Posts by kepler

2

Dogma, Fogma or Frogma? What's the best word to describe a concept like FDS or events circa 1914?

by kepler in

an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church.

for instance, a fundamental dogma of christianity is the resurrection, but among sects of christianity, dogmas about other details vary.

nonetheless, they are insisted upon in their basic unavoidable, unchanging form - otherwise there would be no basis for the particular sect's belief other than habit.

kepler

Dogma: an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church. For instance, a fundamental dogma of Christianity is the Resurrection, but among sects of Christianity, dogmas about other details vary. Nonetheless, they are insisted upon in their basic unavoidable, unchanging form - otherwise there would be no basis for the particular sect's belief other than habit. When these things are identified, they show up like the Apostle's or the Nicene Creed. Now how about an idea like the Faithful & Discrete Slave? Or the significance of 1914? Or the Overlapping Generation? Do we need a new word to convey the concept of dogmas repeatedly altered by New Light? Just change that first letter to F or Fr and...

If I look back over 100 years of the use of the Faithful & Discreet Slave, I discover it is first invoked in such form as a title bestowed on pyramidologist Charles Taze Russell, more like the Good and Faithful Servant. The "Discreet" part came along later because as Joseph Rutherford's legal counsel Olin R. Moyle was not. He didn't keep his mouth shut or his pen away from paper about things he objected to at Bethel. In this way, Moyle contributed something to the New World Translation of the New Testament and a mutating concept. Evolving further from the original parable, the FDS becomes something akin to the Soviet Politburo. It's not a parable or an individual, but a collective entity to which one or more individuals can be appointed or expelled. Russell became a non-person and could no longer qualify.

It's a tenet all right, but not dogma. For that you have to picture something like Fido cast ten feet tall in stone guarding a bone. This belief is surrounded by fog and is slippery. So it is either Fogma or Frogma. With its leaps of supposition I vote for the latter.

When it comes to 1914, Mr. Russell declared that it was the End, the Armageddon he was searching for. He wasn't sure at first even though a hellacious war had broken out in late July of that year, but October had to be significant. No going back.

That was 100 years ago. One hundred plus years. We know (?) now that Satan fell to Earth and Jesus Christ had arrived incognito or both - or that it was the time of the last generation before ...

I vote for Fogmatism on this one, especially since we live in an era of the Overlapping Generations.

The term "dogma" derives from Greek δόγμα "that which seems to one, opinion or belief"and that from δοκέω (dokeo), "to think, to suppose, to imagine". In the first century CE, dogma came to signify laws or ordinances adjudged and imposed upon others... Well, that last part rings true for sure.

Now here' another. The sacred scriptures were collected and canonized in an Era of Apostasy a couple of hundred years after Christ was on Earth. Moreover, the Era lasted up until the WT&BTS got under way with little or no guidance from above because the principals were off somewhere else in the heavens and couldn't be present on Earth until very recently - and invisibly. So you've got to admit that it's a wonder we've got that book at all. Nonetheless, from amid all the versions of it, it has to be retranslated - including the NT into present day Greek for the people of that land who never had those words in their possession. Now if that is not selling refrigerators to Eskimos. Perhaps it was on account of the accompanying commentary. They just had to have that.

Fogmatism.

Suggestion: Rename the Watchtower - Perpetual New Light

Meet Baruch the Scribe of Jeremiah - and Nebuchadnezzar's Son

by kepler in

i just found another instance of belshazzar being referred to as the "son of nebuchadnezzar".

it's truly remarkable!

the source, i never would have thought of examining: the book of baruch, included in the septuagint and vulgate - and it is attributed, if taken literally as well, to jeremiah's scribe.

kepler

I just found another instance of Belshazzar being referred to as the "son of Nebuchadnezzar". It's truly remarkable!

The source, I never would have thought of examining: the Book of Baruch, included in the Septuagint and Vulgate - and it is attributed, if taken literally as well, to Jeremiah's scribe. Final chapter 6 is a letter dictated by the prophet; the 1st is introductory commentary where we get clarification of whether "son of Nebuchadnezzar" for Belshazzar was meant in general sense of descendant. Move over, King Nabonidus.

