Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Silver Eiger" <silver.eiger AT mail.ee>]

Ian Hutchesson wrote:

>The difficulty is heightened by the fact that some of the kings mentioned are
> simply wrong. There was no "Darius king of the Medes", Belshazzar was never
> a king, and there doesn't seem to be any logical reason for these
> formulations other than lack of knowledge of the period (though when Judith
> speaks of Nebuchadnezzar king of Assyria I think there is a specific 
> purpose).

Just a note about Belshazzar never being a king and the identity of Darius the
Mede.

It is true that official inscriptions give Belshazzar the title "crown 
prince,"
while in the book of Daniel his title is "king." An archaeological discovery 
in
northern Syria suggests why this may be the case. In 1979, a life-sized statue
of a ruler of ancient Gozan was unearthed. On its skirt were two inscriptions,
one in Assyrian and the other in Aramaic. The two almost identical 
inscriptions
had one outstanding difference. The text in the imperial Assyrian says that 
the
statue was of "the governor of Gozan." The text in Aramaic, the language of 
the
local people, describes him as "king." Thus, Alan Millard writes: "In the 
light
of the Babylonian sources and of the new texts on this statue, it may have 
been
considered quite in order for such unofficial records as the Book of Daniel to
call Belshazzar 'king.' He acted as king, his father's agent, although he may
not have been legally king. The precise distinction would have been irrelevant
and confusing in the story as related in Daniel" (Biblical Archaeology Review,
May/June 1985, p. 77).

Darius may have been the title of Gubaru (or Gobryas mentioned by Xenophon).
Albright suggests: "It seems to me highly probable that Gobryas [or Gubaru] 
did
actually assume the royal dignity, along with the name 'Darius,' perhaps an 
old
Iranian royal title, while Cyrus was absent on an Eastern campaign" (Journal 
of
Biblical Literature, 1921, Vol. XL, p. 112, ftn. 19). Of course, the 
conclusion
can not be definitive, but neither can it be totally ruled out, since the case
*against* Darius stands also on just "evidence from silence".

So, it is not impossible that these formulations may indicate quite a good
knowledge of the period by the writer of Daniel.

Silver Eiger