https://conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Latent 2026-06-15T15:38:50Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.24.2 https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=First_Vision&diff=1732536 2021-02-20T21:57:11Z

<p>Latent: Listed various versions of the First Vision</p> <hr /> <div>The '''First Vision''' of [[Joseph Smith]] is recognized by the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] (Mormons) as the starting event of their religious movement. According to the standard narrative of this event, Joseph Smith, while a young boy of 14, became concerned about his salvation and religious truth. While seeking God in the woods in the spring of 1820, a heavenly being (or beings) appeared to him and declared that God was going to inaugurate the “restitution of all things.” This vision, on April 6, 1820, is considered the foundation of the LDS church, so that LDS President [[Gordon Hinckley]] declared at the October 1998 Church Conference, “Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision . . . Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration.”&lt;ref&gt;Gordon B. Hinckley, “What Are People Asking About Us?” ''The Ensign'' (November 1998): 70–71.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The first published account of Smith’s vision was composed in 1838 or 1839 and then printed in the Mormon newspaper ''Times and Seasons'' in 1842.&lt;ref&gt; Hugh Nibley, &quot;Censoring the Joseph Smith Story,&quot; in ''The Improvement Era'' (Salt Lake City: Mutual Improvement Associations), 64:490.&lt;/ref&gt; It was canonized in ''The Pearl of Great Price'' in 1880. In the canonical version Smith relates that when he was 15,&lt;ref&gt;According to the date of his birth, he was only 14; later in the account he makes the same mistake, saying that he was “an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age.”&lt;/ref&gt; there was a revival of religion in his neighborhood that resulted in his mother, sister, and two brothers joining the Presbyterian denomination. Smith was undecided about which church to join, and so he went into the words to pray. He was then overcome by “thick darkness,” after which a pillar of light appeared and “two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description” appeared above him. “One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is my Beloved Son, Hear Him!” After composing himself, Smith asked the personages which sect was right so that he could join it, to which the Personage replied that “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight” and Smith was forbidden to join any of them. Smith claimed that he returned home and began to share what he learned in this vision, which resulted in his experiencing “great persecution.”&lt;ref&gt;[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp?lang=eng Account of First Vision] 1.7–22.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ==Historical Problems==<br /> Historians have pointed out some problems that historical records of the time present to this account, in addition to the wrong age the account gives for Smith.<br /> #The official account speaks of a revival in the area in 1820, while historical records indicated a revival in the area occurring between 1824 and 1825. Examination of the church role records for the year 1820 showed that the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches showed either losses or only modest gains of a handful of people that year, not the massive numbers expected from a revival.&lt;ref&gt;H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, ''Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record'' (Salt Lake City: Smith Research Associates, 1994), pp. 17–25.&lt;/ref&gt; In the 1824 revival, approximately 300 people joined the Presbyterian, Baptist, and Methodist churches.<br /> #There are no records from the period of 1820 to 1838 of Smith sharing this record with anyone, despite his stating that his relating the vision brought him “great persecution.” This lack of any attestation from contemporary sources is pointed out not only by Fawn Brodie, an apostate who wrote an extensive history of early Mormonism,&lt;ref&gt;Fawn M. Brodie, ''No Man Knows My History'' (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945 ed.), p. 24.&lt;/ref&gt; but also by LDS scholar James Allen.&lt;ref&gt;James B. Allen, “The Significance of Joseph Smith’s ‘First Vision’ in Mormon Thought,” in ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' (Autumn 1966): p. 33.&lt;/ref&gt; Similarly, LDS scholar Steven C. Harper wrote, “There is no evidence in the historical record that Joseph Smith told anyone but the minister of his vision for at least a decade.”&lt;ref&gt;Steven C. Harper ''First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), p. 11. This statement must be qualified by saying that the only record of recounting the vision to a minister comes from Smith’s later writings, not from any contemporary record.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #Smith was still involved in the occult practice of looking into a peep-stone in order to find hidden treasure in 1825; there had been no reformation in his life at this point.&lt;ref&gt;''Tiffany’s Monthly'', NY (August 1859), pp. 165–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #In March 1826, Smith was arrested in Bainbridge, New York and charged with being “a disorderly person and an impostor” because of his occult practices in looking for buried treasure. There are official court records of his conviction.&lt;ref&gt;Marquardt and Walters, ''Inventing Mormonism'', p. 70.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #In 1828, Smith applied for membership in the Methodist Church. His wife Emma was already a member of the church; both circumstances cannot be reconciled with the warning he supposedly received from divine beings in 1820 that the creeds of all denominations were “an abomination” and he was not to join any of them. In response to Smith’s request for church membership, Emma’s cousin Joseph Lewis raised an objection to allowing Smith’s name to be added to the church rolls on the grounds of Smith’s dealing in magic, the occult, and money-digging:&lt;blockquote&gt;I [Joseph Lewis], with Joshua McKune, a local preacher at that time, I think in June, 1828, heard on Saturday, that Joe Smith had joined the church on Wednesday afternoon, (as it was customary in those days to have circuit preaching at my father’s house on week-day). '''We thought it was a disgrace to the church to have a practicing necromancer, a dealer in enchantments and bleeding ghosts, in it'''. So on Sunday we went to father’s, the place of meeting that day, and got there in season to see Smith and talked with him some time in father’s shop before the meeting. Told him that his occupation, habits, and moral character were at variance with the discipline, that his name would be a disgrace to the church, that there should have been recantation, confession and at least promised reformation—that he could that day publicly ask that his name be stricken from the class book, or stand an investigation. He chose the former, and did that very day make the request that his name be taken off the class book.&lt;ref&gt;''The Amboy Journal'', (June 11, 1879): p. 1; also ''Early Mormon Documents'', vol. 4, pp. 309–10, as cited in “The First Vision 200 Years Later,” p. 6.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> <br /> ==Various Versions of the First Vision==<br /> '''1832 Version: Only Jesus appears.''' In 1965, Mormon scholar Paul Cheesman finished his Master’s thesis at Brigham Young University entitled ''An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith’s Early Visions''. This contained an account, written in 1832 in Joseph Smith’s handwriting, of the First Vision.&lt;ref&gt;Joseph Smith, Jr., <br /> ''The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith'', compiled by Dean Jesse (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2002), pp. 10-11.&lt;/ref&gt; The 1832 account had been suppressed for over 130 years because of its divergences from the official or canonical version, which was written six years later and then published in 1842. The handwritten account contradicts the “canonical” account found in the ''Pearl of Great Price'' in giving the age of Joseph as 15, whereas he would have been 15 if the “vision” occurred in 1820. More seriously, in the 1832 account only Jesus was said to have appeared. <br /> <br /> '''1835 Version: a “messenger” appears.''' The ''Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate'' stated that it would give “a full history of the rise of the church” (Vol. 1, p. 13). On page 42 of the same volume it was said that it would contain “a correct statement of events.” In the February 1835 issue Oliver Cowdery told how Joseph Smith made his first contact with God: A “messenger” appeared to him in his bedroom. There is no mention of the Father or the Son.<br /> <br /> '''1835 Version as told to Erastus Holmes: only angels.''' Smith said: “I received the first visitation of Angels when I was about 14 years old.”&lt;ref&gt;Smith, ''Personal Writings'', p. 113. This account has been changed in the ''History of the Church'', Vol. 2, p. 312, to read “my first vision” instead of “visitation of Angels.”&lt;/ref&gt;. Also, “Most of the accounts of the First Vision prior to 1875 described the appearance of either one or more angels, but rarely God and Jesus.”&lt;ref&gt;''The First Vision 200 Years Later, '' p. 3.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> '''1842, account in ''Times and Seasons'': Two personages, Father and Son.''' One pointed to the other and said, “This is my beloved Son, hear him.”&lt;ref&gt;''Times and Seasons'', Vol.3, no. 10, p. 748.&lt;/ref&gt; This eventually became the official version.<br /> <br /> '''1845, Lucy Smith: An angel.''' In the first draft of her autobiography, Lucy Smith, Joseph’s mother, remembered Mormonism starting with a visit, in 1823, by “an angel” who told him “. . . there is not a true church on the Earth.” Later, in the published version, she said nothing about her own recollection of the vision but was persuaded to use instead Joseph’s account from ''Times and Seasons''.&lt;ref&gt;First draft of Lucy Smith’s family history, p. 46, Church Archives; ''Early Mormon Documents'', Vol. 1, pp. 289-90.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==The Theory That There Was No First Vision== <br /> The problems that historians see with the canonical account of the First Vision, listed above, may be summarized as follows: 1) No written contemporary records of the account before 1832; 2) Three contradictory versions of whom was seen in the account, especially significant considering the importance of a person supposedly seeing God in the flesh; 3) No indication of any change in Smith’s behavior that would be expected from a spiritual experience of this magnitude, as evidenced by his still dabbling in the occult in 1825 and again in 1826, the latter attested by court records; 4) The records of his attempt to join the Methodist Church in 1828, although the main message he supposedly received in the First Vision was that all denominations were corrupt and he was to join none of them.<br /> <br /> In order to make sense of these problems with the traditional account of the First Vision, non-Mormon historians discount its historicity. If the event never happened, then every one of the problems just listed finds a solution. Further, those familiar with the history of the time point to another event on which Joseph Smith modeled his narrative: the account given by evangelist Charles G. Finney relating the spiritual experience he had while seeking God in the woods near Adams, New York on October 10, 1821. Finney began his evangelistic career in 1825. In 1830-31 he led a revival meetings in Rochester, New York, that was described by a pastor from New York City as follows: &quot;The whole community was stirred. Religion was the topic of conversation in the house, in the shop, in the office and on the street. The only theater in the city was converted into a livery stable; the only circus into a soap and candle factory. Grog shops were closed; the Sabbath was honored; the sanctuaries were thronged with happy worshippers; a new impulse was given to every philanthropic enterprise; the fountains of benevolence were opened, and men lived to good.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Eddie Hyatt, ''2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity'' (Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House, 2002), p. 26.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> The publicity that Finney was receiving throughout New York and elsewhere was surely known among the band of followers of the new prophet who had based his claim to authority on the publication of a new “Bible” in 1830. Palmyra, which was the Smith family home starting in 1816, and where young Joseph claimed he found the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, is only 20 miles from Rochester. The fame of Charles Finney had surely reached that town. Was this leader of a new religious movement to be outdone by an evangelist who was accepted by the traditional churches, churches that did not accept Joseph Smith’s claims to be a prophet? The theory that Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” was a fabrication therefore not only explains the various problematic circumstances surrounding its history, but also finds a motive for the invention of the account: it copied the conversion experience of Charles Finney as he earnestly sought the Lord in a forest setting just a few years before. Joseph Smith was not to be outdone by an evangelist who was preaching the traditional Gospel to people who had no need of a new revelation, but who were finding their lives transformed by the old message of salvation brought about by the death and resurrection of Christ. The prophet who was bringing a new message for the latter days must have a similar experience, even if it took him a while to determine just exactly what should take place in that experience, and which heavenly beings were involved. <br /> <br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp?lang=eng Account of First Vision] in ''Pearl of Great Price''.<br /> *[http://utlm.org/newsletters/pdfnewsletters/134saltlakecitymessenger.pdf “The First Vision 200 Years Later”] in ''Salt Lake City Messenger'' 134 (June 2020): 1–16.<br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:Mormon Prophets]]<br /> [[Category:Joseph Smith]]<br /> [[Category:LDS Church]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Joseph_Smith&diff=1729753 2021-02-08T23:56:00Z

<p>Latent: Added section &quot;Early Years&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Joseph Smith.gif|thumb|right|150px|Joseph Smith, Jr.]]<br /> &lt;small&gt;''For other Joseph Smiths, see [[Joseph F. Smith]] or [[Joseph Fielding Smith]].''&lt;/small&gt; <br /> <br /> '''Joseph Smith, Jr.''' (1805 - 1844) was the founder and 1st [[President]] of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]. Joseph Smith was the first [[prophet]], [[seer]] and [[revelator]] of the church. Joseph was born on December 23, 1805 in [[Sharon]], [[Vermont]]. <br /> ==Visions==<br /> [[Image:First Vision.jpg|thumb|125px|Joseph Smith's First Vision according to one of the three accounts that differ on whom was seen]]<br /> After hearing the conflicting claims of different Protestant preachers, Smith studied the Bible for himself. According to accounts recorded several years later, he decided to ask God which church he should join. In these later accounts, he declared that in the Spring of 1820 he saw a vision of a heavenly being or beings. In the various accounts he gave of the vision, the being or beings were either [[God]] (meaning the Father) alone, or God and [[Jesus]], or angels without God and Jesus. Because there is no contemporary record of his relating this vision to anyone before 1837, and because of the variance in his different accounts of whom was seen in the vision, historians have conjectured that the story of the [[First Vision]] was invented after the model of the spiritual experience that the famous evangelist Charles Finney. Finney’s account of a profound spiritual experience while he was seeking God in the woods in the fall of 1821 was well known. For a discussion of the variation between Smith’s accounts of which heavenly beings he saw, as well as the question of the historicity of this “first” vision, see the [[First Vision]] page. <br /> <br /> Before any account of the First Vision was made public, however, Smith claimed to have been repeatedly visited by an [[angel]] named [[Moroni]], from 1823 to 1827. According to Smith's account, Moroni showed him where to find buried gold plates. The plates were said to contain the full gospel of Jesus Christ in &quot;reformed Egyptian.&quot; Smith claimed to have translated these gold plates by the inspiration of God, using what he called &quot;Urim and Thummim&quot; (referring to the ancient sacred stones embedded on the breastplate of the high priest of Aaron, that gave information from God) that were also furnished to him for the purpose. He published the translation in 1830 as the [[Book of Mormon]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1293-1,00.html Translation of the Book of Mormon] Mormon.org&lt;/ref&gt; The plates are not available for examination because, according to Smith, the angel took them after the translation was completed.<br /> <br /> It was claimed that, on May 15, 1829, the resurrected [[John the Baptist]] appeared to Joseph and [[Oliver Cowdery]] and gave them the authority to [[baptism|baptize]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1291-1,00.html Authority to baptize] Mormon.org&lt;/ref&gt; In 1829 the [[apostle]]s [[Peter]], [[James the Apostle|James]], and [[John]] gave them the authority to restore Christ's Church.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1292-1,00.html Authority of Apostles] Mormon.org&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Joseph Smith also worked on a revision of the [[King James Bible]] known as the [[Inspired Version]] of the Bible. It was not published until after his death.<br /> <br /> ==Early Years==<br /> Joseph Smith, Jr. was born December 23, 1805, in Sharon Vermont, the son of Joseph Smith Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith. Important resources for the study of his early years are his biography as written by his mother&lt;ref&gt;[https://archive.org/details/BiographicalSketchesOfJosephSmithTheProphet/page/n3/mode/2up ''Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet and His Progenitors for Many Generations''], by Lucy Smith (Liverpool England: S. W. Richards, 1853).&lt;/ref&gt; and a book by Eber Howe, published in 1843, that contained a series of affidavits from people who knew Smith and who discredited his accounts of visitation by angels, etc.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1834howf.htm ''Mormonism Unvailed''], by Eber D. Howe (Painesville: E. D. Howe publisher, 1834), p. 237.&lt;/ref&gt; These two references—Lucy Smith’s biography and Howe’s anti-Mormon book—are important to historians because his mother’s account is of course favorable, while Howe’s book is definitely antagonistic to the claims of Joseph Smith, yet the two accounts are in general agreement on the background and early years of Joseph Smith Jr. <br /> <br /> Despite the several things in Lucy Smith’s account that are in agreement with the testimonies in Howe’s book, Mormon apologists could not do much to discredit her statements, since there was no doubt that the handwritten biography was in her own words, as she dictated them, with no credible theory that it could have been spurious. The attack of the LDS Church, then, was on Howe’s book, since its contents, if accepted, would lead to the conclusion that the origin of the LDS Church (Joseph Smith’s visions, and the supposed miraculous origin of the [[Book of Mormon]]), was built on deception from the very start. But strangely, in order to discredit Howe’s book, the attack of Mormon apologists largely concentrated on discrediting, not so much Eber Howe, but instead the character of Philastus Hurlbut. Howe had commissioned Hurlbut to gather various affidavits from a variety of people who knew Joseph Smith Jr. personally. In carrying out this commission, Hurlbut traveled to Palmyra New York, the Smiths’ home town, and obtained several affidavits from people who were familiar with the Smith family. These affidavits, duly sworn to before various judges and justices of the peace, were then incorporated in Howe’s book, ''Mormonism Unvailed'' (sic). It would be thought that any attempt to discredit the testimony of Howe’s book would focus on showing that the various citizens of Palmyra and other places who produced the affidavits were dishonest, as well as the various justices of the peace and judges who were witnesses to their testimonies. Realizing that this could not be done, Mormon apologists instead focused on showing that Philastus Hurlbut, who for a time was a Mormon, was a disreputable character. There is adequate evidence to support that claim, since in Hurlbut’s checkered career he had various charges leveled against him, including sexual immorality. But the character of Hurlbut is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the various testimonies that he collected, duly sworn to, are credible. Since there is every reason to believe that they are, they will be used as primary sources in reconstructing the life of Joseph Smith in what follows, along with what Lucy Smith wrote in the biography of her son. Howe’s book is available on the Web in the well-indexed and well-designed Web site of Dale Garland, a former member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who left the church after studying the life of Joseph Smith and the early history of the church.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1834howb.htm#title Howe, ''Mormonism Unvailed''.]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ===Involvement of the Smith Family in the Occult===<br /> In the biography of her son, Lucy Smith wrote, “Let not the reader suppose that because I shall pursue another topic for a season that we stopt our labor and went at trying to win the faculty of Abrac, drawing Magic circles or sooth saying to the neglect of all kinds of business.”&lt;ref&gt;Lavina Fielding Anderson, ed., ''Lucy’s Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith’s Family Memoir'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2001), p. 323. This is in the original handwritten copy, although it is omitted in typeset later versions.&lt;/ref&gt; Abrac “was a magical word that when written as a triangle on a piece of paper, and hung around the neck was supposed to help sick people recover.”&lt;ref&gt;[http://utlm.org/newsletters/pdfnewsletters/114saltlakecitymessenger.pdf “Joseph Smith—The Early Years”], by Sandra Tanner, in ''Salt Lake City Messenger'' (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, May 2010), Issue 114, p. 10.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The involvement of the Smith family with magic and money digging is affirmed by a neighbor, Willard Stafford, who wrote “A great part of their time was devoted to digging for money . . .”&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1834howf.htm Howe, ''Mormonism Unvailed,''], p. 237.&lt;/ref&gt; It is also attested in a statement signed by fifty-one residents of Palmyra:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;We, the undersigned, have been acquainted with the Smith family, for a number of years, while they resided near this place, and we have no hesitation in saying, that we consider them destitute of that moral character, which ought to entitle them to the confidence of any community. They were particularly famous for visionary projects, spent much of their time digging for money which they pretended was hid in the earth; and to this day, large excavations maybe seen in the earth, not far from their residence, where they used to spend their time in digging for hidden treasures. Joseph Smith, Senior, and his son Joseph, were in particular, considered entirely destitute of moral character, and addicted to vicious habits . . .&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1834howf.htm Howe, ''Mormonism Unvailed''], p 261.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This background in the occult helps explain why Joseph Smith Jr., throughout his career, used talismans such as peep stones as magical devices to persuade the superstitious that he had spiritual gifts and powers. <br /> <br /> Lucy Smith also relates the following about the creativeness of her son in telling stories in their family setting:&lt;blockquote&gt;During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, as if he had spent his whole life with them.&lt;ref&gt;[https://archive.org/details/BiographicalSketchesOfJosephSmithTheProphet/page/n3/mode/2up Lucy Smith, Biographical Sketches], p. 86.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ===1820: Year of the First Vision?===<br /> There are no records from the period of 1820 to 1838 of Smith sharing this record with anyone, despite his stating that his relating the vision brought him “great persecution.” This lack of any attestation of any attestation from contemporary sources is pointed out not only by Fawn Brodie, an apostate who wrote an extensive history of early Mormonism,&lt;ref&gt;Fawn M. Brodie, ''No Man Knows My History'' (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945 ed.), p. 24.&lt;/ref&gt; but also by LDS scholar James Allen.&lt;ref&gt;James B. Allen, “The Significance of Joseph Smith’s ‘First Vision’ in Mormon Thought,” in ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' (Autumn 1966): p. 33.&lt;/ref&gt; LDS scholar Steven C. Harper agreed: “There is no evidence in the historical record that Joseph Smith told anyone but the minister of his vision for at least a decade.”&lt;ref&gt;Steven C. Harper ''First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), p. 11. This statement must be qualified by saying that the only record of recounting the vision to a minister comes from Smith’s later writings, not from any contemporary record.&lt;/ref&gt; Fawn Brodie wrote: “If something happened that spring morning in 1820, it passed totally unnoticed in Joseph’s home town, and apparently did not even fix itself in the minds of members of his own family.”&lt;ref&gt;Brodie, ''No Man Knows My History'', p. 25.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===1822: Joseph Begins His Career as a Money Digger===<br /> The following is the testimony of Willard Chase, given and sworn to before a justice of the peace in 1833. <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;In the year 1822, I was engaged in digging a well. I employed Alvin and Joseph Smith to assist me; the latter of whom is now known as the Mormon prophet. After digging about twenty feet below the surface of the earth, we discovered a singularly appearing stone, which excited my curiosity. I brought it to the top of the well, and as we were examining it, Joseph put it into his hat, and then his face into the top of his hat . . . After obtaining the stone, he began to publish abroad what wonders he could discover by looking in it.”&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1834howf.htm Howe, ''Mormonism Unvailed''], pp. 240–41.&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> The next morning, Joseph asked if he could have the stone, “alledging that he could see in it.” Chase was reluctant to give Smith the stone, but said he would loan it to him. Smith then began to advertise what wonderful things he could see in the stone. This made such a disturbance among the superstitious that Chase asked it be returned. Then some time later, perhaps in 1825, Hyrum, Joseph’s brother, again requested to borrow the stone, pledging he would return it. He never did. Joseph continually used the stone after that as part of his money-digging scheme. It was to become the stone that Joseph used to “translate” the Book of Mormon, using the same technique of peering into the stone while he hid his face in his hat that he had used to deceive customers in his money-digging business. The magic of the peep-stone became the means of bringing a new divine revelation into the world. <br /> ===1825: Money-Digging Leads to a Wife for Joseph===<br /> A man named Joseph Stowell came to Palmyra from Pennsylvania because he heard of the Smiths’ activities. He wanted help in finding a silver mine supposedly dug by the Spaniards. Joseph’s mother, Lucy Smith, said Mr. Stowell specifically sought out Joseph “on account of having heard that he possessed certain means by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye.”&lt;ref&gt;[https://archive.org/details/BiographicalSketchesOfJosephSmithTheProphet/page/n3/mode/2up Lucy Smith, ''Biographical Sketches''], pp. 91–92.&lt;/ref&gt; Joseph traveled to Pennsylvania with Stowell, who paid him fourteen dollars a month plus free boarding in exchange for Joseph’s help in looking for the lost mine. They arrived at Harmony, Pennsylvania, and stayed for a time in the home of one Isaac Hale. During his stay at the Hale home, Joseph became fond of his host's daughter Emma. After Joseph’s father returned home, Joseph lodged with Stowell in South Bainbridge, New York, working on Stowell’s farm along with continuing to look for lost treasure, going to school in the winter, and making occasional trips to Pennsylvania to see Emma. <br /> <br /> Hale, who initially helped subsidize Stowell’s treasure-seeking, eventually became disillusioned with the enterprise. At a later time (1834), Hale described Joseph while working for Stowell as follows: “His appearance at this time, was that of a careless young man—not very well educated, and very saucy and insolent to his father . . . Young Smith gave the ‘money-diggers’ great encouragement at first, but when they arrived in digging to near the place where he had stated an immense treasure would be found—he said the enchantment was so powerful that he could not see. They then became discouraged, and soon after dispersed. This took place about the 17th of November, 1825.”&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1834howf.htm Howe, ''Mormonism Unvailed''], pp. 262–64.]&lt;/ref&gt; If Joseph had really seen a great vision of God, or of both God the Father and the Son, or of angels at some time in 1820 (according to the differing accounts), it had done nothing to change his character from someone who was insolent to his father, and who was still involved in deceiving people through his money-digging practice, as attested by his father-in-law.<br /> <br /> ===1826: . . . And To Trouble with the Law===<br /> During his time of helping Josiah Stowell look for hidden treasure and working part time on his farm, a relative of Stowell, Peter Bridgman, became concerned about Joseph’s dealings with Stowell. He filed charges against Joseph, who was brought before Judge Albert Neeley on March 20, 1826, charged with being “a disorderly person and an impostor” because of his occult practices in looking for buried treasure. He was convicted, as the court record shows:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;People of State of New York vs. Joseph Smith. Warrant issued upon oath of Peter G. Bridgman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter. Prisoner brought into court March 20 [1826]. Prisoner examined. Says that he came from town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowell in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but he major part had been employed by said Stowell on his farm, and going to school; that he had a certain stone, which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold-mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowell several times, and informed him where he could find those treasures, and Mr. Stowell had been engaged in digging for them; that at Palmyra he pretended to tell, by looking at this stone, where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra he had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was, of various kinds; that he has occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account its injuring his health, especially his eyes—made them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business.<br /> <br /> And thereupon the Court finds the defendant guilty.<br /> <br /> same [i.e. the People] vs. Joseph Smith The Glass Looker March 20, 1826. Misdemeanor. To my fees in examination of the above cause, 2.68&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ===1827: Marriage to Emma Hale; Work Begins on Book of Mormon===<br /> Isaac Hale was concerned about Joseph’s interest in his daughter Emma, not only because of his perception of Joseph’s character, but also because he now realized that the money-digging business was based on deception and he did not want his daughter married to someone in this business. When Joseph asked for Emma’s hand, her father “holding Joseph to be a cheap impostor, thundered a refusal and drove him out of the house.”&lt;ref&gt;Brodie, ''No Man Knows My History'', p. 31.&lt;/ref&gt; Isaac Stowell, however, was in favor of their getting married, and so, while Hale was away on a hunting trip, he arranged for Emma to visit them in his home in South Bainbridge, where they were married in a secret ceremony on January 18, 1827. They then went to live with Joseph’s parents in Palmyra for the first part of 1827. In order to mollify his father-in-law, Joseph told Mr. Hale that “he had given up what he called ‘glass-looking,’ and that he expected to work hard for a living.”&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1834howf.htm Howe, ''Mormonism Unvailed''], pp. 263–64. For many years Mormon apologists, realizing how damaging this was to the LDS account of Joseph having received, in 1820, a vision in which he was told that all denominations were an abomination to the Lord and he was to join none of them, denied the authenticity of this account in Howe’s book. Howe’s account and transcript of the court record, however, were vindicated when Wesley Walters discovered the original court record in the basement of the Bainbridge court house, a photograph of which is available at http://utlm.org/newsletters/pdfnewsletters/114saltlakecitymessenger.pdf, p. 8. &lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> <br /> In August of 1827 Joseph and Emma went to the Hale home in order to get Emma’s belongings, borrowing a wagon from Peter Ingersoll, whom they hired to drive the wagon. Ingersoll records the meeting with Isaac Hale as follows: &lt;blockquote&gt;When we arrived at Mr. Hale’s in Harmony, Pa from which place he had taken his wife, a scene presented itself, truly affecting. His father-in-law [Mr. Hale] addressed Joseph, in a flood of tears: “You have stolen my daughter and married her. I had much rather have followed her to her grave. You spend your time in digging for money—pretend to see it in a stone, and thus try to deceive people.” Joseph wept, and acknowledged he could not see in a stone now, nor never could; and that his former pretensions in that respect, were all false. He then promised to give up his old habits of digging for money and looking into stones. Mr. Hale told Joseph, if he would move to Pennsylvania and work for a living, he would assist him in getting into business. Joseph acceded to this proposition.”&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1834howf.htm Howe, ''Mormonism Unvailed''], pp. 234–35.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Ingersoll also relates that, when returning to New York with Ingersoll driving the wagon, Joseph cheated the gate-keeper of the toll road out of the proper fare. Ingersoll apparently did not write this to disparage Joseph’s character, because he described the cheating as a clever maneuver that “exhibited true yankee wit.” <br /> <br /> <br /> In the next month, September 1827, Joseph was involved in a new project. He had obtained something that he claimed was revealed to him by an angel: A history of the earlier times of the New World that he was busy translating. Joseph claimed that the plates on which this history was written had been hidden in the Hill Cumorah near Joseph’s home, and that the angel had appeared to him in previous years but did not allow him to see the plates then. But in September of 1827 he was given the plates and some magic spectacles that would allow their translation. The spectacles were called Urim and Thurim, the names of the gems in the breastplate or Israel’s high priest (Exodus 28:30). Joseph built a box in which to put the plates or, according to the theory that denies the authenticity of the golden plates, the Spalding manuscript or some other contemporaneous document from which he could dictate to his scribe. At first that scribe was Emma, then Martin Harris, Later the job was taken over by Oliver Cowdery. <br /> <br /> <br /> Because it was difficult to work on producing the manuscript in his parent’s home, Joseph and Emma moved back to the Hale farm, where Joseph continued the translation work. Although according to the angel this was supposed to be done using the “Urim and Thurim” magic spectacles to read the golden plates, that was not the way it was described by Harris, David Whitmer, and Joseph’s wife Emma. Instead, they said the Joseph used the same technique that was described earlier for finding hidden treasure: he screened himself from them in an adjoining room, put the peep-stone from his money-digging days in a hat, and then buried his face in the hat in order to see words that the peep-stone would produce.&lt;ref&gt;[http://utlm.org/newsletters/pdfnewsletters/127saltlakecitymessenger.pdf “The Book of Mormon: Another Bible or Another Bible Forgery? Part I,”] by Ronald Huggins, in ''Salt Lake City Messenger'' (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry), Issue 127 (Nov. 2016), p. 2.&lt;/ref&gt; The golden plates were completely irrelevant in this process, according to these early testimonies. As Sandra Tanner asks, “Why would God carefully preserve the plates and the divine “interpreters,” mentioned in the Book of Mormon, as a translation tool, when a magic stone found in a neighbor’s well, and then placed in a hat, worked just as well?”&lt;ref&gt;[http://utlm.org/newsletters/pdfnewsletters/122saltlakecitymessenger.pdf “Grappling with the Past: LDS Church’s New Statements on Gospel Topics,”] by Sandra Tanner, in ''Salt Lake City Messenger'' (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry) Issue 122 (May 2014), p. 2.&lt;/ref&gt; Although the LDS Church for many years produced literature showing Joseph Smith looking at golden plates, in 2013 their official Web site acknowledged that Joseph Smith’s translating activity was the same as he had used for treasure hunting.&lt;ref&gt;[http://utlm.org/newsletters/pdfnewsletters/125saltlakecitymessenger.pdf “Upon This Rock”] by Robert M. Bowman Jr., in ''Salt Lake City Messenger'' (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry) Issue 125 (November 2015), p. 2. Page 1 has a color photo of Smith’s “seer stones,” one of which was used in the “translation” of the Book of Mormon.&lt;/ref&gt; “Joseph Smith’s use of a seer stone when dictating the Book of Mormon is extremely consequential with regard to the truth claims of Mormonism. It discredits the honesty and credibility of his account of the origins of the Book of Mormon, establishes the folkloric, superstitious context of Mormon beginnings, contradicts the teaching of the Book of Mormon itself, undermines the reliability of the LDS Church’s teaching about its history, and disconnects the Book of Mormon from its supposed ancient physical basis.”&lt;ref&gt;ibid., p. 10.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> In spite of this confusion regarding the gold plates, September of 1827 did mark a significant change in Joseph Smith’s priorities. From that point on, the translating of something to produce the Book of Mormon was his chief goal. He apparently had not set that goal as the founding of a new church, however; that was to come in the future, when the book finally came from the printer’s shop. But the start of the translation marked when Joseph’s attention turned away from money-digging to the production of an account of the early history of the New World. As such, this date is a more proper time for the true beginning of the Mormon movement than 1820, the time of the alleged [[First Vision]], for which there are no contemporaneous documents earlier than 1832, and which, if it ever happened in any form, produced no change in either the direction of Joseph’s life or his character. As late as 1828, Joseph was not acting under the mandate of a supposed 1820 revelation that directed him not to be joined to any of the existing denominations. This is demonstrated by the next entry.<br /> <br /> ===1828: Attempt to Join the Methodist Church===<br /> In 1828, Smith applied for membership in the Methodist Church. His wife Emma was already a member; both circumstances cannot be reconciled with the warning he supposedly received from heavenly beings in 1820 that the creeds of all denominations were “an abomination” and he was not to join any of them. In response to Smith’s request for church membership, Emma’s cousin Joseph Lewis raised an objection to allowing Smith’s name to be added to the church rolls on the grounds of Smith’s dealing in magic, the occult, and money-digging:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;I [Joseph Lewis], with Joshua McKune, a local preacher at that time, I think in June, 1828, heard on Saturday, that Joe Smith had joined the church on Wednesday afternoon, (as it was customary in those days to have circuit preaching at my father’s house on week-day). We thought it was a disgrace to the church to have a practicing necromancer, a dealer in enchantments and bleeding ghosts, in it. So on Sunday we went to father’s, the place of meeting that day, and got there in season to see Smith and talked with him some time in father’s shop before the meeting. Told him that his occupation, habits, and moral character were at variance with the discipline, that his name would be a disgrace to the church, that there should have been recantation, confession and at least promised reformation—that he could that day publicly ask that his name be stricken from the class book, or stand an investigation. He chose the former, and did that very day make the request that his name be taken off the class book.&lt;ref&gt; ''The Amboy Journal'', (June 11, 1879): p. 1; also ''Early Mormon Documents'', Dan Vogel ed. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) vol. 4, pp. 309–10.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ===1830: Publication of [[Book of Mormon]]===<br /> In 1830 the “translation” work was done, and Martin Harris had mortgaged his farm in order to finance its publication by E. B. Grandin in Palmyra (March 26, 1830). This event apparently gave Smith enough confidence that he had produced something remarkable that the days of his searching for the right denomination came to an end. On the sixth of April of that year, he declared himself as the prophet of a newly organized church at the Peter Whitmer farm in Fayette, New York.<br /> <br /> ==Imprisonment and Death==<br /> Smith had been imprisoned in [[Carthage]], [[Illinois]] for destroying the printing press of the Nauvoo Expositor, however, he was charged with treason not long after so that he could not post bail. The Expositor had denounced (in its only printed edition) &quot;false doctrines&quot; (for instance the &quot;doctrines of many gods&quot;) as well as leveled accusations of immorality and criminal activity. It also called for the repeal of the city charter, which would have removed all legal authority and protection from the city. Smith, the mayor at the time, saw this as libel, as well as dangerous to the city, so he had the printing press burned in the street. Due to outcry from many of their neighboring cities, he was imprisoned. On June 27th 1844, an angry mob stormed the prison. In an attempt to defend himself (with a pistol which had been smuggled in to him), Smith shot and wounded three men. He was apparently preparing to jump from the unbarred second floor window where he had been incarcerated, but was shot, causing him to fall injured to the ground below. Four men shot him to death on the ground. None of the assailants were convicted. His brother [[Hyrum]] (who was also armed with a pistol) was shot in the face and killed as well. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith/menuitem.da0e1d4eb6d2d87f9c0a33b5f1e543a0/?vgnextoid=ad10001cfb340010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&amp;locale=0 Martyr for God] JosephSmith.net&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Wives==<br /> Smith married [[Emma Hale]] (daughter of Isaac Hale) in 1827 against her father's wishes. A judge in South Bainbridge, [[New York]] married them. This angered her father, who said to Smith “You have stolen my daughter and married her. I had much rather have followed her to the grave.” &lt;ref&gt;MORMON ENIGMA: EMMA HALE SMITH (Newell &amp; Avery, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, 1994)&lt;/ref&gt; However, Emma was twenty-one at the time, so her father did not legally have to give consent.<br /> <br /> Later, in Nauvoo, Joseph Smith founded an impressive militia, announced his intention to run for President of the United States, and tried to establish [[polygamy]]. Between 1841 and 1843, Joseph married more than thirty wives although he kept the practice hidden from the public. Joseph claimed to receive a revelation regarding this “new and everlasting covenant” of plural marriage, partly directed at Emma - [[Doctrine and Covenants]] 132:<br /> <br /> D&amp;C 132:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord...<br /> <br /> D&amp;C 132:4 ...no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.<br /> <br /> D&amp;C 132:52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those [wives] that have been given unto my servant Joseph...<br /> <br /> D&amp;C 132:55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then...I will...give unto him an hundred fold in this world”<br /> <br /> D&amp;C 132:62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him...he cannot commit adultery...<br /> <br /> D&amp;C 132:64 ...if any man have a wife...and he teaches unto her [this] law...then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed... <br /> <br /> Despite the document's stipulation that the multiple wives be &quot;virgins&quot;, Smith was &quot;sealed&quot; to eleven women who had current marriages to other men (who were still alive at the time of each woman's marriage to Smith). Defenders of the church argue that, according to their theology, a sealing is not the same as a marriage (though marriage often accompanies a sealing), and that Joseph never had relations with any of these still-married women, so therefore Joseph wasn't committing polyandry.<br /> <br /> Smith's wives (and their husbands) were: Emma Hale, Fanny Alger (16 years old), Lucinda Morgan Harris (married to George W Harris), Louisa Beaman, Zina Huntington Jacobs (married to Henry Jacobs), Presendia Huntington Buell (married to Norman Buell), Agnes Coolbrith, Sylvia Sessions Lyon (married to Windsor Lyon), Mary Rollins Lightner (married to Adam Lightner), Patty Bartlett Sessions (married to David Sessions), Marinda Johnson Hyde (married to Orson Hyde), Elizabeth Davis Durfee (married to Jabez Durfee), Sarah Kingsley Cleveland (married to John Cleveland), Delcena Johnson, Eliza R. Snow, Sarah Ann Whitney (17 years old), Martha McBride Knight, Ruth Vose Sayers (married to Edward Sayers), Flora Ann Woodworth, Emily Dow Partridge, Eliza Maria Partridge, Almera Johnson, Lucy Walker (17 years old), Sarah Lawrence (17 years old), Maria Lawrence, Helen Mar Kimball (14 years old), Hanna Ells, Elvira Cowles Holmes (married to Jonathan Holmes), Rhoda Richards, Desdemona Fullmer, Olive Frost, Melissa Lott, Nancy Winchester (14 years old) and Fanny Young.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp Family Search] Familysearch.org&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/ Wives of Joseph Smith] WivesofJosephSmith.org&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Although there is some historic indication that Smith married more women than those listed here (such as Clarissa Reed Hancock, the mother of John Reed Hancock), the evidence is not conclusive.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith JosephSmith.net] - The official web site on Joseph Smith by the LDS Church.<br /> *[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,957-1,00.html &quot;Who was Joseph Smith?&quot;] - At Mormon.org<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Smith, Joseph}}<br /> [[Category:Religious People]]<br /> [[Category:LDS Church]]<br /> [[Category:Mormon Prophets]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=First_Vision&diff=1729717 2021-02-08T22:13:41Z

