Vorkosigan

Nothing strange about it. Collins has extensive experience with Aramaic documents, as you confirm, and, drawing on the research and opinions of many scholars, and the concensus of such, says that the Aramaic of Daniel is second temple and second century, as cited in Till. End of discussion.

<a href="http://www.units.muohio.edu/religion/material/103/2_22_00.htm" target="_blank">This commentary, drawing heavily on Collins</a>, says:
"According to Collins, the Aramaic sections seem to reflect a late Hellenistic date (mid 2nd B.C.E.), and in no case demand an exilic date (6th c. B.C.E.) for the text."

and of course:

"The Hebrew is not the Hebrew of the Hebrew Bible or the Exilic period; it is more like the Hebrew found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (mid 2nd C. E.), among which a significant amount of similar apocalyptic material was collected (copies of Daniel and Enoch) and produced."

Collins' bona fides are here:
<a href="http://www.yale.edu/divinity/fac/faculty/JCOLLINS.htm" target="_blank">Collins</a>

The commentary above also says:
"A. The Overwhelming Scholarly Consensus on the Dating of Daniel: In light of the history of the period, it is now the case that nearly all scholars, including many otherwise conservative scholars, agree that in substance Porphyry was correct (N. B. even the avowedly conservative-evangelical Word Biblical Commentary on Daniel, by John Goldingay ,1989, accepts the modern, critical assessment); Daniel is, in its final form, a Hellenistic document of the 2nd c. B. C. E., and does not come from the 6th-century B. C. E. - the "dramatic date" given in the text itself."

Really, it is over, FunkyRes. The 'overwhelming consensus' says it all. Only a few wacko inerrantists still hew to the line that Daniel was really written in the 6th century. You know, you don't have to be an inerrantist to believe in god or be a Christian. Most intelligent people aren't.

Baldwin's arguments on father/son in Aramaic are therefore meaningless for two reasons:

(1) the Aramaic is second century, not 6th, so whatever her arguments are, they are invalid;

(2) she must demonstrate that there is some reason based on the text itself to take the writer as meaning something other than the plain text meaning. Since Bel and Neb are given father-son labels from a couple of perspectives....

There's not much more to say. Collin's commentary on Daniel, which Till drew on, is the best. Till does not need to be an Aramaic scholar to show that Baldwin is wrong. He just needs to be abreast of current scholarship, and to be able to employ logic and reason. The best scholarship is Collins', all viewpoints agree on that -- just search "Collins Aramaic Daniel" in Google and read the sites from various perspectives. All are in agreement, regardless of confessional stance, that Collins' commentary is the most up-to-date, comprehensive and knowledgeable. As Collins says:

"All but the most conservative scholars now accept the conclusion that the book of Daniel is not a product of the Babylonian era but reached its present form in the 2d century B.C.E. Daniel is not a historical person but a figure of legend."

The ball is in your court. You can continue to insist on a position all outsiders regard as confessionally-inspired rather than resting on solid evidence and argument, or your can change your position. I would argue that it takes more brains and bravery to do the second than the first, and the result will introduce uncertainty and confusion, perhaps even pain, in the short run, but in the long run, give you a much richer perspective on the origin, the nature and the mystery of your god.

Vorkosigan

FunkyRes

If we excepted things because of "overwhelming consensus" new ideas would (including criticism!) would never have an opportunity.

I would challenge anyone here to find a KNOWN second (or even third) century aramaic document that matches the aramaic style in Daniel.

I'm betting it can't be done.

-=-
Daniel IS historically accurate.
You may quibble about Father/Son but no one posts why that can't be the case or offers what should have been used to convey a different relation.

You may quibble about the "feast" HAVING to be a new years feast, even though it is not stated as such and we have a second pre-maccabean document that confirms the party (and the death of the King that night)

You may quibble that Nabonidus was in Babylon at that time but we have a VERY OLD cuneiform that says he wasn't in Babylon when it fell to Cyrus.

