Has anyone read Thucydides - beside the author of Daniel?

by kepler 51 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  kepler

  I have attempted to insert the book 1 chapter 18 Greek text into a post, but so far without success.

  In the first post, I had hoped that it would show as a figure, but it did not. What was supposed to be seen was the reference to the Medes, Athenians and Marathon in the Greek text. An alternate approach might be to type it out. Alfa ? It might work.

  Judging from comments, I am not sure that everyone is carrying away the same message - which is fair enough. But in as much as I might not have made myself clear, I will elaborate some.

  Several have mentioned that they intend to go back and take another look at Thucydides and the History of the Peloponnesian war. Some in English or their native tongue - and some perhaps in the classical Greek. All well and good. But in as far as it pertains to the issue at hand, the most important lines of the whole work ( about 500 pages) are related to Thucydides' discussion of the previous wars with Persia. I venture to say that as far as Thucydides and his readers are concerned, they were at war with the Medes and their king - Darius. But the book is mainly about war among Greeks. Let the reader be warned.

  There is no corroborating account of what Daniel describes. Darius is derivative of the Persian name Daryvosh or thereabouts. Were there a Mede name that was similar, I challenge someone to turn it up. Coming into this a month ago, I would have been inclined to say much the same as AnnOmaly above, quoting my annotated New Jerusalem Bible, that Darius the Mede is unknown to history. But I would certainly not give an unknown to history a date of reign. At this juncture I would say that actually Darius the Mede is KNOWN to history by the usage of one of its first historians.

  Whether the author or authors of Daniel actually read Thucydides is a matter of conjecture. But if the author lived in the 2nd century province of the Seleucid empire, his rulers had - and Persian history would be a dim memory. As I had noted elsewhere, it is late Christian compilers of the canon that conflat Daniel with the Prophets of the Hebrew Testament, the TaNaKh. When JW speaks of HT it is maintaining the Protestant convention even unto the sequence of books and organization. Daniel in the TaNaKh is placed neither in Prophets or Law, but in Writings. To say that it was translated into Greek in the Septuagint is true, but the Septuagint process started with the Pentateuch or Torah and expanded into later writings over centuries. Significantly, Daniel is the last book in the sequence - or presumed table of contents.

  It should also be noted that Daniel as a book has segments written in Aramaic and Hebrew, 1st person and 3rd, segments that are acknowledged by all as later additions - and some repetition.Why a Judean captive of the 7th and 6th century should decide to write his story in Aramaic in the 3rd person and periodically switch to Hebrew or the first person - perhaps that's a good question from readers. But since the so-called Chaldean service that Daniel supposedly entered into was largely concerned with astronomical observation, it is also remarkable that he has nothing to say about this at all. Lots of sevens though. Furnaces get seven times hotter, for example, though I have no idea by what measure this is based, save that seven is a favored number in the account and its prophecies.

  But in case anyone was wondering, I maintain that the Greek occupation prophecies are backdated. And that Darius the Mede is as garbled history as the assertion that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnazzar, etc.
• 

  james_woods

  I don't understand what reading Thucydides could possibly have to do with JW chronology or their interpretation of Daniel...
• 

  AnnOMaly

  The only relevance that Thucydides has with JW chronology is to do with Artaxerxes I's 20th year - the start point for Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy - which JWs claim was 455 BCE (rather than the established year of 445 BCE). It involves the timing of Thermistocles' flight to Persia and his death and other details which, the WTS says, suggests there was a co-regency between Artaxerxes and his father Xerxes which, in turn, pushes Art's accession year back to 475 BCE (rather than the established 465 BCE). The WTS argues that Thermistocles died c. 471/470 BCE therefore, if he had an audience with Artaxerxes, he must have already been king before that date.

  Discussion HERE.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  kepler,

  The Darius Daniel speaks of reigned immediately after Babylon's conquest. That would be 539 BCE. The Bible says he was "about 62 years old" at the time (Dan. 5:31).