<p>Latent: Removed three duplicate words</p> <hr /> <div>The '''First Vision''' of [[Joseph Smith]] is recognized by the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] (Mormons) as the starting event of their religious movement. According to the standard narrative of this event, Joseph Smith, while a young boy of 14, became concerned about his salvation and religious truth. While seeking God in the woods in the spring of 1820, a heavenly being (or beings) appeared to him and declared that God was going to inaugurate the “restitution of all things.” This vision, on April 6, 1820, is considered the foundation of the LDS church, so that LDS President [[Gordon Hinckley]] declared at the October 1998 Church Conference, “Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision . . . Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration.”&lt;ref&gt;Gordon B. Hinckley, “What Are People Asking About Us?” ''The Ensign'' (November 1998): 70–71.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The first published account of Smith’s vision was composed in 1838 or 1839 and then printed in the Mormon newspaper ''Times and Seasons'' in 1842.&lt;ref&gt; Hugh Nibley, &quot;Censoring the Joseph Smith Story,&quot; in ''The Improvement Era'' (Salt Lake City: Mutual Improvement Associations), 64:490.&lt;/ref&gt; It was canonized in ''The Pearl of Great Price'' in 1880. In the canonical version Smith relates that when he was 15,&lt;ref&gt;According to the date of his birth, he was only 14; later in the account he makes the same mistake, saying that he was “an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age.”&lt;/ref&gt; there was a revival of religion in his neighborhood that resulted in his mother, sister, and two brothers joining the Presbyterian denomination. Smith was undecided about which church to join, and so he went into the words to pray. He was then overcome by “thick darkness,” after which a pillar of light appeared and “two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description” appeared above him. “One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is my Beloved Son, Hear Him!” After composing himself, Smith asked the personages which sect was right so that he could join it, to which the Personage replied that “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight” and Smith was forbidden to join any of them. Smith claimed that he returned home and began to share what he learned in this vision, which resulted in his experiencing “great persecution.”&lt;ref&gt;[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp?lang=eng Account of First Vision] 1.7–22.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ==Historical Problems==<br /> Historians have pointed out some problems that historical records of the time present to this account, in addition to the wrong age the account gives for Smith.<br /> #The official account speaks of a revival in the area in 1820, while historical records indicated a revival in the area occurring between 1824 and 1825. Examination of the church role records for the year 1820 showed that the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches showed either losses or only modest gains of a handful of people that year, not the massive numbers expected from a revival.&lt;ref&gt;H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, ''Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record'' (Salt Lake City: Smith Research Associates, 1994), pp. 17–25.&lt;/ref&gt; In the 1824 revival, approximately 300 people joined the Presbyterian, Baptist, and Methodist churches.<br /> #There are no records from the period of 1820 to 1838 of Smith sharing this record with anyone, despite his stating that his relating the vision brought him “great persecution.” This lack of any attestation from contemporary sources is pointed out not only by Fawn Brodie, an apostate who wrote an extensive history of early Mormonism,&lt;ref&gt;Fawn M. Brodie, ''No Man Knows My History'' (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945 ed.), p. 24.&lt;/ref&gt; but also by LDS scholar James Allen.&lt;ref&gt;James B. Allen, “The Significance of Joseph Smith’s ‘First Vision’ in Mormon Thought,” in ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' (Autumn 1966): p. 33.&lt;/ref&gt; Similarly, LDS scholar Steven C. Harper wrote, “There is no evidence in the historical record that Joseph Smith told anyone but the minister of his vision for at least a decade.”&lt;ref&gt;Steven C. Harper ''First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), p. 11. This statement must be qualified by saying that the only record of recounting the vision to a minister comes from Smith’s later writings, not from any contemporary record.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #Smith was still involved in the occult practice of looking into a peep-stone in order to find hidden treasure in 1825; there had been no reformation in his life at this point.&lt;ref&gt;''Tiffany’s Monthly'', NY (August 1859), pp. 165–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #In March 1826, Smith was arrested in Bainbridge, New York and charged with being “a disorderly person and an impostor” because of his occult practices in looking for buried treasure. There are official court records of his conviction.&lt;ref&gt;Marquardt and Walters, ''Inventing Mormonism'', p. 70.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #In 1828, Smith applied for membership in the Methodist Church. His wife Emma was already a member of the church; both circumstances cannot be reconciled with the warning he supposedly received from divine beings in 1820 that the creeds of all denominations were “an abomination” and he was not to join any of them. In response to Smith’s request for church membership, Emma’s cousin Joseph Lewis raised an objection to allowing Smith’s name to be added to the church rolls on the grounds of Smith’s dealing in magic, the occult, and money-digging:&lt;blockquote&gt;I [Joseph Lewis], with Joshua McKune, a local preacher at that time, I think in June, 1828, heard on Saturday, that Joe Smith had joined the church on Wednesday afternoon, (as it was customary in those days to have circuit preaching at my father’s house on week-day). '''We thought it was a disgrace to the church to have a practicing necromancer, a dealer in enchantments and bleeding ghosts, in it'''. So on Sunday we went to father’s, the place of meeting that day, and got there in season to see Smith and talked with him some time in father’s shop before the meeting. Told him that his occupation, habits, and moral character were at variance with the discipline, that his name would be a disgrace to the church, that there should have been recantation, confession and at least promised reformation—that he could that day publicly ask that his name be stricken from the class book, or stand an investigation. He chose the former, and did that very day make the request that his name be taken off the class book.&lt;ref&gt;''The Amboy Journal'', (June 11, 1879): p. 1; also ''Early Mormon Documents'', vol. 4, pp. 309–10, as cited in “The First Vision 200 Years Later,” p. 6.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> ==Various Versions of the First Vision==<br /> In 1965, Mormon scholar Paul Cheesman finished his Master’s thesis at Brigham Young University entitled ''An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith’s Early Visions''. This contained an account, written in 1832 in Joseph Smith’s handwriting, of the First Vision. The 1832 account had been suppressed for over 130 years because of its divergences from the official or canonical version, which was written six years later. The handwritten account contradicts the “canonical” account found in the ''Pearl of Great Price'' in giving the correct age of Joseph as 14. More seriously, in the 1832 account only Jesus was said to have appeared, but in later versions it was either angels or the Father and Son who appeared to Smith. <br /> Also disagreeing with the canonical narration of the vision, “Most of the accounts of the First Vision prior to 1875 described the appearance of either one or more angels, but rarely God and Jesus.”&lt;ref&gt; “The First Vision 200 Years Later,” p. 3.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==The Theory That There Was No First Vision== <br /> The problems that historians see with the canonical account of the First Vision, listed above, may be summarized as follows: 1) No written contemporary records of the account before 1832; 2) Three contradictory versions of whom was seen in the account, especially significant considering the importance of a person supposedly seeing God in the flesh; 3) No indication of any change in Smith’s behavior that would be expected from a spiritual experience of this magnitude, as evidenced by his still dabbling in the occult in 1825 and again in 1826, the latter attested by court records; 4) The records of his attempt to join the Methodist Church in 1828, although the main message he supposedly received in the First Vision was that all denominations were corrupt and he was to join none of them.<br /> <br /> In order to make sense of these problems with the traditional account of the First Vision, non-Mormon historians discount its historicity. If the event never happened, then every one of the problems just listed finds a solution. Further, those familiar with the history of the time point to another event on which Joseph Smith modeled his narrative: the account given by evangelist Charles G. Finney relating the spiritual experience he had while seeking God in the woods near Adams, New York on October 10, 1821. Finney began his evangelistic career in 1825. In 1830-31 he led a revival meetings in Rochester, New York, that was described by a pastor from New York City as follows: &quot;The whole community was stirred. Religion was the topic of conversation in the house, in the shop, in the office and on the street. The only theater in the city was converted into a livery stable; the only circus into a soap and candle factory. Grog shops were closed; the Sabbath was honored; the sanctuaries were thronged with happy worshippers; a new impulse was given to every philanthropic enterprise; the fountains of benevolence were opened, and men lived to good.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Eddie Hyatt, ''2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity'' (Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House, 2002), p. 26.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> The publicity that Finney was receiving throughout New York and elsewhere was surely known among the band of followers of the new prophet who had based his claim to authority on the publication of a new “Bible” in 1830. Palmyra, which was the Smith family home starting in 1816, and where young Joseph claimed he found the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, is only 20 miles from Rochester. The fame of Charles Finney had surely reached that town. Was this leader of a new religious movement to be outdone by an evangelist who was accepted by the traditional churches, churches that did not accept Joseph Smith’s claims to be a prophet? The theory that Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” was a fabrication therefore not only explains the various problematic circumstances surrounding its history, but also finds a motive for the invention of the account: it copied the conversion experience of Charles Finney as he earnestly sought the Lord in a forest setting just a few years before. Joseph Smith was not to be outdone by an evangelist who was preaching the traditional Gospel to people who had no need of a new revelation, but who were finding their lives transformed by the old message of salvation brought about by the death and resurrection of Christ. The prophet who was bringing a new message for the latter days must have a similar experience, even if it took him a while to determine just exactly what should take place in that experience, and which heavenly beings were involved. <br /> <br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp?lang=eng Account of First Vision] in ''Pearl of Great Price''.<br /> *[http://utlm.org/newsletters/pdfnewsletters/134saltlakecitymessenger.pdf “The First Vision 200 Years Later”] in ''Salt Lake City Messenger'' 134 (June 2020): 1–16.<br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:Mormon Prophets]]<br /> [[Category:Joseph Smith]]<br /> [[Category:LDS Church]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Cyaxares_II&diff=1729456 2021-02-06T19:02:48Z