In chapter 6, in the text of the letter, it begins:

"Because of the sins which you have committed before God, you are to be deported by Nebuchadnezzar king of the Babylonians. Once you have reached Babylon you will stay there for many years, as long as 7 generations, after which I shall bring you home in peace. [ 7 generations? What about 70 years?]

Now in Babylon, you will see gods made of silver, of gold, of wood, being carried shoulder high..."

So far so good? Heard that expression a few times.

Now in the first chapter this material is introduced as follows:

Baruch 1:1

This is the text of the book written in Babylon by Baruch son of Neraiah, son of Mahseaih, .... in the 5th year on the on the 7th day of the month, at the time when the Chaldeans had captured Jerusalem and burned it down.

1:3 Baruch read text of this book aloud to Jeconiah son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and to all the people who had come to hear...

1:11 Now pray for the long life of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and of his son Belshazzar, that they may endure on earth as long as the heavens endure;...

1:12and that we may lead our lives under the protection of the king of Babylon and of his son Belshazzar, and that we may serve them for a long time and win their favor."

Well, it is hard to make a case one way or another from this translation about whether it's the same author as chapter 5 of Daniel, but certain elements are in common.

Yet there is one big clarification. The author does not know of the existence of Nabonidus. He thinks that Belshazzar as a regent was living circa 582 BC.

In the prayer of Nabonidus which has similarities to the story of Nebuchadnezzar's madness, the first person narrative seems to lack Nabonidus's name, but it speaks of exile to the Arabian city of Teima. Hence, the modern reader with Babylonian tablets available infers this is Nabonidus recorded elsewhere as having spent considerable time thereabouts. This was an artifact of Qumrum or the Dead Sea.

The problem with all of these stories is that the card deck of much Biblical study is shuffled to make the best match with prevailing orthodoxies - and to emphasize the prophetic nature of Daniel. The defense of chapter 5's genealogy was that the author was referring to Belshazzar as a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar in the same sense as all Jews were sons of Abraham. Just the way people talk in the Mesopotamian valley - You know.

But whoever wrote Baruch begs to differ. Possible reasons:

1. Daniel was written by the same author or authors closely related. So to speak, Baruch does not mention Daniel, but they collaborated or shared the same library sources, whatever date they wrote their books.

2. Baruch's author was not present at the time but interpreted chapter 5 of Daniel accordingly. That creates problems for Baruch's veracity and date of origination. But very likely Baruch was written at a late date. It too has remnants at Qumrum though. And as part of the Septuagint and Vulgate, it says something about incorporation process.

Is it not odd that the text of Baruch is not marshalled to the defense of Daniel's assertions?

Nowadays, Protestant and NWT bibles do not include such deuteron-canonical books in their texts. But there is not a clear explanation as to why. One could suppose that these decisions are based on deliberations where the shortcomings of these works (authenticity or antiquity) were somehow exposed though the cases of Maccabees, for example, and Baruch would be considerably different in nature). Same with adding chapters 13 and 14 to Daniel. But Maccabees puts the prophecies of Daniel in an historical context within the framework of the Bible - and Baruch does much the same to its genealogical claims, besides throwing a window open on the spirituality of the Hellenic period.

Better to leave well enough alone with 2520 years to 1914, etc.

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.

kepler

Vidqun,

Points taken. But for one reason or another I have continued to research this question. And you might find that I did find another instance of Belshazzar being referred to as the son of Nebuchadnezzar. It's truly remarkable!

The source of the reference I never would have thought of examining. It's the Book of Baruch. It appears in the Septuagint and the Vulgate - and it is attributed, if we take things literally here as well, to the scribe of Jeremiah.

In the first chapter of six, including the purported letter from the Prophet.

In chapter 6, in the text of the letter, it begins:

"Because of the sins which you have committed before God, you are to be deported by Nebuchadnezzar king of the Babylonians. Once you have reached Babylon you will stay there for many years, as long as 7 generations, after which I shall bring you home in peace.

Now in Babylon, you will see gods made of silver, of gold, of wood, being carried shoulder high..."