  Darius I was about 11 years old in 539 BCE and ascended the throne nearly 2 decades AFTER Babylon's conquest.

  Whenever the book of Daniel was written, and whether or not we will ever find out who Darius the Mede really was, there is no reason to assume the author was confused on this point. Belshazzar was also unknown to history for a long time, but now we know he existed and was the son of Nabonidus. With regard to Nebuchadnezzar being called his father, there are other instances where 'father' can have the sense of 'forefather.'
• 

  soft+gentle

  Medes in Thucydides refers to the Persians. A literal translation of Thucydides would use Medes to translate Μηδοι
• 

  kepler

  RE: (above)

  Medes in Thucydides refers to the Persians. A literal translation of Thucydides would use Medes to translate Μηδοι.

  ---

  Thank you! Last night I tried to type the Greek in word math symbols, but my connection did not allow that to dispaly either. Now I'm on line without my memory stick...

  Obviously I do not agree with AnnOmaly's answer about relevance. In order to make any sense out of what I am saying - and perhaps what others involved in this discussion might maintain - is that you have to examine two possibilities.

  1. That Daniel was written by Daniel over a period from 607 BC to some date prior to the departure of Jews in Babylonian captivity, switching from Aramaic, Hebrew, 3rd person and first, recounting dreams about a Greek occupation future a couple of centuries hence and laying the ground work for a coded message about 2520 years, etc. And in the course of this, Daniel says a lot of strange things about 6th and 7th century Babylon and Persia, especially with regard to who was in charge - and not at all consistent with Isaiah.

  2. That Daniel was written at the time of the Seluccid Greek occupation and during the Maccobee revolt ( described in the Deutero-Canonical books Maccobees I and II) with the details of history fading out after 165 BC. From Daniel we never learn the fate of Antiochus IV.

  If you cannot consider the evidence for both of these propositions, then, of course, there is no relevance to what Thucydides says about Medes and the Persian King who was reigning during the time of the Battle of Marathon. But since the Seleuccid suppression of Judea under Antiochus IV was as ruthless as the Roman - and is documented by other accounts than Josephus, it can hardly be said that there was no reason for a 2nd century BC author of Daniel to write as he did in veiled terms that compared the tyrants of his day to those who ruled centuries before.

  That Daniel, amid two languages and two narrative forms and numerous monarchy mistakes has extrapolated future history is one theory. Another theory is that Daniel had limited data about Persian and Babylonian monarchs 3 or more centuries previous, but derived some of it from Greek sources as it was taught to him in the equivalent of middle school whatever language he used. I am of the opinion of the latter and, of course, that the chronology from 607 BC has more fundamental problems than Olofson or others suggest.
• 

