Posts by Vidqun

63

Why does the Watchtower leadership slap its own defenders in the face?

by slimboyfat in

take the case of rolf furuli.

i don't think there has been a specific thread on the hebrew verbs u-turn in the nwt, and how the society has responded to the work of perhaps their brightest and ablest defender in their history.

so here goes.. rolf furuli has defended jws on multiple fronts in many different settings, on issues ranging from chronology, mental health, doctrines, bible translation and the blood issue.

Vidqun

Slimboyfat, I agree, Franz was a brilliant linguist with some original ideas. But unfortunately for him, the field of linguistics would keep on growing and expanding. Cook alluded to this in his criticism of Furuli. Comparative linguistics, especially where Semitic languages are concerned, has opened up the field like never before. The Watchtower did not/could not keep up with the new information, because specialized scholars are needed, and we know there’s none amongst the Witnesses. The few that were there, were kicked out. A while back I read a piece by Barbara of Silent Lambs fame, reporting that she had asked a Jewish colleague (involved with the Society’s translation work in Israel) whether Franz’s Hebrew was up to standard. The woman confirmed that his Hebrew was accurate, and that she had high praise for the man.

Here’s the second part of Cook’s criticism, even more damning than the first:

“Aside from the unsubstantiated claim that (viewpoint) aspect in Hebrew differs from the modern linguistic universal and that elements of metaphor for understanding viewpoint aspect in Hebrew are open to criticism (see Cook 2010), Furuli’s approach to aspect is fundamentally flawed and contradictory. First, although he claims that modern views should not be foisted on a dead language such as ancient Hebrew, he admits that his own analysis is based on English translations (Furuli 2006:417). Although by this statement he intends simply to underscore the lack of native-speaker knowledge for a dead language, it seems all too apparent that his English translations (some quite wrong) determine his analysis of the Hebrew verbal forms.

Second, his discussion of discourse linguistics is quite illuminating when immediately followed by his alternative semantic analysis. Having examined several passages in which the context (adverbial phrases, etc.) affects the aspectual interpretation of the verb form, Furuli (2006: 186) concludes “that it is impossible to know the semantic meaning of most verbs in the Tanakh by analyzing the clauses and contexts in which they occur.” On the following page (2006: 187), he continues his argument, stating that “[O]ur only hope is to find situations where no other factors than the verb conjugation can cause a particular characteristic.” As an example he offers his analysis of wayyîbên (a wayyiqtol form) in 1 Kgs 6:1, which he translates ‘he began to build’: “The verb is durative and dynamic, the verb phrase is telic, and the adverbial fixes the time. But it seems that the small part of the progressive action that is made visible is caused by the verb form alone, because the only other information apart from the verb form that is needed is a knowledge of the world (that it took more than one year to build the temple)” (Furuli 2006: 187). In other words, Furuli’s analysis of aspect has little to do with the linguistic portrayal of events; instead, it relates to his preconceived ideas of the character of the events themselves in the Bible.”

I certainly do not agree with Furuli’s portrayal of the Masoretes. They would never have changed or corrected the verbal forms. This one can see from a comparison of the Masoretic Text with the DSS. A growing number of scholars are starting to view the MT as an authentic tradition with a long history behind it. Morag insists that ‘as a source of historical information, the vocalisation should be accorded serious consideration.’[i] Barr concludes that the Masoretes were ‘in essence phonetic conservators rather than interpretative innovators.’[ii]

What sealed it for me, in that there are serious shortcomings with Furuli’s theory, is the work of Penner (Penner and Furuli do not see eye to eye). Cook goes on to explain:

“Besides the fact that Penner’s theory partakes of the weaknesses of Joosten’s and other relative-tense-and-modality theories, as described above, his empirical method is suspect when compared with Furuli’s contemporary study (based on a broader database that includes Qumran Hebrew), which arrives at very different conclusions: both Furuli and Penner attempt an empirical, statistical analysis of the verb forms in “context” (Furuli 2006: 186-87; Penner 2006: 101-2) and arrive at contradictory results, Furuli positing some unique form of aspect for Hebrew (with just two main conjugations-prefix and suffix), and Penner proposing tense-prominence in Qumran Hebrew (Furuli 2006: 462-64; Penner 2006: 212-13). It appears prima facie that both Furuli and Penner have found what they were looking for; that is, their interpretation of the data was guided by what they expected a priori to find, which accounts for their divergent results based on overlapping data sets.”

Penner, Ken

2006 Verb Form Semantics in Qumran Hebrew Texts: Tense, Aspect, and Modality between the Bible and the Mishnah. Ph.D dissertation, McMaster University.

[i] S. Morag, ‘On the Historical Validity of the Vocalisation of the Hebrew Bible’, p. 315, cf. S. Groom, Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew, p. 17.

[ii] J. Barr, ‘The Nature of Linguistic Evidence in the Text of the Bible’, p. 40; cf. Comparative Philology, pp. 195, 196.

63

Why does the Watchtower leadership slap its own defenders in the face?

by slimboyfat in

take the case of rolf furuli.

i don't think there has been a specific thread on the hebrew verbs u-turn in the nwt, and how the society has responded to the work of perhaps their brightest and ablest defender in their history.

so here goes.. rolf furuli has defended jws on multiple fronts in many different settings, on issues ranging from chronology, mental health, doctrines, bible translation and the blood issue.

Vidqun

Slimboyfat, my impression of Rolf Furuli is that he attempted to defend the indefensible, by propping up the Titanic, so to speak, and for that reason he would sink with it. He was not very honest either, never admitting in his books that he was a Witness or that he self-published. He would stick with Franz’s explanation of the Hebrew Verbal System (HVS) to his detriment.

Allow me to quote criticism of his work by John Cook in his treatise, “Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew.” Cook discusses most modern theories of the HVS. It is interesting to note what he had to say about Furuli's thesis. Furuli believed that there is no difference between the waw-prefixed forms and their formal non-waw-prefixed counterparts, and I quote:

“The most recent permutation of this type of theory comes from Furuli (2006), who claims based on his examination of all the verb forms in the Hebrew Bible, Ben Sira, and the Dead Sea Scrolls that there were only two conjugations: a perfective suffix conjugation (qatal and wĕqatal) and an imperfective prefix conjugation (yiqtol and wayyiqtol; Furuli 2006:4) He concludes that a diachronic approach is problematic and unnecessary, since (1) there is no evidence of a prefix preterite in Northwest Semitic or Akkadian, and (2) there is no evidence in his corpus of any semantic change in the Hebrew verbal forms (Furuli 2006: 147).

Furul’s approach is based on two premises that he claims are not taken into account by any earlier theories. This first is a systematic distinction between past time reference and past tense. Although it is a sound principle, Furuli uses this premise to dismiss out of hand any and every tense explanation of Hebrew and Semitic (e.g., Furuli 2006: 32, 98). Furuli claims that context “can fix the temporal reference of a verb” and then refuses to acknowledge any other possible means of fixing temporal reference – that is, tense (Furuli 2006:100).

His second principle is that aspect (viewpoint aspect, in particular) in Hebrew is of a different sort than English aspect, which he claims informs most previous understandings. Unfortunately it is unclear to me the basis for his claim because the only explanation he offers is, “because aspect is a kind of viewpoint, it is not obvious that it has the same nature in the different aspectual languages of the world” (Furuli 2006: 49).

A full survey of Furuli’s work would take too long and yield too little of value (see the reviews of Kummerow 2007 and Cook 2010). Here I mention the two fundamental difficulties with his theory that are most germane to this discussion: his treatment of wayyiqtol and his analysis of aspect. A major if not central focus of Furuli’s work is to show that wayyiqtol is not a distinct prefix form from yiqtol (and wĕyiqtol) but is an invention of the Masoretes. He recognizes that a major obstacle to his argument is that 93.1% (according to his analysis) of wayyiqtols in the Bible refer to past events, which accounts for the majority view that the form has developed from a Semitic prefixed preterite form. He argues, however, that, “because of the problem of induction, confirmatory examples can never confirm a hypothesis, but contradictory ones can even falsify it” (Furuli 2006:73). Thus Furuli admits that he allows 6.9% of the evidence to drive his semantic theory of wayyiqtol! The obvious protest to this is that Hebrew is an ancient language, attested only in composite and redacted texts that has been vocalized (which is the distinguishing factor between wayyiqtol and wĕyiqtol) only hundreds of years after the stabilization of the text. But this point aside, Sapir’s dictum that “grammar leak” certainly applies here. Further, Furuli’s argument that the Masoretes created the wayyiqtol form and that they made mistakes in writing the form appears prima facie to cancel out the significance of his 6.9% of counterexamples: these data are simply “errors" introduced by the Masoretes; but even so, if the form is simply a Masoretic invention, how can any of the examples be deemed either erroneous or representative of the actual language of the texts? In addition, Furuli (2006:459) admits that his theory is completely at odds with the typological data on TAM but dismisses those findings, stating that: “we should not force modern views upon a dead language.” This comment betrays a lack of understanding of not only typology but the nature of languages and language universal!”