<p>Latent: Added section,&quot;Why is Cyaxares II Not Mentioned in Herodotus?&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;FONT SIZE=&quot;2&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TABLE ΒORDER ALIGN=&quot;RIGHT&quot; WIDTH=&quot;250&quot; BORDER=&quot;2&quot; BGCOLOR=&quot;CYAN&quot; RULES=&quot;NONE&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD COLSPAN=&quot;2&quot; ALIGN=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;&lt;FONT SIZE=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Cyaxares II,&lt;br&gt;King of Media&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;predecessor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;[[Astyages]]&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;successor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;[[Cyrus II the Great]]&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;birth&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;death&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Dec. 538 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;spouse&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;father&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Astyages&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;mother&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;/TABLE&gt;<br /> &lt;/FONT&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Cyaxares II''', is the alleged son and successor of the legendary [[Astyages]], King of the [[Medes]] in [[Ecbatana]] who reigned from 561 to 536 BC according to Barnes’ Notes,&lt;ref&gt;Barnes' Notes on the Bible, Daniel 9:1.[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; but for whom a better ending date might be late 538 BC (see below). The generally accepted narrative is that the throne passed straight from [[Astyages]] to [[Cyrus the Great]].<br /> <br /> == Original Sources ==<br /> The son of [[Astyages]], [[Cyaxares II]] (not to be confused with [[Cyaxares I]], father of [[Astyages]]) does not ''specifically'' exist in any surviving or currently available extant cuniform tablets or the likes; but he does possibly exist with a potential dual reference in the absolutely monumental [[bas-relief]] [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] (''see below'').<br /> <br /> Meanwhile the strongest ''specific'' literary evidence for his existence lies within the pages [[Xenophon|Xenohon's]] crowning work, the ''[[Cyropaedia]]'', who as a Greek military commander served in [[Cyrus the Younger|Cyrus']] army. This work was so highly prized by [[Alexander the Great]], that he made it his perpetual study;&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia'', Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK&lt;/ref&gt; by extension it was obviously also recommended to him by his mentor and tutor [[Aristotle]],&lt;ref&gt;[[Quintus Curtius Rufus]] History of Alexander, 1.9&lt;/ref&gt;. Likewise did [[Julius Caesar]].&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia'' Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK&lt;/ref&gt; Meanwhile [[Scipio Africanus]] is reported to have carried it with him everywhere.&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, 'Cyropaedia'', Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK&lt;/ref&gt; This combined with a possible identity match with [[Josephus|Josephus']] [[Darius the Mede|Darius, King of Media]],&lt;ref&gt;Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'', 10.11.2.[https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-10.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; &quot;the son of Astyages, [who] had another name among the Greeks&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'', 10.11.4.[https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-10.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; creates a good case. Compoundingly, two of the rebels listed in [[Darius I|Darius I's]] [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] claimed &quot;to be of the family of Cyaxares&quot;: which has naturally created debate if these are references to [[Cyaxares I]] or to the possible [[Cyaxares II]]. Finally those who accept the [[Book of Daniel]] to be true, note that it was [[Darius the Mede]] who officially seized the kingdom,&lt;ref&gt;Daniel 5:31&lt;/ref&gt; which happily correlates all three of these literary sources to their reasoning.<br /> <br /> Alternatively, [[Cyaxares II]] does not appear in [[Ptolemy's Canon]]&lt;ref&gt;Livius, Ptolemy's ''Canon''. [https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]&lt;/ref&gt; or the [[Uruk King List]].&lt;ref&gt;Livius, Uruk King List.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/uruk-king-list/]&lt;/ref&gt; But neither of these feature [[Belshazzar]] who became effective king of Babylon after his father [[Nabonidas]] capture now confirmed to us by the Nabonidus Cylinder (from Ur).&lt;ref&gt;Livius, ''Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur''.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/nabonidus-cylinder-from-ur/]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Livius, ''ABC 7 (Nabonidus Chronicle)'', Column iii.16.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]&lt;/ref&gt; Similarly [[Ptolemy's Canon|Ptolemy]] does not list [[Nerglissar|Nerglissar's]] son [[Labasi-Marduk]] while the [[Uruk King List|Uruk]] does.<br /> <br /> Meanwhile [[Cyaxares II]] existence is further called into question when the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] openly states that: 1. [[Cyrus|Cyrus the Great]] attacked [[Astyages]] and that the army betrayed [[Astyages]]&lt;ref&gt;Livius, ''ABC 7 (Nabonidus Chronicle)'', Column ii. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]&lt;/ref&gt; thereby 2. denying [[Astyages]] throne passed to [[Cyaxares II]] at all. This account is in harmony with Herodotus' narrative which may be derived from the [[Nabonidus Chronicle|Chronicle]] or another common source.<br /> <br /> Clearly, legitimate debate over these sources does exist. Therefore in the following sections we shall examine these sources in more detail.<br /> <br /> === In the works of Xenophon ===<br /> According to [[Xenophon]], ''Cyaxares II'' ruled as king after the natural death of [[Astyages]] and sought to defended [[Medes|Media]] from Assyrian/[[Babylonia|Babylonian]] aggression, promoting his yet unascended nephew [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus]] as General/leader of the allied forces. Furthermore, [[Xenophon]] in great detail records the history of [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus']] pre-emptive strike and campaigns with ''Cyaxares II'', the first battle of which the king of Babylon (probably [[Neriglissar]]) was decisively defeated and slain. During the plunder of this battle [[Cyaxares II]] and [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] were separated and Cyrus continued to campaign alone with [[Cyaxares II]] eventually returning to [[Ecbatana]]. The volume records how Cyrus fused the alliance of nations under his banner until after several years Cyrus stands at the very gates of [[Babylon]] itself. [[Xenophon]] then very significantly records how after the conquest of [[Babylon]], [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] travelled to [[Ecbatana]] wherein he met [[Cyaxares II]], gifting him a palace in Babylon and accepted the hand of his daughter with the Kingdom of Media as her dowry. [[Xenophon]] then records how [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] travelled to Persia after the death of his father [[Cambyses I]] to receive his father's office.<br /> <br /> This record stands in direct contrast regarding the existence of [[Cyaxares II]] with the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]],&lt;ref&gt;''Nabonidus Chronicle'', ''Column ii.1-4'', [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]&lt;/ref&gt; [[Herodotus]] and [[Ctesias]] accounts, [[Ptolemy's Canon]]&lt;ref&gt;Ptolemy's Canon, [https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]&lt;/ref&gt; and the [[Uruk King List]]&lt;ref&gt;Uruk King List.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/uruk-king-list/]&lt;/ref&gt; on the one side. But on the other, it alone offers a satisfactory reason as to why the authoritative [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] twice has rebels claiming to be &quot;of the family of Cyaxares&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], Behistun Inscription, Rebellion of Phraortes.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-13/]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], Behistun Inscription, Rebellion of Tritantaechmes. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-21/]&lt;/ref&gt; and not &quot;of the family of Astyages&quot; (being the last monarch of Media if the likes of the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] are true); while it must also be noted that if these rebels were referring to [[Astyages]] father [[Cyaxares I]], then claims to the throne that are over a hundred years old does not make for a strong case! It must also be noted that this inscription is the dictate of [[Darius I]] himself, who in turn is the son of one [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus']] right hand men who lived these events. Now when one considers the [[Book of Daniel|Book of Daniel's]] claim that Darius the Mede &quot;received the kingdom&quot; (rather than the Cyrus) despite known physical history, this claim is harmonized when [[Josephus]] records that &quot;Darius the Mede&quot; &quot;was the son of Astyages&quot; but &quot;known to the Greeks by another name&quot;.<br /> <br /> Herein, historians are forced to make a choice between the account of [[Xenophon|Xenophon's]] ''[[Cyropaedia]]'', backed by the immensely authoritative [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]], or these contrary works.<br /> <br /> === In the works of Josephus ===<br /> Josephus does not use the title of &quot;''Cyaxares''&quot;, but rather names [[Darius the Mede]] as the son of [[Astyages]], simply acknowledging that [[Darius the Mede]] is known by another name among the Greeks. Considering the possible candidates at the time, this has led many to comment on this convergence and conclude that Josephus' [[Darius the Mede]], son of [[Astyages]] is [[Cyaxares II]].<br /> <br /> === In the Behistun Inscription ===<br /> The [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] details the nine self-proclaimed kings who rebelled in [[Darius I|Darius Hystspes']] first year of power whom he subdued. Two of those rebels claimed to be &quot;of the family Cyaxares,&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-13/]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-21/]&lt;/ref&gt; of whom the former claimed a false identity while the latter may well have been legitimate (but a rebel none the less). Regardless, this gives rise to the debate if they are referring to [[Cyaxares I]], father of [[Astyages]] or to [[Astyages|Astyages']] possible son and successor [[Cyaxares II]].<br /> <br /> It must be noted that [[Phraortes]] claimed &quot;I am Khshathrita, of the family of Cyaxares&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-13/]&lt;/ref&gt; as did [[Tritantaechmes]].&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-21/]&lt;/ref&gt; If they refer to [[Cyaxares I]] over a hundred years prior, then their legitimate claim to the throne would be extremely small. But if they refer to a potential [[Cyaxares II]] two generations later, then a much more legitimate claim could be substantiated.<br /> <br /> ==When did Cyaxares II die?==<br /> Since Cyaxares II does not appear in official records that were compiled after his death, and which official records were used by later sources such as Ptolemy’s ''Canon'' in setting forth the sequence of kings, there are no known direct sources that can be used to specify exactly the years of his reign (assuming that he really did reign as king of Media as Xenophon relates). There are, however, some sources from which estimates can be made of the time of his death. The first of these is the statement in the ''Cyropaedia'' (8.6.22) that, after the capture of Babylon, Cyrus shared his time between three capitals: Babylon, Susa the capital of Persia, and Ecbatana the capital of Media. ''Cyropaedia'' 8.7.1 says that his last trip to Persia was in the seventh year of his reign. Cyrus died in August of 530 BC,&lt;ref&gt;Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, ''Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A. D. 75'' (Providence: Brown Univ. Press, 1956), 14.&lt;/ref&gt; implying that, in the source used by Xenophon, his full reign began in about 537 BC. He would only be reckoning Ecbatana, traditional capital of the Medians, as one of his capitals after the death of Cyaxares. This information from the ''Cyropaedia'' therefore suggests that in the period from 539 to late 538 or early 537 BC, Cyaxares was still alive and reigning.<br /> <br /> Another means of estimating the time that Cyaxares was still alive and ruling after the capture of Babylon comes from contract texts. William Shea did an extensive study of Babylonian contract texts which dated the contract to a year of Cyrus.&lt;ref&gt;William H. Shea, “An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period II,” ''Andrews University Seminary Studies'' 9 (1997): 99–128.&lt;/ref&gt; He examined several texts that named the reigning king as Cyrus, the first of which was dated to the 23rd day of the seventh month (Tishri) of the “accession year” of Cyrus, that is the year in which he was recognized as king in Babylon. This agrees with the statement in the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] that Cyrus defeated the army of [[Nabonidus]] in the seventh month, causing the Babylonians to revolt (possibly Persian propaganda) and Nabonidus to flee. Shea found three texts dated to this seventh month of Cyrus’s accession year. In all of them Cyrus was called “King of Lands” and also “King of Babylon.” This is followed by 29 contract texts dating from the eighth month of Cyrus’s accession year to the ninth month of his year one (Kislev, Nov/Dec 538 BC) the title “King of Lands” is retained, but the title “King of Babylon” is dropped for Cyrus, returning in contract texts dated to the tenth month, year one (December 538/January 537 BC). Shea surmised that the reason for the puzzling omission of “King of Babylon” as a titulary for Cyrus for 14 months was because someone else was honored with that title during this time, and he conjectured that that person was Gubaru, leader of the Gutians (Xenophon’s Gobryas), an identification that is not feasible, because, among other reasons, the Nabonidus Chronicle relates that Gubaru died only 25 days after the conquest of Babylon. If, however, Cyrus let it be known that the people should give Cyaxares the title “King of Babylon” in deference to his uncle (a deference that appears at critical places in the ''Cyropaedia''), then this information could be used to date the death of Cyaxares to the time when the title “King of Babylon” reverted back to Cyrus, i.e. to some time just before year one of Cyrus, month ten, day 16 (December 23, 538 BC), the earliest date after the 13-month hiatus in giving this title to Cyrus. This would place the death of Cyaxares just shortly before that time, i.e. probably sometime in December, 538, in good agreement with Xenophon’s statement that Cyrus made use of all three capitals, including Ecbatana, in the last seven years of his reign, 537 to 530 BC. This date for the death of Cyaxares is in agreement with the book of Daniel, where the references to “Darius the Mede” in Daniel 5:31, 6:28, 9:1, 10:1, and 11:1 imply that his length of reign in Babylon was not long before he was superseded by Cyrus. <br /> <br /> ==Similarities between Xenophon’s Cyaxares II and Daniel’s Darius the Mede==<br /> * Both were kings of Media in the sixth century BC.<br /> * Both were contemporaries of Cyrus, king of Persia.<br /> * Both were the highest rulers in the empire, having authority over Cyrus right after the fall of Babylon in 539 BC (''Cyropaedia'' 8.5.17, 20; Daniel 6:6–9). <br /> * Both were given to fits of immoderate anger (''Cyropaedia'' 4.5.9: Cyaxares had a “reputation for being violent and unreasonable”; Daniel 6:24: families of plotters against Daniel were thrown to the lions, not just the plotters). <br /> * Both were vainglorious, i.e. the praise and adulation of the people were so important to them that they took actions to receive that praise that were not in their best interests (''Cyropaedia'' 4.5.51–53, 5.5.1–2, 38–40; 8.5.17; Daniel 6:6–9). <br /> <br /> ==Why is Cyaxares II Not Mentioned in Herodotus?==<br /> ===Historical Details in the ''Cyropaedia''===<br /> In various details, Xenophon shows that he is a more accurate historian regarding events and people of the time than Herodotus. Although a consensus of scholarship has favored Herodotus for many years, more recent research has cast doubt on this judgment. Steven Hirsch writes of “several instances in which the chance survival of outside evidence guarantees that the authority of Xenophon is to be preferred to that of Herodotus . . . Critics are especially quick to pounce whenever Xenophon contradicts the “historical” tradition found Herodotus. Yet there are occasions when it can be confirmed from Oriental evidence that Xenophon is correct where Herodotus is wrong or lacks information.”&lt;ref&gt;Steven W. Hirsch, “1001 Iranian Nights: History and Fiction in Xenophon’s ''Cyropaedia'',” in ''The Greek Historians: Literature and History. Papers Presented to A. E. Raubitschek'' (ed. M. Jameson; Saratoga, CA: ANMA Libri, 1985), 73, 80.&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> Examples of events, circumstances, or people where Xenophon’s history has proven more accurate than that of Herodotus include the following. <br /> * Herodotus has a clearly fabulous story of the birth and early upbringing of Cyrus and says his father Cambyses was a commoner, not a king. Xenophon, as verified by the Cyrus Cylinder and other cuneiform documents, correctly says his father was Cambyses, king of Persia, and presents details of Cyrus’s upbringing that are consistent with his status as son of a king. <br /> * Herodotus knows nothing of Belshazzar, whereas he plays an important role in the ''Cyropaedia'', in which he is referred to as “this young fellow who has just come to the throne” (5.2.27). <br /> * The ''Cyropaedia'' correctly refers to Belshazzar as a king (4.6.3; 5.2.27; 5.4.12, 24, 26, 33; 7.5.29) as does the book of Daniel (5:31, 6:6, 8, 9, etc.) and a cuneiform text called “The Verse Account of Nabonidus.”&lt;ref&gt;Verse Account: “He [Nabonidus] entrusted the “Camp” to his oldest (son), the first-born . . . He let (everything) go, entrusted the kingship to him.” J. B. Pritchard, ed., ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament'' (3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969), 313b.&lt;/ref&gt; Despite these independent demonstrations that Belshazzar was a king, critical scholars, in their attempt to discredit the historical accuracy of the book of Daniel, maintain that the Bible is mistaken in calling Belshazzar a king. Collins: “The fact remains that there is no evidence to corroborate the claim of Daniel 5 that Belshazzar was king in any sense at the time of the fall of Babylon.”&lt;ref&gt;John J. Collins, ''Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 32, 33.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Gobryas (cuneiform Gubaru) plays a significant role in the ''Cyropaedia'', where he is governor of Gutium and one of the two generals leading the forces into Babylon on the night it fell, a role that is confirmed in the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]]. Herodotus has no mention of this important figure. Steven Anderson concludes: “It is highly unlikely that Xenophon would correctly report historical details concerning such then-obscure persons as Belshazzar and Gubaru, in contrast to Herodotus, and yet miss the major fact of the conquest of the Medes by Cyrus.”&lt;ref&gt;[https://www.academia.edu/22476645/Darius_the_Mede_A_Reappraisal] Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014), 34.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ===A Motive for Removing Cyaxares II from History===<br /> The various reasons for accepting Xenophon’s history of the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, rather than that of Herodotus, as explained just above, still does not account for the fact that it is not only Herodotus, but also other ancient historians such as Ptolemy lack any reference to Cyaxares II. Most of these historians, especially Ptolemy, derived their list of kings from the court records of the Persian conquerors of Babylon. History is written by the victors, and there was an adequate motive for the victorious Persians to downplay or remove altogether the personage of Cyaxares II from their history if that history was as portrayed in the ''Cyropaedia''.<br /> <br /> If the ''Cyropaedia'' is right about the existence of Cyaxares II, then the problem confronting Cyrus immediately after the capture of Babylon was that his uncle Cyaxares II was a Mede. The Medes were hated by the Babylonians; they regarded them as a chief enemy, as shown by the [[Harran Stela]] inscription of Nabonidus, written just three years or less before the capture of Babylon. In the propaganda of the [[Cyrus Cylinder]], Cyrus is at pains to portray himself as the one chosen by Marduk to restore the proper worship of Marduk to Babylon, for which it was necessary to defeat and replace [[Nabonidus]], who was not giving Marduk his due homage. Since Cyrus was the one who entered Babylon “peacefully” (Cyrus Cylinder) and was recognized by the Babylonians as general of the armies and their conqueror, and he was known as the king of Persia, it would be to his advantage to remove himself as far as possible from any association with the hated Medes. Because of the various evidences that Cyaxares II died [[Cyaxares II#When Did Cyaxares II die?|less than two years after the capture of Babylon]], after his departure it would have been convenient to omit him from the history of the time as written by the Persian conquerors. The official history then, as consulted by Ptolemy and other respected historians, would have no reference to Cyaxares II. <br /> <br /> The case of [[Belshazzar]] shows that that the Persian propaganda effort could successfully remove an important king from history. In the Cyrus Cylinder and other Persian texts we find no mention of this king’s name, even though he was reigning in Babylon as coregent with his father Nabonidus in 539 BC. Because the Persians not only wrote their own version of history, but also systematically erased many of their enemies’ inscriptions, Belshazzar was only known in the book of Daniel and works derived from it for many centuries. This led skeptics to say Daniel’s Belshazzar was fiction, or that Belshazzar was just another name for Nabonidus. This changed when, starting in the 1860s, inscriptions were found with Belshazzar’s name, also showing that he was coregent with his father and king in Babylon. <br /> <br /> Why then was Belshazzar omitted from history as written by the Persians? In the Persian version of history, Marduk gave Babylon to Cyrus because Nabonidus was not a faithful worshipper of Marduk. However, that was not true of Belshazzar, his faithful devotee. Since this inconvenient fact did not fit the Persian party line, the solution was to simply omit Belshazzar from official histories. As Steven Hirsch comments, “The real Cyrus was a master of propaganda, as can be seen from the Cyrus Cylinder, the Babylonian verse chronicle of Nabonidus’ fall, and the stories of Cyrus’ merciful treatment of conquered kings, all no doubt propagated with Cyrus’ encouragement or active participation.”&lt;ref&gt;Steven W. Hirsch, ''The Friendship of the Barbarians: Xenophon and the Persian Empire'' (Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 1985), 177, n. 69.&lt;/ref&gt; For many centuries, that propaganda was successful in removing Belshazzar from history, except in the Bible. It has been more successful with Cyaxares II, who is still not accepted as a real person by most historians, despite the lack of any reason for Xenophon to invent him, and also despite his close resemblance to Daniel’s “Darius the Mede.”<br /> <br /> [[File:Medo-Persia - Achaemid Family Tree - inc Otanes &amp; Cyaxares II.PNG | 700px | thumb | center | The Achaemid Family Tree showing the merging of the royal houses of the Medes and the Persians to create the Medo-Persian Empire.]]<br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.academia.edu/22476645/Darius_the_Mede_A_Reappraisal]Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014). <br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder. <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.<br /> == References ==<br /> [[Category:Ancient History]]<br /> [[Category:Babylon]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&diff=1729236 2021-02-05T16:33:46Z

<p>Latent: Corrected spelling errors</p> <hr /> <div>'''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ'''&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]; Title page since 1982: ''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.'' Original title page: ''The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of [[Mormon]] upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.''&lt;/ref&gt; is one of the four standard works, or scriptures, of the [[Mormons|Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]] ([[Mormon]]s). The other standard works are the [[Bible]], the ''[[Pearl of Great Price]]'', and the ''[[Doctrine and Covenants]]''.<br /> [[Image:Moroni gives Joseph the plates.jpg|thumb|100px|Moroni gives Joseph Smith the plates]]<br /> [[Image:Joseph Translating.jpg|thumb|100px|Joseph Smith Translating the Plates]]<br /> Mormons believe that [[Joseph Smith]], Jr. translated the Book of Mormon from a set of gold plates he received from an angel named Moroni&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/34-35#34 &quot;History of Joseph Smith,&quot;] History of the Church Vol. 1&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, ''An Address to All Believers in Christ'', Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12).&lt;ref&gt;[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20july%201993.htm/a%20treasured%20testament.htm ''A Treasured Testament,''] Russel M. Nelson, (Ensign, July 1993), 61.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> <br /> The Book of Mormon tells the story of the descendants of a man named Lehi, who took his family from Jerusalem to the Americas. According to the book, Lehi's wicked sons, Laman and Lemual, turned against his righteous sons, Nephi and Sam, and were cursed with dark skin.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/Alma3.htm GospelDoctrine.com]&lt;/ref&gt; Mormons believe that descendants of Lehi were the ancestors of some Native Americans; these people are referred to as &quot;Lamanites&quot; in the Book of Mormon:&lt;ref&gt;[http://search.ldslibrary.com/125037 Elder Spencer W. Kimball of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]&lt;/ref&gt; A post-resurrection appearance in the New World by [[Jesus]] is also described in the Book of Mormon. <br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Nephi and Sam's descendants, the Nephites, eventually turned to wickedness and were destroyed by the more numerous Lamanites. One of the last Nephites, Moroni, buried the golden plates in what is now New York State to keep them from falling into the hands of the Lamanites and being destroyed.&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]&lt;/ref&gt; Three Nephites were blessed with eternal life and still wander the Earth today serving others.&lt;ref&gt;[http://deseretmail.com/mormon-life/curric/story?story_id=1580 &quot;Clyde J. Williams on the Three Nephites and the Doctrine of Translation,&quot;] Thoughts on Gospel Doctrine Lesson 42, Deseret Book.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> In 1982, the subtitle, &quot;Another Testament of Jesus Christ,&quot; was added to the title page.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/bookofmormon.htm A Short Introduction to the Book of Mormon]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Mormons and other Latter-Day Saints believe that the book is of ancient origin and that the personages and events described therein are factual. At the same time, Mormons deny that the book is to be considered inerrant. Critics assert that its contents have been changed a number of times by LDS authorities; Mormons reply that the changes are merely grammatical corrections. For a fuller discussion of changes, see [[Book of Mormon#Changes in the Book of Mormon|Changes in the Book of Mormon]] section below.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Historicity==<br /> <br /> The Book of Mormon is widely criticized for the absence of evidence supporting it. The list of missing artifacts includes almost forty entire cities (all cities named therein), animals (such as horses and cattle), metals (iron and steel), evidence of wars (involving multiple thousands of deaths), weapons (including swords, spears and armor), machinery and other technology cited within it - spanning the many hundreds of years covered by the narrative. Because no such supporting evidence has been found, the LDS church takes no official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon. Artifacts of such a nature (found in the Americas) have been found to have been introduced into the areas in question by Europeans colonists much later than the timeframe claimed in the Book of Mormon. Mormon Apologists have worked to find counterarguments and responses to all of these claims.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Mormon]] apologists have responded by citing, for example, the first Book of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi) in which discoveries of place locations thought not to have existed prior to discovery are to be found. An instance of this concerns the alleged discovery of the place known as &quot;Nahom&quot; as mentioned here ([http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/16.34?lang=eng#33]), a burial place which was discovered and is said by Mormons to be referred to in no other text.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Nahom FAIR Wiki- Mormon Apologetic resource- Nahom]&lt;/ref&gt; Likewise Old world geography in the Book has been pinpointed by apologists.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Old_World]&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> Opponents have pointed to linguistic anachronisms in the text, such as it being written entirely in a Sixteenth-century King James style and its use of words such as French word &quot;adieu&quot;. Mormon apologists argue that they have found numerous Semitic linguistic and literary traits within it which make it appear authentic, such as the inclusion of Chiasmus&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms/Chiasmus Chiasmus]&lt;/ref&gt; and numerous other Hebrew traits within the text&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Mormons do ultimately confess that the main evidence and support for the Book of Mormon does not center upon history or language but upon faith that it is a divinely inspired document. <br /> <br /> Mormon apologist Jeff Lindsay has compiled his own list Book of Mormon evidences.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Contents==<br /> The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ &lt;ref&gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents&lt;/ref&gt; is divided up into many sections or parts, including a Title Page, Introduction, The Testimony of Three Witnesses, The Testimony of Eight Witnesses, the Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, A Brief Explanation about The Book of Mormon, and the following main parts or divisions commonly referred to as &quot;books,&quot; as in &quot;The Book of Moroni,&quot; followed by the common abbreviation in parentheses: [[First Nephi]] (1 Ne.), Second Nephi (2 Ne.), Jacob (Jacob), Enos (Enos), Jarom (Jarom), Omni (Omni), Words of Mormon (W of M), Mosiah (Mosiah), Alma (Alma), Helaman (Hel.), Third Nephi (3 Ne.), Fourth Nephi (4 Ne.), Mormon (Morm.), Ether (Ether), Moroni (Moro.).<br /> <br /> The first sentence of the Introduction is quite self-explanatory: &quot;The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> *[[Objects listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> *[[People listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> *[[Places listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> <br /> ==Other denominations==<br /> The Book of Mormon is accepted as Scripture by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and by other Latter-day Saints denominations, the largest of which, the [[Community of Christ]] (est. 1860), publishes its own versions of the Book of Mormon with different chapter and verse divisions and one with &quot;modernized&quot; language. Other Christian denominations, Catholic and Protestant, reject the Book of Mormon, considering it to be neither inspired nor ancient.<br /> <br /> ==Theology of Book of Mormon==<br /> In contrast to later Mormon doctrine, the Book of Mormon teaches the following regarding the nature of God: 1) He has existed from eternity to eternity.&lt;ref&gt; Moroni 8:18: “For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.”&lt;/ref&gt; 2) His nature is unchanging.&lt;ref&gt;Moroni 8:18: “For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.” Mormon 9:9: “For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing? And now if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is a shadow of turning, then have ye imaged up to yourselves a god who is not a god of miracles.”&lt;/ref&gt; 3) He is the only God.&lt;ref&gt;2 Nephi 2:14: “for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.” Mormon 9:11: “But behold, I will show unto you a God of miracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The doctrine of the Trinity is expressed clearly in 2 Nephi 31:21: “And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end.” Also Mormon 7:7: “. . . unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.” This clear teaching, however, is compromised by Mosiah 15:1–5, Mormon 9:12, and Ether 3:14. These passages present the sub-Christian doctrine of modalism wherein Jesus is the Father and the Holy Ghost; the three are just modes of appearance of the one God. Such confusion and contradiction of an essential doctrine in the Book of Mormon is evidence of either more than one author of the book or, if one author wrote all these passages, he was sorely lacking in theological understanding and insight. <br /> <br /> That salvation comes by believing in Christ and that he died for our sins seems fairly well expressed by Mormon 7:5: “Know ye that ye must come to the knowledge of your fathers, and repent of all your sins and iniquities, and believe in Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God, and that he was slain by the Jews, and by the power of the Father he hath risen again, whereby he hath gained the victory over the grave; and also in him is the sting of death swallowed up.”<br /> <br /> There are many other theological doctrines of a somewhat lesser importance that are addressed in the Book of Mormon. These include the mode of baptism, whether baptism was necessary for salvation, whether infants should be baptized, the “Restoration” idea that Christianity needed to return to its roots in the New Testament, and the doctrine of Universalism (false according to Alma 1:4). One of the leaders of the Restoration movement was Alexander Campbell, founder of the Disciples of Christ and a contemporary of Joseph Smith. Noticing that the hot issues under discussion in America in the 1820s and 1830s seemed to be all addressed in the Book of Mormon, he wrote:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;This prophet Smith, through his stone spectacles, wrote on the plates of Nephi, in his Book of Mormon, every error and almost every truth discussed in New York for the last ten years. He decided all the great controversies:—infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement . . . and even the question of free masonry, republican government and the rights of man.&lt;ref&gt;Alexander Campbell, cited in Fawn Brodie, ''No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet'' (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946), pp. 69–70.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> As explained at some length in what is probably the best-known biography of Joseph Smith, Fawn Brodie’s ''No Man Knows My History'', discussions of Freemasonry were much in the news at the time the Book of Mormon was written.&lt;ref&gt;Brodie, ''No Man Knows My History'', 63–66.&lt;/ref&gt; In September of 1826 the owner of a printing press who was preparing a book that exposed the secret rites of Freemasonry was abducted from Batavia, New York. He was given a mock trial by Mason vigilantes and taken to Fort Niagara on the Canadian border, after which no more trace was found of him. When five prominent Masons were tried for the abduction, three were acquitted and the other two received sentences of less than a year. The public was outraged at this injustice, “and the Masons became the standing theme of conversation in field and tavern. . . The Democrats were appalled to count nineteen anti-Masonic conventions within twelve months and began to wonder if they might lose the election because their beloved Andrew Jackson was a Mason of high rank.”&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., 64, 65.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> The controversy was introduced into the Book of Mormon in the form of the Gadianton Band, an evil group who had “their secret signs, and their secret words; and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant, that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do he should not be injured by his brother, nor by those who did belong to his band, who had taken this covenant. And thus they might murder, and plunder, and steal, and commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness, contrary to the laws of their country, and also the laws of their God.”&lt;ref&gt;''Book of Mormon'', Helaman 6:22, 23. See also Helaman 8:1–4; 3 Nephi 6:28–30, and Ether 8:15¬¬–16, 22–26.&lt;/ref&gt; The Book of Mormon therefore took its stand on the burning question of the late 1820s: It declared that secret lodges were inherently evil and a threat to society. This is of particular interest because it was only a few years later that Joseph Smith, contrary to what was written in the book he had introduced, joined the Masons and introduced secret words, secret rites, and secret ceremonies to his followers, practices that are observed to this day in Mormon temples throughout the world.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Homer, ''Joseph’s Temples: The Dynamic Relationship between Freemasonry and Mormonism'' (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2014).&lt;/ref&gt; This is one of the many areas where the LDS leadership, starting with Joseph Smith, diverged from the doctrines of their sacred book. Other examples are discussed in the [[Book of Mormon#Conflict of the Book of Mormon Doctrines with Later LDS Doctrines|&quot;Conflict of the Book of Mormon Doctrines with Later LDS Doctrines&quot;]] section. <br /> <br /> In recognition of the fact that the Book of Mormon addresses theological and political issues that were at the forefront of debate in the early nineteenth century, some Mormon apologists have presented this as an example of God’s foreknowledge: God planned it so that the writers who wrote the original “Reformed Egyptian” text did not know it, but the issues they were writing about would be relevant to the society that would see the translation of their texts in a book to be published hundreds of years after the last chapter of their text was written and the plates were buried in Hill Cumorah. <br /> <br /> == Polygamy ==<br /> The Book of Mormon forbids [[polygamy]] without exception: <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord . . . Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and [[concubine]]s he shall have none (Jacob 2:24, 27).&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> By their advocacy of the doctrine that the Book of Mormon is inspired by God and hence authoritative, the LDS Church is under the divine command to recognize anyone who practices polygamy must be labeled an apostate from the true faith. Polygamy, which is so degrading to women, is “abominable before me, saith the Lord.” The plain meaning of these verses was accepted without question in 1835 (the Book of Mormon was published in 1830), as shown by this entry in the first edition of the ''Doctrine and Covenants'': &lt;blockquote&gt;Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.&lt;ref&gt;''Doctrine and Covenants'', section 101, verse 4.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> This condemnation of polygamy was printed in every edition of the ''Doctrine and Covenants'' until 1876, at which time polygamy was authorized and the section condemning it was removed. There was, however, no attempt to change the text in the Book of Mormon, because too many copies had already been circulated.<br /> How the change in doctrine to the acceptance of polygamy came about is explained by a letter written by Oliver Cowdery and dated January 21, 1838. Cowdery, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, wrote the following about an conversation he had with Joseph Smith sometime in the early or mid-1830s:&lt;blockquote&gt;When he [Joseph Smith] was there we had some conversation in which in every instance I did not fail to affirm that what I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger’s was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deviated from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself.&lt;ref&gt;Letter written by Oliver Cowdery and recorded by his brother Warren Cowdery; see photograph in Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''The Mormon Kingdom'' (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1968), vol. 1 p. 27.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Having been caught in adultery, Smith’s eventual recourse was, not to repent, but to declare that God gave him the extra wives. This explanation was formalized in a “revelation” supposedly given on July 12, 1843, by which time Smith had acquired many plural wives. He probably did not realize that, in justifying his actions by declaring a divine revelation, he was following in the footsteps of Muhammad, the false prophet of Islam. In surah (chapter) 4, verse 3 of the Qur’an, a man is allowed to have up to four wives and no more. For Muhammad, however, this eventually became too restrictive, and so he received a new revelation that he, as a prophet (but no one else) was allowed to have as many wives as he wanted (surah 33:50). The original revelation was countermanded or “abrogated” by the later revelation. Since this revoking and replacing happened so many times with Muhammad’s prophecies, the dogma of abrogation, where Allah contradicts and replaces what he said previously, has become an important doctrine of Muslim theology. <br /> <br /> The same principle (abrogation) became operative in the LDS Church and continues to this day, so that the President of the Church, who supposedly has the authority of a prophet, seer, and revelator, can change any doctrine and the faithful are obliged to accept his authority to do so without question and without pointing out the inconsistencies with past doctrine. Thus polygamy, declared against the will of God in the Book of Mormon, became not only accepted but a virtue in the LDS church. The “revelation” that authorized the practice of polygamy among Latter-day Saints during the 19th Century is recorded in the ''[[Doctrine and Covenants]]'', section 132. John Taylor, third President of the Mormon Church, declared:&lt;blockquote&gt;We are not ashamed here in this great metropolis of America * * * to declare that we are polygamists. We are not ashamed to proclaim to this great nation, to rulers and people, to the president, senators, legislators, judges; to high and low, rich and poor, priests and people, that we are firm, conscientious believers in polygamy, and that it is part and parcel of our religious creed.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45303/45303-h/45303-h.htm#imgpg236jos ''The Life of John Taylor, Third President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints''] by B.H. Roberts (Salt Lake City, 1892), 355.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; Instead of a sin against God (Book of Mormon), polygamy became an essential virtue. Brigham Young, Second President of the LDS Church, declared “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;''Journal of Discourses'' Vol. 2, p. 269.&lt;/ref&gt; And, in the ''Millennial Star'': &quot;The order of plurality of wives is an everlasting and ceaseless order, designed to exalt the choicest men and women to the most superlative excellence, dominion, and glory.”&lt;ref&gt;''Millennial Star'', Vol. 15, p. 226.&lt;/ref&gt; Joseph Smith’s revelation about polygamy declared “For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant, and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory . . .”&lt;ref&gt;''Doctrines and Covenants'', section 132.&lt;/ref&gt; Sin had become a virtue, and virtue a sin. <br /> <br /> <br /> Succumbing to political pressure, however, the leadership of the LDS church eventually abrogated the “everlasting covenant” in which “if ye abide not that covenant, then ye are damned.” Polygamy reverted to its previous status as a sin: “Any who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day, when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they are performed, are guilty of gross wickedness. They are living in adultery, have already sold their souls to the devil, and (whether their acts are based on ignorance or lust or both) they will be damned in eternity.”&lt;ref&gt;Bruce R. McConkie, ''Mormon Doctrine'', 1958 ed., pp. 522–23.&lt;/ref&gt; These reversals in doctrine show that Mormons are not expected to regard as their final authority the Book of Mormon or the Bible, but the changing doctrines of their leaders, whom they are expected to follow without question and especially without pointing out the inconsistency of Mormon doctrine over the years. As Jesus said, &lt;blockquote&gt;Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’ (Mark 7:6, 7, ESV).&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Conflict of Book of Mormon Doctrines with Later LDS Doctrines== <br /> The conflict of the Book of Mormon’s condemnation of polygamy versus Joseph Smith’s ability to completely countermand that principle in a book that he maintained was given by divine inspiration set a precedent that has continued to the present. In case after case, the LDS leadership has issued decrees that conflict with principles taught in the book that they teach their Sunday School students is inspired by God. Another case illustrating this is the doctrine of the immutability and uniqueness of God as set forth in the Book of Mormon (and of course also in the Bible).<br /> <br /> In 1836, Lorenzo Snow became a convert to the Mormon faith. The new convert was caught up in the spirit that he sensed among his new friends, and in that spirit he made a quite startling declaration, that his new spiritual guide Joseph Smith would “become as great as you can possibly wish—EVEN AS GREAT AS GOD.”&lt;ref&gt; Eliza R. Snow Smith, ''Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1884), 10.&lt;/ref&gt; In 1840 he also got caught up in a spirit and thought he was given a new revelation that affirmed his earlier prophecy, and which he summarized in a couplet: “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.” On April 7 1844, Joseph Smith publicly declared his support of Lorenzo Snow’s new doctrine in a sermon that is known as the King Follett Discourse. Contrary to all Scriptures in the Bible and the pseudo-scriptures of the Book of Mormon that teach the eternal and immutable character of God the Creator, Smith boldly announced a new understanding of who God is:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt; God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! . . . I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea . . . . he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself! . . . you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.&lt;ref&gt;''Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith'' (comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1976), 345–47.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> The “Adam-God” doctrine, which was later also preached by Brigham Young, is therefore another example of the leadership of the LDS movement introducing doctrines that were not compatible with their own scripture. The following table illustrates these and other cases where a new “revelation” by the LDS leadership demonstrated their lack of belief in the authority of the Book of Mormon.<br /> <br /> &lt;TABLE ALIGN=&quot;CENTER&quot; WIDTH=&quot;90%&quot; BGCOLOR=&quot;LIGHTGREY&quot; CELLPADDING=&quot;4&quot; BORDER=&quot;1&quot; RULES=&quot;1&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;CAPTION ALIGN=”TOP”&gt;&lt;FONT SIZE=&quot;4&quot;&gt;Doctrines: Book of Mormon vs. the Mormon Church&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/CAPTION&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TH BGCOLOR=&quot;WHEAT&quot;&gt;BOOK OF MORMON&lt;/TH&gt;<br /> &lt;TH BGCOLOR=&quot;WHEAT&quot;&gt;Later LDS Doctrine&lt;/TH&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD &gt;THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD. Alma 11:28–30: “Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he [Amulek] answered, No. Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things? And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.” &lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; There is a plurality of gods. ''Doctrine and Covenants'' (D&amp;C) 121:32, 132:18–20, 37. &lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;GOD IS A SPIRIT. Alma 18:26–28: “And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea. And Ammon said: This is God.” Also Alma 22:8–11.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; God has a body. D&amp;C 130:22.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;ONLY ONE CREATOR GOD. 2 Nephi 2:14: “for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.” Mormon 9:11: “But behold, I will show unto you a God of miracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.”&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Plural gods in creation. ''Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham'', chs. 4 &amp; 5.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;GOD IS UNCHANGING. Moroni 8:18: “For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.” Mormon 9:9: “For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing? And now if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is a shadow of turning, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles.” &lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD&gt; God “was once a man like us:” Joseph Smith, in his King Follett Sermon, also taught by Brigham Young.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;DEATH SEALS MAN’S FATE. Mosiah 2:38, 39: “Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God . . . that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment.” Also Alma 18:32–33.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; Chance after death. D&amp;C 76:106–112, 88:99. &lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;AFTER THIS LIFE, EITHER HEAVEN OR HELL. Mosiah 16:11: “If they be good, to the resurrection of endless life and happiness; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of endless damnation.” Also Alma 41:5.&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD&gt;Three kingdoms in heaven. D&amp;C 76:43, 70-112.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=“top”&gt; POLYGAMY CONDEMNED. Jacob 1:15, 2:24, 3:5; Mosiah 11:2 (see above).&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; Polygamy commanded. D&amp;C 132:1, 37–39, 61.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt; AGAINST PAID MINISTRY. 2 Nephi 26:31: “But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.” Mosiah 27:5: “Yea, and all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support.”&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; For paid ministry. D&amp;C 42:71–73; 43:12–13; 51:13–14.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;AGAINST SECRET SOCIETIES AND THEIR OATHS. The Gadiantons had “their secret signs, and their secret words; and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant, that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do he should not be injured by his brother . . . and all manner of wickedness, contrary to the laws of their country, and also the laws of their God.” Also Helaman 8:1–4; 3 Nephi 6:28–30, and Ether 8:15–16, 22–26.&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD&gt;Secret oaths, garments, and handshakes adapted from Freemasonry are a part of Mormon Temple ceremonies.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;/TABLE&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Changes in the Book of Mormon==<br /> Any discussion of changes that have been made in the Book of Mormon since its original edition in 1830 needs to take into consideration several statements made by the individuals involved in that original publication. These include 1) Joseph Smith; 2) The Three Witnesses: David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris who financed the printing; 3) The professional printer who produced the book from the handwritten manuscripts.<br /> ===Testimony of Joseph Smith===<br /> Joseph Smith claimed that when he and the witnesses went out to pray concerning the printing that had been done, a voice spoke from heaven telling them that the translation was correct:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;. . . we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, “These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.&lt;ref&gt;Joseph Smith, Jr., ''History of the Church'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret) Vol. 4, p. 54–55.&lt;/ref&gt; . . . I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;Ibid., Vol. 4, p. 461.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> ===Testimonies of Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery===<br /> Martin Harris claimed that Joseph Smith received the translation directly from God and that the translation was perfect. George Reynolds, a member of the First Council of the Seventy, quotes the following from a letter to the Deseret News by Edward Stevenson:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, “Written,” and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.&lt;ref&gt;George Reynolds, ''The Myth of the “Manuscript Found,” Or, the Absurdities of the “Spaulding Story”'' (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1883), p. 71.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> David Whitmer also described the translation process in such a way that it would be expected that the translation was such that every word that was written down was exactly as revealed by divine or angelic supervision:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/address1.htm ''An Address to All Believers in Christ''] by David Whitmer (Richmond, Missouri: 1887), p. 12.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> ===Testimony of the Printer=== <br /> John Gilbert of Palmyra, New York, was the printer who worked from the manuscripts that were brought to him, doing the typesetting, printing, and binding to produce the book. Gilbert had the following to say about the restrictions that were placed on him regarding any changes as the book went to press:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Hyrum Smith brought the first installment of the manuscript . . . On the second day—Harris and Smith being in the office—I called their attention to a grammatical error, and asked whether I should correct it? Harris consulted with Smith a short time, and turned to me and said: “The Old Testament is ungrammatical, set it as it is written.” . . . Cowdery held and looked over the manuscript when most of the proofs were read. Martin Harris once or twice, and Hyrum Smith once . . . if there are any discrepancies between the Palmyra edition [i.e. the book as published] and the manuscript these men should be held responsible.&lt;ref&gt;Memorandum made by John H. Gilbert, September 8, 1829, Palmyra N.Y.; printed in ''Joseph Smith Begins His Works'', Vol. 1, Introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> George Reynolds quotes the following from an interview with Gilbert:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Gilbert: “Hyrum Smith always brought the manuscript to the office; he would have it under his coat, and all buttoned up as carefully as though it was so much gold. He said at the time that it was translated from plates by the power of God, and they were very particular about it. We had a great deal of trouble with it. It was not punctuated at all. They did not know anything about punctuation, and we had to do that ourselves.”<br /> <br /> Reynolds: “Well; did you change any part of it when you were setting the type?”<br /> <br /> Gilbert: “No, sir, we never changed it at all.”<br /> <br /> Reynolds: “Why did you not change it and correct it?”<br /> <br /> Gilbert: “Because they would not allow us to; they were very particular about that. We never changed it in the least. Oh, well; there might have been one or two words that I changed the spelling of; I believe I did change the spelling of one, and perhaps two, but no more.”&lt;ref&gt;Reynolds, ''Myth of the “Manuscript Found'',” p. 59.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; Gilbert’s statement that he was not responsible for the grammatical and spelling mistakes in the first edition is verified by a photograph of a page from the hand-written original manuscript of the Book of Mormon.&lt;ref&gt;Published in Francis W. Kirkham, ''A New Witness for Christ in America: the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Brigham Young University, 1959–1967), Vol. 1, p. 218.&lt;/ref&gt; In the photograph, the manuscript agrees with the printed 1830 copy in four places, places that were changed in subsequent printed editions.<br /> <br /> Despite all the attestations from persons involved in the translation process that the wording of the original Book of Mormon was divinely supervised, a comparison of the present editions of the Book of Mormon with the original 1830 edition shows almost 4,000 changes.&lt;ref&gt;Tanners, ''3,913 Changes''.&lt;/ref&gt; Most of these changes are matters of spelling or grammar, which itself is inconsistent with the supposed supernatural supervision over all details of the translation process that was just described. Some changes, however, are more significant. An example of a change dealing with an error in the essential narrative is the change that was made in Mosiah 21:28, where the name of the king was changed from Benjamin (1830 edition) to Mosiah. The reason for the change was that, according to the Book of Mormon’s chronology, King Benjamin would have been dead at the time of Mosiah 21:28, and so this was corrected to give the then-current king, Benjamin. Modern LDS interpreters acknowledge the mistake, saying the error was in the original “Reformed Egyptian” from which the English translation was made. This raises the question: Why did not the divine agent who was supervising the translation process make the correction? Also, it is somewhat difficult to understand how Mosiah, the supposed writer of the original, would have been confused about who was a king in his time. A more logical explanation is that the nineteenth-century AD writer of this complicated narrative got temporarily confused in his cast of characters.<br /> <br /> More serious are the changes that were thought necessary to some statements in the original 1830 version about the essential nature of God. Although the Book of Mormon sometimes presents the traditional Christian understanding of God’s Trinitarian nature, with three divine Persons who are one in their divinity but distinct in their personalities, the original edition of the Book of Mormon contradicts this doctrine (and itself) in other places.&lt;ref&gt;Examples are 1 Nephi 13:40 in the 1830 edition, “the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior” that has been changed to “the Lamb of God is '''the Son of''' the Eternal Father, and the Savior” in current editions. First Nephi 11:21 originally read “Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!” This has been changed to “Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even '''the Son of''' the Eternal Father!” Contrast this confusion of the Divine Persons with the correct understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity in 2 Nephi 31:21: “And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end.”&lt;/ref&gt; If the Book of Mormon was so important to mankind that God supervised its original writing in a miraculous way, and then after many centuries had it revealed in a miraculous way to Joseph Smith, and in a further miracle supervised its translation into English, then we would not expect that God would do all these signs and wonders in order to reveal his truth to mankind if the “revelation” that was the object of the multiple miracles was misleading and self-contradictory in a topic as important as the very nature of God. Such confusion is more compatible with the theory that the Book of Mormon is the product of a nineteenth-century AD author or authors who had general knowledge of biblical themes but whoever supplied its doctrinal tenets was deficient in their understanding of the most basic tenets of the historic Christian (and biblical) faith.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?== <br /> ''To be supplied''<br /> <br /> ==Resources==<br /> Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, ND).<br /> <br /> ==Notes and references==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents The Book of Mormon] - An online edition<br /> *[http://www.moroni10.com/Book_of_Mormon_Logic.html The Logical Arguments of the Book of Mormon], Kelly Bingham, November 1, 1997<br /> <br /> [[Category:Book of Mormon]]<br /> [[Category:LDS Church]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&diff=1729222 2021-02-05T16:19:15Z

