FunkyRes

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

And Daniel essentially implies this, as Belshazzar was only able to offer third rule in the kingdom to the person who could read the writing on the wall- not second rule.

Vorkosigan

Joyce Baldwin is one of the most respected scholars of Early Israel History.

Just because she has faith in God and stands up for what she believes is the truth, to the opposition of liberal scholars,

FunkyRes, not everyone who follows modern Bible scholarship's conclusions is a liberal.

... does not discredit her excellent scholarship of Aramaic any more that Einstein's denial of Entropy (God does not play dice) or Newton's assertation of God through the Thumb (which he claims was too complex to exist without a creator) make them poor physicists.

Einstein and Newton are entitled to their opinions. I do find it wonderful that you are quoting an atheist and an Arian heretic, respectively, for their opinions on religious matters.

In her Tyndale commentaries, she tended to translate many passages herself where she felt the RSV got it wrong, and would often comment on things that a translation just could not capture.

I am delighted she has enough confidence to overrule a committee of bible translations scholars.

To discredit her, find a big booboo in one of those

There's no need. Her silly comments on psuedoepigraphy and prophecy are enough.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FunkyRes:


Is it?
Or could Darius the Great have chosen to name his son after the Father of the man he was named after?

Who was Darius named after? Cyrus was succeeded by Cambyses, who was succeed by Darius the Great, who fathered Xerxes.

This kind of argumentation is ridiculous, FunkyRes. Or could it be.... is no argument at all! Can you assemble some objective evidence that Darius the Mede ever existed, ruled in Babylon and was fathered by Xerxes? All archaeological evidence is that the rule of Cyrus followed directly on the rule of Nabonidus, as receipts and other mundane but dated matter from the records make clear.

Careful when you say Darius the Mede never existed. We never have mention of anyone by that name outside the context of Daniel.

Well, that clears that up.

But people said the same thing about Beltshazzar. And Daniel has been vindicated.

Umm....no. As Sauron pointed out, since the 18th century, this has been known. Daniel has not been vindicated on any points

Are you aware of how little we actually know from that era?

Most of us are. However, what we do know rules out the history that Daniel supplies us.

Don't be too surprised if at some point Darius the Mede is identified, and suddenlt everything snaps together.

We won't be holding our collective breath. Don't be too surprised if further archaeological discovery confirms what we all already know: that Daniel got everything wrong.

If he is, I'm betting he's the same guy as Guburu.

You should invest in the lottery. You have the same chance of winning.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

This is unclear. Do you mean the Book of Daniel? To what are you responding?

Vorkosigan

As Rogerson's Old Testament Criticism in the 19th Century: England and Germany affirms on page 24, in the second half of the 18th century, critics were already rejecting the idea that Daniel could have been written in the sixth century. See Michaelis or Eichhorn or Corrodi..

Of course, Porphyry, the brilliant critic of Christianity, had already figured this out in the third century AD.

Vorkosigan

FunkyRes

You attempt to discredit Baldwin's scholarship on the fact that she made some Christian statements, but embrace Porphyry and include the fact that he is a brilliant critic of Christianity (kind of like how you embrace this Till guy)

Get a scholar of ancient Aramaic to discredit Baldwin.

Anything else is childish and does nothing to discredit her scholarship.

Vorkosigan

You attempt to discredit Baldwin's scholarship on the fact that she made some Christian statements,

Nice try. Baldwin is discredited not by her Christianity, but by her failure to embrace sound methodology and the conclusions of several hundred years of OT text criticism. Lots of Christians think Daniel is second-century. This is not a Christian vs. Skeptic issue, but an issue of evidence and argument.

but embrace Porphyry and include the fact that he is a brilliant critic of Christianity (kind of like how you embrace this Till guy)

I selected the group of Till articles because they are exhaustive, show all the arguments on both sides, one by a confirmed skeptic, the other by a fundamentalist and literalist, and show precisely why no serious scholar supports a sixth century date for Daniel.

Get a scholar of ancient Aramaic to discredit Baldwin.

I don't need to. The late date of Daniel is supported by numerous pieces of evidence and argument.

Anything else is childish and does nothing to discredit her scholarship.

Her claims for Daniel are not supported by sound argument and evidence. Ergo, she is wrong.

Vorkosigan

Sauron

Speculation, without any proof? No, thanks. Besides, as Vorkosigan points out, you have the naming game wrong.

The easier thing to believe is that the father-son relationship was transposed - especially since no one named "Darius the Mede" has ever been identified. Your explanation requires the wholesale manufacture of some new person in history.

Uh, no. They did not. Perhaps you missed my reference above to the Cyropedia.
And Daniel has been vindicated.

We actually know quite a bit.

I would be very surprised. Given the parameters of the account in Daniel, no such person existed.

1. He was a satrap - not a king.

2. By the way: do you have a mechanism yet to square the fact that the names Darius and Gobryas aren't even close?

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Sauron

No, he was not king. The quote from Britannica makes that clear. There is also information in Joan Oates work on Babylon, which you should review.

BZZT. Circular reasoning. What Daniel implies doesn't count - because that is what you are trying to prove is correct in the first place. However, since no one (except radical literalists) accept Daniel as an accurate historical record, your "proof" doesn't work.

FunkyRes

Yes- for a VERY long time Belteshazzar was thought to be completely ficticious.

Then they found a reference where Nabonidus prayed for his son Belteshazzar, I believe in the nineteenth century (1800's). But it was said that he may have never made it to adulthood.

Then they found evidence that he had been an adult.

Then they found the Nabonidus Chronicle.

-=-
The Encyclopaedian Brittanica would not call him King, for it is written from an English perspective, where calling him King would not be appropriate.

Actually- the internal text is VERY important. Not circular at all.

Daniel calling King may not (I argue wasn't) inappropriate.

Yes, I agree- Daniel has been vindicated.

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: FunkyRes ]</p>