  kepler

  AnnOMaly, Quoting from your post above: With regard to Nebuchadnezzar being called his father, there are other instances where 'father' can have the sense of 'forefather.' Had a few moments to reflect on that observation while running some errands. Beside Thucydides, I think I can recommend another book. The 1992 Penguin Edition of Ancient Iraq by Georges Roux, a French mining engineer and, perhaps by default, an archeologist. In chapter 23 of his book he deals with Nabonidus and the fall of Babylon. Here are som excerpts from pages 380 on: "The last years of Nebuchadrezzar's reign are obscure All we know is that this great king died of an illnes in the first days of October 562 BC. His on Amel-Mardu ( Evil Merodach of the Old Testament) ruled for only two years. According to Berossus, 'Becuase he managed affairs in a lawless and outrageous fashion, he was plotted against and killed by his sister's husband Neriglisaros ( 'Neriglissar", Nergal-shar-usur) a businessman whom Nebuchadrezzar had entrusted with official functions..." Of his four years of reign (559-556 BC) [we know little save...] After his death Neriglissar was succeeded by his son Labashi-Marduk who was still a child but, we are told, exhibited such signs of wickedness that his friends plotted and nine months later, tortured him to death. The conspirators then met and decided to raise to the throne one of them, Nabu-naid (Nabonidus) (June 556 BC). But in the previous four years events had taken place that were to change, once again, the fate of the Ancient World. The Fall of Babylon Nabuna'id or, as we call him after the Greeks, Nabonidus (556-539 BC)... He was the son a certain Nabu-balatsu-iqbi, who belonged to the Babylonian nobility but was not of royal blood, and of a votaress of the god Sin in the city of Harran. A man in his sixties when he ascended the throne, he had held important administrative functions under Nebuchadrezzar and Neriglissar. Extremely fond of his mother - she died in 547 BC at the age of 104, and was buried with royal honors - he had inherited from her a keen interest in religious affairs and a special almsot exclusive devotion to the go she had served all her life. ... ---- Well, that's enough for a start. But note that the family ties to Nebuchadnezzar have been cut at least twice. He also comes to the throne at some sixty years of age. Coincidence. And, as it turns out, there is a Dead Sea manuscript that mentions him receiving cure for a long standing ailment from a Jewish practitioner of medicine, if that is appropriate prior to Hippocrates. Neriglissar is not the son of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus is not the son of either. More details unfold, recounted on stellae. It turns out Nabonidus had a dream or two himself - and it was about Cyrus. On page 384 "...Betrayed by his own general, Astyages was captured by Cyrus, who in one day found himself the master of both the Persian and Median kingdoms (550 BC). This important event, long know to us from the work of classical authors, is also mentioned in the contemporary cuneiform texts. In one of his inscriptions, Nabonidus tells us that Marduk appeared to him in a dream and ordered him to rebuild E.hul.hul in Harran. As the king objected that Harran was in the hands of the 'Umman-manda' (Medes), Marduk replied: 'The Umman-manda of whom you speak , they and their land and the kings who side with them no longer exist. In the coming third year I shall make Cyrus, King of Anzan, their young slave, expel them. With his few troops, he will disperse the widespread Umman-manda. 'He (Cyrus) captured Astyages (Tshtumegu), King of Umman-mand and took him prisoner to his country.' Another more precise account of the conflict is given in the so-called 'Nabonidus Chronicle": King Ishtumegus clled up his troops and marched against Cyrus, King of Anshan, in order to meet him in battle. The army of Istumegu revolted against him and in fetters they delivered him to Cyrus.' The book provides a number of footnotes for journals, volumes and dates of publication for the translation of the cited sources.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  kepler,

  You've focused on the paternal line. Have you considered the possibility that Belshazzar was descended from Nebuchadnezzar through the maternal line? A possibility.

  Whatever the case, according to R.P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar (1929), p. 194, "the Hebrew and Aramaic word for father is used in the sense of 'ancestor'" and that Dan. 5's use of 'father' to describe Belshazzar's connection to Nebuchadnezzar "is in harmony not only with Hebrew and Aramaic, but also with Neo-Babylonian custom."

  In note 542, he then cites other biblical examples of this looser usage of 'father' and adds, "It was customary for Babylonian kings to refer to any one of their predecessors as their father." Examples include an inscription from Nebuchadnezzar's reign where he refers to Naram-sin (3rd millennium BCE) as his father in the sense of 'predecessor.' See S. Langdon, Die Neobabylonischen Königsinschriften (1912), p. 78, Col III, line 27 (a-ba-a-am la-bé-ri = 'ancient father").
• 

  mP

  so daniel knew about balshazzar, that doesnt make it prophetic or inspired. tye bookmof daniel has been shown by scholars not to be prophetciic but a rant in code against a ruler taht the jews really hated, antiochus iv. the same style of writing was used in revelation which is about nero who is the beast 666.

  xians dont want to accept this so they start inventing all sorts of wonderful stories, all of which are wrong. all armageddon predictions are wrong because rev and dan are not filled w/ prophecies.

  the unfortunate thing is daniel contains anacharisms and historical errors. i will list but a few.