<p>Latent: Filled in the section &quot;Theology of the Book of Mormon&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>'''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ'''&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]; Title page since 1982: ''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.'' Original title page: ''The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of [[Mormon]] upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.''&lt;/ref&gt; is one of the four standard works, or scriptures, of the [[Mormons|Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]] ([[Mormon]]s). The other standard works are the [[Bible]], the ''[[Pearl of Great Price]]'', and the ''[[Doctrine and Covenants]]''.<br /> [[Image:Moroni gives Joseph the plates.jpg|thumb|100px|Moroni gives Joseph Smith the plates]]<br /> [[Image:Joseph Translating.jpg|thumb|100px|Joseph Smith Translating the Plates]]<br /> Mormons believe that [[Joseph Smith]], Jr. translated the Book of Mormon from a set of gold plates he received from an angel named Moroni&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/34-35#34 &quot;History of Joseph Smith,&quot;] History of the Church Vol. 1&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, ''An Address to All Believers in Christ'', Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12).&lt;ref&gt;[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20july%201993.htm/a%20treasured%20testament.htm ''A Treasured Testament,''] Russel M. Nelson, (Ensign, July 1993), 61.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> <br /> The Book of Mormon tells the story of the descendents of a man named Lehi, who took his family from Jerusalem to the Americas. According to the book, Lehi's wicked sons, Laman and Lemual, turned against his righteous sons, Nephi and Sam, and were cursed with dark skin.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/Alma3.htm GospelDoctrine.com]&lt;/ref&gt; Mormons believe that descendents of Lehi were the ancestors of some Native Americans; these people are referred to as &quot;Lamanites&quot; in the Book of Mormon:&lt;ref&gt;[http://search.ldslibrary.com/125037 Elder Spencer W. Kimball of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]&lt;/ref&gt; A post-resurrection appearance in the New World by [[Jesus]] is also described in the Book of Mormon. <br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Nephi and Sam's descendents, the Nephites, eventually turned to wickedness and were destroyed by the more numerous Lamanites. One of the last Nephites, Moroni, buried the golden plates in what is now New York State to keep them from falling into the hands of the Lamanites and being destroyed.&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]&lt;/ref&gt; Three Nephites were blessed with eternal life and still wander the Earth today serving others.&lt;ref&gt;[http://deseretmail.com/mormon-life/curric/story?story_id=1580 &quot;Clyde J. Williams on the Three Nephites and the Doctrine of Translation,&quot;] Thoughts on Gospel Doctrine Lesson 42, Deseret Book.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> In 1982, the subtitle, &quot;Another Testament of Jesus Christ,&quot; was added to the title page.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/bookofmormon.htm A Short Introduction to the Book of Mormon]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Mormons and other Latter-Day Saints believe that the book is of ancient origin and that the personages and events described therein are factual. At the same time, Mormons deny that the book is to be considered inerrant. Critics assert that its contents have been changed a number of times by LDS authorities; Mormons reply that the changes are merely grammatical corrections. For a fuller discussion of changes, see [[Book of Mormon#Changes in the Book of Mormon|Changes in the Book of Mormon]] section below.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Historicity==<br /> <br /> The Book of Mormon is widely criticized for the absence of evidence supporting it. The list of missing artifacts includes almost forty entire cities (all cities named therein), animals (such as horses and cattle), metals (iron and steel), evidence of wars (involving multiple thousands of deaths), weapons (including swords, spears and armor), machinery and other technology cited within it - spanning the many hundreds of years covered by the narrative. Because no such supporting evidence has been found, the LDS church takes no official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon. Artifacts of such a nature (found in the Americas) have been found to have been introduced into the areas in question by Europeans colonists much later than the timeframe claimed in the Book of Mormon. Mormon Apologists have worked to find counterarguments and responses to all of these claims.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Mormon]] apologists have responded by citing, for example, the first Book of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi) in which discoveries of place locations thought not to have existed prior to discovery are to be found. An instance of this concerns the alleged discovery of the place known as &quot;Nahom&quot; as mentioned here ([http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/16.34?lang=eng#33]), a burial place which was discovered and is said by Mormons to be referred to in no other text.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Nahom FAIR Wiki- Mormon Apologetic resource- Nahom]&lt;/ref&gt; Likewise Old world geography in the Book has been pinpointed by apologists.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Old_World]&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> Opponents have pointed to linguistic anachronisms in the text, such as it being written entirely in a Sixteenth-century King James style and its use of words such as French word &quot;adieu&quot;. Mormon apologists argue that they have found numerous Semetic linguistic and literary traits within it which make it appear authentic, such as the inclusion of Chaismus&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms/Chiasmus Chiasmus]&lt;/ref&gt; and numerous other Hebrew traits within the text&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Mormons do ultimately confess that the main evidence and support for the Book of Mormon does not center upon history or language but upon faith that it is a divinely inspired document. <br /> <br /> Mormon apologist Jeff Lindsay has compiled his own list Book of Mormon evidences.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Contents==<br /> The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ &lt;ref&gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents&lt;/ref&gt; is divided up into many sections or parts, including a Title Page, Introduction, The Testimony of Three Witnesses, The Testimony of Eight Witnesses, the Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, A Brief Explanation about The Book of Mormon, and the following main parts or divisions commonly referred to as &quot;books,&quot; as in &quot;The Book of Moroni,&quot; followed by the common abbreviation in parentheses: [[First Nephi]] (1 Ne.), Second Nephi (2 Ne.), Jacob (Jacob), Enos (Enos), Jarom (Jarom), Omni (Omni), Words of Mormon (W of M), Mosiah (Mosiah), Alma (Alma), Helaman (Hel.), Third Nephi (3 Ne.), Fourth Nephi (4 Ne.), Mormon (Morm.), Ether (Ether), Moroni (Moro.).<br /> <br /> The first sentence of the Introduction is quite self-explanatory: &quot;The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> *[[Objects listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> *[[People listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> *[[Places listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> <br /> ==Other denominations==<br /> The Book of Mormon is accepted as Scripture by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and by other Latter-day Saints denominations, the largest of which, the [[Community of Christ]] (est. 1860), publishes its own versions of the Book of Mormon with different chapter and verse divisions and one with &quot;modernized&quot; language. Other Christian denominations, Catholic and Protestant, reject the Book of Mormon, considering it to be neither inspired nor ancient.<br /> <br /> ==Theology of Book of Mormon==<br /> In contrast to later Mormon doctrine, the Book of Mormon teaches the following regarding the nature of God: 1) He has existed from eternity to eternity.&lt;ref&gt; Moroni 8:18: “For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.”&lt;/ref&gt; 2) His nature is unchanging.&lt;ref&gt;Moroni 8:18: “For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.” Mormon 9:9: “For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing? And now if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is a shadow of turning, then have ye imaged up to yourselves a god who is not a god of miracles.”&lt;/ref&gt; 3) He is the only God.&lt;ref&gt;2 Nephi 2:14: “for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.” Mormon 9:11: “But behold, I will show unto you a God of miracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.”&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The doctrine of the Trinity is expressed clearly in 2 Nephi 31:21: “And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end.” Also Mormon 7:7: “. . . unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.” This clear teaching, however, is compromised by Mosiah 15:1–5, Mormon 9:12, and Ether 3:14. These passages present the sub-Christian doctrine of modalism wherein Jesus is the Father and the Holy Ghost; the three are just modes of appearance of the one God. Such confusion and contradiction of an essential doctrine in the Book of Mormon is evidence of either more than one author of the book or, if one author wrote all these passages, he was sorely lacking in theological understanding and insight. <br /> <br /> That salvation comes by believing in Christ and that he died for our sins seems fairly well expressed by Mormon 7:5: “Know ye that ye must come to the knowledge of your fathers, and repent of all your sins and iniquities, and believe in Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God, and that he was slain by the Jews, and by the power of the Father he hath risen again, whereby he hath gained the victory over the grave; and also in him is the sting of death swallowed up.”<br /> <br /> There are many other theological doctrines of a somewhat lesser importance that are addressed in the Book of Mormon. These include the mode of baptism, whether baptism was necessary for salvation, whether infants should be baptized, the “Restoration” idea that Christianity needed to return to its roots in the New Testament, and the doctrine of Universalism (false according to Alma 1:4). One of the leaders of the Restoration movement was Alexander Campbell, founder of the Disciples of Christ and a contemporary of Joseph Smith. Noticing that the hot issues under discussion in America in the 1820s and 1830s seemed to be all addressed in the Book of Mormon, he wrote:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;This prophet Smith, through his stone spectacles, wrote on the plates of Nephi, in his Book of Mormon, every error and almost every truth discussed in New York for the last ten years. He decided all the great controversies:—infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement . . . and even the question of free masonry, republican government and the rights of man.&lt;ref&gt;Alexander Campbell, cited in Fawn Brodie, ''No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet'' (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946), pp. 69–70.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> As explained at some length in what is probably the best-known biography of Joseph Smith, Fawn Brodie’s ''No Man Knows My History'', discussions of Freemasonry were much in the news at the time the Book of Mormon was written.&lt;ref&gt;Brodie, ''No Man Knows My History'', 63–66.&lt;/ref&gt; In September of 1826 the owner of a printing press who was preparing a book that exposed the secret rites of Freemasonry was abducted from Batavia, New York. He was given a mock trial by Mason vigilantes and taken to Fort Niagara on the Canadian border, after which no more trace was found of him. When five prominent Masons were tried for the abduction, three were acquitted and the other two received sentences of less than a year. The public was outraged at this injustice, “and the Masons became the standing theme of conversation in field and tavern. . . The Democrats were appalled to count nineteen anti-Masonic conventions within twelve months and began to wonder if they might lose the election because their beloved Andrew Jackson was a Mason of high rank.”&lt;ref&gt;Ibid., 64, 65.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> The controversy was introduced into the Book of Mormon in the form of the Gadianton Band, an evil group who had “their secret signs, and their secret words; and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant, that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do he should not be injured by his brother, nor by those who did belong to his band, who had taken this covenant. And thus they might murder, and plunder, and steal, and commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness, contrary to the laws of their country, and also the laws of their God.”&lt;ref&gt;''Book of Mormon'', Helaman 6:22, 23. See also Helaman 8:1–4; 3 Nephi 6:28–30, and Ether 8:15¬¬–16, 22–26.&lt;/ref&gt; The Book of Mormon therefore took its stand on the burning question of the late 1820s: It declared that secret lodges were inherently evil and a threat to society. This is of particular interest because it was only a few years later that Joseph Smith, contrary to what was written in the book he had introduced, joined the Masons and introduced secret words, secret rites, and secret ceremonies to his followers, practices that are observed to this day in Mormon temples throughout the world.&lt;ref&gt;Michael W. Homer, ''Joseph’s Temples: The Dynamic Relationship between Freemasonry and Mormonism'' (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2014).&lt;/ref&gt; This is one of the many areas where the LDS leadership, starting with Joseph Smith, diverged from the doctrines of their sacred book. Other examples are discussed in the [[Book of Mormon#Conflict of the Book of Mormon Doctrines with Later LDS Doctrines|&quot;Conflict of the Book of Mormon Doctrines with Later LDS Doctrines&quot;]] section. <br /> <br /> In recognition of the fact that the Book of Mormon addresses theological and political issues that were at the forefront of debate in the early nineteenth century, some Mormon apologists have presented this as an example of God’s foreknowledge: God planned it so that the writers who wrote the original “Reformed Egyptian” text did not know it, but the issues they were writing about would be relevant to the society that would see the translation of their texts in a book to be published hundreds of years after the last chapter of their text was written and the plates were buried in Hill Cumorah. <br /> <br /> == Polygamy ==<br /> The Book of Mormon forbids [[polygamy]] without exception: <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord . . . Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and [[concubine]]s he shall have none (Jacob 2:24, 27).&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> By their advocacy of the doctrine that the Book of Mormon is inspired by God and hence authoritative, the LDS Church is under the divine command to recognize anyone who practices polygamy must be labeled an apostate from the true faith. Polygamy, which is so degrading to women, is “abominable before me, saith the Lord.” The plain meaning of these verses was accepted without question in 1835 (the Book of Mormon was published in 1830), as shown by this entry in the first edition of the ''Doctrine and Covenants'': &lt;blockquote&gt;Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.&lt;ref&gt;''Doctrine and Covenants'', section 101, verse 4.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> This condemnation of polygamy was printed in every edition of the ''Doctrine and Covenants'' until 1876, at which time polygamy was authorized and the section condemning it was removed. There was, however, no attempt to change the text in the Book of Mormon, because too many copies had already been circulated.<br /> How the change in doctrine to the acceptance of polygamy came about is explained by a letter written by Oliver Cowdery and dated January 21, 1838. Cowdery, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, wrote the following about an conversation he had with Joseph Smith sometime in the early or mid-1830s:&lt;blockquote&gt;When he [Joseph Smith] was there we had some conversation in which in every instance I did not fail to affirm that what I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger’s was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deviated from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself.&lt;ref&gt;Letter written by Oliver Cowdery and recorded by his brother Warren Cowdery; see photograph in Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''The Mormon Kingdom'' (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1968), vol. 1 p. 27.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Having been caught in adultery, Smith’s eventual recourse was, not to repent, but to declare that God gave him the extra wives. This explanation was formalized in a “revelation” supposedly given on July 12, 1843, by which time Smith had acquired many plural wives. He probably did not realize that, in justifying his actions by declaring a divine revelation, he was following in the footsteps of Muhammad, the false prophet of Islam. In surah (chapter) 4, verse 3 of the Qur’an, a man is allowed to have up to four wives and no more. For Muhammad, however, this eventually became too restrictive, and so he received a new revelation that he, as a prophet (but no one else) was allowed to have as many wives as he wanted (surah 33:50). The original revelation was countermanded or “abrogated” by the later revelation. Since this revoking and replacing happened so many times with Muhammad’s prophecies, the dogma of abrogation, where Allah contradicts and replaces what he said previously, has become an important doctrine of Muslim theology. <br /> <br /> The same principle (abrogation) became operative in the LDS Church and continues to this day, so that the President of the Church, who supposedly has the authority of a prophet, seer, and revelator, can change any doctrine and the faithful are obliged to accept his authority to do so without question and without pointing out the inconsistencies with past doctrine. Thus polygamy, declared against the will of God in the Book of Mormon, became not only accepted but a virtue in the LDS church. The “revelation” that authorized the practice of polygamy among Latter-day Saints during the 19th Century is recorded in the ''[[Doctrine and Covenants]]'', section 132. John Taylor, third President of the Mormon Church, declared:&lt;blockquote&gt;We are not ashamed here in this great metropolis of America * * * to declare that we are polygamists. We are not ashamed to proclaim to this great nation, to rulers and people, to the president, senators, legislators, judges; to high and low, rich and poor, priests and people, that we are firm, conscientious believers in polygamy, and that it is part and parcel of our religious creed.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45303/45303-h/45303-h.htm#imgpg236jos ''The Life of John Taylor, Third President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints''] by B.H. Roberts (Salt Lake City, 1892), 355.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; Instead of a sin against God (Book of Mormon), polygamy became an essential virtue. Brigham Young, Second President of the LDS Church, declared “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;''Journal of Discourses'' Vol. 2, p. 269.&lt;/ref&gt; And, in the ''Millennial Star'': &quot;The order of plurality of wives is an everlasting and ceaseless order, designed to exalt the choicest men and women to the most superlative excellence, dominion, and glory.”&lt;ref&gt;''Millennial Star'', Vol. 15, p. 226.&lt;/ref&gt; Joseph Smith’s revelation about polygamy declared “For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant, and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory . . .”&lt;ref&gt;''Doctrines and Covenants'', section 132.&lt;/ref&gt; Sin had become a virtue, and virtue a sin. <br /> <br /> <br /> Succumbing to political pressure, however, the leadership of the LDS church eventually abrogated the “everlasting covenant” in which “if ye abide not that covenant, then ye are damned.” Polygamy reverted to its previous status as a sin: “Any who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day, when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they are performed, are guilty of gross wickedness. They are living in adultery, have already sold their souls to the devil, and (whether their acts are based on ignorance or lust or both) they will be damned in eternity.”&lt;ref&gt;Bruce R. McConkie, ''Mormon Doctrine'', 1958 ed., pp. 522–23.&lt;/ref&gt; These reversals in doctrine show that Mormons are not expected to regard as their final authority the Book of Mormon or the Bible, but the changing doctrines of their leaders, whom they are expected to follow without question and especially without pointing out the inconsistency of Mormon doctrine over the years. As Jesus said, &lt;blockquote&gt;Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’ (Mark 7:6, 7, ESV).&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Conflict of Book of Mormon Doctrines with Later LDS Doctrines== <br /> The conflict of the Book of Mormon’s condemnation of polygamy versus Joseph Smith’s ability to completely countermand that principle in a book that he maintained was given by divine inspiration set a precedent that has continued to the present. In case after case, the LDS leadership has issued decrees that conflict with principles taught in the book that they teach their Sunday School students is inspired by God. Another case illustrating this is the doctrine of the immutability and uniqueness of God as set forth in the Book of Mormon (and of course also in the Bible).<br /> <br /> In 1836, Lorenzo Snow became a convert to the Mormon faith. The new convert was caught up in the spirit that he sensed among his new friends, and in that spirit he made a quite startling declaration, that his new spiritual guide Joseph Smith would “become as great as you can possibly wish—EVEN AS GREAT AS GOD.”&lt;ref&gt; Eliza R. Snow Smith, ''Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1884), 10.&lt;/ref&gt; In 1840 he also got caught up in a spirit and thought he was given a new revelation that affirmed his earlier prophecy, and which he summarized in a couplet: “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.” On April 7 1844, Joseph Smith publicly declared his support of Lorenzo Snow’s new doctrine in a sermon that is known as the King Follett Discourse. Contrary to all Scriptures in the Bible and the pseudo-scriptures of the Book of Mormon that teach the eternal and immutable character of God the Creator, Smith boldly announced a new understanding of who God is:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt; God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! . . . I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea . . . . he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself! . . . you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.&lt;ref&gt;''Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith'' (comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1976), 345–47.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> The “Adam-God” doctrine, which was later also preached by Brigham Young, is therefore another example of the leadership of the LDS movement introducing doctrines that were not compatible with their own scripture. The following table illustrates these and other cases where a new “revelation” by the LDS leadership demonstrated their lack of belief in the authority of the Book of Mormon.<br /> <br /> &lt;TABLE ALIGN=&quot;CENTER&quot; WIDTH=&quot;90%&quot; BGCOLOR=&quot;LIGHTGREY&quot; CELLPADDING=&quot;4&quot; BORDER=&quot;1&quot; RULES=&quot;1&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;CAPTION ALIGN=”TOP”&gt;&lt;FONT SIZE=&quot;4&quot;&gt;Doctrines: Book of Mormon vs. the Mormon Church&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/CAPTION&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TH BGCOLOR=&quot;WHEAT&quot;&gt;BOOK OF MORMON&lt;/TH&gt;<br /> &lt;TH BGCOLOR=&quot;WHEAT&quot;&gt;Later LDS Doctrine&lt;/TH&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD &gt;THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD. Alma 11:28–30: “Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he [Amulek] answered, No. Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things? And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.” &lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; There is a plurality of gods. ''Doctrine and Covenants'' (D&amp;C) 121:32, 132:18–20, 37. &lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;GOD IS A SPIRIT. Alma 18:26–28: “And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea. And Ammon said: This is God.” Also Alma 22:8–11.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; God has a body. D&amp;C 130:22.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;ONLY ONE CREATOR GOD. 2 Nephi 2:14: “for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.” Mormon 9:11: “But behold, I will show unto you a God of miracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.”&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Plural gods in creation. ''Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham'', chs. 4 &amp; 5.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;GOD IS UNCHANGING. Moroni 8:18: “For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.” Mormon 9:9: “For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing? And now if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is a shadow of turning, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles.” &lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD&gt; God “was once a man like us:” Joseph Smith, in his King Follett Sermon, also taught by Brigham Young.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;DEATH SEALS MAN’S FATE. Mosiah 2:38, 39: “Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God . . . that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment.” Also Alma 18:32–33.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; Chance after death. D&amp;C 76:106–112, 88:99. &lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;AFTER THIS LIFE, EITHER HEAVEN OR HELL. Mosiah 16:11: “If they be good, to the resurrection of endless life and happiness; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of endless damnation.” Also Alma 41:5.&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD&gt;Three kingdoms in heaven. D&amp;C 76:43, 70-112.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=“top”&gt; POLYGAMY CONDEMNED. Jacob 1:15, 2:24, 3:5; Mosiah 11:2 (see above).&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; Polygamy commanded. D&amp;C 132:1, 37–39, 61.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt; AGAINST PAID MINISTRY. 2 Nephi 26:31: “But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.” Mosiah 27:5: “Yea, and all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support.”&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; For paid ministry. D&amp;C 42:71–73; 43:12–13; 51:13–14.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;AGAINST SECRET SOCIETIES AND THEIR OATHS. The Gadiantons had “their secret signs, and their secret words; and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant, that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do he should not be injured by his brother . . . and all manner of wickedness, contrary to the laws of their country, and also the laws of their God.” Also Helaman 8:1–4; 3 Nephi 6:28–30, and Ether 8:15–16, 22–26.&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD&gt;Secret oaths, garments, and handshakes adapted from Freemasonry are a part of Mormon Temple ceremonies.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;/TABLE&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Changes in the Book of Mormon==<br /> Any discussion of changes that have been made in the Book of Mormon since its original edition in 1830 needs to take into consideration several statements made by the individuals involved in that original publication. These include 1) Joseph Smith; 2) The Three Witnesses: David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris who financed the printing; 3) The professional printer who produced the book from the handwritten manuscripts.<br /> ===Testimony of Joseph Smith===<br /> Joseph Smith claimed that when he and the witnesses went out to pray concerning the printing that had been done, a voice spoke from heaven telling them that the translation was correct:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;. . . we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, “These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.&lt;ref&gt;Joseph Smith, Jr., ''History of the Church'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret) Vol. 4, p. 54–55.&lt;/ref&gt; . . . I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;Ibid., Vol. 4, p. 461.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> ===Testimonies of Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery===<br /> Martin Harris claimed that Joseph Smith received the translation directly from God and that the translation was perfect. George Reynolds, a member of the First Council of the Seventy, quotes the following from a letter to the Deseret News by Edward Stevenson:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, “Written,” and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.&lt;ref&gt;George Reynolds, ''The Myth of the “Manuscript Found,” Or, the Absurdities of the “Spaulding Story”'' (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1883), p. 71.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> David Whitmer also described the translation process in such a way that it would be expected that the translation was such that every word that was written down was exactly as revealed by divine or angelic supervision:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/address1.htm ''An Address to All Believers in Christ''] by David Whitmer (Richmond, Missouri: 1887), p. 12.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> ===Testimony of the Printer=== <br /> John Gilbert of Palmyra, New York, was the printer who worked from the manuscripts that were brought to him, doing the typesetting, printing, and binding to produce the book. Gilbert had the following to say about the restrictions that were placed on him regarding any changes as the book went to press:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Hyrum Smith brought the first installment of the manuscript . . . On the second day—Harris and Smith being in the office—I called their attention to a grammatical error, and asked whether I should correct it? Harris consulted with Smith a short time, and turned to me and said: “The Old Testament is ungrammatical, set it as it is written.” . . . Cowdery held and looked over the manuscript when most of the proofs were read. Martin Harris once or twice, and Hyrum Smith once . . . if there are any discrepancies between the Palmyra edition [i.e. the book as published] and the manuscript these men should be held responsible.&lt;ref&gt;Memorandum made by John H. Gilbert, September 8, 1829, Palmyra N.Y.; printed in ''Joseph Smith Begins His Works'', Vol. 1, Introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> George Reynolds quotes the following from an interview with Gilbert:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Gilbert: “Hyrum Smith always brought the manuscript to the office; he would have it under his coat, and all buttoned up as carefully as though it was so much gold. He said at the time that it was translated from plates by the power of God, and they were very particular about it. We had a great deal of trouble with it. It was not punctuated at all. They did not know anything about punctuation, and we had to do that ourselves.”<br /> <br /> Reynolds: “Well; did you change any part of it when you were setting the type?”<br /> <br /> Gilbert: “No, sir, we never changed it at all.”<br /> <br /> Reynolds: “Why did you not change it and correct it?”<br /> <br /> Gilbert: “Because they would not allow us to; they were very particular about that. We never changed it in the least. Oh, well; there might have been one or two words that I changed the spelling of; I believe I did change the spelling of one, and perhaps two, but no more.”&lt;ref&gt;Reynolds, ''Myth of the “Manuscript Found'',” p. 59.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; Gilbert’s statement that he was not responsible for the grammatical and spelling mistakes in the first edition is verified by a photograph of a page from the hand-written original manuscript of the Book of Mormon.&lt;ref&gt;Published in Francis W. Kirkham, ''A New Witness for Christ in America: the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Brigham Young University, 1959–1967), Vol. 1, p. 218.&lt;/ref&gt; In the photograph, the manuscript agrees with the printed 1830 copy in four places, places that were changed in subsequent printed editions.<br /> <br /> Despite all the attestations from persons involved in the translation process that the wording of the original Book of Mormon was divinely supervised, a comparison of the present editions of the Book of Mormon with the original 1830 edition shows almost 4,000 changes.&lt;ref&gt;Tanners, ''3,913 Changes''.&lt;/ref&gt; Most of these changes are matters of spelling or grammar, which itself is inconsistent with the supposed supernatural supervision over all details of the translation process that was just described. Some changes, however, are more significant. An example of a change dealing with an error in the essential narrative is the change that was made in Mosiah 21:28, where the name of the king was changed from Benjamin (1830 edition) to Mosiah. The reason for the change was that, according to the Book of Mormon’s chronology, King Benjamin would have been dead at the time of Mosiah 21:28, and so this was corrected to give the then-current king, Benjamin. Modern LDS interpreters acknowledge the mistake, saying the error was in the original “Reformed Egyptian” from which the English translation was made. This raises the question: Why did not the divine agent who was supervising the translation process make the correction? Also, it is somewhat difficult to understand how Mosiah, the supposed writer of the original, would have been confused about who was a king in his time. A more logical explanation is that the nineteenth-century AD writer of this complicated narrative got temporarily confused in his cast of characters.<br /> <br /> More serious are the changes that were thought necessary to some statements in the original 1830 version about the essential nature of God. Although the Book of Mormon sometimes presents the traditional Christian understanding of God’s Trinitarian nature, with three divine Persons who are one in their divinity but distinct in their personalities, the original edition of the Book of Mormon contradicts this doctrine (and itself) in other places.&lt;ref&gt;Examples are 1 Nephi 13:40 in the 1830 edition, “the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior” that has been changed to “the Lamb of God is '''the Son of''' the Eternal Father, and the Savior” in current editions. First Nephi 11:21 originally read “Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!” This has been changed to “Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even '''the Son of''' the Eternal Father!” Contrast this confusion of the Divine Persons with the correct understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity in 2 Nephi 31:21: “And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end.”&lt;/ref&gt; If the Book of Mormon was so important to mankind that God supervised its original writing in a miraculous way, and then after many centuries had it revealed in a miraculous way to Joseph Smith, and in a further miracle supervised its translation into English, then we would not expect that God would do all these signs and wonders in order to reveal his truth to mankind if the “revelation” that was the object of the multiple miracles was misleading and self-contradictory in a topic as important as the very nature of God. Such confusion is more compatible with the theory that the Book of Mormon is the product of a nineteenth-century AD author or authors who had general knowledge of biblical themes but whoever supplied its doctrinal tenets was deficient in their understanding of the most basic tenets of the historic Christian (and biblical) faith.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?== <br /> ''To be supplied''<br /> <br /> ==Resources==<br /> Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, ND).<br /> <br /> ==Notes and references==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents The Book of Mormon] - An online edition<br /> *[http://www.moroni10.com/Book_of_Mormon_Logic.html The Logical Arguments of the Book of Mormon], Kelly Bingham, November 1, 1997<br /> <br /> [[Category:Book of Mormon]]<br /> [[Category:LDS Church]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=First_Vision&diff=1728999 2021-02-04T19:58:24Z