So far so good?

Now in the first chapter this material is introduced as follows:

Baruch 1:1

This is the text of the book written in Babylon by Baruch son of Neraiah, son of Mahseaih, .... in the fifth year on the on the seventh day of the month, at the time when the Chaldaens had captured Jerusalem and burned it down.

1:3 Baruch read text of this book aloud to Jeconiah son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and to all the people who had come to hear...

1:11 Now pray for the long of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and of his son Belshazzar, that they may endure on earth as long as the heavens endure;...

1:12and that we may lead our lives under the protection of the king of Babylon and of his son Belshazzar, and that we may serve them for a long time and win their favor."

Well, it is hard for me to make a case one way or another from this translation about whether it's the same author as chapter 5 of Daniel, but certain elements are in common.

But there is one big clarification. The author does not know of the existence of Nabonidus. He thinks that Belshazzar as a regent was living circa 582 BC.

35

Seems odd that the Bible never mentions Pryamids?

by dropoffyourkeylee in

doesn't it seem strange that the bible never mentions the pyramids?

how could someone go to egypt at that time and not even so much as mention the huge monuments?

kepler

Some really good points pro and con above. Have come to wonder about this too.

For beside the Exodus, in Genesis we've got periodic business trips to Egypt by Joseph's family and Abraham. Much like taking a trip from the country to the big cities for trade.

It has been pointed out that an anachronism in Genesis is the reference to camel caravans (23 times), including Abraham's use of such. Archeologists attribute camel caravans to Assyrians circa 900 BC and that's about the earliest they've found evidence for their use in the Mediterranean, coming in from the east. Earlier it was either donkey or horses.

Even with the cities of Pithom and Rameses, there are problems with the description of Jewish labor with mud bricks and thatch. Egyptians built monolithic structures of sandstone. It was the Babylonians which did the former. I suspect, as do others, that much of the early Bible books were transcribed during the Babylonian era whether the traditions originated in Canaan as a local revolt - or had some origin in Egypt as well.

The origin of Moses also parallels that of Sargon I of Babylonia.(2334-2279 BC), supposedly set adrift by his mother in a basket of reeds.

The names of the months for the Hebrew calendar are similar to the names of the Babylonian calendar, not the Egyptian - which was solar rather than lunar.

What we have in preserved ( e.g from an archeological dig) writing from the time of Joshua is zero. Of David's time - well we have a sign that says house of David.

But, of course, everything in the Bible is inerrant, first hand retelling of the event and literal.

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.

kepler

Smiddy,

Just for the record, I believe it was Karl ( not Groucho) Marx rather than Mao who originated that phrase, though perhaps Mao might have re-iterated.

Vidqun,

I want to go on the record as well as saying that your responses and arguments are reasonable rebuttals in what we could pass off as a debate. Some of what you present I could subscribe to as well, such as the dossier model for the stories of Daniel. That it is there in the Bible - there are a number of reasons. But its interpretation and origins I see as open to question. While some of my arguments are traditional from earlier studies, I have never seen anyone in the Biblical studies community consider the evidence of Greek historical documents in the way I have presented it. Nor do I elicit much response when I do.

But ythere is still at least one more item I should present regarding Nabonidus. It's from the Qumrun. (4Q4Q2):

Deciphered or translated on Livius from the Aramaic it goes thus:

Words of the prayer, said by Nabonidus, king of Babylonia, [the great] king, [when afflicted] with an ulcer on command of the most high God in Tem�:
[ 'I, Nabonidus,] was afflicted [with an evil ulcer] for seven years, and far from [men] I [was driven, until I prayed to the most high God.] And an exorcist pardoned my sins. He was a Jew from [among the children of the exile of Judah, and said:] "Recount this in writing to glorify and exalt the name of [the most high God." Then I wrote this:] "When I was afflicted for seven years [by the most high God] with an evil ulcer during my stay at Tem�, I prayed [to] the gods of silver and gold, [bronze and iron,] wood, stone and lime, because [I thought and considered] them gods [..."']

