cloudyphiz

BLACK KNIGHT: I move for no man.
ARTHUR: So be it!
ARTHUR and BLACK KNIGHT: Aaah!, hiyaah!, etc.
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's left arm off]
ARTHUR: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT: 'Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR: A scratch? Your arm's off!
BLACK KNIGHT: No, it isn't.
ARTHUR: Well, what's that, then?
BLACK KNIGHT: I've had worse.
ARTHUR: You liar!
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on, you pansy!
[clang]
Huyah!
[clang]
Hiyaah!
[clang]
Aaaaaaaah!
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right arm off]
ARTHUR: Victory is mine!
[kneeling]
We thank Thee Lord, that in Thy mer--
BLACK KNIGHT: Hah!
[kick]
Come on, then.
ARTHUR: What?
BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you!
[kick]
ARTHUR: Eh. You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT: Yes, I have.
ARTHUR: Look!
BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.
[kick]
ARTHUR: Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken!
[kick]
Chickennn!
ARTHUR: Look, I'll have your leg.
[kick]
Right!
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: Right. I'll do you for that!
ARTHUR: You'll what?
BLACK KNIGHT: Come here!
ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a looney.

(edited to add: from Monty Python and the Holy Grail - (c) 1974 - Python (Monty) Pictures, Ltd.))

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

FunkyRes

Gobyras is a poor translation.
But no- Darius and Guburu are not close.

Some speculate Darius may have been a "throne name" (holder of the scepter or something like that) but I prefer not to speculate that.

He was more than a Satrap- he had authority to set those up under him.

FunkyRes

cloudyphiz - do you have anything useful to add?

cloudyphiz

no. just a comment from the peanut gallery.

FunkyRes

Yes- and the EVIDENCE, including the linguistic analysis of the text, the fact that Daniel is in the Septuagint, and that Daniel is so widespread and designated as a prophet in the Dead Sea Scrolls, points to a dating much earlier than 165 B.C.E.

Vorkosigan

Unfortunately, if you look through the <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~ironmen/qumran.htm" target="_blank">dates of the manuscripts Baldwin gives</a>, all of them are either late second century or first century, or even first century of the present era.

Thus, there is plenty of time for Daniel to be accepted by any community at Qumran. In fact, there is absolutely no reason why Daniel could not have been welcomed with enthusiasm the day after it was written. Especially since the forger -- excuse me, author -- could argue that it was indeed old. Interestingly, there are several versions of Daniel among the DSS, and of course, circulating in the wider world.

The community(ies) that wrote the DSS considered a large number of texts to be "scriptural," such as Jubilees or Enoch (whose father Dan'el was). These texts were mercilessly ransacked for allegorical, hidden or secret meanings that a small circle of interpreters was allowed to create on behalf of the community. This attitude is very similar to modern Dispensationalist wackos, who read the Bible in their idiosyncratic way, and argue that we are living in end times.

In any case, The Book of Daniel is not classed with the Prophets, but with the Writings, thus showing that it appeared after the Prophets.

The argument from Aramaic is closed; whatever Baldwin may think she has, the fact is that the consensus is that chapters 1-6 may date from an earlier period around 300 -- although Rainer Albertz has apparently cogently argued that it is a slightly product of third-century Alexandrian Jews -- and 7-12 are definitely from the Ptolemaic period. Apparently the alleged problems with Aramaic have either been explained or do not exist. Baldwin appears to ignore the fact that Aramaic did not come into use until after the sixth century, so an Aramaic Daniel would put it after that time. The Hebrew of the work is late, in any case, and it contains Persian and Greek loan-words.

Can you get me some information on Baldwin's credentials? My understanding is that her academic background is rather thin.

In any case, you have utterly failed to show that criticism of Daniel's enormous number of historical errors is off-base. Additionally, you have given us no credible reason to reject methodological naturalism in assessing the date of prophecies. You have no provided any details of Baldwin's arguments. In short, you've given us no strong reason to accept that Daniel was written in the sixth century. The idea was recognized as laughable in the 4th century AD, and no one has been able to demonstrate the opposite since.

<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm" target="_blank">See the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia</a> on the composition of the Septuagint. The traditional story of the composition of the Septuagint was demolished as early as 1705 by Hody, and this was upheld by later research. <a href="http://www.bible-researcher.com/isbelxx01.html" target="_blank">This 1915 article</a> finishes off the view that it is a third century work. In any case, because of transmission problems and interpolations....

So, sorry, but Daniel's appearance in the Septuagint is not any big deal.

Vorkosigan

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

FunkyRes

Sorry, this has already been covered.
Daniel is listed with the Prophets both in the LXX and in the canon listed in Josephus, both of which are EARLIER than the MT canon which places Daniel in the writings.

This has already been pointed out.
Try again.

Vorkosigan

Thanks. The Book of Daniel differs from other prophetic literature. The Prophets were considered closed after about 400. Hence, the recognition among compilers of the canon that Daniel did not belong in the Prophets is important.

We're still awaiting an argument for

• the existence of Darius the mede
• the multitude of other historical errors, such as Nebuchadnezzar not being Beltshazzar's father, the lack of evidence for your claim that Nitocris was Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, the fact that Daniel was unaquainted with Cyrus, his ruler, and many others
• the fact that Aramaic came into use after the sixth century
• the existence of loan words from Persian and Greek in Daniel
• the clear references to second century events
• failed prophecies in Daniel coinciding with the time after Daniel is alleged to have been written by mainstream scholars.
• the non-references to Daniel in any book of the intervening period between the sixth century and the second
• The hebrew being late, not early.
• the introduction of names for angels, another later innovation of Daniel

and so on. Look unless you start coming up with serious arguments supported by actual evidence, I see no reason in continuing this thread, where you have obviously failed to make even the a glimmer of a case.

Vorkosigan

FunkyRes

No-

You have zero proof that the "prophetic canon" was closed at 400 BC OR that such a closing is why Daniel is not listed with the prophets in the TANUK.

I will spell this out as simply as I ca-

1) Josephus was post 400 B.C.
2) Josepjus lists Daniel with the prophets in his listing of the canon
3) The canon we have from the MT is from a later date than joseph.

You thus need to demonstrate several points-

1) That the prophet canon was closed at 400 BC (I would like some documentation on that)
2) That Daniel was not in the canon when it was closed.

Using current place in canon means nothing because we _can_ demonstrate that at one point, Joseph certainly _was_ listed with the prophets.

-=-
Rest of your points-

While the weakest point, covered.
Probably Guburu

[quote]
the multitude of other historical errors, such as Nebuchadnezzar not being Beltshazzar's father, the lack of evidence for your claim that Nitocris was Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, the fact that Daniel was unaquainted with Cyrus, his ruler, and many others
[quote]

I gave an Aramaic scholar who explained that Nebuchadrezzar does not have to be literal father of Beltshazzar. You took objection because she was a Christian and didn't agree with your 165 dating, but you failed to provide an Aramaic scholar who discredits her at all, let alone on that point.

Go get yourself an aramaic scholar.

This is a lie.
Aramaic was the lingua franca of the sixth century, it is what an officer of the court would have used.

Any historian will tell you that there were Greeks who served in Nebuchadrezzars army, and if I'm not mistaken- there were already greek temples in Babylon area in 7th century BCE. Also, Nebuchadrezzars throne room shows influence of Greece.

It is therefore NOT AT UNUSUAL AT ALL for there to br three greek loan words, all of which are technical terms for musical instruments- much like in English, Piano and Viola are loan words for instruments we are familiar with.

The loan persian words are also all technical, and very few in number, and all of the OLD persian. Daniel living under the medo-persian government late in his life certainly explains this.

What is interesting about the very few loaned persian words is that they are all OLD PERSIAN, many of which had dropped completely from use by the second century B.C.E.

Indeed, the Persian that is in Daniel indicates a pre second century authorship.

And the clear reference to first century events.
And suxth century events.

True- Antiochus Epiphanes is talked about a lot, but he was going to be an incredibly nasty dude- sacrificing an unclean animal to a foreign God in the Temple!

It needs to also be noted that the seventy weeks of years CAN NOT possibly end in the second century BCE. What's your 2nd century dating explanation for that?

There are no failed prophecies.
Daniel correctly predicted the death of A. IV E. in Daniel 8, where he says he will not be killed by human power.

In Daniel 11, there is a multi verse complete change of focus before the alleged "error" which is not an error at all.

The error is assuming that after Daniel changes focus for several verses, that he returns to prophecy a death that conflicts with what he prophecied in Chapter 8.

How many Jewish works do we have from this time period?
Arguements from silence are week.
The fact that he was called a prophet by the Qumran community in a document that is probably at most 50 years after 165 BCE means that they were calling him a prophet when some in their community were well aware that it was a recent work?

Get a clue.

Actually, I've heard that the Hebrew is probably 4th century BCE or earlier.
Please reference your hebrew scholar who dates it that late.

Or a later innovation that copied Daniel.
How many places in the Old Testament where Angels interacted with men would a name have been useful?

Arguably when Jacob wrestles the Angel, but there, Jacob asks a name and isn't told.

Furthermore, Lot had angels in his home in Sodom.
The story says he didn't know they were angels.
This implies that they gave him names to call them by, for when you meet someone, you exchange names.

-=-
Have a nice day.

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: FunkyRes ]</p>

Sauron

Uh, you still don't get it.
The Cyropaedia was written several centuries before Christ. Its author, Xenophon, died shortly before 350 BCE.

The Cyropaedia established his authenticity centuries ago. Scholars had independent evidence of his existence, outside of the book of Daniel. So if anyone ever "doubted" that Belshazzar was fictious, they couldn't have believed it for very long.

Secondly, as far as I can tell, the only one who is claiming that Belshazzar's existence was doubted is YOU.


1. It was a prayer on behalf of the young prince.

2. You talk as if someone doubted that he ever reached adulthood. As far as I can tell, no historians doubt that - perhaps you can provide the names of any such historians?

3. Your third step above, "then they found the Nabonidus Chronicle", is the same thing as your first step. The reference you are talking about (where Nabonidus prayed for his son) is IN the Nabonidus Chronicle. If they found the prayer, then they were looking at the Chronicle.


Again: I find no evidence that anyone ever doubted Belshazzar's existence. And before any of these discoveries you mention ever occurred, there was still independent evidence for his existence -- from the Cyropaedia.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Are you saying that an English historian wouldn't correclty identify a Babylonian king, just because that person wouldn't be considered a king in a British monarchy?

The article is written from the standpoint of a historian of Babylon. It doesn't matter what political system the author lived under; they were documenting the roles and responsibilities of Belshazzar in a Babylonian system. And in THAT system, Belshazzar was not a king.


Yes, it is circular. You cannot use the bible to prove the bible is true.


I don't know who you think you are agreeing with.
Daniel has not been vindicated at all.