<p>Latent: Corrected how old he was according to the earlier non-canonical version</p> <hr /> <div>The '''First Vision''' of [[Joseph Smith]] is recognized by the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] (Mormons) as the starting event of their religious movement. According to the standard narrative of this event, Joseph Smith, while a young boy of 14, became concerned about his salvation and religious truth. While seeking God in the woods in the spring of 1820, a heavenly being (or beings) appeared to him and declared that God was going to inaugurate the “restitution of all things.” This vision, on April 6, 1820, is considered the foundation of the LDS church, so that LDS President [[Gordon Hinckley]] declared at the October 1998 Church Conference, “Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision . . . Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration.”&lt;ref&gt;Gordon B. Hinckley, “What Are People Asking About Us?” ''The Ensign'' (November 1998): 70–71.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The first published account of Smith’s vision was composed in 1838 or 1839 and then printed in the Mormon newspaper ''Times and Seasons'' in 1842.&lt;ref&gt; Hugh Nibley, &quot;Censoring the Joseph Smith Story,&quot; in ''The Improvement Era'' (Salt Lake City: Mutual Improvement Associations), 64:490.&lt;/ref&gt; It was canonized in ''The Pearl of Great Price'' in 1880. In the canonical version Smith relates that when he was 15,&lt;ref&gt;According to the date of his birth, he was only 14; later in the account he makes the same mistake, saying that he was “an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age.”&lt;/ref&gt; there was a revival of religion in his neighborhood that resulted in his mother, sister, and two brothers joining the Presbyterian denomination. Smith was undecided about which church to join, and so he went into the words to pray. He was then overcome by “thick darkness,” after which a pillar of light appeared and “two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description” appeared above him. “One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is my Beloved Son, Hear Him!” After composing himself, Smith asked the personages which sect was right so that he could join it, to which the Personage replied that “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight” and Smith was forbidden to join any of them. Smith claimed that he returned home and began to share what he learned in this vision, which resulted in his experiencing “great persecution.”&lt;ref&gt;[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp?lang=eng Account of First Vision] 1.7–22.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ==Historical Problems==<br /> Historians have pointed out some problems that historical records of the time present to this account, in addition to the wrong age the account gives for Smith.<br /> #The official account speaks of a revival in the area in 1820, while historical records indicated a revival in the area occurring between 1824 and 1825. Examination of the church role records for the year 1820 showed that the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches showed either losses or only modest gains of a handful of people that year, not the massive numbers expected from a revival.&lt;ref&gt;H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, ''Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record'' (Salt Lake City: Smith Research Associates, 1994), pp. 17–25.&lt;/ref&gt; In the 1824 revival, approximately 300 people joined the Presbyterian, Baptist, and Methodist churches.<br /> #There are no records from the period of 1820 to 1838 of Smith sharing this record with anyone, despite his stating that his relating the vision brought him “great persecution.” This lack of any attestation of any attestation from contemporary sources is pointed out not only by Fawn Brodie, an apostate who wrote an extensive history of early Mormonism,&lt;ref&gt;Fawn M. Brodie, ''No Man Knows My History'' (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945 ed.), p. 24.&lt;/ref&gt; but also by LDS scholar James Allen.&lt;ref&gt;James B. Allen, “The Significance of Joseph Smith’s ‘First Vision’ in Mormon Thought,” in ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' (Autumn 1966): p. 33.&lt;/ref&gt; Similarly, LDS scholar Steven C. Harper wrote, “There is no evidence in the historical record that Joseph Smith told anyone but the minister of his vision for at least a decade.”&lt;ref&gt;Steven C. Harper ''First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), p. 11. This statement must be qualified by saying that the only record of recounting the vision to a minister comes from Smith’s later writings, not from any contemporary record.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #Smith was still involved in the occult practice of looking into a peep-stone in order to find hidden treasure in 1825; there had been no reformation in his life at this point.&lt;ref&gt;''Tiffany’s Monthly'', NY (August 1859), pp. 165–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #In March 1826, Smith was arrested in Bainbridge, New York and charged with being “a disorderly person and an impostor” because of his occult practices in looking for buried treasure. There are official court records of his conviction.&lt;ref&gt;Marquardt and Walters, ''Inventing Mormonism'', p. 70.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #In 1828, Smith applied for membership in the Methodist Church. His wife Emma was already a member of the church; both circumstances cannot be reconciled with the warning he supposedly received from divine beings in 1820 that the creeds of all denominations were “an abomination” and he was not to join any of them. In response to Smith’s request for church membership, Emma’s cousin Joseph Lewis raised an objection to allowing Smith’s name to be added to the church rolls on the grounds of Smith’s dealing in magic, the occult, and money-digging:&lt;blockquote&gt;I [Joseph Lewis], with Joshua McKune, a local preacher at that time, I think in June, 1828, heard on Saturday, that Joe Smith had joined the church on Wednesday afternoon, (as it was customary in those days to have circuit preaching at my father’s house on week-day). '''We thought it was a disgrace to the church to have a practicing necromancer, a dealer in enchantments and bleeding ghosts, in it'''. So on Sunday we went to father’s, the place of meeting that day, and got there in season to see Smith and talked with him some time in father’s shop before the meeting. Told him that his occupation, habits, and moral character were at variance with the discipline, that his name would be a disgrace to the church, that there should have been recantation, confession and at least promised reformation—that he could that day publicly ask that his name be stricken from the class book, or stand an investigation. He chose the former, and did that very day make the request that his name be taken off the class book.&lt;ref&gt;''The Amboy Journal'', (June 11, 1879): p. 1; also ''Early Mormon Documents'', vol. 4, pp. 309–10, as cited in “The First Vision 200 Years Later,” p. 6.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> ==Various Versions of the First Vision==<br /> In 1965, Mormon scholar Paul Cheesman finished his Master’s thesis at Brigham Young University entitled ''An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith’s Early Visions''. This contained an account, written in 1832 in Joseph Smith’s handwriting, of the First Vision. The 1832 account had been suppressed for over 130 years because of its divergences from the official or canonical version, which was written six years later. The handwritten account contradicts the “canonical” account found in the ''Pearl of Great Price'' in giving the correct age of Joseph as 14. More seriously, in the 1832 account only Jesus was said to have appeared, but in later versions it was either angels or the Father and Son who appeared to Smith. <br /> Also disagreeing with the canonical narration of the vision, “Most of the accounts of the First Vision prior to 1875 described the appearance of either one or more angels, but rarely God and Jesus.”&lt;ref&gt; “The First Vision 200 Years Later,” p. 3.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==The Theory That There Was No First Vision== <br /> The problems that historians see with the canonical account of the First Vision, listed above, may be summarized as follows: 1) No written contemporary records of the account before 1832; 2) Three contradictory versions of whom was seen in the account, especially significant considering the importance of a person supposedly seeing God in the flesh; 3) No indication of any change in Smith’s behavior that would be expected from a spiritual experience of this magnitude, as evidenced by his still dabbling in the occult in 1825 and again in 1826, the latter attested by court records; 4) The records of his attempt to join the Methodist Church in 1828, although the main message he supposedly received in the First Vision was that all denominations were corrupt and he was to join none of them.<br /> <br /> In order to make sense of these problems with the traditional account of the First Vision, non-Mormon historians discount its historicity. If the event never happened, then every one of the problems just listed finds a solution. Further, those familiar with the history of the time point to another event on which Joseph Smith modeled his narrative: the account given by evangelist Charles G. Finney relating the spiritual experience he had while seeking God in the woods near Adams, New York on October 10, 1821. Finney began his evangelistic career in 1825. In 1830-31 he led a revival meetings in Rochester, New York, that was described by a pastor from New York City as follows: &quot;The whole community was stirred. Religion was the topic of conversation in the house, in the shop, in the office and on the street. The only theater in the city was converted into a livery stable; the only circus into a soap and candle factory. Grog shops were closed; the Sabbath was honored; the sanctuaries were thronged with happy worshippers; a new impulse was given to every philanthropic enterprise; the fountains of benevolence were opened, and men lived to good.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Eddie Hyatt, ''2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity'' (Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House, 2002), p. 26.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> The publicity that Finney was receiving throughout New York and elsewhere was surely known among the band of followers of the new prophet who had based his claim to authority on the publication of a new “Bible” in 1830. Palmyra, which was the Smith family home starting in 1816, and where young Joseph claimed he found the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, is only 20 miles from Rochester. The fame of Charles Finney had surely reached that town. Was this leader of a new religious movement to be outdone by an evangelist who was accepted by the traditional churches, churches that did not accept Joseph Smith’s claims to be a prophet? The theory that Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” was a fabrication therefore not only explains the various problematic circumstances surrounding its history, but also finds a motive for the invention of the account: it copied the conversion experience of Charles Finney as he earnestly sought the Lord in a forest setting just a few years before. Joseph Smith was not to be outdone by an evangelist who was preaching the traditional Gospel to people who had no need of a new revelation, but who were finding their lives transformed by the old message of salvation brought about by the death and resurrection of Christ. The prophet who was bringing a new message for the latter days must have a similar experience, even if it took him a while to determine just exactly what should take place in that experience, and which heavenly beings were involved. <br /> <br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp?lang=eng Account of First Vision] in ''Pearl of Great Price''.<br /> *[http://utlm.org/newsletters/pdfnewsletters/134saltlakecitymessenger.pdf “The First Vision 200 Years Later”] in ''Salt Lake City Messenger'' 134 (June 2020): 1–16.<br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:Mormon Prophets]]<br /> [[Category:Joseph Smith]]<br /> [[Category:LDS Church]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&diff=1728869 2021-02-03T15:25:14Z

