Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>]

Collin,

Your post has nothing to offer on the language of Hebrew, and only engages in 
discussion of historical issues pertaining to Daniel. It is, therefore, 
outside the purview of this forum. I'm, therefore, suspending discussion on 
this topic.

If you wish to contribute to B-Hebrew, then please stick to the forum's 
parameters.

No more posts on this thread, please.



GEORGE ATHAS
Co-Moderator, B-Hebrew
Sydney, Australia

From: Collin Sadler <cpsadler1 AT msn.com<mailto:cpsadler1 AT msn.com>>
Date: Friday, 15 June 2012 1:41 PM
To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org<mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>>
Subject: [b-hebrew] Belshazzar and Darius


Re: https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2000-February/006962.html

To All,



When one reads the book of Daniel,
one is confronted with the person "Darius the Mede" who is cited as a
Babylonian King, having the laws of the Medes and Persians.  And if one
were to fail to comprehend this ~contradiction~, one would easily
believe this person is the Medo/Persian Ugbaru, governor of Gutium. But you 
should consider that this individual died less than a month
after the capture of Babylon. And I believe that one could consider the
relative expectation that Ugbaru entered the city with his full entourage. As 
such, it would seem illogical for this governor
to appoint an unknown, untested, Jewish eunich to hold the top position as 1 
of
3 Administrators over the entire kingdom.


Furthermore, the events in Chapter 6 couldn't possibly reflect the 
circumstances in the immediate post-conquest window:





When the king heard this, he
     was greatly distressed

     he was determined to rescue Daniel

     made every effort until sundown to save him

     "May your God, whom you serve continually, rescue you!"

     the king returned to his palace and spent the night without eating

     without any entertainment being brought to him

     he could not sleep.

     At the first light of dawn, the king got up

     hurried to the lions' den.

     called to Daniel in an anguished voice

     able to rescue you from the lions?"

     The king was overjoyed

     gave orders to lift Daniel out of the den



The above appears to demonstrate a panic driven fear typical of a empire in 
distress in which the only one who
could help light GOD's path for the sake of his empire's future, as well as 
his personal safety, was this DANIEL.  Simple logic suggests the 
impossibility for a victorious Governor Ugbaru to take such an obsessive 
interest in this castrated
stranger from some distant conquered Mediterranean city having only a ~3-week
acquaintance.  Thus Darius cannot possibly be "Ugbaru", but must be a 
Babylonian who has been caught in the throws of upheaval, which agrees with 
the circumstance in 11:1, where he had to be "strengthened" by the angel.  So 
who is the victorious conqueror which needs strengthening, -- versus the soon 
to be vanquished?
And in a Babylonian scenario, what would be the wrath of this King toward 
those conspirators who would add to his uncertainty and personal peril:
24 And
the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused
Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions, them, their children,
and their wives; and the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all
their bones in pieces or ever they came at the bottom of the den.
And what would be the rejoicing of GOD's provision:
26 I
make a decree, That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and
fear before the God of Daniel: for he is the living God, and stedfast
for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his
dominion shall be even unto the end.



I would also observe that in verse 30, Daniel served
"Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian." -- Please note that
if two are cited, and only one is a Persian (singular), then the other is not 
Persian.


To continue the analysis, in Daniel 5 we find an interesting history.  
Nabonidus is off expanding the empire, leaving the poorly considered son, 
Nabonidus (Belshazzar), in charge of the kingdom.  Cyrus lays siege to the 
city and what does Belshazzar do?  Does he send messengers out to raise an 
army?  Does he pursue alliances with other kingdoms?  Does he even attempt a 
negotiated peace with Cyrus? Or does he declare a banquet?
And when his noblemen see his foolishness, do they cast aside their own 
concerns of family and possessions, or do they conspire to divest themselves 
of this idiot son?  And after the assassination who is the best individual to 
present at the negotiating table?  Would it be a Chaldean or a man of kindred 
nation with Cyrus, a former Median Prince?





Daniel 9:1 In the first year of Darius son of
Ahasuerus (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom




-- Please allow me to suggest that as Cyrus was consolidating a
Medo/Persian empire, a Median King would have discerned that there was no
future in Persia for his son, and thus saved his life by sending him to 
another
kingdom. Similarly, a Babylonian administration would hope that a former 
Median prince
might assuage the Medo/Persians at the gate. Thus this Median was selected as
the new Babylonian King, in which his traditions followed him:


Daniel 6:8 Now,
O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not
changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth
not.













But where some are confounded by a lack of historical record, this further 
confirms the Babylonian premise.  If Babylon were under placed under siege, 
the city internal
power shift would not be broadcast beyond the city gates.   And equally, any 
post siege / pre-conquered
Babylonian records would be destroyed by the victor to diminish any “good old
days” reminiscing by the newly absorbed masses.  But, the victor would keep 
immaculate
records of his military actions and share them throughout the world’s
libraries.



Conclusion


Virtually all scripture, reason, and historical evidence points to
Darius as the last king of the Babylonian Empire.  But what of 11:2?  The 
commentators insist that the "three more" and "fourth" who arise in Persia 
are of the Medo/Persian Empire.  Unfortunately history provides thirteen 
Medo/Persian kings, and the commentators argue between the first TEN as to 
the identity of the FOUR!

It's unfortunate that so many stepsisters have so many offers to remove their 
toes to accommodate the glass slipper.  Maybe the shoe just doesn't fit, but 
there's another which it does.

Most Sincerely,Collin Sadler

Ref:  Walvoord, John, "Daniel, the Key to Prophetic Revelation"




_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org<mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew