A
Anonymous
Guest
[!--quoteo(post=129386:date=Feb 20 2006, 11:43 PM:name=maidenmig)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(maidenmig @ Feb 20 2006, 11:43 PM) [snapback]129386[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Well, I have to confess I am not prepared to discuss the book of Daniel. However, Josh McDowell wrote a book that I believe is long out of print. It was called Daniel in the Critic's Den. This book is dedicated to defending the book of Daniel as authentic, historic, written by Daniel, and containing God-inspired prophecy. [/quote]
If I remember correctly I have in fact read a part of that book. Or another one that took the Book of Daniel to be historically accurate. What the author did was to force Darius the Mede into the Achaemenian dynasty. The problem with this is that the chronology of Achaemenian kings is well-known and completely undisputet. There is more than enough written (Greek, Persian, Babylonian, Egyptian and other) and archaeological evidence to support the commonly promoted line (Achaemenes-Teispes-Cyrus I.-Cambyses I.-Cyrus II. the Great-Cambyses II.-Smerdis (Bardiya)-Darius I.-Xerxes I.-Artaxerxes I.-Xerxes II.-Sogdianus-Darius II.-Artaxerxes II.-Artaxerxes III.-Arses-Darius III.). There are only two uncertainties, the first being the exact dates of the predecessors of Cyrus II.: They are known to have reigned in the era 700-559 BC, but the exact durations are unknown; the second thing is if Smerdis/Bardiya was in fact a pretender to the throne (in reality named Gaumata), as the official Persian records report, or if he was in fact the brother of Cambyses II., murdered by Darius I. There is no place in this chronology for a Darius the Mede. The predecessors of Cyrus II. were local princes who would never have had the possibility to take Babylon.
Furthermore, the exact date of the taking of Babylon is known thanks to Babylonian records, it was the 27th October 539 BC, way into the reign of Cyrus II. (559-529 BC).
I will, however, not completely rule out two possibilities: Either Darius the Mede was Cyrus' governour of Babylon (in reality called Gobryas), which is rather unlikely due to the whole chronological stuff; or Darius the Mede was in fact a Mede king. The latter possibility is acceptable to me mostly because the time frame of 625-550 BC is filled up by merely two Mede kings (Cyaxares II. and Astyages), the former of which is supposed to have been a strong leader before that (Media was under Scythian occupation before 625 BC). Even if Astyages was a very old man, as Herodotus reports, this sounds very unlikely to me. Yes, there were cases in which long time frames were filled with the reign of unusually few kings (for example, there were only two Persian kings in the time from 404-338 BC), but still, I have difficulty believing this. In that case, I might be ready to squeeze Darius the Mede inbetween Cyaxares and Astyages.
On the other hand, it seems somewhat weird that there is absolutely no other report of Darius the Mede (unless he is a historical figure we know under a different name; think, for example, of the similarity of the names Darius and Deiokes/Daiukku, the name of the first Mede king), and there is absolutely no other evidence of a Mede occupation of Babylon. Furthermore, the Book of Daniel explicitly states that Belshazar (of whom there is also no historical evidence) was the last Chaldaean king; however, Nabonidus, the king whom Cyrus replaced, was also a Chaldaean. Also, the chronology of Babylonian kings, along with their dates, is very well known; after Nebukadnezzar II., these were: Amel-Marduk, Neriglissar, Labash-Marduk and Nabu-na'id (Nabonidus).
So, I am forced to conclude that the Book of Daniel is most likely unhistorical.
Well, I have to confess I am not prepared to discuss the book of Daniel. However, Josh McDowell wrote a book that I believe is long out of print. It was called Daniel in the Critic's Den. This book is dedicated to defending the book of Daniel as authentic, historic, written by Daniel, and containing God-inspired prophecy. [/quote]
If I remember correctly I have in fact read a part of that book. Or another one that took the Book of Daniel to be historically accurate. What the author did was to force Darius the Mede into the Achaemenian dynasty. The problem with this is that the chronology of Achaemenian kings is well-known and completely undisputet. There is more than enough written (Greek, Persian, Babylonian, Egyptian and other) and archaeological evidence to support the commonly promoted line (Achaemenes-Teispes-Cyrus I.-Cambyses I.-Cyrus II. the Great-Cambyses II.-Smerdis (Bardiya)-Darius I.-Xerxes I.-Artaxerxes I.-Xerxes II.-Sogdianus-Darius II.-Artaxerxes II.-Artaxerxes III.-Arses-Darius III.). There are only two uncertainties, the first being the exact dates of the predecessors of Cyrus II.: They are known to have reigned in the era 700-559 BC, but the exact durations are unknown; the second thing is if Smerdis/Bardiya was in fact a pretender to the throne (in reality named Gaumata), as the official Persian records report, or if he was in fact the brother of Cambyses II., murdered by Darius I. There is no place in this chronology for a Darius the Mede. The predecessors of Cyrus II. were local princes who would never have had the possibility to take Babylon.
Furthermore, the exact date of the taking of Babylon is known thanks to Babylonian records, it was the 27th October 539 BC, way into the reign of Cyrus II. (559-529 BC).
I will, however, not completely rule out two possibilities: Either Darius the Mede was Cyrus' governour of Babylon (in reality called Gobryas), which is rather unlikely due to the whole chronological stuff; or Darius the Mede was in fact a Mede king. The latter possibility is acceptable to me mostly because the time frame of 625-550 BC is filled up by merely two Mede kings (Cyaxares II. and Astyages), the former of which is supposed to have been a strong leader before that (Media was under Scythian occupation before 625 BC). Even if Astyages was a very old man, as Herodotus reports, this sounds very unlikely to me. Yes, there were cases in which long time frames were filled with the reign of unusually few kings (for example, there were only two Persian kings in the time from 404-338 BC), but still, I have difficulty believing this. In that case, I might be ready to squeeze Darius the Mede inbetween Cyaxares and Astyages.
On the other hand, it seems somewhat weird that there is absolutely no other report of Darius the Mede (unless he is a historical figure we know under a different name; think, for example, of the similarity of the names Darius and Deiokes/Daiukku, the name of the first Mede king), and there is absolutely no other evidence of a Mede occupation of Babylon. Furthermore, the Book of Daniel explicitly states that Belshazar (of whom there is also no historical evidence) was the last Chaldaean king; however, Nabonidus, the king whom Cyrus replaced, was also a Chaldaean. Also, the chronology of Babylonian kings, along with their dates, is very well known; after Nebukadnezzar II., these were: Amel-Marduk, Neriglissar, Labash-Marduk and Nabu-na'id (Nabonidus).
So, I am forced to conclude that the Book of Daniel is most likely unhistorical.
\" border=\"0\" alt=\"sad.gif\" /] 
\" border=\"0\" alt=\"biggrin.gif\" /]
\" border=\"0\" alt=\"wink.gif\" /]