Posts by Vidqun

12

Another problem with Daniel

by kepler in

i know, if i got a name associated with anything beside an early 17th century astronomer, it's from picking apart the book of daniel.

much of fundamentalist & apocalyptic thought (sic) arises from explanations of this book's passages and i protest.

we could review other points, but let me note the following discrepancy: the end of chapter 1 and the beginning of chapter 9.. chapter 1 begins with the 3rd year of jehoiakim's reign with a nebuchadnezzar raid.

Vidqun

Kepler, just for the record, I view your attitude as condescending, dismissive, quite narrow-minded in fact. Nevertheless, if you enjoy studying Persian history from a Greek perspective, that’s you choice. E.g., it would be like studying Nazi history from British sources. I, on the other hand, would prefer to compare all available evidence, and work from there. If there are serious deviations in some of the accounts, I would not stoop so low as to denigrate the author, instead I will question his source(s). The person that comes to mind here is Josephus.

Nebuchadnezzar vs. Nabonidus: Firstly, to me it is no surprise that Nabonidus does not feature in the book of Daniel. He was away from Babylon for ten of his seventeen years. Secondly, do you really think you are going to read of the shortcomings or illnesses of Babylonian kings in official sources? Modern scholars have come up with some wayward theories, and this is one of them. They are are saying in so many words: The person(s) that wrote or edited Daniel were so stupid, they mistook Nebuchadnezzar for Nabonidus, or vice versa. You are saying: The person that wrote the Prayer of Nabonidus is closest to the truth. The writer of Daniel is a lier and a fraudster. You base your theory on the phrase “gods of gold and silver, of bronze and iron, of wood and stone” directed at Belshazzar. Did it not occur to you that the writer of the Prayer of Nabonidus might have read the book of Daniel? Amongst the DSS were found quite a few fragments of different Daniel MSS. These were viewed as scripture, and would discount a late Maccabean dating of Daniel. By the way, the Maccabees called Daniel one of their ancestors (1 Macc. 2:51-60 JB). But I forgot, they were also ignorant primitives that had no clue.

Difference here concerns respect. I respect the writer/editor of an account as a person and because of his writing ability. Think in the lines of Shakespeare. One can criticize his work but still have respect for the man and his writing ability.

Statement: “Historical inaccuracy: The relationship of Belshazzar in Daniel 5:11 is stated to be that of a “son” to Nebuchadnezzar, whereas it is known that actually Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus.” Answer: Yet, Nabonidus was in all probability married to Nitocris, the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, at least as early as 585 BCE. And it hardly needs to be mentioned that a grandfather in Hebrew usage is often referred to as a “father” (Heb. ’b and Aram. ’bb’), as, for example, in Genesis 28:13 and 32:10. Indeed, there is no other term for “grandfather” besides this in the Old Testament.

We know Cyrus was involved with military campaigns and did not take over the reins immediately. If you study Hebrew/Aramaic you would have noticed the following:

Darius given kingship. In the word hāmelak the Hophal is to be noticed: rex constitutus, factus est. It shows that Darius did not become king over the Chaldean kingdom by virtue of a hereditary right to it, nor that he gained the kingdom by means of conquest, but that he received it (qabbeil Dan. 5:31 [Dan. 6:1 BHS]) from the conqueror of Babylon, Cyrus, the general of the army.[1]

[1] See Keil-Delitszch Commentary. Although the verb (‘to make king’) is followed by the preposition (‘over’) forty times in the OT, this is the only occurrence where the verb is passive. Montgomery summarizes the evidence in this manner—“The passive had been explained from the alleged institution by Cyrus of a viceroy, Darius-Astyages-Gobryas, in Babylonia” (James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1972], p. 359).

12

Another problem with Daniel

by kepler in

i know, if i got a name associated with anything beside an early 17th century astronomer, it's from picking apart the book of daniel.

much of fundamentalist & apocalyptic thought (sic) arises from explanations of this book's passages and i protest.

we could review other points, but let me note the following discrepancy: the end of chapter 1 and the beginning of chapter 9.. chapter 1 begins with the 3rd year of jehoiakim's reign with a nebuchadnezzar raid.

