote:

Thirdly, by the time of the Persian invasion, Belshazzar wasn't even in control anymore. Nabonidus had returned from Arabia, in order to defend the empire against Cyrus. If you knew anything about the era, you would have realized that.

Demonstrate this with a link to scholarship, please.

Here is a contradiction to your claim:

Quote:

In the month of Tashritu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis[i.e., Baghdad] on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he [Cyrus or Nabonidus?] massacred the confused inhabitants. The fifteenth day [October 12], Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The sixteenth day, Gobryas [litt: Ugbaru], the governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards, Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned there.

That is from the Chronicle of Nabonidus which you can find here:
<a href="http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon02.html" target="_blank">http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon02.html</a>

It's in the Seventeenth year (539/538)

How could Nabonidus have RETURNED to Babylon if he had been there when it was taken?
How could he have RETURNED if he had been killed, as the Cyropaedia records the King in Babylon being killed?

Please, do explain.

FunkyRes · 07-24-2002, 12:39 PM

Note on the medo-persian thing-

I looked up Belshazzar in my Encyclopaedia Brittanica (fifteenth edition, 1989) to see if it referenced where Belshazzar is in the cyropaedia.
Nope.

Anyway- I looked up Cyrus II as well-

Quote:

No Persian chauvinist, Cyrus was quick to learn from the conquored peoples. He not only concilated the Medes but joined them with the Persians in a kind of dual monarchy of the Medes and Persians. Cyrus had to borrow the traditions of kingship from the Medes, who had ruled an empire when the Persians were merely their vassals. It is probable that a Mede was traditionally made an advisor to the Achaemenid king, as a sort of chief minister;

So, um, medo-persian is _not_ such a bad description, now is it?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.