[the end is missing]

It is noted at the site that the gods of silver and gold... wood also appears in the Daniel chapter 5:23-24

Daniel speaks to Belshazzar: "You have praise gods of gold and silver, of bronze and iron, of wood and stone, which neither hear you or understand you, but you have given no glory to the God of in whose hands are your breath and all your fortunes. That is why he sent the hand that has written these words."

As you say, Belshazzar awards Daniel position number three after hearing these words.

But the facts remain that Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnazzar and the kingdom did not suddenly fall into the hands of Darius the Mede - but to Cyrus after a campaign which involved both Nabonidus and Belshazzar. If the city fell over night, there was no need for reading wall handwriting to predict the future - nor to have a feast.

The Nabonidus prayer indicates that someone else in Qumrun was aware of Nabonidus and had an interpretation of his time in the desert. Who originated the emboldened phrase above is arguable, but the anonymous writer of the prayer appears to me closer to the historical roots of the story.

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.

kepler

Vidqun,

" 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. "

Actually, citations I have seen say that Nabonidus returned from Teima in 544 BC.

[ Beaulieu 1989:149-205. On Tayma's importance for trade: C. Edens and G. Bawden, "History of Tayma' and Hejazi trade during the first millennium B.C.", Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 32 (1989:48-103)]

And here from the Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur, a building dedication circa 540 BC.

i.1-4]Nabonidus, king of Babylon, caretaker of Esagila and Ezida, worshiper of the great gods, I:…

" ...As for me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, save me from sinning against your great godhead and grant me as a present a life long of days, and as for Belshazzar, the eldest son - my offspring - instill reverence for your great godhead in his heart and may he not commit any cultic mistake, may he be sated with a life of plenitude."

Doesn't sound like a king in abdication to me. Just a king pre-occupied with building and restoring temples.

In the Nabonidus chronicle events in his reign are chronicled according to the year of his reign dating in our terms from ( 556 to 539 BC). In the original language he is referred to as Nabu.

In the 6th year ( 550/549) it records that Astyages marched against Cyrus ( roughly, Kurashar Anshanan) and that his army revolted.

In the several years following it records the presence of Nabu in Teima and the death of his centenarian mother. (She is Assyrian rather than Chaldean/Akkadian). Mourning is announced for months with names similar to those in the Hebrew calendar.

The 17th year (539/538 BC) is thick with entries. Nabu is at Borshippa and then confronting Cyrus and his army at Opis.

The seventeenth year (539/538): ... N]abu [came] from Borsippa for the procession of Bel. Bel came out.]

8 [... B]el came out. They performed the Akitu festival as in normal times. In the month [...]

9 [...] [... the gods] of Marad, Zababa, and the gods of Kish, Ninlil [and the gods of]

10 [x] šá kurAkkadîki Hursagkalamma entered Babylon. Until the end of the month Ululu the gods of Akkad [...]

11 from everywhere were entering Babylon. The gods of Borsippa, Cuthah,

12 and Sippar did not enter (Babylon). When13 Cyrus did13 battle at Opis on the [bank of]

13 the Tigris against the army of Akkad, the people of Akkad

14 retreated. He carried off the plunder (and) slaughtered the people. On the fourteenth day Sippar was captured without a battle.

15 Nabonidus fled. On the sixteenth day, Ugbaru, governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus, without battle

16 they entered Babylon. Afterwards, after Nabonidus retreated, he was captured in Babylon. Until the end of the month, the shield-(bearing troops)

17 from Gutium surrounded the gates of Esagil. (But) interruption (of rites) in Esagil or the (other) temples

18 there was not, and no date (for a performance) was missed. On the third day of the month Arahsamna, Cyrus entered Babylon.

19 The harû-vessels were filled before him. There was peace in the city while Cyrus, (his) greeting to

20 Babylon in its entirety spoke. Gubaru, his district officer, appointed the district officers in Babylon.

21 From the month Kislimu to the month Addaru, the gods of Akkad which Nabonidus had brought to Babylon

22 returned to their places. On the night of the eleventh of the month Arahsamna, Ugbaru died. In the mon[th Addaru]

23 ] the king's wife died. From the twenty-seventh of the month Addaru to the third of the month Nisannu [there was] (an official) mourning period in Akkad.