Vidqun

Kepler, what helped me "understand" Daniel better is the following article by Jan-Wim Wesselius. It doesn't explain all the discrepancies, but goes a long way to explain the state of the text we have before us today.

In his article “The Writing of Daniel,” Wesselius compares the structure of Daniel to that of Ezra. He refers to the book of Daniel as the Daniel Dossier, a collection of separate documents, dealing with the life, career, and visions of Daniel, which he attributes to the writing style of the author of the book of Daniel. This, he asserts, would account for the discontinuity of the book, being an ancient dossier, unmodified, while retaining some of the characteristics of its sources. At the same time, the assembled material, left relatively unpolished and deviating from chronological order, having all the hallmarks of a complicated history of composition, is structured in such a way that it forms a harmonious whole. Modern scholars and critics view this as part of a scribal conspiracy. Wesselius concludes: “The book was to appear to its readers as a collection of separate documents, dealing with the life, career and visions of Daniel. At the same time, however, it retained the marks of literary unity, thus inviting the reader to achieve the unity of the book through making his own synthesis of its parts - one of the most successful literary enterprises in history.”[1]

According to Jewish tradition, the Men of the Great Synagogue edited the book and incorporated it into the Scriptures. I agree with his conclusion. Like Shakespeare's works, it remains an impressive piece of literature.

[1] J. W. Wesselius, “The Writing of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, volume II, Brill Academic Publishers, edited by J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint, pp. 291, 298, 299, 309, 310.

12

Another problem with Daniel

by kepler in

i know, if i got a name associated with anything beside an early 17th century astronomer, it's from picking apart the book of daniel.

much of fundamentalist & apocalyptic thought (sic) arises from explanations of this book's passages and i protest.

we could review other points, but let me note the following discrepancy: the end of chapter 1 and the beginning of chapter 9.. chapter 1 begins with the 3rd year of jehoiakim's reign with a nebuchadnezzar raid.

Vidqun

Kepler, I have noticed that Bible writers use the title king very loosely, e.g., Nebuchadnezzar is called king even though he was not yet king (Dan. 1:1). Same goes for Belshazzar, he is addressed as king, but as seen he was subservient to his father Nabonidus (Dan. 5:18).

Just a few thoughts on Nabonidus. He spent at least 10 years of his seventeen years in Teima, Arabia. He was highly unpopular because of forsaking Marduk, one of Babylon’s most prominent deities for Sin, the moon god. He was involved with building projects at Teima and Haran, not Babylon. There is good reason to suspect that Belshazzar’s feast was an akitu festival in honor of Sin, the moon god. So Belshazzar was not very popular either. The following excerpt by Montgomery explains the relationship of Nabonidus and Belshazzar:

In the cuneiform texts Belsh. is called either by his name or, as in the Nabonidus-Cyrus Chronicle simply ‘son of the king,’ i.e., anglice, ‘crown prince.’ In the Chronicle for years 7, 9, 10, 11 of Nabonidus’ reign it is recorded that “the king was in Teima; the son of the king, the princes and his (or, the) army were in the land of Akkad.” In the texts hitherto known Belsh. is never given the title of king, and this has been ground for argument against one detail of our story which represents Belsh. as absolute king. But Sidney Smith’s presentation of a new text (s. end of Note 12) shows that royal dignity was actually conferred upon Belsh. This text, of the third full year of Nabonidus, detailing that king’s victorious campaign against Arabian Teima (as this place has elsewhere been identified by Dougherty), records: “He intrusted a camp to his eldest, his first-born son; the troops of the land he sent with him. He freed his hand; he intrusted the kingship (šarrûtam) to him.” That is, in the early part of Nabonidus’ reign, in his third year, his son was invested with royal dignity, which, in view of the active position he held throughout the subsequent years, must have continued throughout his life. That is, the Bible story is correct as to the rank of kingship given to Belsh. Now in several texts the prince’s name is coupled with his father’s in the latter’s prayers and in the omens interpreted for him; and in Pinches’ text and two texts in the Yale Museum his name is associated with his father’s in an oath; on which Dougherty remarks: “There is no other instance in available documents of an oath being sworn in the name of the son of the king.” The induction therefore that had been made from earlier data by Pinches, Dougherty, and others, is now brilliantly corroborated; as in a previous statement of the latter scholar: “It appears that he was invested with a degree of royal authority, not only at the close of the reign of his father, but throughout large part, if not the whole, of the reign of Nabonidus.”[1]

