[b-hebrew] A third in the kingdom or a third of the kingdom?

Peter Kirk peter at qaya.org
Mon Apr 2 17:22:39 EDT 2007


On 02/04/2007 19:21, Bryant J. Williams III wrote:
> Dear A Becker,
>
> Please sign your full name.
>
> Regarding Daniel 5, it is apparent that Nabonidus is the first ruler and
> that  Belshazzar is the second ruler (co-regent). Thus, for Belshazzar, to
> make the interpreter of the literal "handwriting on the wall" to be "third
> ruler in the kingdom" (vs. 7) or to be a "ruler of third of the kingdom" is
> also no problem since both end up in the same place. It did take place for
> Daniel, but the that same night, Cyrus defeated the Babylonians.
>
>   
But that was not the end of the story for Daniel, for he did become one 
of three chief ministers [ SRKYN TLT) ] under Darius, who (unless the 
story is totally confused) must have been some kind of client king of 
Babylon under Cyrus, or else another name for Cyrus himself, 6:3 (6:2 in 
English). I suppose this could be interpreted as "chief ministers of a 
third", but was this not the normal way of saying "three chief 
ministers"? So in the story and perhaps as a deliberately pointed out 
ironic twist, despite the sudden change of regime, Daniel really did 
become ruler of a third of the kingdom, and maybe also third in rank 
under Cyrus and Darius, equal with the other two chief ministers.

-- 
Peter Kirk
E-mail:  peter at qaya.org
Blog:    http://www.qaya.org/blog/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list