Furuli, Rolf J.

2006 A New Understanding of the Verbal System of Classical Hebrew: An Attempt to Distinguish between Semantic and Pragmatic Factors. Oslo: Awatu.

There’s more but that’s enough for the time being. The above allows one a general impression of his work. Cook could not understand his reasoning, but we can. By sticking to Frederick Franz’s theory on the Hebrew Verbal System, he would build an elaborate hypothesis, only to be shot down by his peers.

19

Can you prove that WT policy of shunning is unscriptual? Will soon be discussing with somebody, give me all your ammo!

by EndofMysteries in

will soon be discussing w/ somebody still in about that.

i want to make sure i am not missing anything good.

so any scriptures, articles whether wt articles or secular about effects of shunning, etc, or your arguments against how wt interprets their scriptures, etc.

Vidqun

Here’s some arguments you might encounter:

Human society has always shunned people that do not conform to the rules. If you commit a crime, you may be punished by being sent to jail and excluded from society until you 'repent' by changing your attitude. Who determines these rules? In many lands, adultery and homosexuality are still punishable by death or jail. It is up to each group of people to decide the rules and the consequences for breaking them.

However, Paul did not disfellowship those that criticized him, i.e., the so-called “superfine apostles.” Read 2 Cor. 13:10 to see what he had in mind. Interestingly, Paul asked whether some of them had started ruling prematurely (cf. 1 Cor. 4:8)? Secondly, the GB claims to be “the faithful and discreet slave.” Would “judgment” be part of the commission of “the faithful and discreet slave”? By the way, is God not the ultimate judge, and did he not defer judgement to the Son (Acts 17:31)?

Here’s a list the scriptures the GB of JWs apply to judge, condemn and disfellowship individuals. Judge for yourself whether these are applied correctly.

15 Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established.

17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector. (Mat 18:15-17 NWT)

Comment: Jesus instructed his disciples to treat an unrepentant wrongdoer “as a man of the nations.” Would they have greeted a man of the nations? Surely it would be good manners to greet such a person (not with a Christian kiss though – Rom. 16:16; etc.).

9 In my letter I wrote YOU to quit mixing in company with fornicators,

10 not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world.

11 But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.

(1 Cor 5:9-11 NWT)

Comment: Naturally one would avoid such people, not socializing with them.

7 For many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

8 Look out for yourselves, that YOU do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that YOU may obtain a full reward.

9 Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son.

10 If anyone comes to YOU and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into YOUR homes or say a greeting to him.

11 For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works. (2 John 1:7-11 NWT)

2Jo 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house and do not give him any greeting

32 sn Do not give him any greeting does not mean to insult the person. It means "do not greet the person as a fellow Christian" (which is impossible anyway since the opponents are not genuine believers in the author's opinion). See NET Bible footnote.

Christian greeting: Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thes. 5:26; 1 Pet. 5:14.

Comment: Above scriptures apply to the antichrist. Very few qualify as such.

9 I wrote something to the congregation, but Diotrephes, who likes to have the first place among them, does not receive anything from us with respect.

10 That is why, if I come, I will call to remembrance his works which he goes on doing, chattering about us with wicked words. Also, not being content with these things, neither does he himself receive the brothers with respect, and those who are wanting to receive them he tries to hinder and to throw out of the congregation.

11 Beloved one, be an imitator, not of what is bad, but of what is good. He that does good originates with God. He that does bad has not seen God.

12 Demetrius has had witness borne to him by them all and by the truth itself. In fact, we, also, are bearing witness, and you know that the witness we give is true.

(3 John 1:9-12 NWT)

16 But shun empty speeches that violate what is holy; for they will advance to more and more ungodliness,

17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of that number.

18 These very [men] have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some.

(2Ti 2:16-18 NWT)

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.