And now one can understand the motives of the writer of the Cyrus Cylinder. He hated Nabonidus, and probably was an adherent of Marduk. Cyrus, again, was a popular monarch because he was religiously tolerant.

Eventually and inevitably the truth will become known. I won’t write off the evidence of the Bible writers as yet. Sometimes these are biased and slant things according to the Jewish perspective. Nevertheless, truth can be found in the Bible accounts, but it takes effort to unearth it. E.g., if one compares the Babylonian Chronology of the Babylonian Chronicles to that of the Bible account, there are few discrepancies. These are mainly differences in regnal/ascencion years, different calenders, etc. My favorite saying will always be: Where there’s smoke there’s fire. By hook or by crook, the truth will come out.

[1] Montgomery, J. A. (1927). A critical and exegetical commentary on the book of Daniel (pp. 66, 67). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

104

Farewell

by EdenOne in

"don't be dismayed by good-byes.

a farewell is necessary before you can meet again.

and meeting again, after moments or lifetimes, is certain for those who are friends.

Vidqun

Eden, this place is like Hotel California, you can check out but you can never leave. Ask Slimboyfat. Nevertheless, I wish you and your wife everything of the best.

12

Another problem with Daniel

by kepler in

i know, if i got a name associated with anything beside an early 17th century astronomer, it's from picking apart the book of daniel.

much of fundamentalist & apocalyptic thought (sic) arises from explanations of this book's passages and i protest.

we could review other points, but let me note the following discrepancy: the end of chapter 1 and the beginning of chapter 9.. chapter 1 begins with the 3rd year of jehoiakim's reign with a nebuchadnezzar raid.

Vidqun

Kepler, as far as I can make out, there was no Median Empire. Cyrus defeated Astyages, the last Median king ca. 550 BCE. He then merged Media and Persia into the Medo-Persian Empire, before attacking Babylon in 539 BCE. Darius the Mede “received the kingdom” from Cyrus the Persian (Dan. 5:30). This is confirmed by Dan. 9:1, which says Darius “had been made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans,” courtesy of Cyrus the Persian. Darius was standing in for Cyrus, while Cyrus was involved with his military campaigns. Thus, even a short-lived “Median Empire” cannot compare to the Babylonian Empire (612 – 539), the Persian Empire (539 – 332), or the Greek Empire (332 – 165 at least).

Darius as title: In the Biblical record, the name is applied to three kings, one a Mede, the other two Persians. In Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott (pp. 370A, 691A) Greek form Dareios is related to Old Persian Dārayava(h)uš ‘upholder of the Good,’ or ‘maintaining what is good,’ being a Greek form of Persian darâ, meaning ‘a king.’ According to Herodotus 6.98 = Gr. ἐρξἰης or ἐρξεἰης, i.e., Herxieis, which means “one who restrains” (Latin: coercitor) or “the worker/doer.” Thus, it may be possible that “Darius,” in the case of Darius the Mede, may have been used as a title or throne name.

