Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Ian,

I cannot resist the temptation to make a few comments.

snip

IH
>>>... There was no "Darius king of the Medes", Belshazzar was never
>>>a king...
>>
>>RF
>>I would not call this errors as long as they can be explained in a
>>plausible way. Remember that before 1924 (and the publication of "The verse
>>account of Nabonidus") the argument regarding Belshazzar was that he had
>>never existed (argument from silence). The inscriptions give Belshazzar the
>>title "Crown Prince", but factually he exercised royal prerogatives, issued
>>orders and made dcisions that normally would be handled by the supreme
>>ruler. An archaeological find that can justify the title "king" was made in
>>1979, when a statue of the governor of Gonzan was unearthed. On its skirts
>>we find the same inscription both in Assyrian (Accadian) and Aramaic. The
>>text in Assyrian can be translated "The governor of Gozan". In the Aramaic
>>text we find "king" as a translation of "governor". This shows that the
>>Aramaic MLK can be used for persons who are not supreme rulers. That
>>Belshazzar promised Daniel a position as the *third* in the kingdom (5:16),
>>could imply that Belshazzar only was the second.
>
>Do you think that something will come along that will make Belshazzar the
>son of Nebuchadnezzar instead of the unmentioned Nabonidus? While there is
>some room to change the significance of the text regarding the "kingship"
>of Belshazzar, the period is relatively well-known now as compared to 75
>years ago and we know that Nabonidus came to power through a coup.
>Belshazzar is his son, not the son of Nebuchadnezzar (5:2,11).

RF
The Hebrew and Aramaic word )B ("av") can refer to one's father,
grandfather, great grandfather etc. Some researchers have claimed that
Nabonid was married to
to Nitocris, the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. So there is no real evidence
against the designation "son".


>
>>You are right that no indication of "Darius the Mede" has been found. Only
>>the year when Darius became king is mentioned in Daniel. If we do not
>>reject the account before we have seen what it says, the text would suggest
>>that the rulership of Darius was not long-lasting. Some has connected
>>Darius with Gurbaru, the governor of Cyrus, but the most promising
>>suggestion I have seen, for the existence of another king beside or
>>subordinate to Cyrus for a short time, is an article I believe was written
>>by W. Shea. I do not have it at hand, and it is 10 years since I read it,
>>but I recall that Shea studied the titles of Cyrus found on tablets. On the
>>basis of a particular difference in the titles used, Shea concluded that
>>there must have been another "king" ruling for some months after the fall
>>of Babylon. As in the case of Belshazzar in the time before 1924, arguments
>>from silence are not conslusive.
>
>I would be highly suspicious of another renamed character, wouldn't you?
>This Darius the Mede is portrayed as a king of kings in 6:1ff, not some
>mere satrap.

I am more suspicious about arguments from silence than you are. The fact
that Cyrus did not take the title king of Babylon  (according to clay
tablets), could indicate that another filled this position. Note also that
the verb used in 6:1 is QBL which means "to receive", i.e. someone gives
something that you receive. Below I give the three references in Daniel
where this verb occurs. The meaning of the verb suggests that someone else
*gave* Darius the kingdom, and he can therefore have been a "king" ruling
because of the will of Cyrus (remember what I wrote in my last post about
the meaning of the Aramaic MLK "king"). In any case, those who deny that
"Darius the Mede" ever existed should be able to explain why Cyrus did not
take the title "king of Babel" at the time when the city was captured.


Dan. 2:6 But if ye show the dream and the interpretation thereof, ye shall
receive (QBL) of me gifts and rewards and great honor: therefore show me
the dream and the interpretation thereof.
Dan. 5:31 And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about threescore
and two years old.
Dan. 7:18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive (QBL) the kingdom,
and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.


IH
>
>[..]
>
>>RF
>>I agree that all kinds of information must be taken into account when we
>>try to date a book, but I have not argued for a particular date of Daniel;
>>my subject was the problems connected with the dating of Hebrew on
>>linguistic grounds.
>
>[..]
>
>>RF
>>I will not comment on the case of Antiochus, I will only say that other
>>interpretations are equally possible or even better.
>
>I would be curious to know what could be a better interpretation of the
>struggles between the king(s) or the north and the king(s) of the south
>than for it to refer to the conflicts between the Seleucids and the
>Ptolemies including such things as the marriage between Antiochus II and
>Berenice (11:6), the battle of Raphia (11:11-12), the battle of Magnesia
>(11:18), the brief reign of Seleucus III who sent Heliodorus (11:20).
>
>>My experience so far
>>is that only in a few verses in chapter 11 can a good case be made for a
>>connection with Antiochus.
>
>He does only come to the throne in v21, but then he's the central figure
>from then till the end of the chapter.

RF
It is quite easy to find the identity of the king(s) of the north and the
king(s) of the south in the first part of chapter 11, but while I think
that quite a good case can be made for the identification of Antiochus IV
from verse 20, there are several problems, and alternative interpretations
are possible.
I have no time to argue this in detail, but I would like to make one point
showing that others have put the prophecy in a completely different time
setting than the philosopher Porphyrios (in his work "Against the
Christians") and modern interpreters.

What I have in mind, are the viewpoints that the writers Matthew and Mark
ascribe to Jesus. In Matt 24:15 and Mark 13:14 the Hebrew words of Dan
11:31 (9:27 and 12:11) $QWC M$MM (Greek: BEDELUGMA ERHMWSEWS) "the
desolating abomination" are not applied to the sacrifices of swine that
Antiochus made on his altar atop of the temple altar, but they are applied
to something that should happen in the future (from the point of view of
the first part of the 1st century CE)! (See G.L. Archer, G. Chirichigno,
1983, "Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament", Chicago: Moody
Press, pp 140,141) Luke also render the words of Jesus, and he helps us to
interpret them. If you compare Luke 21:20-24 with Matt 24:15-22 and Mark
13:14-19, you will find that the same *future* situation is described. What
is interesting is that Luke uses the words "Jerusalem being surrounded by
armies (STRATOPEDWN)" and further speaks of "her /Jerusalem's/ desolation
(ERHMWSIS) where Mark and Matthew use "the desolating abomination". The
only reasonable interpretation I can see, is that Jesus, as Luke portrays
his words, says that these Roman armies, that were to come, was identical
with the "desolating abomination". Note also the words of Daniel 9:26-27
that corroborates this interpretation. Right or wrong, these evangelists
did not believe in the swine fulfillment of Daniel´s words, but applied
them to the second part of the 1st century CE - and they lived closer to
Antiochus than we do. Many years ago I studied Daniel 11 thoroughly from an
historical point of view, and my conclusion was that, even though the
Antiochus application is appealing, it must be rejected when the whole
situation is taken into account.



IH
>
>>Can you refer to any sources that discuss most,
>>or all of the connections that are made with Antiochus in Daniel?
>
>I've put a few pages on Daniel, one specifically on chapter 11, on my
>website if that would help, otherwise I think any more scholarly commentary
>on Daniel will deal with Antiochus in some detail -- for there is a lot of
>detail in the book.

RF
Thank you very much for the footnotes.

IH
>Cheers,
>
>
>Ian
>
>mc2499 AT mclink.it
>http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/histreli.htm
>