  - he uses the greek spelling of nebuchadnezzar

  -he gives the wrong location for antiochus death, dan says he will die east of the jordan while he doed west, or vice versa. i can t recall the exact details but he got a fifty fifty guess wrong.
• 

  kepler

  AnnOMaly,

  RE: You've focused on the paternal line. Have you considered the possibility that Belshazzar was descended from Nebuchadnezzar through the maternal line? A possibility... [citations above].

  I have heard it suggested that the rationale for calling Belshazzar Nebuchadnazzar's son a maternal line. And let us consider it.

  Since you brought it up, are you aware of anyone in this maternal line beside Nabonidus's mother? I suppose she was old enough to have known Nebuchadnezzar very well, but I have failed to note any reference to that. Had either of the two sources you mentioned given any particulars? If they had I presume you would have mentioned it.

  Secondly, when I have read son of so-and-so in a case that could be similar to Belshazzar son of Nabonidus - it was in a litany of forebearers. In the current context citing Belshazzar as son of Nebuchadnazzar could be considered treasonous because he was NOT king. Nabonidus was. If Daniel was the supposed Talleyrand or Metternich of Mesopotamia, this would have been a very impolitic thing to do. Senseless if Belshazzar was going to be murdered the same night.

  There are several accounts of what happened when Babylon was taken: that of Daniel, Xenophon, Herodotus, the Nabonidus and Cyrus cylinders. According to the Nabonidus cylinder compiled by the priests of Marduk, the main battle was outside of Babylon at Opis 50 kilometers away. George Roux interprets events as Nabonidus directing Belshazzar to meet the Persian flank - and he is lost in battle there. Curiously, it is Xenophon, Herodotus and Daniel that mention a feast in the city whether Belshazzar was there or not- though the complaint of the Marduk priests was that Nabonidus was neglecting ceremonies with his absence for proto anthropology or archeology in Arabia. So Daniel could be derivative of Greeks again.

  ---------------------------------------------------

  While this line of argument about Daniel being literal focuses on a night of festivity in Babylon prior to its fall, it ignores what is chronicled elsewhere in the so-called deutero-canon of the Bible, I & II Maccabees. I Maccabees 1 & 2 are very specific about what happened during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, abrogating a charter of Antiochus III. Ironically it was recorded in Greek.

  Example: I Macc 1:54-

  "On the 15th day of Chislev in the year 145 ( of the Seleucid era) the king built the appalling abomination on top of the altar of burnt offering; altars were built in surrounding towns of Judah and incense offered at the doors of houses and streets. Any books of the Law that came to light were torn up and burned. Whenever anyone was discovered possessing a copy of the covenant or practising the law, the king's decree sentenced him to death. ... On the 25th day of each month sacrifice was offered on the altar erected on top of the altar of burnt offering..." Ceremonies for either Zeus or Baal.

  The next line about women, children and others involved in circumcision rites is more grisly than I am willing to transcribe.

  Later, in 1 Macc 2:12

  See how the Holy Place, our beauty, our glory is now laid waste

  see how the gentiles have profaned it.

  In this same chapter Hannaniah, Azariah, Mishael and Daniel are all mentioned. But I maintain that the events described in Maccabees is less like folklore. And that the authors of Maccabees and Daniel are closer in space and time than some might think.

  This desecration and suppression was real. As was the successful Maccabee revolt. But in the smoke and wind of 2520 year arguments, this is hardly ever regarded. Yet it is in the II Maccabees 7th chapter (pointed out one night in a public lecture I attended one night by an astronomer from the Vatican observatory) relating the martyrdom of the 7 brothers, their mother addresses the last of her sons before Antiochus himself just before his executioner dispatches this last boy under torture. "...I implore you, my child, look at the earth and sky and everything in them, and consider how God made them out what did not exist, and that human beings come into being in the same way. Do not fear this executioner, but prove yourself worthy of your brothers and accept death, so that I may receive you back with them in the day of mercy." Has something new happened since the time of the patriarchs?