<p>Latent: Filled in section &quot;Changes in the Book of Mormon&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>'''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ'''&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]; Title page since 1982: ''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.'' Original title page: ''The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of [[Mormon]] upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.''&lt;/ref&gt; is one of the four standard works, or scriptures, of the [[Mormons|Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]] ([[Mormon]]s). The other standard works are the [[Bible]], the ''[[Pearl of Great Price]]'', and the ''[[Doctrine and Covenants]]''.<br /> [[Image:Moroni gives Joseph the plates.jpg|thumb|100px|Moroni gives Joseph Smith the plates]]<br /> [[Image:Joseph Translating.jpg|thumb|100px|Joseph Smith Translating the Plates]]<br /> Mormons believe that [[Joseph Smith]], Jr. translated the Book of Mormon from a set of gold plates he received from an angel named Moroni&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/34-35#34 &quot;History of Joseph Smith,&quot;] History of the Church Vol. 1&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, ''An Address to All Believers in Christ'', Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12).&lt;ref&gt;[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20july%201993.htm/a%20treasured%20testament.htm ''A Treasured Testament,''] Russel M. Nelson, (Ensign, July 1993), 61.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> <br /> The Book of Mormon tells the story of the descendents of a man named Lehi, who took his family from Jerusalem to the Americas. According to the book, Lehi's wicked sons, Laman and Lemual, turned against his righteous sons, Nephi and Sam, and were cursed with dark skin.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/Alma3.htm GospelDoctrine.com]&lt;/ref&gt; Mormons believe that descendents of Lehi were the ancestors of some Native Americans; these people are referred to as &quot;Lamanites&quot; in the Book of Mormon:&lt;ref&gt;[http://search.ldslibrary.com/125037 Elder Spencer W. Kimball of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]&lt;/ref&gt; A post-resurrection appearance in the New World by [[Jesus]] is also described in the Book of Mormon. <br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Nephi and Sam's descendents, the Nephites, eventually turned to wickedness and were destroyed by the more numerous Lamanites. One of the last Nephites, Moroni, buried the golden plates in what is now New York State to keep them from falling into the hands of the Lamanites and being destroyed.&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]&lt;/ref&gt; Three Nephites were blessed with eternal life and still wander the Earth today serving others.&lt;ref&gt;[http://deseretmail.com/mormon-life/curric/story?story_id=1580 &quot;Clyde J. Williams on the Three Nephites and the Doctrine of Translation,&quot;] Thoughts on Gospel Doctrine Lesson 42, Deseret Book.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> In 1982, the subtitle, &quot;Another Testament of Jesus Christ,&quot; was added to the title page.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/bookofmormon.htm A Short Introduction to the Book of Mormon]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Mormons and other Latter-Day Saints believe that the book is of ancient origin and that the personages and events described therein are factual. At the same time, Mormons deny that the book is to be considered inerrant. Critics assert that its contents have been changed a number of times by LDS authorities; Mormons reply that the changes are merely grammatical corrections. For a fuller discussion of changes, see [[Book of Mormon#Changes in the Book of Mormon|Changes in the Book of Mormon]] section below.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Historicity==<br /> <br /> The Book of Mormon is widely criticized for the absence of evidence supporting it. The list of missing artifacts includes almost forty entire cities (all cities named therein), animals (such as horses and cattle), metals (iron and steel), evidence of wars (involving multiple thousands of deaths), weapons (including swords, spears and armor), machinery and other technology cited within it - spanning the many hundreds of years covered by the narrative. Because no such supporting evidence has been found, the LDS church takes no official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon. Artifacts of such a nature (found in the Americas) have been found to have been introduced into the areas in question by Europeans colonists much later than the timeframe claimed in the Book of Mormon. Mormon Apologists have worked to find counterarguments and responses to all of these claims.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Mormon]] apologists have responded by citing, for example, the first Book of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi) in which discoveries of place locations thought not to have existed prior to discovery are to be found. An instance of this concerns the alleged discovery of the place known as &quot;Nahom&quot; as mentioned here ([http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/16.34?lang=eng#33]), a burial place which was discovered and is said by Mormons to be referred to in no other text.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Nahom FAIR Wiki- Mormon Apologetic resource- Nahom]&lt;/ref&gt; Likewise Old world geography in the Book has been pinpointed by apologists.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Old_World]&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> Opponents have pointed to linguistic anachronisms in the text, such as it being written entirely in a Sixteenth-century King James style and its use of words such as French word &quot;adieu&quot;. Mormon apologists argue that they have found numerous Semetic linguistic and literary traits within it which make it appear authentic, such as the inclusion of Chaismus&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms/Chiasmus Chiasmus]&lt;/ref&gt; and numerous other Hebrew traits within the text&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Mormons do ultimately confess that the main evidence and support for the Book of Mormon does not center upon history or language but upon faith that it is a divinely inspired document. <br /> <br /> Mormon apologist Jeff Lindsay has compiled his own list Book of Mormon evidences.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Contents==<br /> The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ &lt;ref&gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents&lt;/ref&gt; is divided up into many sections or parts, including a Title Page, Introduction, The Testimony of Three Witnesses, The Testimony of Eight Witnesses, the Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, A Brief Explanation about The Book of Mormon, and the following main parts or divisions commonly referred to as &quot;books,&quot; as in &quot;The Book of Moroni,&quot; followed by the common abbreviation in parentheses: [[First Nephi]] (1 Ne.), Second Nephi (2 Ne.), Jacob (Jacob), Enos (Enos), Jarom (Jarom), Omni (Omni), Words of Mormon (W of M), Mosiah (Mosiah), Alma (Alma), Helaman (Hel.), Third Nephi (3 Ne.), Fourth Nephi (4 Ne.), Mormon (Morm.), Ether (Ether), Moroni (Moro.).<br /> <br /> The first sentence of the Introduction is quite self-explanatory: &quot;The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> *[[Objects listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> *[[People listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> *[[Places listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> <br /> ==Other denominations==<br /> The Book of Mormon is accepted as Scripture by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and by other Latter-day Saints denominations, the largest of which, the [[Community of Christ]] (est. 1860), publishes its own versions of the Book of Mormon with different chapter and verse divisions and one with &quot;modernized&quot; language. Other Christian denominations, Catholic and Protestant, reject the Book of Mormon, considering it to be neither inspired nor ancient.<br /> <br /> ==Theology of Book of Mormon==<br /> ''To be supplied''<br /> <br /> == Polygamy ==<br /> The Book of Mormon forbids [[polygamy]] without exception: <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord . . . Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and [[concubine]]s he shall have none (Jacob 2:24, 27).&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> By their advocacy of the doctrine that the Book of Mormon is inspired by God and hence authoritative, the LDS Church is under the divine command to recognize anyone who practices polygamy must be labeled an apostate from the true faith. Polygamy, which is so degrading to women, is “abominable before me, saith the Lord.” The plain meaning of these verses was accepted without question in 1835 (the Book of Mormon was published in 1830), as shown by this entry in the first edition of the ''Doctrine and Covenants'': &lt;blockquote&gt;Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.&lt;ref&gt;''Doctrine and Covenants'', section 101, verse 4.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> This condemnation of polygamy was printed in every edition of the ''Doctrine and Covenants'' until 1876, at which time polygamy was authorized and the section condemning it was removed. There was, however, no attempt to change the text in the Book of Mormon, because too many copies had already been circulated.<br /> How the change in doctrine to the acceptance of polygamy came about is explained by a letter written by Oliver Cowdery and dated January 21, 1838. Cowdery, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, wrote the following about an conversation he had with Joseph Smith sometime in the early or mid-1830s:&lt;blockquote&gt;When he [Joseph Smith] was there we had some conversation in which in every instance I did not fail to affirm that what I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger’s was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deviated from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself.&lt;ref&gt;Letter written by Oliver Cowdery and recorded by his brother Warren Cowdery; see photograph in Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''The Mormon Kingdom'' (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1968), vol. 1 p. 27.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Having been caught in adultery, Smith’s eventual recourse was, not to repent, but to declare that God gave him the extra wives. This explanation was formalized in a “revelation” supposedly given on July 12, 1843, by which time Smith had acquired many plural wives. He probably did not realize that, in justifying his actions by declaring a divine revelation, he was following in the footsteps of Muhammad, the false prophet of Islam. In surah (chapter) 4, verse 3 of the Qur’an, a man is allowed to have up to four wives and no more. For Muhammad, however, this eventually became too restrictive, and so he received a new revelation that he, as a prophet (but no one else) was allowed to have as many wives as he wanted (surah 33:50). The original revelation was countermanded or “abrogated” by the later revelation. Since this revoking and replacing happened so many times with Muhammad’s prophecies, the dogma of abrogation, where Allah contradicts and replaces what he said previously, has become an important doctrine of Muslim theology. <br /> <br /> The same principle (abrogation) became operative in the LDS Church and continues to this day, so that the President of the Church, who supposedly has the authority of a prophet, seer, and revelator, can change any doctrine and the faithful are obliged to accept his authority to do so without question and without pointing out the inconsistencies with past doctrine. Thus polygamy, declared against the will of God in the Book of Mormon, became not only accepted but a virtue in the LDS church. The “revelation” that authorized the practice of polygamy among Latter-day Saints during the 19th Century is recorded in the ''[[Doctrine and Covenants]]'', section 132. John Taylor, third President of the Mormon Church, declared:&lt;blockquote&gt;We are not ashamed here in this great metropolis of America * * * to declare that we are polygamists. We are not ashamed to proclaim to this great nation, to rulers and people, to the president, senators, legislators, judges; to high and low, rich and poor, priests and people, that we are firm, conscientious believers in polygamy, and that it is part and parcel of our religious creed.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45303/45303-h/45303-h.htm#imgpg236jos ''The Life of John Taylor, Third President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints''] by B.H. Roberts (Salt Lake City, 1892), 355.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; Instead of a sin against God (Book of Mormon), polygamy became an essential virtue. Brigham Young, Second President of the LDS Church, declared “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;''Journal of Discourses'' Vol. 2, p. 269.&lt;/ref&gt; And, in the ''Millennial Star'': &quot;The order of plurality of wives is an everlasting and ceaseless order, designed to exalt the choicest men and women to the most superlative excellence, dominion, and glory.”&lt;ref&gt;''Millennial Star'', Vol. 15, p. 226.&lt;/ref&gt; Joseph Smith’s revelation about polygamy declared “For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant, and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory . . .”&lt;ref&gt;''Doctrines and Covenants'', section 132.&lt;/ref&gt; Sin had become a virtue, and virtue a sin. <br /> <br /> <br /> Succumbing to political pressure, however, the leadership of the LDS church eventually abrogated the “everlasting covenant” in which “if ye abide not that covenant, then ye are damned.” Polygamy reverted to its previous status as a sin: “Any who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day, when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they are performed, are guilty of gross wickedness. They are living in adultery, have already sold their souls to the devil, and (whether their acts are based on ignorance or lust or both) they will be damned in eternity.”&lt;ref&gt;Bruce R. McConkie, ''Mormon Doctrine'', 1958 ed., pp. 522–23.&lt;/ref&gt; These reversals in doctrine show that Mormons are not expected to regard as their final authority the Book of Mormon or the Bible, but the changing doctrines of their leaders, whom they are expected to follow without question and especially without pointing out the inconsistency of Mormon doctrine over the years. As Jesus said, &lt;blockquote&gt;Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’ (Mark 7:6, 7, ESV).&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Conflict of Book of Mormon Doctrines with Later LDS Doctrines== <br /> The conflict of the Book of Mormon’s condemnation of polygamy versus Joseph Smith’s ability to completely countermand that principle in a book that he maintained was given by divine inspiration set a precedent that has continued to the present. In case after case, the LDS leadership has issued decrees that conflict with principles taught in the book that they teach their Sunday School students is inspired by God. Another case illustrating this is the doctrine of the immutability and uniqueness of God as set forth in the Book of Mormon (and of course also in the Bible).<br /> <br /> In 1836, Lorenzo Snow became a convert to the Mormon faith. The new convert was caught up in the spirit that he sensed among his new friends, and in that spirit he made a quite startling declaration, that his new spiritual guide Joseph Smith would “become as great as you can possibly wish—EVEN AS GREAT AS GOD.”&lt;ref&gt; Eliza R. Snow Smith, ''Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1884), 10.&lt;/ref&gt; In 1840 he also got caught up in a spirit and thought he was given a new revelation that affirmed his earlier prophecy, and which he summarized in a couplet: “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.” On April 7 1844, Joseph Smith publicly declared his support of Lorenzo Snow’s new doctrine in a sermon that is known as the King Follett Discourse. Contrary to all Scriptures in the Bible and the pseudo-scriptures of the Book of Mormon that teach the eternal and immutable character of God the Creator, Smith boldly announced a new understanding of who God is:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt; God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! . . . I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea . . . . he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself! . . . you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.&lt;ref&gt;''Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith'' (comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1976), 345–47.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> The “Adam-God” doctrine, which was later also preached by Brigham Young, is therefore another example of the leadership of the LDS movement introducing doctrines that were not compatible with their own scripture. The following table illustrates these and other cases where a new “revelation” by the LDS leadership demonstrated their lack of belief in the authority of the Book of Mormon.<br /> <br /> &lt;TABLE ALIGN=&quot;CENTER&quot; WIDTH=&quot;90%&quot; BGCOLOR=&quot;LIGHTGREY&quot; CELLPADDING=&quot;4&quot; BORDER=&quot;1&quot; RULES=&quot;1&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;CAPTION ALIGN=”TOP”&gt;&lt;FONT SIZE=&quot;4&quot;&gt;Doctrines: Book of Mormon vs. the Mormon Church&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/CAPTION&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TH BGCOLOR=&quot;WHEAT&quot;&gt;BOOK OF MORMON&lt;/TH&gt;<br /> &lt;TH BGCOLOR=&quot;WHEAT&quot;&gt;Later LDS Doctrine&lt;/TH&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD &gt;THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD. Alma 11:28–30: “Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he [Amulek] answered, No. Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things? And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.” &lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; There is a plurality of gods. ''Doctrine and Covenants'' (D&amp;C) 121:32, 132:18–20, 37. &lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;GOD IS A SPIRIT. Alma 18:26–28: “And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea. And Ammon said: This is God.” Also Alma 22:8–11.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; God has a body. D&amp;C 130:22.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;ONLY ONE CREATOR GOD. 2 Nephi 2:14: “for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.” Mormon 9:11: “But behold, I will show unto you a God of miracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.”&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Plural gods in creation. ''Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham'', chs. 4 &amp; 5.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;GOD IS UNCHANGING. Moroni 8:18: “For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.” Mormon 9:9: “For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing? And now if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is a shadow of turning, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god wo is not a God of miracles.” &lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD&gt; God “was once a man like us:” Joseph Smith, in his King Follett Sermon, also taught by Brigham Young.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;DEATH SEALS MAN’S FATE. Mosiah 2:38, 39: “Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God . . . that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment.” Also Alma 18:32–33.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; Chance after death. D&amp;C 76:106–112, 88:99. &lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;AFTER THIS LIFE, EITHER HEAVEN OR HELL. Mosiah 16:11: “If they be good, to the resurrection of endless life and happiness; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of endless damnation.” Also Alma 41:5.&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD&gt;Three kingdoms in heaven. D&amp;C 76:43, 70-112.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=“top”&gt; POLYGAMY CONDEMNED. Jacob 1:15, 2:24, 3:5; Mosiah 11:2 (see above).&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; Polygamy commanded. D&amp;C 132:1, 37–39, 61.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt; AGAINST PAID MINISTRY. 2 Nephi 26:31: “But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.” Mosiah 27:5: “Yea, and all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support.”&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; For paid ministry. D&amp;C 42:71–73; 43:12–13; 51:13–14.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;/TABLE&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Changes in the Book of Mormon==<br /> Any discussion of changes that have been made in the Book of Mormon since its original edition in 1830 needs to take into consideration several statements made by the individuals involved in that original publication. These include 1) Joseph Smith; 2) The Three Witnesses: David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris who financed the printing; 3) The professional printer who produced the book from the handwritten manuscripts.<br /> ===Testimony of Joseph Smith===<br /> Joseph Smith claimed that when he and the witnesses went out to pray concerning the printing that had been done, a voice spoke from heaven telling them that the translation was correct:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;. . . we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, “These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.&lt;ref&gt;Joseph Smith, Jr., ''History of the Church'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret) Vol. 4, p. 54–55.&lt;/ref&gt; . . . I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;Ibid., Vol. 4, p. 461.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> ===Testimonies of Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery===<br /> Martin Harris claimed that Joseph Smith received the translation directly from God and that the translation was perfect. George Reynolds, a member of the First Council of the Seventy, quotes the following from a letter to the Deseret News by Edward Stevenson:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, “Written,” and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.&lt;ref&gt;George Reynolds, ''The Myth of the “Manuscript Found,” Or, the Absurdities of the “Spaulding Story”'' (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1883), p. 71.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> David Whitmer also described the translation process in such a way that it would be expected that the translation was such that every word that was written down was exactly as revealed by divine or angelic supervision:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/address1.htm ''An Address to All Believers in Christ''] by David Whitmer (Richmond, Missouri: 1887), p. 12.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> ===Testimony of the Printer=== <br /> John Gilbert of Palmyra, New York, was the printer who worked from the manuscripts that were brought to him, doing the typesetting, printing, and binding to produce the book. Gilbert had the following to say about the restrictions that were placed on him regarding any changes as the book went to press:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Hyrum Smith brought the first installment of the manuscript . . . On the second day—Harris and Smith being in the office—I called their attention to a grammatical error, and asked whether I should correct it? Harris consulted with Smith a short time, and turned to me and said: “The Old Testament is ungrammatical, set it as it is written.” . . . Cowdery held and looked over the manuscript when most of the proofs were read. Martin Harris once or twice, and Hyrum Smith once . . . if there are any discrepancies between the Palmyra edition [i.e. the book as published] and the manuscript these men should be held responsible.&lt;ref&gt;Memorandum made by John H. Gilbert, September 8, 1829, Palmyra N.Y.; printed in ''Joseph Smith Begins His Works'', Vol. 1, Introduction.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> George Reynolds quotes the following from an interview with Gilbert:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Gilbert: “Hyrum Smith always brought the manuscript to the office; he would have it under his coat, and all buttoned up as carefully as though it was so much gold. He said at the time that it was translated from plates by the power of God, and they were very particular about it. We had a great deal of trouble with it. It was not punctuated at all. They did not know anything about punctuation, and we had to do that ourselves.”<br /> <br /> Reynolds: “Well; did you change any part of it when you were setting the type?”<br /> <br /> Gilbert: “No, sir, we never changed it at all.”<br /> <br /> Reynolds: “Why did you not change it and correct it?”<br /> <br /> Gilbert: “Because they would not allow us to; they were very particular about that. We never changed it in the least. Oh, well; there might have been one or two words that I changed the spelling of; I believe I did change the spelling of one, and perhaps two, but no more.”&lt;ref&gt;Reynolds, ''Myth of the “Manuscript Found'',” p. 59.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; Gilbert’s statement that he was not responsible for the grammatical and spelling mistakes in the first edition is verified by a photograph of a page from the hand-written original manuscript of the Book of Mormon.&lt;ref&gt;Published in Francis W. Kirkham, ''A New Witness for Christ in America: the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Brigham Young University, 1959–1967), Vol. 1, p. 218.&lt;/ref&gt; In the photograph, the manuscript agrees with the printed 1830 copy in four places, places that were changed in subsequent printed editions.<br /> <br /> Despite all the attestations from persons involved in the translation process that the wording of the original Book of Mormon was divinely supervised, a comparison of the present editions of the Book of Mormon with the original 1830 edition shows almost 4,000 changes.&lt;ref&gt;Tanners, ''3,913 Changes''.&lt;/ref&gt; Most of these changes are matters of spelling or grammar, which itself is inconsistent with the supposed supernatural supervision over all details of the translation process that was just described. Some changes, however, are more significant. An example of a change dealing with an error in the essential narrative is the change that was made in Mosiah 21:28, where the name of the king was changed from Benjamin (1830 edition) to Mosiah. The reason for the change was that, according to the Book of Mormon’s chronology, King Benjamin would have been dead at the time of Mosiah 21:28, and so this was corrected to give the then-current king, Benjamin. Modern LDS interpreters acknowledge the mistake, saying the error was in the original “Reformed Egyptian” from which the English translation was made. This raises the question: Why did not the divine agent who was supervising the translation process make the correction? Also, it is somewhat difficult to understand how Mosiah, the supposed writer of the original, would have been confused about who was a king in his time. A more logical explanation is that the nineteenth-century AD writer of this complicated narrative got temporarily confused in his cast of characters.<br /> <br /> More serious are the changes that were thought necessary to some statements in the original 1830 version about the essential nature of God. Although the Book of Mormon sometimes presents the traditional Christian understanding of God’s Trinitarian nature, with three divine Persons who are one in their divinity but distinct in their personalities, the original edition of the Book of Mormon contradicts this doctrine (and itself) in other places.&lt;ref&gt;Examples are 1 Nephi 13:40 in the 1830 edition, “the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior” that has been changed to “the Lamb of God is '''the Son of''' the Eternal Father, and the Savior” in current editions. First Nephi 11:21 originally read “Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!” This has been changed to “Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even '''the Son of''' the Eternal Father!” Contrast this confusion of the Divine Persons with the correct understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity in 2 Nephi 31:21: “And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end.”&lt;/ref&gt; If the Book of Mormon was so important to mankind that God supervised its original writing in a miraculous way, and then after many centuries had it revealed in a miraculous way to Joseph Smith, and in a further miracle supervised its translation into English, then we would not expect that God would do all these signs and wonders in order to reveal his truth to mankind if the “revelation” that was the object of the mulitple miracles was misleading and self-contradictory in a topic as important as the very nature of God. Such confusion is more compatible with the theory that the Book of Mormon is the product of a nineteenth-century AD author or authors who had general knowledge of biblical themes but whoever supplied its doctrinal tenets was deficient in their understanding of the most basic tenets of the historic Christian (and biblical) faith.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?== <br /> ''To be supplied''<br /> <br /> ==Resources==<br /> Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, ND).<br /> <br /> ==Notes and references==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents The Book of Mormon] - An online edition<br /> *[http://www.moroni10.com/Book_of_Mormon_Logic.html The Logical Arguments of the Book of Mormon], Kelly Bingham, November 1, 1997<br /> <br /> [[Category:Book of Mormon]]<br /> [[Category:LDS Church]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=First_Vision&diff=1728864 2021-02-03T15:06:08Z

<p>Latent: Added section &quot;The Theory That There Was No First Vision&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>The '''First Vision''' of [[Joseph Smith]] is recognized by the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] (Mormons) as the starting event of their religious movement. According to the standard narrative of this event, Joseph Smith, while a young boy of 14, became concerned about his salvation and religious truth. While seeking God in the woods in the spring of 1820, a heavenly being (or beings) appeared to him and declared that God was going to inaugurate the “restitution of all things.” This vision, on April 6, 1820, is considered the foundation of the LDS church, so that LDS President [[Gordon Hinckley]] declared at the October 1998 Church Conference, “Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision . . . Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration.”&lt;ref&gt;Gordon B. Hinckley, “What Are People Asking About Us?” ''The Ensign'' (November 1998): 70–71.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The first published account of Smith’s vision was composed in 1838 or 1839 and then printed in the Mormon newspaper ''Times and Seasons'' in 1842.&lt;ref&gt; Hugh Nibley, &quot;Censoring the Joseph Smith Story,&quot; in ''The Improvement Era'' (Salt Lake City: Mutual Improvement Associations), 64:490.&lt;/ref&gt; It was canonized in ''The Pearl of Great Price'' in 1880. In the canonical version Smith relates that when he was 15,&lt;ref&gt;According to the date of his birth, he was only 14; later in the account he makes the same mistake, saying that he was “an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age.”&lt;/ref&gt; there was a revival of religion in his neighborhood that resulted in his mother, sister, and two brothers joining the Presbyterian denomination. Smith was undecided about which church to join, and so he went into the words to pray. He was then overcome by “thick darkness,” after which a pillar of light appeared and “two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description” appeared above him. “One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is my Beloved Son, Hear Him!” After composing himself, Smith asked the personages which sect was right so that he could join it, to which the Personage replied that “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight” and Smith was forbidden to join any of them. Smith claimed that he returned home and began to share what he learned in this vision, which resulted in his experiencing “great persecution.”&lt;ref&gt;[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp?lang=eng Account of First Vision] 1.7–22.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ==Historical Problems==<br /> Historians have pointed out some problems that historical records of the time present to this account, in addition to the wrong age the account gives for Smith.<br /> #The official account speaks of a revival in the area in 1820, while historical records indicated a revival in the area occurring between 1824 and 1825. Examination of the church role records for the year 1820 showed that the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches showed either losses or only modest gains of a handful of people that year, not the massive numbers expected from a revival.&lt;ref&gt;H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, ''Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record'' (Salt Lake City: Smith Research Associates, 1994), pp. 17–25.&lt;/ref&gt; In the 1824 revival, approximately 300 people joined the Presbyterian, Baptist, and Methodist churches.<br /> #There are no records from the period of 1820 to 1838 of Smith sharing this record with anyone, despite his stating that his relating the vision brought him “great persecution.” This lack of any attestation of any attestation from contemporary sources is pointed out not only by Fawn Brodie, an apostate who wrote an extensive history of early Mormonism,&lt;ref&gt;Fawn M. Brodie, ''No Man Knows My History'' (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945 ed.), p. 24.&lt;/ref&gt; but also by LDS scholar James Allen.&lt;ref&gt;James B. Allen, “The Significance of Joseph Smith’s ‘First Vision’ in Mormon Thought,” in ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' (Autumn 1966): p. 33.&lt;/ref&gt; Similarly, LDS scholar Steven C. Harper wrote, “There is no evidence in the historical record that Joseph Smith told anyone but the minister of his vision for at least a decade.”&lt;ref&gt;Steven C. Harper ''First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), p. 11. This statement must be qualified by saying that the only record of recounting the vision to a minister comes from Smith’s later writings, not from any contemporary record.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #Smith was still involved in the occult practice of looking into a peep-stone in order to find hidden treasure in 1825; there had been no reformation in his life at this point.&lt;ref&gt;''Tiffany’s Monthly'', NY (August 1859), pp. 165–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #In March 1826, Smith was arrested in Bainbridge, New York and charged with being “a disorderly person and an impostor” because of his occult practices in looking for buried treasure. There are official court records of his conviction.&lt;ref&gt;Marquardt and Walters, ''Inventing Mormonism'', p. 70.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #In 1828, Smith applied for membership in the Methodist Church. His wife Emma was already a member of the church; both circumstances cannot be reconciled with the warning he supposedly received from divine beings in 1820 that the creeds of all denominations were “an abomination” and he was not to join any of them. In response to Smith’s request for church membership, Emma’s cousin Joseph Lewis raised an objection to allowing Smith’s name to be added to the church rolls on the grounds of Smith’s dealing in magic, the occult, and money-digging:&lt;blockquote&gt;I [Joseph Lewis], with Joshua McKune, a local preacher at that time, I think in June, 1828, heard on Saturday, that Joe Smith had joined the church on Wednesday afternoon, (as it was customary in those days to have circuit preaching at my father’s house on week-day). '''We thought it was a disgrace to the church to have a practicing necromancer, a dealer in enchantments and bleeding ghosts, in it'''. So on Sunday we went to father’s, the place of meeting that day, and got there in season to see Smith and talked with him some time in father’s shop before the meeting. Told him that his occupation, habits, and moral character were at variance with the discipline, that his name would be a disgrace to the church, that there should have been recantation, confession and at least promised reformation—that he could that day publicly ask that his name be stricken from the class book, or stand an investigation. He chose the former, and did that very day make the request that his name be taken off the class book.&lt;ref&gt;''The Amboy Journal'', (June 11, 1879): p. 1; also ''Early Mormon Documents'', vol. 4, pp. 309–10, as cited in “The First Vision 200 Years Later,” p. 6.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> ==Various Versions of the First Vision==<br /> In 1965, Mormon scholar Paul Cheesman finished his Master’s thesis at Brigham Young University entitled ''An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith’s Early Visions''. This contained an account, written in 1832 in Joseph Smith’s handwriting, of the First Vision. The 1832 account had been suppressed for over 130 years because of its divergences from the official or canonical version, which was written six years later. The handwritten account contradicts the “canonical” account found in the ''Pearl of Great Price'' in giving the correct age of Joseph as 15. More seriously, in the 1832 account only Jesus was said to have appeared, but in later versions it was either angels or the Father and Son who appeared to Smith. <br /> Also disagreeing with the canonical narration of the vision, “Most of the accounts of the First Vision prior to 1875 described the appearance of either one or more angels, but rarely God and Jesus.”&lt;ref&gt; “The First Vision 200 Years Later,” p. 3.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> ==The Theory That There Was No First Vision== <br /> The problems that historians see with the canonical account of the First Vision, listed above, may be summarized as follows: 1) No written contemporary records of the account before 1832; 2) Three contradictory versions of whom was seen in the account, especially significant considering the importance of a person supposedly seeing God in the flesh; 3) No indication of any change in Smith’s behavior that would be expected from a spiritual experience of this magnitude, as evidenced by his still dabbling in the occult in 1825 and again in 1826, the latter attested by court records; 4) The records of his attempt to join the Methodist Church in 1828, although the main message he supposedly received in the First Vision was that all denominations were corrupt and he was to join none of them.<br /> <br /> In order to make sense of these problems with the traditional account of the First Vision, non-Mormon historians discount its historicity. If the event never happened, then every one of the problems just listed finds a solution. Further, those familiar with the history of the time point to another event on which Joseph Smith modeled his narrative: the account given by evangelist Charles G. Finney relating the spiritual experience he had while seeking God in the woods near Adams, New York on October 10, 1821. Finney began his evangelistic career in 1825. In 1830-31 he led a revival meetings in Rochester, New York, that was described by a pastor from New York City as follows: &quot;The whole community was stirred. Religion was the topic of conversation in the house, in the shop, in the office and on the street. The only theater in the city was converted into a livery stable; the only circus into a soap and candle factory. Grog shops were closed; the Sabbath was honored; the sanctuaries were thronged with happy worshippers; a new impulse was given to every philanthropic enterprise; the fountains of benevolence were opened, and men lived to good.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Eddie Hyatt, ''2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity'' (Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House, 2002), p. 26.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> The publicity that Finney was receiving throughout New York and elsewhere was surely known among the band of followers of the new prophet who had based his claim to authority on the publication of a new “Bible” in 1830. Palmyra, which was the Smith family home starting in 1816, and where young Joseph claimed he found the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, is only 20 miles from Rochester. The fame of Charles Finney had surely reached that town. Was this leader of a new religious movement to be outdone by an evangelist who was accepted by the traditional churches, churches that did not accept Joseph Smith’s claims to be a prophet? The theory that Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” was a fabrication therefore not only explains the various problematic circumstances surrounding its history, but also finds a motive for the invention of the account: it copied the conversion experience of Charles Finney as he earnestly sought the Lord in a forest setting just a few years before. Joseph Smith was not to be outdone by an evangelist who was preaching the traditional Gospel to people who had no need of a new revelation, but who were finding their lives transformed by the old message of salvation brought about by the death and resurrection of Christ. The prophet who was bringing a new message for the latter days must have a similar experience, even if it took him a while to determine just exactly what should take place in that experience, and which heavenly beings were involved. <br /> <br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp?lang=eng Account of First Vision] in ''Pearl of Great Price''.<br /> *[http://utlm.org/newsletters/pdfnewsletters/134saltlakecitymessenger.pdf “The First Vision 200 Years Later”] in ''Salt Lake City Messenger'' 134 (June 2020): 1–16.<br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:Mormon Prophets]]<br /> [[Category:Joseph Smith]]<br /> [[Category:LDS Church]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&diff=1728296 2021-02-01T16:18:39Z

<p>Latent: Filled in section &quot;Conflict of Book of Mormon Doctrines with Later LDS Doctrines&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>'''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ'''&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]; Title page since 1982: ''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.'' Original title page: ''The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of [[Mormon]] upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.''&lt;/ref&gt; is one of the four standard works, or scriptures, of the [[Mormons|Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]] ([[Mormon]]s). The other standard works are the [[Bible]], the ''[[Pearl of Great Price]]'', and the ''[[Doctrine and Covenants]]''.<br /> [[Image:Moroni gives Joseph the plates.jpg|thumb|100px|Moroni gives Joseph Smith the plates]]<br /> [[Image:Joseph Translating.jpg|thumb|100px|Joseph Smith Translating the Plates]]<br /> Mormons believe that [[Joseph Smith]], Jr. translated the Book of Mormon from a set of gold plates he received from an angel named Moroni&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/34-35#34 &quot;History of Joseph Smith,&quot;] History of the Church Vol. 1&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, ''An Address to All Believers in Christ'', Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12).&lt;ref&gt;[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20july%201993.htm/a%20treasured%20testament.htm ''A Treasured Testament,''] Russel M. Nelson, (Ensign, July 1993), 61.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> <br /> The Book of Mormon tells the story of the descendents of a man named Lehi, who took his family from Jerusalem to the Americas. According to the book, Lehi's wicked sons, Laman and Lemual, turned against his righteous sons, Nephi and Sam, and were cursed with dark skin.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/Alma3.htm GospelDoctrine.com]&lt;/ref&gt; Mormons believe that descendents of Lehi were the ancestors of some Native Americans; these people are referred to as &quot;Lamanites&quot; in the Book of Mormon:&lt;ref&gt;[http://search.ldslibrary.com/125037 Elder Spencer W. Kimball of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]&lt;/ref&gt; A post-resurrection appearance in the New World by [[Jesus]] is also described in the Book of Mormon. <br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Nephi and Sam's descendents, the Nephites, eventually turned to wickedness and were destroyed by the more numerous Lamanites. One of the last Nephites, Moroni, buried the golden plates in what is now New York State to keep them from falling into the hands of the Lamanites and being destroyed.&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]&lt;/ref&gt; Three Nephites were blessed with eternal life and still wander the Earth today serving others.&lt;ref&gt;[http://deseretmail.com/mormon-life/curric/story?story_id=1580 &quot;Clyde J. Williams on the Three Nephites and the Doctrine of Translation,&quot;] Thoughts on Gospel Doctrine Lesson 42, Deseret Book.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> In 1982, the subtitle, &quot;Another Testament of Jesus Christ,&quot; was added to the title page.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/bookofmormon.htm A Short Introduction to the Book of Mormon]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Mormons and other Latter-Day Saints believe that the book is of ancient origin and that the personages and events described therein are factual. At the same time, Mormons deny that the book is to be considered inerrant. Critics assert that its contents have been changed a number of times by LDS authorities; Mormons reply that the changes are merely grammatical corrections. For a fuller discussion of changes, see [[Book of Mormon#Changes in the Book of Mormon|Changes in the Book of Mormon]] section below.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Historicity==<br /> <br /> The Book of Mormon is widely criticized for the absence of evidence supporting it. The list of missing artifacts includes almost forty entire cities (all cities named therein), animals (such as horses and cattle), metals (iron and steel), evidence of wars (involving multiple thousands of deaths), weapons (including swords, spears and armor), machinery and other technology cited within it - spanning the many hundreds of years covered by the narrative. Because no such supporting evidence has been found, the LDS church takes no official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon. Artifacts of such a nature (found in the Americas) have been found to have been introduced into the areas in question by Europeans colonists much later than the timeframe claimed in the Book of Mormon. Mormon Apologists have worked to find counterarguments and responses to all of these claims.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Mormon]] apologists have responded by citing, for example, the first Book of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi) in which discoveries of place locations thought not to have existed prior to discovery are to be found. An instance of this concerns the alleged discovery of the place known as &quot;Nahom&quot; as mentioned here ([http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/16.34?lang=eng#33]), a burial place which was discovered and is said by Mormons to be referred to in no other text.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Nahom FAIR Wiki- Mormon Apologetic resource- Nahom]&lt;/ref&gt; Likewise Old world geography in the Book has been pinpointed by apologists.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Old_World]&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> Opponents have pointed to linguistic anachronisms in the text, such as it being written entirely in a Sixteenth-century King James style and its use of words such as French word &quot;adieu&quot;. Mormon apologists argue that they have found numerous Semetic linguistic and literary traits within it which make it appear authentic, such as the inclusion of Chaismus&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms/Chiasmus Chiasmus]&lt;/ref&gt; and numerous other Hebrew traits within the text&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Mormons do ultimately confess that the main evidence and support for the Book of Mormon does not center upon history or language but upon faith that it is a divinely inspired document. <br /> <br /> Mormon apologist Jeff Lindsay has compiled his own list Book of Mormon evidences.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Contents==<br /> The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ &lt;ref&gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents&lt;/ref&gt; is divided up into many sections or parts, including a Title Page, Introduction, The Testimony of Three Witnesses, The Testimony of Eight Witnesses, the Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, A Brief Explanation about The Book of Mormon, and the following main parts or divisions commonly referred to as &quot;books,&quot; as in &quot;The Book of Moroni,&quot; followed by the common abbreviation in parentheses: [[First Nephi]] (1 Ne.), Second Nephi (2 Ne.), Jacob (Jacob), Enos (Enos), Jarom (Jarom), Omni (Omni), Words of Mormon (W of M), Mosiah (Mosiah), Alma (Alma), Helaman (Hel.), Third Nephi (3 Ne.), Fourth Nephi (4 Ne.), Mormon (Morm.), Ether (Ether), Moroni (Moro.).<br /> <br /> The first sentence of the Introduction is quite self-explanatory: &quot;The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> *[[Objects listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> *[[People listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> *[[Places listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> <br /> ==Other denominations==<br /> The Book of Mormon is accepted as Scripture by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and by other Latter-day Saints denominations, the largest of which, the [[Community of Christ]] (est. 1860), publishes its own versions of the Book of Mormon with different chapter and verse divisions and one with &quot;modernized&quot; language. Other Christian denominations, Catholic and Protestant, reject the Book of Mormon, considering it to be neither inspired nor ancient.<br /> <br /> ==Theology of Book of Mormon==<br /> ''To be supplied''<br /> <br /> == Polygamy ==<br /> The Book of Mormon forbids [[polygamy]] without exception: <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord . . . Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and [[concubine]]s he shall have none (Jacob 2:24, 27).&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> By their advocacy of the doctrine that the Book of Mormon is inspired by God and hence authoritative, the LDS Church is under the divine command to recognize anyone who practices polygamy must be labeled an apostate from the true faith. Polygamy, which is so degrading to women, is “abominable before me, saith the Lord.” The plain meaning of these verses was accepted without question in 1835 (the Book of Mormon was published in 1830), as shown by this entry in the first edition of the ''Doctrine and Covenants'': &lt;blockquote&gt;Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.&lt;ref&gt;''Doctrine and Covenants'', section 101, verse 4.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> This condemnation of polygamy was printed in every edition of the ''Doctrine and Covenants'' until 1876, at which time polygamy was authorized and the section condemning it was completely removed. There was, however, no attempt to change the text in the Book of Mormon, because too many copies had already been circulated.<br /> How the change in doctrine to the acceptance of polygamy came about is explained by a letter written by Oliver Cowdery and dated January 21, 1838. Cowdery, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, wrote the following about an conversation he had with Joseph Smith sometime in the early or mid-1830s:&lt;blockquote&gt;When he [Joseph Smith] was there we had some conversation in which in every instance I did not fail to affirm that what I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger’s was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deviated from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself.&lt;ref&gt;Letter written by Oliver Cowdery and recorded by his brother Warren Cowdery; see photograph in Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''The Mormon Kingdom'' (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1968), vol. 1 p. 27.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Having been caught in adultery, Smith’s eventual recourse was, not to repent, but to declare that God gave him the extra wives. This explanation was formalized in a “revelation” supposedly given on July 12, 1843, by which time Smith had acquired many plural wives. He probably did not realize that, in justifying his actions by declaring a divine revelation, he was following in the footsteps of Muhammad, the false prophet of Islam. In surah (chapter) 4, verse 3 of the Qur’an, a man is allowed to have up to four wives and no more. For Muhammad, however, this eventually became too restrictive, and so he received a new revelation that he, as a prophet (but no one else) was allowed to have as many wives as he wanted (surah 33:50). The original revelation was countermanded or “abrogated” by the later revelation. Since this revoking and replacing happened so many times with Muhammad’s prophecies, the dogma of abrogation, where Allah contradicts and replaces what he said previously, has become an important doctrine of Muslim theology. <br /> <br /> The same principle (abrogation) became operative in the LDS Church and continues to this day, so that the President of the Church, who supposedly has the authority of a prophet, seer, and revelator, can change any doctrine and the faithful are obliged to accept his authority to do so without question and without pointing out the inconsistencies with past doctrine. Thus polygamy, declared against the will of God in the Book of Mormon, became not only accepted but a virtue in the LDS church. The “revelation” that authorized the practice of polygamy among Latter-day Saints during the 19th Century is recorded in the ''[[Doctrine and Covenants]]'', section 132. John Taylor, third President of the Mormon Church, declared:&lt;blockquote&gt;We are not ashamed here in this great metropolis of America * * * to declare that we are polygamists. We are not ashamed to proclaim to this great nation, to rulers and people, to the president, senators, legislators, judges; to high and low, rich and poor, priests and people, that we are firm, conscientious believers in polygamy, and that it is part and parcel of our religious creed.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45303/45303-h/45303-h.htm#imgpg236jos ''The Life of John Taylor, Third President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints''] by B.H. Roberts (Salt Lake City, 1892), 355.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; Instead of a sin against God (Book of Mormon), polygamy became an essential virtue. Brigham Young, Second President of the LDS Church, declared “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;''Journal of Discourses'' Vol. 2, p. 269.&lt;/ref&gt; And, in the ''Millennial Star'': &quot;The order of plurality of wives is an everlasting and ceaseless order, designed to exalt the choicest men and women to the most superlative excellence, dominion, and glory.”&lt;ref&gt;''Millennial Star'', Vol. 15, p. 226.&lt;/ref&gt; Joseph Smith’s revelation about polygamy declared “For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant, and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory . . .”&lt;ref&gt;''Doctrines and Covenants'', section 132.&lt;/ref&gt; Sin had become a virtue, and virtue a sin. <br /> <br /> <br /> Succumbing to political pressure, however, the leadership of the LDS church eventually abrogated the “everlasting covenant” in which “if ye abide not that covenant, then ye are damned.” Polygamy reverted to its previous status as a sin: “Any who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day, when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they are performed, are guilty of gross wickedness. They are living in adultery, have already sold their souls to the devil, and (whether their acts are based on ignorance or lust or both) they will be damned in eternity.”&lt;ref&gt;Bruce R. McConkie, ''Mormon Doctrine'', 1958 ed., pp. 522–23.&lt;/ref&gt; These reversals in doctrine show that Mormons are not expected to regard as their final authority the Book of Mormon or the Bible, but the changing doctrines of their leaders, whom they are expected to follow without question and especially without pointing out the inconsistency of Mormon doctrine over the years. As Jesus said, &lt;blockquote&gt;Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’ (Mark 7:6, 7, ESV).&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Conflict of Book of Mormon Doctrines with Later LDS Doctrines== <br /> The conflict of the Book of Mormon’s condemnation of polygamy versus Joseph Smith’s ability to completely countermand that principle in a book that he maintained was given by divine inspiration set a precedent that has continued to the present. In case after case, the LDS leadership has issued decrees that conflict with principles taught in the book that they teach their Sunday School students is inspired by God. Another case illustrating this is the doctrine of the immutability and uniqueness of God as set forth in the Book of Mormon (and of course also in the Bible).<br /> <br /> In 1836, Lorenzo Snow became a convert to the Mormon faith. The new convert was caught up in the spirit that he sensed among his new friends, and in that spirit he made a quite startling declaration, that his new spiritual guide Joseph Smith would “become as great as you can possibly wish—EVEN AS GREAT AS GOD.”&lt;ref&gt; Eliza R. Snow Smith, ''Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1884), 10.&lt;/ref&gt; In 1840 he also got caught up in a spirit and thought he was given a new revelation that affirmed his earlier prophecy, and which he summarized in a couplet: “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.” On April 7 1844, Joseph Smith publicly declared his support of Lorenzo Snow’s new doctrine in a sermon that is known as the King Follett Discourse. Contrary to all Scriptures in the Bible and the pseudo-scriptures of the Book of Mormon that teach the eternal and immutable character of God the Creator, Smith boldly announced a new understanding of who God is:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt; God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! . . . I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea . . . . he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself! . . . you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.&lt;ref&gt;''Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith'' (comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1976), 345–47.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> The “Adam-God” doctrine, which was later also preached by Brigham Young, is therefore another example of the leadership of the LDS movement introducing doctrines that were not compatible with their own scripture. The following table illustrates these and other cases where a new “revelation” by the LDS leadership demonstrated their lack of belief in the authority of the Book of Mormon.<br /> <br /> &lt;TABLE ALIGN=&quot;CENTER&quot; WIDTH=&quot;90%&quot; BGCOLOR=&quot;LIGHTGREY&quot; CELLPADDING=&quot;4&quot; BORDER=&quot;1&quot; RULES=&quot;1&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;CAPTION ALIGN=”TOP”&gt;&lt;FONT SIZE=&quot;4&quot;&gt;Doctrines: Book of Mormon vs. the Mormon Church&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/CAPTION&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TH BGCOLOR=&quot;WHEAT&quot;&gt;BOOK OF MORMON&lt;/TH&gt;<br /> &lt;TH BGCOLOR=&quot;WHEAT&quot;&gt;Later LDS Doctrine&lt;/TH&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD &gt;THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD. Alma 11:28–30: “Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he [Amulek] answered, No. Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things? And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.” &lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; There is a plurality of gods. ''Doctrine and Covenants'' (D&amp;C) 121:32, 132:18–20, 37. &lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;GOD IS A SPIRIT. Alma 18:26–28: “And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea. And Ammon said: This is God.” Also Alma 22:8–11.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; God has a body. D&amp;C 130:22.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;ONLY ONE CREATOR GOD. 2 Nephi 2:14: “for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.” Mormon 9:11: “But behold, I will show unto you a God of miracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.”&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Plural gods in creation. ''Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham'', chs. 4 &amp; 5.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;GOD IS UNCHANGING. Moroni 8:18: “For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.” Mormon 9:9: “For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing? And now if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is a shadow of turning, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god wo is not a God of miracles.” &lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD&gt; God “was once a man like us:” Joseph Smith, in his King Follett Sermon, also taught by Brigham Young.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;DEATH SEALS MAN’S FATE. Mosiah 2:38, 39: “Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God . . . that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment.” Also Alma 18:32–33.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; Chance after death. D&amp;C 76:106–112, 88:99. &lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;AFTER THIS LIFE, EITHER HEAVEN OR HELL. Mosiah 16:11: “If they be good, to the resurrection of endless life and happiness; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of endless damnation.” Also Alma 41:5.&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD&gt;Three kingdoms in heaven. D&amp;C 76:43, 70-112.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=“top”&gt; POLYGAMY CONDEMNED. Jacob 1:15, 2:24, 3:5; Mosiah 11:2 (see above).&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; Polygamy commanded. D&amp;C 132:1, 37–39, 61.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt; AGAINST PAID MINISTRY. 2 Nephi 26:31: “But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.” Mosiah 27:5: “Yea, and all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support.”&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; For paid ministry. D&amp;C 42:71–73; 43:12–13; 51:13–14.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;/TABLE&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Changes in the Book of Mormon==<br /> ''To be supplied''<br /> <br /> ==Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?== <br /> ''To be supplied''<br /> <br /> ==Notes and references==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents The Book of Mormon] - An online edition<br /> *[http://www.moroni10.com/Book_of_Mormon_Logic.html The Logical Arguments of the Book of Mormon], Kelly Bingham, November 1, 1997<br /> <br /> [[Category:Book of Mormon]]<br /> [[Category:LDS Church]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&diff=1728292 2021-02-01T15:02:44Z