Some assert Ugbaru is Darius the Mede: According to the so-called Nabonidus Chronicle (cf. ANET, pp. 305ff),[1] “[In the seventeenth year (of Nabonidus)].… In the month of Tishri, when Cyrus fought at Opis on the Tigris against the army of Akkad, the people of Akkad revolted.… On the fourteenth day, Sippar was captured without battle. Nabonidus fled. On the sixteenth day, Ugbaru (Greek, Gobryas), the governor of Gutium, and the troops of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards, when Nabonidus returned, he was arrested in Babylon.… In the month of Marchesvan, on the third day, Cyrus entered Babylon.…”[2]

Where does Belshazzar fit in: Belshazzar is referred to as “king” in Daniel 5:1–30. Cuneiform temple receipts from Sippar attest that Belshazzar presented sheep and oxen there as “an offering of the king.”[3] While it is true that no cuneiform record refers to Belshazzar by the explicit term sharru (“king”), it is clear that during the latter years of Nabonidus’s reign, while the latter made his headquarters at Teima in Arabia, Belshazzar ruled as his viceroy, with all the authority of the king. That this fact was well known to the author of Daniel is clearly implied by the fact that in Daniel 5:7, 16 the viceroy could promise to the successful interpreter of the handwriting on the wall only the honor of third ruler in the kingdom. Obviously Belshazzar himself was only the second ruler.

[1] ANET Pritchard, J. B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 2d ed. Princeton University Press, 1955.

[2] Hartman, L. F., & Di Lella, A. A. (2008). The Book of Daniel: a new translation with notes and commentary on chapters 1-9 (Vol. 23, p. 191). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

[3] R. P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929), p. 88.

12

Another problem with Daniel

by kepler in

i know, if i got a name associated with anything beside an early 17th century astronomer, it's from picking apart the book of daniel.

much of fundamentalist & apocalyptic thought (sic) arises from explanations of this book's passages and i protest.

we could review other points, but let me note the following discrepancy: the end of chapter 1 and the beginning of chapter 9.. chapter 1 begins with the 3rd year of jehoiakim's reign with a nebuchadnezzar raid.

Vidqun

Kepler, here's a few thoughts from Dictionaries and Commentaries. Firstly, Dan. 1:21 uses hyh "to be," which could mean "remain" or "continue." Secondly, a lot has been written about Darius the Mede. We know for a fact, Cyrus did not take up kingship immediately, for he was involved with military campaigns in Europe. The name Darius could be a title, referring to the governor Gobrayas. It would make sense that Cyrus would reward the Medes for their loyalty by appointing one of them as governor of Babylon while he was away. Thirdly, according to the Babylonian Chronicles, Daniel and friends were deported 605 BCE, the same year that Nebuchadnezzar was officially made king. This was the first of five deportations and three sieges of Jerusalem.

hyh, to be.

2. abide, remain, continue )with word of place or time) Ex 24:18 and Moses remainded in the mount forty days, etc., so 34:28 (both JE), Ju 17:4, 17:12, 1 S 6:1, 1 K 11:20, 2 K 11:3 = 2 Ch 22:12 +; also Lv 22:27, 25:28 )both H(, etc.; sq. `ad temp. remain until Dt 22:2, 1 K 11:40, 2 K 15:5, 2 Ch 5:9, 26:21, Dn 1:21 etc. BDB.

to remain, live (MHb.2 bBaba bathra 15a) Jr 13 Ru 12 Da 121 (Montgomery 139). HALOT.

21. the first year of King Cyrus. The year 538 b.c. The period of Daniel’s activity in Babylon is considerable (from 606 to 538) but not absolutely impossible. The author was probably not concerned here with the fact that this period amounts to almost seventy years, the length of time, as foretold by Jeremiah, for the Babylonian exile, that Daniel 9 will be concerned with. For a more likely reason why this chronological remark is made here, see Comment.

Comment

The first chapter of the book serves primarily as an introduction; it sets the scene for the other stories and the visions (chs. 7–12) that make up the rest of the book. The author here brings together various strands that appear as separate units in the other chapters of the book.

