From: "Shuan Rose" <shuanr@boo.net>
> Shuan writes:
> Since Daniel seems to get some of the Babylonian details wrong (
Belshazzar
> son of Nebuchcanezzar as the last king of Babylon and a Babylonian
invasion
> in 605 BC unattested anywhere else) I would argue that this is evidence
> AGAINST an exilic date.I also think he would have been clear as the real
> name of Cyrus the Great.(Second Isaiah and most other writings from exilic
> and postexilic times are all very clear about that) I agree that the
> linguistic arguments are not really decisive
>
It has long been noted that the term "son of" in the Bible can also mean
grandson or even great-grandson. While we now know that Nabonidus was the
son of Nebuchadnezzar, and father of Belshazzar, He did not rule very long
in Babylon. Belshazzar was made co-ruler with Nabonidus and put in charge
of Babylon while Nabonidus left for elsewhere. So, although Belshazzar was
technically Neb.s grandson, he was the next major and last ruler of
Babylon -- the "son" of old Neb. That Daniel did not mention Nabonidus may
simply be a tacit recognition of the little effect that he had on the city
of Babylon. And too, Nabonidus had very little to do with the important
events recorded in Daniel. So, the ignoring of Nabonidus in Daniel is a
very minor consideration.
And the argument from the lack of extra-biblical evidence for the reported
invasion is a very weak argument. Time and again, archaeology has brought
to light evidence that was thought could not have existed. When it comes to
making a choice between seemingly contrasting accounts from history or the
Biblical record, I take the Biblical record first.
Allen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 06 2002 - 12:56:39 EDT