That’s the account of the Nabonidus Cylinder. Now here is some of the account of the Cyrus Cylinder.

Cyrus takes Babylon

[15-19] He [Marduk] ordered him to go to his city Babylon. He set him on the road to Babylon and like a companion and a friend, he went at his side. His vast army, whose number, like water of the river, cannot be known, marched at his side fully armed. He made him enter his city Babylon without fighting or battle; he saved Babylon from hardship. He delivered Nabonidus, the king who did not revere him, into his hands. All the people of Babylon, all the land of Sumer and Akkad, princes and governors, bowed to him and kissed his feet. They rejoiced at his kingship and their faces shone. Lord by whose aid the dead were revived and who had all been redeemed from hardship and difficulty, they greeted him with gladness and praised his name.

[20-22a] I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, mighty king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters, the son of Cambyses, great king, king of Anšan, grandson of Cyrus, great king, king of Anšan, descendant of Teispes, great king, king of Anšan, of an eternal line of kingship, whose rule Bêl and Nabu [not Nabonidus, obviously] love, whose kingship they desire for their hearts' pleasure.

[22b-28] When I entered Babylon in a peaceful manner, I took up my lordly abode in the royal palace amidst rejoicing and happiness. Marduk, the great lord, established as his fate for me a magnanimous heart of one who loves Babylon, and I daily attended to his worship. My vast army marched into Babylon in peace; I did not permit anyone to frighten the people of Sumer and Akkad. I sought the welfare of the city of Babylon and all its sacred centers. As for the citizens of Babylon, [...] upon whom Nabonidus imposed a corvée which was not the gods' wish and not befitting them, I relieved their wariness and freed them from their service. Marduk, the great lord, rejoiced over my good deeds. He sent gracious blessing upon me, Cyrus, the king who worships him, and upon Cambyses, the son who is my offspring, and upon all my army, and in peace, before him, we moved around in friendship.

End of Cyrus extract.

This proclamation bears striking resemblance to what appears in Ezra and what appears in Isaiah, chapters 45 to 47. While Cyrus takes a multi-cultural approach with respect to gods, the OT texts assume that he is talking about their God alone. The description in Isaiah most likely written early in the days of the siege when confidence in Cyrus was already high. That would be the latest. Or, we could believe that Isaiah wrote it and it headed off to Babylon along with the rest of extant Hebrew scriptures. That poses obvious problems, and especially in the case of Daniel summoned to Belshazzar’s feast to tell what the morrow might bring. Because his prediction had little connection to the historical record and was delivered to the supposed son of Nebuchadnezzar – king.

So we have Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Hebrew accounts of the fall of Babylon in 539 in one column – and then we have Daniel and Josephus in another. Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities provide much less independent research or knowledge to the account in comparison to the Jewish Wars. In the latter he is practically our sole source, but in the former he mostly paraphrases what is already available in Hebrew and Greek texts with periodic anecdotes. In the case of Daniel Josephus surmises that he ended up like Ashpenaz, the chief eunuch. But he enlightens us less on mid eastern history than he does in the Jewish Wars. Moreover, considering that Daniel purports to be an inside view of Babylonian priest castes, it does not carry away an iota of information about their chief occupations, by no means in the manner that the Greeks did in developing their Ptolemaic astronomy from Babylonian records.

So, we have four sources that give us a different account of Babylon’s fall to an invading army – and they all seem to have a better provenance and coherence ( save perhaps Isaiah) than the account given in Daniel. Daniel’s narrative testimony shifts from language to language, person to person and drops off in mid chapter. ..

And then, of course, going back to Daniel's internal structure, it contradicts itself with the later chapters (13-14) telling of Daniel's activities in Babylon during the time of Cyrus. Excluded in some Bibles, yes. Yet these tales are much less phantasmagorical than the baseline of 12 chapters. Ditto with the Book of Wisdom by Ben Sirach who enumerates the prophets and never mentions Daniel - because circa 200 BC he never heard of him. And the TaNaKh is straight-forward enough when it includes the book - under Writings.