Therefore, the author of the first chapter summarizes Daniel’s career at the imperial court by saying that he was there from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to the reign of Cyrus (1:21). [It should be recalled that “the first year of King Cyrus” (1:21), or 538 b.c., is not the end of Daniel’s career but simply the end of his service in the Babylonian court. Daniel experiences his final vision “in the third year of King Cyrus” (10:1), i.e. in 536 b.c. Cf. Comment: Detailed on 10:1.][1]

21. ‘And Daniel continued [when and how he was—colloquial Eng., ‘remained on’] until the first year of King Cyrus.’ The implication is that he was vouchsafed the joy of the release under Cyrus, and possibly that he like other faithful Jews returned home upon that glorious event. Such a return was understood by one form of Midrashic tradition, s. Hamburger, RE 1, 225. The contradiction with 10:l, acc. to which Dan. had a vision in Cyrus’ 3d year, in the Far Orient, is removed by the critical distinction of chapters 1–6 and 7–12 as distinct books; s. §21, a. This removes the arguments made by Marti (comm.), Jahn (comm.), Charles (comm.) against the originality of the verse. The editor of the whole book, or composer of chapters 7–12, did not observe the clash between the dates (recognized however by OG which reads ‘first year’ at 10:1). To overcome the contradiction and for the interpretation of the vb. ‘continued’ various exegetical expedients have been devised: he remained in honor, Aben Ezra (comm.) or, in the king’s gate, Hitzig (comm.); or, in prophecy, Stuart (comm.); or, in Babylon, so Jer. at 6:8, C. B. Michaelis (comm.) holding that he was then removed or exiled to Media. The Heb. vb. hyh ‘to be,’ in the sense as translated here, ‘continued,’ is fully corroborated, as noted by Hävernick (comm.) of Luther’s German Version, Moffatt,‘lived’ has the implication that Daniel died thereupon.

21. wyhy] Despite the objection of comm., this use of hyh, ‘remained, continued,’ is found elsewhere. The present phrase is exactly duplicated in Jer. 1:3; cf. Ruth 1:2 sm wyhyw, ‘they remained there.’ Cf. the translation-Greek of Test. Joseph, 11:8, ‘we were with him three months’; and with Bertholdt (comm.) the use of ἐσμέν = ζῶμεν, Acts 17:28, while Ehrlich cft. the Talmud use of hyh = ‘live,’ e.g., Baba b. 15a. The pesher frequently translate μένειν by hw’, e.g., Jn. 1:33, 40bis, 2:12.—`d] Geier notes that this prep. does not exclude the remoter future, cft. Ps. 110:1, 112:8. —kwrs] Also mss krs and so Ezr. 1:1 f.[2]

I prefer the translation of Dan. 1:21 by John J. Collins, “Daniel continued [at court] until the first year of King Cyrus.”

Comm.

“No special importance is attached here to the first year of Cyrus, beyond the fact that it extends Daniel’s career into the Persian era.”

“The Book of Daniel does not say what happened to Daniel after the first year of Cyrus. Josephus has him finish his career at Susa (Ant. 10.11.7 §§269-272). In later times there was a tradition that he was buried in Susa and that his grave was marked with a mausoleum.”[3]

[1] Hartman, L. F., & Di Lella, A. A. (2008). The Book of Daniel: a new translation with notes and commentary on chapters 1-9 (Vol. 23, pp. 131, 132). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

[2] Montgomery, J. A. (1927). A critical and exegetical commentary on the book of Daniel (p. 137-139). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

[3] J. J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel – Hermeneia-series, pp. 129, 145.

11

Is there actually a valid Translation of the Bible ?

by Phizzy in

i saw a vid on-line awhile ago, i cannot remember the title so can't find it, but the guy was some sort of expert in the languages of the bible, and he made a very good case that there has never been a proper translation of the bible.. what he was saying was that all translators fall into the same trap of an overly slavish use of the etymology of words rather than how language was actually used at the time of writing.. he said that what was needed were scholars who were familiar with secular contemporaneous writings, and knew how language was used at the time.. this looks like a very interesting argument.. any thoughts ?

?.

Vidqun

TTWSYF, yes theoretically it should be like that. But remember, Hebrew existed for nearly 2000 years before it died off. During that period it had a developmental phase (time of the patriarchs, Moses), stabilization phase (time of the judges), bloom phase (David and Solomon), split (north vs. south), deterioration phase, (Babylonian exile), etc.

Bible narratives have been taken from all these phases. Changes in the language would have occurred as it was influenced by the languages of surrounding nations, e.g., Ugaritic (in the time of David and Solomon), and Aramaic (Laban was a Syrian, also Aramaic would transplant Hebrew after the Babylonian exile).

Some of the above changes are evident in the development of aspect/tense of the language. Early Hebrew concentrated on aspect (state of the verb), whereas later Hebrew leaned towards tense (past, present, future).

Another problem with Biblical Hebrew is its limited literature corpus, which consists of the Bible, inscriptions, the Cairo Genizah, and a few DSS MSS. That is not nearly enough to trace its development with any degree of accuracy or certainty, thus the educated guess work by scholars. They have done exceptionally well in working it out, but there are many gaps.

11

Is there actually a valid Translation of the Bible ?

by Phizzy in

i saw a vid on-line awhile ago, i cannot remember the title so can't find it, but the guy was some sort of expert in the languages of the bible, and he made a very good case that there has never been a proper translation of the bible.. what he was saying was that all translators fall into the same trap of an overly slavish use of the etymology of words rather than how language was actually used at the time of writing.. he said that what was needed were scholars who were familiar with secular contemporaneous writings, and knew how language was used at the time.. this looks like a very interesting argument.. any thoughts ?

?.

Vidqun

Phizzy, problem is Biblical Hebrew is a dead language. Nobody knows how it was used by 1) the man in the street, 2) religious leaders, and 3) political leaders. From what era does a certain portion of the Bible come from? From what era does the recension of that portion date? E. g. the two Isaiah Scrolls from the DSS, one is close to the MT, the other is a vulgar version of the day. The closest scholars have come to language use of a specific era is graffiti, monument inscriptions and clay tablets (business and government archives). But because these are insufficient to establish language use, a lot of "educated" guess work is involved. Wordstudies, as is done by the editors of Theological Dictionaries of the Old and New Testament, are valuable in that they establish the different meanings of words over long periods of time. On the other hand, the translators of the different versions have been trained in seminaries and colleges of different denominations (e.g. Catholic and Protestant), which would also influence their translating technique. I think the Greek koine of the NT is in a slightly better position. Archeaologists have unearthed a lot of correspondence from the time, buried in rubbish dumps under the sand in Egypt, e.g. Rylands and Bodmer papyri, so they have a better idea of how the language was used in the first, second and third century CE.

24

Why JWs record and report time?

by ThinkerBelle in

okay, so yes, i'm a born-in, but this point has always baffled me (and i guess i never bothered to research or ask).

what is the purpose of counting time in service?

when was it started and why?

Vidqun

A long time ago I looked it up for it bothered me. JWs reason that the first century Christians kept records. For example, three thousand were baptized (Acts 2:41). At that stage, the answer satisfied me because I trusted them and did not look for ulterior motives or hidden agendas.

Now I see it in a different light. Firstly, if you look carefully in Acts, you will notice they kept tally, but not accurately. Acts 2:41 NW says "about three thousand priests were baptized." So that was an estimate. Secondly, it concerns those who were baptized, and had nothing to do with reporting of time.

Conclusion: As was spelt out above, JWs use it as a gauge to measure spirituality. Who is spiritually weak? Avoid those. Who is spiritually strong? Appoint those, etc. It is all about control.

82

Intriguing - but Unsubstantiated!

by The Searcher in

according to one source on a western european 'apostate' website, the org's plan is to abandon the name "jehovah's witnesses" in the future, and replace it with "worshippers of jehovah.".

http://www.bruderinfo-aktuell.de/index.php/fixnews/#comment-4313 .

the gist of the account appears to be a repeat of rutherford's re-branding and debunking of old predictions made by the previous shower of fakers.

Vidqun

Yes, a name change would make sense. According to JW Theology, strictly speaking it is only the anointed that should be called Jehovah's Witnesses. According to them, fleshly Israel has been replaced by the "Israel of God." The other sheep are not part of this Israel. They are merely companions of those belonging to the little flock.