Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 9:24-27

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Tory Thorpe <torythrp AT yahoo.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 9:24-27
  • Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:47:07 -0800 (PST)

--- 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.
2001:20)."

I shall have a look.

Tory Thorpe







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page