But it is vigorously defended like the proponents of the Ptolemaic cosmology with articles adding the equivalents of new and more complicated epicycles such as Belshazzar was related to Nebuchadnezzar by way of his mother or that satraps were somehow a notion of Nebuchadnazzar’s court – and so forth.

WHY?

If we can accept all these vague explanations for anachronisms and ignorance presented by the book’s author and editors, we will somehow be more likely to accept every new and preposterous interpretation handed down to us by radio preachers and others about what the text really means. We will be ready to accept its primacy over any other element of Christian faith and the prominence it gives to its dogged advocates.

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.

kepler

Here is another quote from the Histories of Herodotus, written about 50 years after the events surrounding the Persian invasion of Greece, and in particular the stand of the Spartans at Thermopylae in 480 BC, ten years after Marathon.

[8.114] At the time when Mardonius was making choice of his troops, and Xerxes still continued in Thessaly, the Lacedaemonians received a message from the Delphic oracle, bidding them seek satisfaction at the hands of Xerxes for the death of Leonidas, and take whatever he chose to give them. So the Spartans sent a herald with all speed into Thessaly, who arrived while the entire Persian army was still there. This man, being brought before the king, spake as follows:-

"King of the Medes, the Lacedaemonians and the Heracleids of Sparta require of thee the satisfaction due for bloodshed, because thou slewest their king, who fell fighting for Greece."

Xerxes laughed, and for a long time spake not a word. At last, however, he pointed to Mardonius, who was standing by him, and said:- "Mardonius here shall give them the satisfaction they deserve to get." And the herald accepted the answer, and forthwith went his way.

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.

kepler

Vidqun,

If one insists that Daniel was an historical figure of the 6th century BC as described:

Arriving in Nebuchadnezzar's court and immediately assuming duties similar to a prime minister, for one, it makes him a partner in the destruction of the Temple and overseeing the sundry details of the deportations. While he might not be able to stomach Babylonian court food, it appears that there was considerably more in his duties that he could choke down.

His recollections, writing in 3rd person in chapter 3, appears to include a number of Persian officials ( satraps) in King Nebuchadnezzar's court.

Your grammatical argument ( remain, reside etc. into the period of the first year of the reign of Cyrus) in 3rd person authorship, still does not address how it can be the first year of Cyrus's reign (555 BC) or how he can be writing testimonies several years afterward.

None of what you say seems to address the biggest holes in the argument about "Darius the Mede":

Why would a Mede king have a Persian name?

How do you explain the references of Thucydides and Herodotus?

The Peloponnesian War: Book 1, Paragraph 19:

"Not many years after the deposition of the tyrants, the battle of Marathon was fought between the Medes and the Athenians....So that the whole period from the Median war to this, with some peaceful intervals.."

Thucydides makes at least 50 references to the Persian invaders as Medes - and the Battle of Marathon was 490BC. Darius (the Mede) was king of Persia at that time, not in 538 BC.

Here is a section from Herodotus describing the later invasion of Greece under Xerxes:

[7.136] And afterwards, when they were come to Susa into the king's presence, and the guards ordered them to fall down and do obeisance, and went so far as to use force to compel them, they refused, and said they would never do any such thing, even were their heads thrust down to the ground; for it was not their custom to worship men, and they had not come to Persia for that purpose. So they fought off the ceremony; and having done so, addressed the king in words much like the following:-

"O king of the Medes! the Lacedaemonians have sent us hither, in the place of those heralds of thine who were slain in Sparta, to make atonement to thee on their account."

Then Xerxes answered with true greatness of soul "that he would not act like the Lacedaemonians, who, by killing the heralds, had broken the laws which all men hold in common. As he had blamed such conduct in them, he would never be guilty of it himself. And besides, he did not wish, by putting the two men to death, to free the Lacedaemonians from the stain of their former outrage." Book 7 - section 136.

While Herodotus probably was off by an order of magnitude in describing the invasion fleet of Xerxes, he identifies him much the same as Thucydides, but more explicitly - as a Mede or as a Persian interchangeable with such an identity. Herodotus also relates a complicated story of the origin of Cyrus as the son of Astyages - and Josephus morphs it into Darius.