We have one very old document that confirms the existance of Belshazzar and say he wasn't there.
Are there any old documents that confirm the existance of Belshazzar that say Nabonidus was in Babylon at the time?

Not any that I know of- so guess what has the better evidence of accuracy!

You can quibble that the death of A. IV E. was incorrectly prophecied, but in order to do that you MUST ignore Daniel 8 and say that, even though the compass kings had changed before in Daniel 11 and even though there was a CLEAR interlude in the compass soap opera, that when he came back to the Compass Kings he was still talking of A. IV E.

That only needs to be the case if you insist on a 2nd century dating, so it is circular- there is an error if you assume 2nd century date therefore it is second century date.

Ezekiel 38 is _not_ talking about Greece, and the "faulty" verses parallel Ezekiel 38.

The only quibble you have with the historical accuracy is the identification of Darius the Mede, but there is someone who fits that description.

Since the history in Daniel has external support, it is not inaccurate.

A second century date is therefore not demanded, and is very unlikely given the fact that Daniel was canonized by the Qumran community (yes- canonized by them. This is evidenced by them saying that he was a Prophet and using the "as it is written" phrase)

Daniel was clearly not written in second century BCE.

Vorkosigan

If we excepted things because of "overwhelming consensus" new ideas would (including criticism!) would never have an opportunity.

I would challenge anyone here to find a KNOWN second (or even third) century aramaic document that matches the aramaic style in Daniel.

I'm betting it can't be done.

IT HAS BEEN DONE! That's the point of Collins and the others. The consensus is clear on this. It's over.

You may quibble about Father/Son but no one posts why that can't be the case or offers what should have been used to convey a different relation.

The plain text is clear. You have given us no reason to assume otherwise. The Book of Baruch also makes the same assumption. Conclusion: the history is bad.

You may quibble that Nabonidus was in Babylon at that time but we have a VERY OLD cuneiform that says he wasn't in Babylon when it fell to Cyrus.

And says that he, not Neb, was Bel's father. Another historical error. Because Nabonidus was a usurper not in the direct line of descent, and could not have had an ancestor-descendant relation with Nebuchadrezzar. And Daniel does not know this.

The only quibble you have with the historical accuracy is the identification of Darius the Mede, but there is someone who fits that description.

There is no one who fits that description. As has been known since the 3rd century AD.

Since the history in Daniel has external support, it is not inaccurate.

The history in Daniel has no external support, and is bullshit. 120 satraps? No evidence for existence of Daniel? Archaeology does not recognize any other ruler than Cyrus following Nabonidus? Nitocris is not known to be related to anyone in the royal family of Babylon (you dropped that one like a hot potato).

A second century date is therefore not demanded, and is very unlikely given the fact that Daniel was canonized by the Qumran community (yes- canonized by them. This is evidenced by them saying that he was a Prophet and using the "as it is written" phrase)

Daniel appears in no document dated earlier than the late first century, and nothing precludes its rapid and enthusiastic acceptance by the members of that community.

Daniel was clearly not written in second century BCE.

Aargh. You'd paid no attention to anything written here. The historical errors are not quibbles.

(1) Darius the Mede is a clear error. No such person, no one who could fill that role. Mind you, the fictional Darius the Mede is referred to as the son of Ahasuerus, or Xerxes, but Xerxes did not live until a half century after this time. Just another quibble, I suppose.

(2) The plain text meaning of father-son is clear and known from two documents of the time. Nabonidus was a usurper and not in the direct line of descent. You have presented no evidence that Nitocris was related to the royal family, so your case has failed all around. Daniel wrongly thinks Belt is Neb's son, period. You have presented no evidence that would make us think otherwise. I've already agreed that father-son can be used metaphorically. The issue is whether it is in this passage. Obviously it is not, and since Nabonidus was a usurper, could not be.

(3) The empire had only a score of satraps, not 120. Please deal with this.

(4) There is no Daniel in the records of Babylon.

