Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JOE.J.BAKER AT centrelink.gov.au]

Rolf Furuli on 22 Feb wrote
+++++++++++++++
<<The following parallels can connect Gubaru with Darius the Mede:
(1) According to the Nabonidus Chronicle Gubaru led the Medo-Persian troops
that conquered Babylon (Dan 5:28).
(2) Gubaru installed governors in Babylon according to the Chronicle. (Dan
6:1.2)
(3) Because Gubaru died a year after the fall of Babel, he might have been
an old man (Dan 5:31)
(4) His death about a year after the conquest fits well with Dan 9:1,11:1,
"the first year of Darius".>>
+++++++++++++++

The problem with this is that according to the Babylonian chronicle Ugbaru
(Gubaru) died within a month (not a year) of entering Babylon.

Furthermore Rolf wrote

+++++++++++++++
<<In my first post to Ian I gave some information from memory based on an
article I read 15 years ago. I searched for this article and found it: W.H.
Shea,"Darius the Mede, an update", Andrews University Seminary Studies
(AUSS), Autum 1982, pp 229-247. (See also the same author, "An Unrecognized
Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Aechemenid period",AUSS Jan 1971,51-67,
July 1971, 99-128, Jan 1972, 88-117, July 1972,147-178) These articles
cointain a huge amount of original cuneiform data, and the conclusions
*seem* to be reliable. Shea  defends the view that Darius the Mede was a
historical person, so it would be interesting to know whether anyone has
criticized Shea's conclusions after he wrote his articles.
I will give some high points. There is good evidence to show that the
coregency of Cyrus and Cambyses occurred at the end of Cyrus' reign and not
at the beginning. During the last four months of Cyrus' accession year and
the first 10 months of his first year, the inscriptions show there was
another vassal ruler of Babel, and this probably was Gubaru, who was
mentioned in the Nabonid Chronicle. It is interesting that Cyrus is
referred to by the title "king of lands, king of Babel" a few days after
the death of Gubaru, but before that he was only "king of lands".>>
+++++++++++++++


I remember seeing this article by Shea. At the time I was interested in his
writings on chronology as they tried to show that the Biblical texts were
correct - particularly where ancient inscriptions supported a different
position. (I still chuckle at one article which attempted to show the battle 
of
Qarqar was in 854BC - but it only showed that he could not count). In this
article he was attempting to reinstate Darius the Mede by showing that 
Cambyses
could not have ruled Babylon in 538. Needless to say his arguments did not
impress me - particularly as the only letters dated by 'Kura$ $ar Matati and
Kambuziya $ar Babili' all date to year 1. For Cyrus (under any title) year 1 
in
Babylon can only refer to 538. Thus Cambyses ruled sometime during 538BC. 
Could
his removal from the kingdom be due to opposition and lack of endeavour?

A hint of opposition comes from the damaged part of the Babylonian chronicle 
for
538. Here Cambyses is prevented from carrying out some important elements of 
the
new year festival. A hint of ineffectiveness in government comes from the 
early
start to 537 when the new year began on 6 March (Gregorian). Now since the 
days
of Nabukudurriusur the 19 year intercalary calendar had been adjusted so that
this year of the cycle always began on the new moon in (our) April (and this
continued to be the case in subsequent cycles). For some reason royal assent 
was
not given for (the due) intercalary month of 538.


Regards
Joe Baker