[b-hebrew] Daniel 9:24-27
torythrp at yahoo.com
Sun Dec 21 10:47:07 EST 2008
--- On Sun, 12/21/08, Rolf Furuli <furuli at online.no> wrote:
Rolf: "There may have been exceptional events in the past, but as far as we know, every Persian and Babylonian king had an accession year. So, just the fact that so many tablets are dated in year 1 of Bardiya shows that there must have been an accession year as well - and we have four tablets from his accession year."
I'm afraid I don't follow the logic. Of course the standard interpretation is that Bardiya had an accession year. But scribes at the city of Babylon thought it began shortly after month I. It took "them" until month IV to realize, or to accept, that Bardiya claimed the throne before month I. It was at that point they updated their records and equated the accession year with year 1. That you wont even consider the possibility that the dating formulas "accession year" and "first year" could be confused either intentionally or accidentally by some scribes in cases of irregular succession and political turmoil, when accession occurs towards the close of a calendar year, is a little troubling.
The scenario that requires the fewest number of ad-hoc assumptions, and is backed up by a good deal of evidence external to Ptolemy's list and the confusing Babylonian data, is the one that has become the standard view. Olmstead's theory on Bardiya can only be raised from the dead by throwing out a mountain of evidence. Are you willing to do that?
Rolf: "I refer to the first 7 signs in IV' 3' of BM 32234 (Hunger et al.
I shall have a look.
More information about the b-hebrew