Ahasuerus is the Hebrew derived form of the same monarch known among Greeks as Xerxes, Khshayārshā in the Persian inscriptions.

Consequently, a writer who speaks of "Darius the Mede" conquering Babylon has his historical memory scrambled, filtered no doubt by obtaining ancient history via an education influenced by the 2nd century BC Hellenic occupation.

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.

kepler

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. That would be about 604 BC or thereabouts in "conventional" chronology. The narration is 3rd person relating how Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar bid that the sons of nobles of Israel ( Judah) be brought to his court, including one Daniel "who had determinined in his heart not to pollute himself with the delicacies of the king and drinking wine." ..."And Daniel continued on until the first year of Cyrus the king." (Daniel, I:21).

Let me repeat: "Daniel continued on UNTIL the FIRST year of Cyrus the king."

If you look at a Concordance, Cyrus is mentioned again in Daniel in two places:

Chapter 10:1 "In the 3rd year of Cyrus the king of Persia, there was a matter revealed whose name was called Belteshazzar [Daniel]" The narration is in first person.

Then there is also chapter 14, written in Greek and not included in many Bibles, but a feature of the Vulgate & Septuagint:

"When King Astyages ( the Mede) joined his ancestors, Cyrus of Persia succeeded him. Daniel was very close to the king, who requested him more than any of his friends....:" Astyages was the last king of the Medes. See Herodotus for details - though I suspect many of these are questionable as well.

OK. So far, so good, right? Maybe Daniel didn't leave in the first year of the reign of Cyrus. And what is the first year of Cyrus after all - since he was already king of Persia? Cyrus revolted against Astyages in 555 BC and, according to Herodotus, kept Astyages at his court.

But what about chapter 9?

"It was the 3rd year of Darius son of Artaxerxes, a Mede by race who assumed the throne of Chaldea. In the first year of his reign, I Daniel...

Elsewhere this is translated as Ahasuerus, but the problem is the same. Darius ( Daryavoosh roughly in Persian) is a Persian name and is a SUCCESSOR to Cyrus. This contradicts events recorded elsewhere if we are to interpret them as a predecessor to Cyrus. And the first book of Daniel says Daniel left Babylon within a year of the entry of Cyrus. It is in ISAIAH that Cyrus is announced as the victor over Babylon. And his proclamation of return is the beginning of Ezra as well as a cuneiform artifact. The key to who Darius the Mede is in near contemporary accounts of the Battle of Marathon by the Greek historian Thucydides who declares the Athenians victors over an army of Medes in 490 BC. Same with Herodotus calling Xerxes the king of the Medes as well.

In chapters 7 and 8, Daniel also attests to visions in the respective first and third years of Belshazzar's kingship. The trouble is, Belshazzar is the son of King Nabonidus who never abdicated. Nabonidus is never mentioned in Daniel - and in 8 the text reverts back to Hebrew from Aramaic. Go figure, considering that the testimonies are supposedly two years apart.

I'll just let chapters 5 and 6 have a rest - for now, save that Darius the Mede is credited with Persian satrap government structure - attributed as well to Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 3.

The visions as described appear to be much the same as historical events related much less metaphorically in Maccabees or Josephus. But it is much more difficult to construct the houses of cards with an admission that Daniel was written first for an audience of about 165 BC with a persecution as bad (or worse - abominations in the Temple) than the one suffered under the Babylonians. It is also awkward to tote Bibles with Maccabees or Bel the Dragon included. Someone might actually notice a discrepancy or two.

30

Faith in the Flood,-- a Dud.

by prologos in

for the next two weeks, wt will attempt to lay the basis for their imitation "faith" by discussing the "imitate their faith" book, chapter on the flood.

a golden opportunity to share faith strengthening details with your believing friends.

do not miss it!.

kepler

Just caught the NOVA episode on building an ark - or a coracle - according to Babylonian specifications.

It's based on the Irving Finkel book about translating a four thousand year old ark account.

I won't give it away, but it's on line.