(5) Dan'el is a legendary figure in the Ugaritic records. It is clear that this myth goes back long before the sixth century and has deep roots. Ezekiel, writing before the sixth century, already mentions a Daniel.

(6) Aramaic did not come into vogue in Judaism until after the sixth century.

(7) The Aramaic is recognized by all scholars as second century, except for religious conservatives. Driver gives a list of some thirty Aramaic phrases that occur only in late documents that show that Daniel is obviously second century.

(8) The hebrew is second temple. Oh yeah, you've forgotten about that.

(9) Chronological errors between parts of Daniel. Mainstream critics believe they show that two or more stories were grafted together. For example, in Daniel 1 the four captives undergo a training period of 3 years beginning in the 1st year of Nebuchanezzar's reign, but in the second year of his reign, they interpret his dream. This is especially funny because in Chap 1, Daniel et al are presented to the King after three years training, and he has never heard of them, but in Chap 2, the King has already rewarded them with great favors after talking to them in their second year of training, and taken them into his court. In a couple of ancient manuscripts, the scribes recognized this error and corrected it.

(10)the use of the term watchers to refer to angels, which is common in second century documents, but not known before that time.

(11)Daniel's history of the Greek period is good until around 165-4.

(12) Daniel is the first book to mention Resurrection, an idea that came late to Judaism. Funny how Resurrection crops up in the sixth century, then 4 centuries passed and nobody mentions it, then suddenly, in the second century...just another one of them quibbles, I suppose.

(13) [urlhttp://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2001/4/014dan.html]There was no siege of Jerusalem so early in Neb's reign.[url] No evidence, and it doesn't fit the political and military events of the day. Only two sieges of Jerusalem are known around this time, both later. So Daniel was never taken captive during the siege, because there wasn't one. Just another quibble about a historical non-event....

(14) No scholar of ancient Babylonian or Persian history draws on Daniel for information. Everyone but a few religious nuts thinks it is second century.

(15) Daniel fits into a tradition of 3rd and 2nd century pseudoepigraphic documents like Enoch. It fits in no sixth century tradition. Collins says, "Since Daniel resembles the books of Enoch, Ezra, etc. in so many respects, our initial assumption must be that Daniel is, like them, pseudepigraphic. Nothing in the Book of Daniel requires us to abandon that assumption. The visions of Daniel, like those of Enoch, can be quite satisfactorily explained as constructs of the Hellenistic age, which are ascribed to an ancient figure to add to their authority" (The Book of Daniel, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees, Michael Glazier, Inc., 1981, pp. 12-13).

(16) Daniel does not mention that there were several kings between Neb and Bel, nor that Nabonidus' reign was 16 years. Daniel does not know that the city fell to the Persian general Ugbaru and Darius the Mede does not exist.

(17) Daniel is twice called Beltshazzar, which mainstream critics feel was probably the name of the figure in the Babylonian tradition that the stories of Daniel are borrowed from. There are a large number of stories that circulate around the figure of Daniel, of which this is only one.

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1998/6/986lions.html" target="_blank">Till points out</a>:
"EDITOR'S NOTE: At least one historian (George Roux, Ancient Iraq, Pelican Books, 1966, p. 352) has claimed that Belshazzar died in a battle with the Persians at a place called Opis before Babylon fell. Roux, who didn't cite his source of information, may have inferred the death of Belshazzar from the fact that he disappeared from Babylonian records after the battle of Opis. However, if Roux is correct, Belshazzar could not have been in Babylon on the night of its fall. If Roux was not correct, his conclusion would at least underscore the problems that historians confront in trying to put together accurate accounts of what happened thousands of years ago. One would think that the problems are sufficiently complex that biblicists would be a bit more reluctant to declare the Bible inerrant in all historical details, especially when some of those details obviously conflict with the extrabiblical records that have survived from that era, but biblicists as a whole are famous for their determination to defend the Bible on faith rather than evidence."

As you can see, you have not even started to pile up the mountains of counterevidence you need to show that Daniel is sixth, not second, century. Good luck, FunkyRes.