<p>Latent: Added new section headings, with content for them not yet supplied</p> <hr /> <div>'''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ'''&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]; Title page since 1982: ''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.'' Original title page: ''The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of [[Mormon]] upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.''&lt;/ref&gt; is one of the four standard works, or scriptures, of the [[Mormons|Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]] ([[Mormon]]s). The other standard works are the [[Bible]], the [[Pearl of Great Price]], and the [[Doctrine and Covenants]].<br /> [[Image:Moroni gives Joseph the plates.jpg|thumb|100px|Moroni gives Joseph Smith the plates]]<br /> [[Image:Joseph Translating.jpg|thumb|100px|Joseph Smith Translating the Plates]]<br /> Mormons believe that [[Joseph Smith]], Jr. translated the Book of Mormon from a set of gold plates he received from an angel named Moroni&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/34-35#34 &quot;History of Joseph Smith,&quot;] History of the Church Vol. 1&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)<br /> &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” &lt;ref&gt;[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20july%201993.htm/a%20treasured%20testament.htm &quot;A Treasured Testament,&quot;] Ensign, July 1993, 61&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> <br /> The Book of Mormon tells the story of the descendents of a man named Lehi, who took his family from Jerusalem to the Americas. According to the book, Lehi's wicked sons, Laman and Lemual, turned against his righteous sons, Nephi and Sam, and were cursed with dark skin.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/Alma3.htm GospelDoctrine.com]&lt;/ref&gt; Mormons believe that descendents of Lehi were the ancestors of some Native Americans; these people are referred to as &quot;Lamanites&quot; in the Book of Mormon:&lt;ref&gt;[http://search.ldslibrary.com/125037 Elder Spencer W. Kimball of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]&lt;/ref&gt; A post-resurrection appearance in the New World by [[Jesus]] is also described in the Book of Mormon. <br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Nephi and Sam's descendents, the Nephites, eventually turned to wickedness and were destroyed by the more numerous Lamanites. One of the last Nephites, Moroni, buried the golden plates in what is now New York State to keep them from falling into the hands of the Lamanites and being destroyed.&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]&lt;/ref&gt; Three Nephites were blessed with eternal life and still wander the Earth today serving others.&lt;ref&gt;[http://deseretmail.com/mormon-life/curric/story?story_id=1580 &quot;Clyde J. Williams on the Three Nephites and the Doctrine of Translation,&quot;] Thoughts on Gospel Doctrine Lesson 42, Deseret Book.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> In 1982, the subtitle, &quot;Another Testament of Jesus Christ,&quot; was added to the title page.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/bookofmormon.htm A Short Introduction to the Book of Mormon]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Mormons and other Latter-Day Saints believe that the book is of ancient origin and that the personages and events described therein are factual. At the same time, Mormons deny that the book is to be considered inerrant. Critics assert that its contents have been changed a number of times by LDS authorities; Mormons reply that the changes are merely grammatical corrections.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Historicity==<br /> <br /> The Book of Mormon is widely criticized for the absence of evidence supporting it. The list of missing artifacts includes almost forty entire cities (all cities named therein), animals (such as horses and cattle), metals (iron and steel), evidence of wars (involving multiple thousands of deaths), weapons (including swords, spears and armor), machinery and other technology cited within it - spanning the many hundreds of years covered by the narrative. <br /> <br /> Because no such supporting evidence has been found, the LDS church takes no official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon.<br /> <br /> Artifacts of such a nature (found in the Americas) have been found to have been introduced into the areas in question by Europeans colonists much later than the timeframe claimed in the Book of Mormon. Mormon Apologists have worked to find counterarguments and responses to all of these claims.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Mormon]] apologists have responded by citing, for example, the first Book of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi) in which discoveries of place locations thought not to have existed prior to discovery are to be found. An instance of this concerns the alleged discovery of the place known as &quot;Nahom&quot; as mentioned here ([http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/16.34?lang=eng#33]), a burial place which was discovered and is said by Mormons to be referred to in no other text.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Nahom FAIR Wiki- Mormon Apologetic resource- Nahom]&lt;/ref&gt; Likewise Old world geography in the Book has been pinpointed by apologists.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Old_World]&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> Opponents have pointed to linguistic anachronisms in the text, such as it being written entirely in a Sixteenth-century King James style and its use of words such as French word &quot;adieu&quot;. Mormon apologists argue that they have found numerous Semetic linguistic and literary traits within it which make it appear authentic, such as the inclusion of Chaismus&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms/Chiasmus Chiasmus]&lt;/ref&gt; and numerous other Hebrew traits within the text&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Mormons do ultimately confess that the main evidence and support for the Book of Mormon does not center upon history or language but upon faith that it is a divinely inspired document. <br /> <br /> Mormon apologist Jeff Lindsay has compiled his own list Book of Mormon evidences.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Contents==<br /> The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ &lt;ref&gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents&lt;/ref&gt; is divided up into many sections or parts, including a Title Page, Introduction, The Testimony of Three Witnesses, The Testimony of Eight Witnesses, the Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, A Brief Explanation about The Book of Mormon, and the following main parts or divisions commonly referred to as &quot;books,&quot; as in &quot;The Book of Moroni,&quot; followed by the common abbreviation in parentheses: [[First Nephi]] (1 Ne.), Second Nephi (2 Ne.), Jacob (Jacob), Enos (Enos), Jarom (Jarom), Omni (Omni), Words of Mormon (W of M), Mosiah (Mosiah), Alma (Alma), Helaman (Hel.), Third Nephi (3 Ne.), Fourth Nephi (4 Ne.), Mormon (Morm.), Ether (Ether), Moroni (Moro.).<br /> <br /> The first sentence of the Introduction is quite self-explanatory: &quot;The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> *[[Objects listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> *[[People listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> *[[Places listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> <br /> ==Other denominations==<br /> The Book of Mormon is accepted as Scripture by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and by other Latter-day Saints denominations, the largest of which, the [[Community of Christ]] (est. 1860), publishes its own versions of the Book of Mormon with different chapter and verse divisions and one with &quot;modernized&quot; language. Other Christian denominations, Catholic and Protestant, reject the Book of Mormon, considering it to be neither inspired nor ancient.<br /> <br /> ==Theology of Book of Mormon==<br /> ''To be supplied''<br /> <br /> == Polygamy ==<br /> The Book of Mormon forbids [[polygamy]] without exception, as shown in the following quotes: <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord . . . Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and [[concubine]]s he shall have none (Jacob 2:24, 27).&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> By their advocacy of the doctrine that the Book of Mormon is inspired by God and hence authoritative, the LDS Church is under the divine command to recognize anyone who practices polygamy must be labeled an apostate from the true faith. Polygamy, which is so degrading to women, is “abominable before me, saith the Lord.” The plain meaning of these verses was accepted without question in 1835 (the Book of Mormon was published in 1830), as shown by this entry in the first edition of the &quot;Doctrine and Covenants&quot;: &lt;blockquote&gt;Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.&lt;ref&gt;&quot;Doctrine and Covenants&quot;, section 101, verse 4.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; This condemnation of polygamy was printed in every edition of the &quot;Doctrine and Covenants&quot; until 1876, at which time polygamy was authorized and the section condemning it was completely removed. There was, however, no attempt to change the text in the Book of Mormon, because too many copies had already been circulated.<br /> How the change in doctrine to the acceptance of polygamy came about is explained by a letter written by Oliver Cowdery and dated January 21, 1838. Cowdery, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, wrote the following about an conversation he had with Joseph Smith sometime in the early or mid-1830s:&lt;blockquote&gt;When he [Joseph Smith] was there we had some conversation in which in every instance I did not fail to affirm that what I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger’s was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deviated from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself.&lt;ref&gt;Letter written by Oliver Cowdery and recorded by his brother Warren Cowdery; see photograph in Jerald and Sandra Tanner, &quot;The Mormon Kingdom&quot; (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1968), vol. 1 p. 27.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Having been caught in adultery, Smith’s eventual recourse was, not to repent, but to declare that God gave him the extra wives. This explanation was formalized in a “revelation” supposedly given on July 12, 1843, by which time Smith had acquired many plural wives. He probably did not realize that, in justifying his actions by declaring a divine revelation, he was following in the footsteps of Muhammad, the false prophet of Islam. In surah (chapter) 4, verse 3 of the Qur’an, a man is allowed to have up to four wives and no more. For Muhammad, however, this eventually became too restrictive, and so he received a new revelation that he, as a prophet (but no one else) was allowed to have as many wives as he wanted (surah 33:50). The original revelation was countermanded or “abrogated” by the later revelation. Since this revoking and replacing happened so many times with Muhammad’s prophecies, the dogma of abrogation, where Allah contradicts and replaces what he said previously, has become an important doctrine of Muslim theology. <br /> <br /> The same principle (abrogation) became operative in the LDS Church and continues to this day, so that the President of the Church, who supposedly has the authority of a prophet, seer, and revelator, can change any doctrine and the faithful are obliged to accept his authority to do so without question and without pointing out the inconsistencies with past doctrine. Thus polygamy, declared against the will of God in the Book of Mormon, became not only accepted but a virtue in the LDS church. The “revelation” that authorized the practice of polygamy among Latter-day Saints during the 19th Century is recorded in the [[Doctrine and Covenants]], section 132. John Taylor, third President of the Mormon Church, declared:&lt;blockquote&gt;We are not ashamed here in this great metropolis of America * * * to declare that we are polygamists. We are not ashamed to proclaim to this great nation, to rulers and people, to the president, senators, legislators, judges; to high and low, rich and poor, priests and people, that we are firm, conscientious believers in polygamy, and that it is part and parcel of our religious creed.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45303/45303-h/45303-h.htm#imgpg236jos ''The Life of John Taylor, Third President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints''] by B.H. Roberts (Salt Lake City, 1892), 355.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; Instead of a sin against God (Book of Mormon), polygamy became an essential virtue. Brigham Young, Second President of the LDS Church, declared “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;''Journal of Discourses'' Vol. 2, p. 269.&lt;/ref&gt; And, in the ''Millennial Star'': &quot;The order of plurality of wives is an everlasting and ceaseless order, designed to exalt the choicest men and women to the most superlative excellence, dominion, and glory.”&lt;ref&gt;''Millennial Star'', Vol. 15, p. 226.&lt;/ref&gt; Joseph Smith’s revelation about polygamy declared “For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant, and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory . . .”&lt;ref&gt;''Doctrines and Covenants'', section 132.&lt;/ref&gt; Sin had become a virtue, and virtue a sin. <br /> <br /> <br /> Succumbing to political pressure, however, the leadership of the LDS church eventually abrogated the “everlasting covenant” in which “if ye abide not that covenant, then ye are damned.” Polygamy reverted to its previous status as a sin: “Any who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day, when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they are performed, are guilty of gross wickedness. They are living in adultery, have already sold their souls to the devil, and (whether their acts are based on ignorance or lust or both) they will be damned in eternity.”&lt;ref&gt;Bruce R. McConkie, ''Mormon Doctrine'', 1958 ed., pp. 522–23.&lt;/ref&gt; These reversals in doctrine show that Mormons are not expected to regard as their final authority the Book of Mormon or the Bible, but the changing doctrines of their leaders, whom they are expected to follow without question and especially without pointing out the inconsistency of Mormon doctrine over the years. As Jesus said, &lt;blockquote&gt;Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’ (Mark 7:6, 7, ESV).&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Conflict of Book of Mormon Doctrines with Later LDS Doctrines== <br /> ''To be supplied''<br /> <br /> ==Changes in the Book of Mormon==<br /> ''To be supplied''<br /> <br /> ==Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?== <br /> ''To be supplied''<br /> <br /> ==Notes and references==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents The Book of Mormon] - An online edition<br /> *[http://www.moroni10.com/Book_of_Mormon_Logic.html The Logical Arguments of the Book of Mormon], Kelly Bingham, November 1, 1997<br /> <br /> [[Category:Book of Mormon]]<br /> [[Category:LDS Church]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Joseph_Smith&diff=1727926 2021-01-30T22:57:16Z

<p>Latent: Filled in more information on the First Vision</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Joseph Smith.gif|thumb|right|150px|Joseph Smith, Jr.]]<br /> &lt;small&gt;''For other Joseph Smiths, see [[Joseph F. Smith]] or [[Joseph Fielding Smith]].''&lt;/small&gt; <br /> <br /> '''Joseph Smith, Jr.''' (1805 - 1844) was the founder and 1st [[President]] of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]. Joseph Smith was the first [[prophet]], [[seer]] and [[revelator]] of the church. Joseph was born on December 23, 1805 in [[Sharon]], [[Vermont]]. <br /> ==Visions==<br /> [[Image:First Vision.jpg|thumb|125px|Joseph Smith's First Vision according to one of the three accounts that differ on whom was seen]]<br /> After hearing the conflicting claims of different Protestant preachers, Smith studied the Bible for himself. According to accounts recorded several years later, he decided to ask God which church he should join. In these later accounts, he declared that in the Spring of 1820 he saw a vision of a heavenly being or beings—in the various accounts he gave of the vision, the being or beings were either [[God]] (meaning the Father) alone, or God and [[Jesus]], or angels without God and Jesus. Because there is no contemporary record of his relating this vision to anyone before 1837, and because of the variance in his different accounts of whom was seen in the vision, historians have conjectured that the story of the [[First Vision]] was invented after the model of the spiritual experience that the famous evangelist Charles Finney. Finney’s account of a profound spiritual experience while he was seeking God in the woods in the fall of 1821 was well known. For a discussion of the variation between Smith’s accounts of which heavenly beings he saw, as well as the question of the historicity of this “first” vision, see the [[First Vision]] page. <br /> <br /> Before any account of the First Vision was made public, however, Smith claimed to have been repeatedly visited by an [[angel]] named [[Moroni]], from 1823 to 1827. According to Smith's account, Moroni showed him where to find buried gold plates. The plates were said to contain the full gospel of Jesus Christ in &quot;reformed Egyptian.&quot; Smith claimed to have translated these gold plates by the inspiration of God, using what he called &quot;Urim and Thummim&quot; (referring to the ancient sacred stones embedded on the breastplate of the high priest of Aaron, that gave information from God) that were also furnished to him for the purpose. He published the translation in 1830 as the [[Book of Mormon]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1293-1,00.html Translation of the Book of Mormon] Mormon.org&lt;/ref&gt; The plates are not available for examination because, according to Smith, the angel took them after the translation was completed.<br /> <br /> It was claimed that, on May 15, 1829, the resurrected [[John the Baptist]] appeared to Joseph and [[Oliver Cowdery]] and gave them the authority to [[baptism|baptize]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1291-1,00.html Authority to baptize] Mormon.org&lt;/ref&gt; In 1829 the [[apostle]]s [[Peter]], [[James the Apostle|James]], and [[John]] gave them the authority to restore Christ's Church.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1292-1,00.html Authority of Apostles] Mormon.org&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Joseph Smith also worked on a revision of the [[King James Bible]] known as the [[Inspired Version]] of the Bible. It was not published until after his death.<br /> <br /> ==Wives==<br /> Smith married [[Emma Hale]] (daughter of Isaac Hale) in 1827 against her father's wishes. A judge in South Bainbridge, [[New York]] married them. This angered her father, who said to Smith “You have stolen my daughter and married her. I had much rather have followed her to the grave.” &lt;ref&gt;MORMON ENIGMA: EMMA HALE SMITH (Newell &amp; Avery, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, 1994)&lt;/ref&gt; However, Emma was twenty-one at the time, so her father did not legally have to give consent.<br /> <br /> Later, in Nauvoo, Joseph Smith founded an impressive militia, announced his intention to run for President of the United States, and tried to establish [[polygamy]]. Between 1841 and 1843, Joseph married more than thirty wives although he kept the practice hidden from the public. Joseph claimed to receive a revelation regarding this “new and everlasting covenant” of plural marriage, partly directed at Emma - [[Doctrine and Covenants]] 132:<br /> <br /> D&amp;C 132:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord...<br /> <br /> D&amp;C 132:4 ...no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.<br /> <br /> D&amp;C 132:52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those [wives] that have been given unto my servant Joseph...<br /> <br /> D&amp;C 132:55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then...I will...give unto him an hundred fold in this world”<br /> <br /> D&amp;C 132:62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him...he cannot commit adultery...<br /> <br /> D&amp;C 132:64 ...if any man have a wife...and he teaches unto her [this] law...then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed... <br /> <br /> Despite the document's stipulation that the multiple wives be &quot;virgins&quot;, Smith was &quot;sealed&quot; to eleven women who had current marriages to other men (who were still alive at the time of each woman's marriage to Smith). Defenders of the church argue that, according to their theology, a sealing is not the same as a marriage (though marriage often accompanies a sealing), and that Joseph never had relations with any of these still-married women, so therefore Joseph wasn't committing polyandry.<br /> <br /> Smith's wives (and their husbands) were: Emma Hale, Fanny Alger (16 years old), Lucinda Morgan Harris (married to George W Harris), Louisa Beaman, Zina Huntington Jacobs (married to Henry Jacobs), Presendia Huntington Buell (married to Norman Buell), Agnes Coolbrith, Sylvia Sessions Lyon (married to Windsor Lyon), Mary Rollins Lightner (married to Adam Lightner), Patty Bartlett Sessions (married to David Sessions), Marinda Johnson Hyde (married to Orson Hyde), Elizabeth Davis Durfee (married to Jabez Durfee), Sarah Kingsley Cleveland (married to John Cleveland), Delcena Johnson, Eliza R. Snow, Sarah Ann Whitney (17 years old), Martha McBride Knight, Ruth Vose Sayers (married to Edward Sayers), Flora Ann Woodworth, Emily Dow Partridge, Eliza Maria Partridge, Almera Johnson, Lucy Walker (17 years old), Sarah Lawrence (17 years old), Maria Lawrence, Helen Mar Kimball (14 years old), Hanna Ells, Elvira Cowles Holmes (married to Jonathan Holmes), Rhoda Richards, Desdemona Fullmer, Olive Frost, Melissa Lott, Nancy Winchester (14 years old) and Fanny Young.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp Family Search] Familysearch.org&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/ Wives of Joseph Smith] WivesofJosephSmith.org&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Although there is some historic indication that Smith married more women than those listed here (such as Clarissa Reed Hancock, the mother of John Reed Hancock), the evidence is not conclusive.<br /> <br /> ==Imprisonment and Death==<br /> Smith had been imprisoned in [[Carthage]], [[Illinois]] for destroying the printing press of the Nauvoo Expositor, however, he was charged with treason not long after so that he could not post bail. The Expositor had denounced (in its only printed edition) &quot;false doctrines&quot; (for instance the &quot;doctrines of many gods&quot;) as well as leveled accusations of immorality and criminal activity. It also called for the repeal of the city charter, which would have removed all legal authority and protection from the city. Smith, the mayor at the time, saw this as libel, as well as dangerous to the city, so he had the printing press burned in the street. Due to outcry from many of their neighboring cities, he was imprisoned. On June 27th 1844, an angry mob stormed the prison. In an attempt to defend himself (with a pistol which had been smuggled in to him), Smith shot and wounded three men. He was apparently preparing to jump from the unbarred second floor window where he had been incarcerated, but was shot, causing him to fall injured to the ground below. Four men shot him to death on the ground. None of the assailants were convicted. His brother [[Hyrum]] (who was also armed with a pistol) was shot in the face and killed as well. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith/menuitem.da0e1d4eb6d2d87f9c0a33b5f1e543a0/?vgnextoid=ad10001cfb340010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&amp;locale=0 Martyr for God] JosephSmith.net&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith JosephSmith.net] - The official web site on Joseph Smith by the LDS Church.<br /> *[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,957-1,00.html &quot;Who was Joseph Smith?&quot;] - At Mormon.org<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Smith, Joseph}}<br /> [[Category:Religious People]]<br /> [[Category:LDS Church]]<br /> [[Category:Mormon Prophets]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&diff=1727580 2021-01-29T20:03:32Z

