Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Liz Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JOE.J.BAKER AT centrelink.gov.au
> [mailto:JOE.J.BAKER AT centrelink.gov.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 12:30 AM
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: RE: Belshazzar and Darius
> 
> 
> Forgive the lateness of this reply I have had server trouble.
> 
> On 23 Feb I wrote
> **** The problem with this is that according to the Babylonian 
> chronicle Ugbaru
> (Gubaru) died within a month (not a year) of entering Babylon ****
> On 25 Feb Silver Eiger replied
> ** the names "Ugbaru" and "Gubaru" are not the same  ...  Ugbaru, 
> the governor
> of Gutium, died within a few weeks of the conquest  ...  Gubaru 
> continued living
> for 14 years as governor **
> 
> My apologies you are absolutely correct. It was an oversight on 
> my part to add
> (Gubaru) after Ugbaru. I was at the time responding to a post 
> which did equate
> Ugbaru, Gubaru and Darius the Mede.
> 
> I also wrote
> **** letters dated by '  ...  Kambuziya $ar of Babili' all date 
> to year 1 ****
> On 24 Feb Liz Fried replied
> ** Cambyses was King of Babylon until his father died **
> 
> I wrote my statement based on the information that the only 
> documents dated by
> Cambyses as King of Babylon all refer to year 1. As it has been 
> some time since
> I looked into this matter I would appreciate knowing if the situation has
> changed. Are there any documents dating from year 2 to year 9 of 
> Cambyses as
> King of Babylon? If there is then I would have to agree with you. 
> However if
> none exist then I would be extremely sceptical of your claim as I 
> cannot see why
> the Babylonians and more particularly the citizens of the city of 
> Babili did not
> date their documents by the current regal year of their reigning king.

[Liz responds]
OK, I went back and looked at this. There are texts dated from
various years of Cambyses, but there are also texts dated from
various years of Cyrus! I hadn't put the two together before.
The years of Cambyses must refer to after the death of Cyrus.
I'd have to check and see what the latest year attributed to 
Cambyses is and if that is longer than his reign after Cyrus died.
I don't have time to do that right now.



> 
> I also wrote
> **** 538. Here Cambyses is prevented from carrying out some 
> important elements
> of the new year festival ****
> On 24 Feb Liz Fried also replied
> ** There is no evidence for this. This has been an interpretation 
> put forth by
> some, but there is no evidence for it. **
> 
> Yes it is one interpretation. The Babylonian chronicles normally 
> refer to the
> new year ceremony only when something unusual happens or 
> something prevents it
> being carried out (year 1 of Nabukudurriusur is an exception) . 
> The entry is
> usually only a short statement but the entry for 538 is quite 
> long - if all it
> is saying is that the ceremonies were carried out in the usual manner.
It isn't usual if it is a new king, or if it is the son of a king,
or if it is after a long hiatus.
[Liz responds]
I don't think you can argue that because we have a description of 
Cambyses carrying out the Akitu festival, that therefore he didn't do it!
What would you have argued if we didn't have it?
It seems to me, based on Black's reconstruction, from the description
of Cambyses up to Day 4, which is all we have, that everything is 
being carried out as it should. That may have been the whole point in
writing it, to show everything was carried out as it should.

> 
> Regards
> Joe Baker
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: lizfried AT umich.edu
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
>