Vorkosigan

FunkyRes

Remember that quote when saying that Daniel is wrong by what you perceive to be historically accurate

Vorkosigan

I live by this quote. It is Daniel that is dead by it.

FunkyRes

Um, whatever.

Sauron

No, my objection is not semantical. It is historical. Anyone who uses the term "Medo-Persian" is being historically inaccurate, as well as displaying evidence of an agenda. What agenda would that be? To try to create the illusion that there is no biblical error, when Daniel describes a Median conquest of Babylon, and someone named "Darius the Mede".

And the special treatment that you are talking about for Medes only lasted a few years, before they were crushed by the Persians as punishment for rebelling. You seem to want to avoid facing that fact.

Actually, no, it is not moot. Daniel's reference to this kingdom as Median is historically inaccurate, and should be corrected. It also underscores why Daniel's "account" of history is not reliable.

Which external evidence would that be?

Incorrect. Daniel is in conflict with history.

1. Fallacy - greater age does not mean that it is more accurate;

2. When you claim it is more accurate than "other documents", what specific other documents are you comparing it to? Show me the comparison that you are referencing here.


Your explanation makes no sense. The Nabonidus Chronicle was found in 1882. You would have us believe that the mistake has persisted for 125 years and not been corrected. If that's your position, then I look forward to you proving it.

I suspect that you are simply incorrect, and are unwilling to admit it.

&lt;Heh&gt; It is also possible that older sources are simply wrong or biased, and are not corrected until years later. That is what we have seen with Herodotus.

You have totally failed to address the point raised in this quote:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02226c.htm
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.


Before you can claim that these later sources have been tampered with or edited, you'll need to provide proof of that. Making vague statements about texts being changed by "later parties" with no such evidence; well, that just isn't going to cut it.


Not really.


Your claim that "he may have known that there was no chance of him raising an army" is just speculation, for which you have zero proof. Even if it were true that he couldn't raise a resistance force, that doesn't automatically mean that he would march back to Babylon and take his chances with the Persians. That would have been stupid - if the Persians killed his son, then they'd be looking to kill him as well.

Your arguments are shallow, and very ad hoc. Are you planning on doing any research to support any of these hypothetical scenarios you have cooked up? Or do you plan to just throw out any old idea, in an attempt to avoid admitting a biblical error has occurred here?

Still waiting.

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Sauron

If Daniel claims that:
* a Mede "took Babylon", and
* is ruling over Babylon, and
* is appointing 120 satraps,

then Daniel is saying that the Medes were the key power - since a junior power would not be able to do any of these things.

And this, of course, is why Daniel is historically inaccurate.


Yes, I note it.

All that means is that Daniel made another mistake. Xerxes, was the son and successor of Darius I, not the other way around.

Xerxes was put in power by someone else: by his father, Darius. In fact, Darius designated Xerxes as heir-apparent, in preference to Xerxes' own elder brother, Artabazanes. In other words, the kingship would have normally gone to the oldest son; but Darius side-stepped that and passed the thrown instead to Xerxes, who was the younger brother.

Again: proof that Daniel is historically inaccurate.

1. He has reversed Darius and Xerxes.

2. And no one named Darius ever:
* conquered Babylon, or
* was "made" king over Babylon (Darius ascended the throne by force); or
* set up 120 satraps

Actually, it would. Because:

1. Babylon was the prize possession; for that reason, only a Persian would be ruler over it;

2. in a Persian kingdom where the Medes had lost their special status, they wouldn't be allowed to rule anyhow, for fear of creating more uprisings and rebellions


Flatly incorrect - and you have either misunderstood or misquoted Britannica. Nowhere does it say that Persia didn't have kings. Cyrus borrowed some elements of the Median court to cement the relationship; not because they didn't have kings of their own, or understand what a king was.


*Sigh*

Cyrus was not the first king of Persia. How many more wild guesses are you just going to throw out?