<p>Latent: Expanded &quot;Polygamy&quot; section, showing importance of this doctrine for LDS attitude toward Book of Mormon</p> <hr /> <div>'''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ'''&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]; Title page since 1982: ''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.'' Original title page: ''The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of [[Mormon]] upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.''&lt;/ref&gt; is one of the four standard works, or scriptures, of the [[Mormons|Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]] ([[Mormon]]s). The other standard works are the [[Bible]], the [[Pearl of Great Price]], and the [[Doctrine and Covenants]].<br /> [[Image:Moroni gives Joseph the plates.jpg|thumb|100px|Moroni gives Joseph Smith the plates]]<br /> [[Image:Joseph Translating.jpg|thumb|100px|Joseph Smith Translating the Plates]]<br /> Mormons believe that [[Joseph Smith]], Jr. translated the Book of Mormon from a set of gold plates he received from an angel named Moroni&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/34-35#34 &quot;History of Joseph Smith,&quot;] History of the Church Vol. 1&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)<br /> &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” &lt;ref&gt;[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20july%201993.htm/a%20treasured%20testament.htm &quot;A Treasured Testament,&quot;] Ensign, July 1993, 61&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> <br /> The Book of Mormon tells the story of the descendents of a man named Lehi, who took his family from Jerusalem to the Americas. According to the book, Lehi's wicked sons, Laman and Lemual, turned against his righteous sons, Nephi and Sam, and were cursed with dark skin.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/Alma3.htm GospelDoctrine.com]&lt;/ref&gt; Mormons believe that descendents of Lehi were the ancestors of some Native Americans; these people are referred to as &quot;Lamanites&quot; in the Book of Mormon:&lt;ref&gt;[http://search.ldslibrary.com/125037 Elder Spencer W. Kimball of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]&lt;/ref&gt; A post-resurrection appearance in the New World by [[Jesus]] is also described in the Book of Mormon. <br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Nephi and Sam's descendents, the Nephites, eventually turned to wickedness and were destroyed by the more numerous Lamanites. One of the last Nephites, Moroni, buried the golden plates in what is now New York State to keep them from falling into the hands of the Lamanites and being destroyed.&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]&lt;/ref&gt; Three Nephites were blessed with eternal life and still wander the Earth today serving others.&lt;ref&gt;[http://deseretmail.com/mormon-life/curric/story?story_id=1580 &quot;Clyde J. Williams on the Three Nephites and the Doctrine of Translation,&quot;] Thoughts on Gospel Doctrine Lesson 42, Deseret Book.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> In 1982, the subtitle, &quot;Another Testament of Jesus Christ,&quot; was added to the title page.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/bookofmormon.htm A Short Introduction to the Book of Mormon]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Mormons and other Latter-Day Saints believe that the book is of ancient origin and that the personages and events described therein are factual. At the same time, Mormons deny that the book is to be considered inerrant. Critics assert that its contents have been changed a number of times by LDS authorities; Mormons reply that the changes are merely grammatical corrections.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Historicity==<br /> <br /> The Book of Mormon is widely criticized for the absence of evidence supporting it. The list of missing artifacts includes almost forty entire cities (all cities named therein), animals (such as horses and cattle), metals (iron and steel), evidence of wars (involving multiple thousands of deaths), weapons (including swords, spears and armor), machinery and other technology cited within it - spanning the many hundreds of years covered by the narrative. <br /> <br /> Because no such supporting evidence has been found, the LDS church takes no official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon.<br /> <br /> Artifacts of such a nature (found in the Americas) have been found to have been introduced into the areas in question by Europeans colonists much later than the timeframe claimed in the Book of Mormon. Mormon Apologists have worked to find counterarguments and responses to all of these claims.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Mormon]] apologists have responded by citing, for example, the first Book of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi) in which discoveries of place locations thought not to have existed prior to discovery are to be found. An instance of this concerns the alleged discovery of the place known as &quot;Nahom&quot; as mentioned here ([http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/16.34?lang=eng#33]), a burial place which was discovered and is said by Mormons to be referred to in no other text.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Nahom FAIR Wiki- Mormon Apologetic resource- Nahom]&lt;/ref&gt; Likewise Old world geography in the Book has been pinpointed by apologists.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Old_World]&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> Opponents have pointed to linguistic anachronisms in the text, such as it being written entirely in a Sixteenth-century King James style and its use of words such as French word &quot;adieu&quot;. Mormon apologists argue that they have found numerous Semetic linguistic and literary traits within it which make it appear authentic, such as the inclusion of Chaismus&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms/Chiasmus Chiasmus]&lt;/ref&gt; and numerous other Hebrew traits within the text&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Mormons do ultimately confess that the main evidence and support for the Book of Mormon does not center upon history or language but upon faith that it is a divinely inspired document. <br /> <br /> Mormon apologist Jeff Lindsay has compiled his own list Book of Mormon evidences.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Contents==<br /> The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ &lt;ref&gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents&lt;/ref&gt; is divided up into many sections or parts, including a [[Title Page (Book of Mormon)|Title Page]], [[Introduction (Book of Mormon)|Introduction]], [[The Testimony of Three Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Three Witnesses]], [[The Testimony of Eight Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Eight Witnesses]], the [[Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Book of Mormon)|Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith]], [[A Brief Explanation about The Book of Mormon]], and the following main parts or divisions commonly referred to as &quot;books,&quot; as in &quot;The Book of Moroni,&quot; followed by the common abbreviation in parentheses: <br /> *[[First Nephi]] (1 Ne.)<br /> *[[Second Nephi]] (2 Ne.)<br /> *[[Jacob (Book of Mormon)|Jacob]] (Jacob)<br /> *[[Enos (Book of Mormon)|Enos]] (Enos)<br /> *[[Jarom (Book of Mormon)|Jarom]] (Jarom)<br /> *[[Omni (Book of Mormon)|Omni]] (Omni)<br /> *[[Words of Mormon]] (W of M)<br /> *[[Mosiah (Book of Mormon)|Mosiah]] (Mosiah)<br /> *[[Alma (Book of Mormon)|Alma]] (Alma)<br /> *[[Helaman (Book of Mormon)|Helaman]] (Hel.)<br /> *[[Third Nephi]] (3 Ne.)<br /> *[[Fourth Nephi]] (4 Ne.)<br /> *[[Mormon (Book of Mormon)|Mormon]] (Morm.)<br /> *[[Ether (Book of Mormon)|Ether]] (Ether)<br /> *[[Moroni (Book of Mormon)|Moroni]] (Moro.).<br /> <br /> The first sentence of the Introduction is quite self-explanatory: &quot;The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> *[[Objects listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> *[[People listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> *[[Places listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> <br /> ==Other denominations==<br /> The Book of Mormon is accepted as Scripture by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and by other Latter-day Saints denominations, the largest of which, the [[Community of Christ]] (est. 1860), publishes its own versions of the Book of Mormon with different chapter and verse divisions and one with &quot;modernized&quot; language. Other Christian denominations, Catholic and Protestant, reject the Book of Mormon, considering it to be neither inspired nor ancient.<br /> <br /> == Polygamy ==<br /> The Book of Mormon forbids [[polygamy]] without exception, as shown in the following quotes: <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord . . . Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and [[concubine]]s he shall have none (Jacob 2:24, 27).&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> By their advocacy of the doctrine that the Book of Mormon is inspired by God and hence authoritative, the LDS Church is under the divine command to recognize anyone who practices polygamy must be labeled an apostate from the true faith. Polygamy, which is so degrading to women, is “abominable before me, saith the Lord.” The plain meaning of these verses was accepted without question in 1835 (the Book of Mormon was published in 1830), as shown by this entry in the first edition of the &quot;Doctrine and Covenants&quot;: &lt;blockquote&gt;Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.&lt;ref&gt;&quot;Doctrine and Covenants&quot;, section 101, verse 4.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; This condemnation of polygamy was printed in every edition of the &quot;Doctrine and Covenants&quot; until 1876, at which time polygamy was authorized and the section condemning it was completely removed. There was, however, no attempt to change the text in the Book of Mormon, because too many copies had already been circulated.<br /> How the change in doctrine to the acceptance of polygamy came about is explained by a letter written by Oliver Cowdery and dated January 21, 1838. Cowdery, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, wrote the following about an conversation he had with Joseph Smith sometime in the early or mid-1830s:&lt;blockquote&gt;When he [Joseph Smith] was there we had some conversation in which in every instance I did not fail to affirm that what I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger’s was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deviated from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself.&lt;ref&gt;Letter written by Oliver Cowdery and recorded by his brother Warren Cowdery; see photograph in Jerald and Sandra Tanner, &quot;The Mormon Kingdom&quot; (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1968), vol. 1 p. 27.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Having been caught in adultery, Smith’s eventual recourse was, not to repent, but to declare that God gave him the extra wives. This explanation was formalized in a “revelation” supposedly given on July 12, 1843, by which time Smith had acquired many plural wives. He probably did not realize that, in justifying his actions by declaring a divine revelation, he was following in the footsteps of Muhammad, the great false prophet of Islam. In surah (chapter) 4, verse 3 of the Qur’an, a man is allowed to have up to four wives and no more. For Muhammad, however, this eventually became too restrictive, and so he received a new revelation that he, as a prophet (but no one else) was allowed to have as many wives as he wanted (surah 33:50). The original revelation was countermanded or “abrogated” by the later revelation. Since this revoking and replacing happened so many times with Muhammad’s prophecies, the dogma of abrogation, where Allah contradicts and replaces what he said previously, has become an important doctrine of Muslim theology. <br /> <br /> The same principle (abrogation) became operative in the LDS Church and continues to this day, so that the President of the Church, who supposedly has the authority of a prophet, seer, and revelator, can change any doctrine and the faithful are obliged to accept his authority to do so without question and without pointing out the inconsistencies with past doctrine. Thus polygamy, declared against the will of God in the Book of Mormon, became not only accepted but a virtue in the LDS church. The “revelation” that authorized the practice of polygamy among Latter-day Saints during the 19th Century is recorded in the [[Doctrine and Covenants]], section 132. John Taylor, third President of the Mormon Church, declared:&lt;blockquote&gt;We are not ashamed here in this great metropolis of America * * * to declare that we are polygamists. We are not ashamed to proclaim to this great nation, to rulers and people, to the president, senators, legislators, judges; to high and low, rich and poor, priests and people, that we are firm, conscientious believers in polygamy, and that it is part and parcel of our religious creed.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45303/45303-h/45303-h.htm#imgpg236jos ''The Life of John Taylor, Third President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints''] by B.H. Roberts (Salt Lake City, 1892), 355.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; Instead of a sin against God (Book of Mormon), polygamy became an essential virtue. Brigham Young, Second President of the LDS Church, declared “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;''Journal of Discourses'' Vol. 2, p. 269.&lt;/ref&gt; And, in the ''Millennial Star'': &quot;The order of plurality of wives is an everlasting and ceaseless order, designed to exalt the choicest men and women to the most superlative excellence, dominion, and glory.”&lt;ref&gt;''Millennial Star'', Vol. 15, p. 226.&lt;/ref&gt; Joseph Smith’s revelation about polygamy declared “For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant, and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory . . .”&lt;ref&gt;''Doctrines and Covenants'', section 132.&lt;/ref&gt; Sin had become a virtue, and virtue a sin. <br /> <br /> <br /> Succumbing to political pressure, however, the leadership of the LDS church eventually abrogated the “everlasting covenant” in which “if ye abide not that covenant, then ye are damned.” Polygamy reverted to its previous status as a sin: “Any who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day, when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they are performed, are guilty of gross wickedness. They are living in adultery, have already sold their souls to the devil, and (whether their acts are based on ignorance or lust or both) they will be damned in eternity.”&lt;ref&gt;Bruce R. McConkie, ''Mormon Doctrine'', 1958 ed., pp. 522–23.&lt;/ref&gt; These reversals in doctrine show that Mormons are not expected to regard as their final authority the Book of Mormon or the Bible, but the changing doctrines of their leaders, whom they are expected to follow without question and especially without pointing out the inconsistency of Mormon doctrine over the years. As Jesus said, &lt;blockquote&gt;Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’ (Mark 7:6, 7, ESV).&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Notes and references==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents The Book of Mormon] - An online edition<br /> *[http://www.moroni10.com/Book_of_Mormon_Logic.html The Logical Arguments of the Book of Mormon], Kelly Bingham, November 1, 1997<br /> <br /> [[Category:Book of Mormon]]<br /> [[Category:LDS Church]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pearl_of_Great_Price&diff=1727522 2021-01-29T15:51:45Z

<p>Latent: Expanded section &quot;Joseph Smith - History&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>The '''Pearl of Great Price''' is one of the four standard works, or scriptures, of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] (Mormons). The other standard works are the [[Bible]], the [[Book of Mormon]], and the [[Doctrine and Covenants]]. The Pearl of Great Price is the shortest work of scripture in the Mormon canon and is comprised of five other works. These works are:<br /> <br /> <br /> ==''Selections from the Book of Moses''==<br /> This work includes eight chapters relating events from the [[Creation]] up to and including [[God]] declaring the coming [[Great Flood]] to [[Noah]]. These chapters are from [[Joseph Smith]], Jr.'s [[Inspired Version|translation]] of the [[Bible]], which was begun in June 1830,&lt;ref&gt;''History of the Church'', vol. 1, pp. 98-101, 131-139.&lt;/ref&gt; and approximately correlate with the first six chapters of the book of [[Genesis]].<br /> <br /> ==''The Book of Abraham''==<br /> This book is the translation of some Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith, Jr., acquired in 1835 from a traveling dealer in Egyptian artifacts. Smith paid the dealer $2,400 for a mummy, papyri, and artifacts, equivalent to about $66,000 in today’s dollars.&lt;ref&gt;''History of the Church'', vol. 4, pp. 519-534.&lt;/ref&gt; Smith claimed that the papyri contained writings of the biblical prophet Abraham, which included additional historic information beyond that which is found in the Bible as well as teachings about the Creation. Smith then claimed that he could translate the Egyptian papyri, publishing his translations as The Book of Abraham. The book contains reproductions of three drawings, called facsimiles, which were included with the original papyri. The Book of Abraham was originally published as a series of articles in the Mormon newspaper ''[[Times and Seasons]]'' beginning March 1, 1842, in [[Nauvoo]], [[Illinois]]. Smith claimed that the papyri he purchased were the original writings of Abraham, and hence older than the book of Genesis.<br /> The ''Pearl of Great Price Student Manual'' presents Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Abraham as evidence of the validity of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;The book of Abraham is an evidence of the inspired calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It came forth at a time when the study of the ancient Egyptian language and culture was just beginning. The scholars of the 1800s had scarcely begun to explore the field of Egyptology, and yet, with no formal training in ancient languages and no knowledge of ancient Egypt (except his work with the Book of Mormon), Joseph Smith began his translation of the ancient manuscripts. His knowledge and ability came through the power and gift of God, together with his own determination and faith.&lt;ref&gt;''The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual, Religion 327'', LDS Church, 2000, p. 29.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> For many years it was thought that the papyri that Joseph Smith purchased perished in the 1871 Chicago fire. However, on November 27, 1967, the Mormon newspaper ''Desert News'' published a significant announcement:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;NEW YORK — A collection of papyrus manuscripts, long believed to have been destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871, was presented to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints here Monday by the Metropolitan Museum of Art . . . Included in the papyri is a manuscript identified as the original document from which Joseph Smith had copied the drawing which he called ‘Facsimile No. 1’ and published with the Book of Abraham.&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> This finding allowed qualified Egyptologists to examine the document which Joseph Smith claimed he was translating the original words of Abraham. It was found to be an excerpt from the widely known Egyptian funerary text “Book of Breathings,” and the particular document was dated to sometime in the first century BC or the first century AD. The following statements are from qualified Egyptologists who have examined the plates from which Joseph Smith “translated” in order to derive the Book of Abraham. The first is from Dr. Arthur Mace, Assistant Curator for the Department of Egyptian Art of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;The Book of Abraham, it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication. Cuts 1 and 3 are inaccurate copies of well-known scenes on funeral papyri, and cut 2 is a copy of one of the magical discs which in the late Egyptian period were placed under the heads of mummies. There were about forty of these latter known in museums and they are all very similar in character. Joseph Smith’s interpretation of these cuts is a farrago of nonsense from the beginning to end. Egyptian characters can now be read almost as easily as Greek, and five minutes’ study in an Egyptian gallery of any museum should be enough to convince any educated man of the clumsiness of the imposture.&lt;ref&gt;”Book of Abraham: Translation or Invention?” in ''Salt Lake City Messenger” 123 (Oct. 2014): 2.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Dr. A. H. Sayce of Oxford University: <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud. The facsimile from the Book of Abraham No. 2 is an ordinary hypocephalus, but the hieroglyphics upon it have been copied so ignorantly that hardly one of them is correct. I need scarce say that Kolob, etc., are unknown to the Egyptian language . . . Smith has turned the Goddess into a king and Osiris into Abraham.&lt;ref&gt;Ibid.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Dr. Flinders Petrie of London University:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;In the first place, they are copies (very badly done) of well known Egyptian subjects of which I have dozens of examples. Secondly, they are all many centuries later than Abraham . . . the attempts to guess a meaning for them, in the professed explanations, are too absurd to be noticed. It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations.&lt;ref&gt;Ibid.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Dr. James H. Breasted, University of Chicago: &lt;blockquote&gt;The three facsimiles in question represent equipment which will be and has been found in unnumbered thousands of Egyptian graves . . . The point, then, is that in publishing these facsimiles of Egyptian documents as part of an unique revelation to Abraham, Joseph Smith was attributing to Abraham not three unique documents of which no other copies exist, but was attributing to Abraham a series of documents which were the common property of a whole nation of people who employed them in every human burial, which they prepared.&lt;ref&gt;Ibid.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Dee Jay Nelson, a Mormon Egyptologist who examined and translated the papyri, concluded that the Book of Abraham is a false translation and the Church should abandon it.<br /> === Translated or Not Translated? ===<br /> When it became clear that the words that Joseph Smith ascribed to the facsimiles in order to produce the Book of Abraham had no relevance to the texts from which he said contained the message, other explanations were offered by LDS apologists of this embarrassing discrepancy. An example of such an attempt is given on the lds.org Web site that presents the view that Joseph Smith was not really translating.<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham . . . Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived . . . Alternatively, Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words ''translator'' and ''translation''. According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.&lt;ref&gt;[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng Gospel Topics: Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham] on www.lds.org. &lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Joseph Smith, however, repeatedly said that he was translating, and the translation was from the papyri he had in his possession. This is stated in the heading of the book itself:&lt;blockquote&gt;The Book of Abraham; Translated from the papyrus, by Joseph Smith A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus.&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Smith’s notes in the ''History of the Church'': &lt;blockquote&gt;The remainder of this month [July 1835], I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> ===The Book of Abraham’s Effect on Trust in LDS Church Doctrines=== <br /> Because all qualified scholars who have investigated the subject have declared that Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham is a fraud, many members of the LDS church have come to question their faith in the church and its doctrines. John Dehlin is a fifth generation Mormon and founder of the Mormon Stories podcast. In 2011 he conducted of survey of 3,000 former Mormons in order to determine the factors that led them to leave the Mormon Church. Among the most cited reasons for their abandoning the Church and its doctrines were 1) the realization that Joseph Smith’s supposed translation of the Book of Abraham was a fraud (59% of respondents), polygamy/polyandry (59%), blacks and the priesthood (55%).&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.whymormonsquestion.org/survey-results Survey results] John Dehlin, “Understanding Mormon Disbelief,” 2012. &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==''Joseph Smith - Matthew''==<br /> This is the 24th chapter of the [[Gospel of Matthew]] as retranslated by Joseph Smith, Jr.&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/45/60-61#60 Doctrine and Covenants 45:60-61]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==''Joseph Smith - History''==<br /> This is Joseph Smith, Jr.'s own account of the events that transpired to bring to light the Book of Mormon. This includes his confusion as a youth with the myriad different churches, his [[First Vision]] of God and [[Jesus Christ]] (or just God the Father, or just angels, according to the different and mutually contradictory early accounts), visits by the angel [[Moroni]], and Joseph's receiving of the original Book of Mormon writings. This work was first written in 1838 and published as a series of articles in the ''Times and Seasons'' beginning March 15, 1842.&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/pgp/introduction Introductory Note]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> Despite the claim that the “History” is in Joseph Smith’s own words, later editors have done much alteration in order to adjust to changing teachings of the LDS Church. According to one comparison of present editions with the first edition, more than 62,000 words have been either added or deleted from the way it was first published.&lt;ref&gt;Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, ND), 15. For an analysis of the many changes in Joseph Smith’s ''History'', see Jerald Tanner, ''Changes in Joseph Smith’s History'' (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1965).&lt;/ref&gt; As an example, Joseph Smith related the following in the first edition:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Then went to John P. Greene’s, and paid him and another brother $200. Drank a glass of beer at Moessers. Called at William Clayton’s . . .&lt;ref&gt;From the ''Millennial Star'', vol. 23, p. 720, as cited in Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon'', 15.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> When this was reprinted in the ''History of the Church'', vol. 6, p. 424, seven words were deleted:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Then went to John P. Greene’s, and paid him and another brother $200. Called at William Clayton’s . . .&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ==''The Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints''==<br /> These 13 articles were originally written in response to a request to Joseph Smith, Jr., for a brief history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and were intended as a brief doctrinal summary.&lt;ref&gt;''History of the Church'', vol. 4, pp. 535-541.&lt;/ref&gt; They were originally published March 1, 1842, in the ''Times and Seasons''.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:LDS Church]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pearl_of_Great_Price&diff=1727345 2021-01-28T16:53:16Z

<p>Latent: Supplied history of &quot;The Book of Abraham&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>The '''Pearl of Great Price''' is one of the four standard works, or scriptures, of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] (Mormons). The other standard works are the [[Bible]], the [[Book of Mormon]], and the [[Doctrine and Covenants]]. The Pearl of Great Price is the shortest work of scripture in the Mormon canon and is comprised of five other works. These works are:<br /> <br /> <br /> ==''Selections from the Book of Moses''==<br /> This work includes eight chapters relating events from the [[Creation]] up to and including [[God]] declaring the coming [[Great Flood]] to [[Noah]]. These chapters are from [[Joseph Smith]], Jr.'s [[Inspired Version|translation]] of the [[Bible]], which was begun in June 1830,&lt;ref&gt;''History of the Church'', vol. 1, pp. 98-101, 131-139.&lt;/ref&gt; and approximately correlate with the first six chapters of the book of [[Genesis]].<br /> <br /> ==''The Book of Abraham''==<br /> This book is the translation of some Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith, Jr., acquired in 1835 from a traveling dealer in Egyptian artifacts. Smith paid the dealer $2,400 for a mummy, papyri, and artifacts, equivalent to about $66,000 in today’s dollars.&lt;ref&gt;''History of the Church'', vol. 4, pp. 519-534.&lt;/ref&gt; Smith claimed that the papyri contained writings of the biblical prophet Abraham, which included additional historic information beyond that which is found in the Bible as well as teachings about the Creation. Smith then claimed that he could translate the Egyptian papyri, publishing his translations as The Book of Abraham. The book contains reproductions of three drawings, called facsimiles, which were included with the original papyri. The Book of Abraham was originally published as a series of articles in the Mormon newspaper ''[[Times and Seasons]]'' beginning March 1, 1842, in [[Nauvoo]], [[Illinois]]. Smith claimed that the papyri he purchased were the original writings of Abraham, and hence older than the book of Genesis.<br /> The ''Pearl of Great Price Student Manual'' presents Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Abraham as evidence of the validity of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;The book of Abraham is an evidence of the inspired calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It came forth at a time when the study of the ancient Egyptian language and culture was just beginning. The scholars of the 1800s had scarcely begun to explore the field of Egyptology, and yet, with no formal training in ancient languages and no knowledge of ancient Egypt (except his work with the Book of Mormon), Joseph Smith began his translation of the ancient manuscripts. His knowledge and ability came through the power and gift of God, together with his own determination and faith.&lt;ref&gt;''The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual, Religion 327'', LDS Church, 2000, p. 29.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> For many years it was thought that the papyri that Joseph Smith purchased perished in the 1871 Chicago fire. However, on November 27, 1967, the Mormon newspaper ''Desert News'' published a significant announcement:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;NEW YORK — A collection of papyrus manuscripts, long believed to have been destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871, was presented to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints here Monday by the Metropolitan Museum of Art . . . Included in the papyri is a manuscript identified as the original document from which Joseph Smith had copied the drawing which he called ‘Facsimile No. 1’ and published with the Book of Abraham.&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> This finding allowed qualified Egyptologists to examine the document which Joseph Smith claimed he was translating the original words of Abraham. It was found to be an excerpt from the widely known Egyptian funerary text “Book of Breathings,” and the particular document was dated to sometime in the first century BC or the first century AD. The following statements are from qualified Egyptologists who have examined the plates from which Joseph Smith “translated” in order to derive the Book of Abraham. The first is from Dr. Arthur Mace, Assistant Curator for the Department of Egyptian Art of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;The Book of Abraham, it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication. Cuts 1 and 3 are inaccurate copies of well-known scenes on funeral papyri, and cut 2 is a copy of one of the magical discs which in the late Egyptian period were placed under the heads of mummies. There were about forty of these latter known in museums and they are all very similar in character. Joseph Smith’s interpretation of these cuts is a farrago of nonsense from the beginning to end. Egyptian characters can now be read almost as easily as Greek, and five minutes’ study in an Egyptian gallery of any museum should be enough to convince any educated man of the clumsiness of the imposture.&lt;ref&gt;”Book of Abraham: Translation or Invention?” in ''Salt Lake City Messenger” 123 (Oct. 2014): 2.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Dr. A. H. Sayce of Oxford University: <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud. The facsimile from the Book of Abraham No. 2 is an ordinary hypocephalus, but the hieroglyphics upon it have been copied so ignorantly that hardly one of them is correct. I need scarce say that Kolob, etc., are unknown to the Egyptian language . . . Smith has turned the Goddess into a king and Osiris into Abraham.&lt;ref&gt;Ibid.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Dr. Flinders Petrie of London University:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;In the first place, they are copies (very badly done) of well known Egyptian subjects of which I have dozens of examples. Secondly, they are all many centuries later than Abraham . . . the attempts to guess a meaning for them, in the professed explanations, are too absurd to be noticed. It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations.&lt;ref&gt;Ibid.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Dr. James H. Breasted, University of Chicago: &lt;blockquote&gt;The three facsimiles in question represent equipment which will be and has been found in unnumbered thousands of Egyptian graves . . . The point, then, is that in publishing these facsimiles of Egyptian documents as part of an unique revelation to Abraham, Joseph Smith was attributing to Abraham not three unique documents of which no other copies exist, but was attributing to Abraham a series of documents which were the common property of a whole nation of people who employed them in every human burial, which they prepared.&lt;ref&gt;Ibid.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Dee Jay Nelson, a Mormon Egyptologist who examined and translated the papyri, concluded that the Book of Abraham is a false translation and the Church should abandon it.<br /> === Translated or Not Translated? ===<br /> When it became clear that the words that Joseph Smith ascribed to the facsimiles in order to produce the Book of Abraham had no relevance to the texts from which he said contained the message, other explanations were offered by LDS apologists of this embarrassing discrepancy. An example of such an attempt is given on the lds.org Web site that presents the view that Joseph Smith was not really translating.<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham . . . Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived . . . Alternatively, Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words ''translator'' and ''translation''. According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.&lt;ref&gt;[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng Gospel Topics: Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham] on www.lds.org. &lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Joseph Smith, however, repeatedly said that he was translating, and the translation was from the papyri he had in his possession. This is stated in the heading of the book itself:&lt;blockquote&gt;The Book of Abraham; Translated from the papyrus, by Joseph Smith A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus.&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Smith’s notes in the ''History of the Church'': &lt;blockquote&gt;The remainder of this month [July 1835], I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> ===The Book of Abraham’s Effect on Trust in LDS Church Doctrines=== <br /> Because all qualified scholars who have investigated the subject have declared that Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham is a fraud, many members of the LDS church have come to question their faith in the church and its doctrines. John Dehlin is a fifth generation Mormon and founder of the Mormon Stories podcast. In 2011 he conducted of survey of 3,000 former Mormons in order to determine the factors that led them to leave the Mormon Church. Among the most cited reasons for their abandoning the Church and its doctrines were 1) the realization that Joseph Smith’s supposed translation of the Book of Abraham was a fraud (59% of respondents), polygamy/polyandry (59%), blacks and the priesthood (55%).&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.whymormonsquestion.org/survey-results Survey results] John Dehlin, “Understanding Mormon Disbelief,” 2012. &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==''Joseph Smith - Matthew''==<br /> This is the 24th chapter of the [[Gospel of Matthew]] as retranslated by Joseph Smith, Jr.&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/45/60-61#60 Doctrine and Covenants 45:60-61]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ==''Joseph Smith - History''==<br /> This is Joseph Smith, Jr.'s own account of the events that transpired to bring to light the Book of Mormon. This includes his confusion as a youth with the myriad different churches, his [[First Vision]] of God and [[Jesus Christ]], visits by the angel [[Moroni]], and Joseph's receiving of the original Book of Mormon writings. This work was first written in 1838 and published as a series of articles in the ''Times and Seasons'' beginning March 15, 1842.&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/pgp/introduction Introductory Note]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ==''The Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints''==<br /> These 13 articles were originally written in response to a request to Joseph Smith, Jr., for a brief history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and were intended as a brief doctrinal summary.&lt;ref&gt;''History of the Church'', vol. 4, pp. 535-541.&lt;/ref&gt; They were originally published March 1, 1842, in the ''Times and Seasons''.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:LDS Church]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pearl_of_Great_Price&diff=1727063 2021-01-27T21:25:58Z

<p>Latent: Modified section headings to the move conventional format.</p> <hr /> <div>The '''Pearl of Great Price''' is one of the four standard works, or scriptures, of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] (Mormons). The other standard works are the [[Bible]], the [[Book of Mormon]], and the [[Doctrine and Covenants]]. The Pearl of Great Price is the shortest work of scripture in the Mormon canon and is comprised of five other works. These works are:<br /> <br /> <br /> ==''Selections from the Book of Moses''==<br /> This work includes eight chapters relating events from the [[Creation]] up to and including [[God]] declaring the coming [[Great Flood]] to [[Noah]]. These chapters are from [[Joseph Smith]], Jr.'s [[Inspired Version|translation]] of the [[Bible]], which was begun in June 1830,&lt;ref&gt;''History of the Church'', vol. 1, pp. 98-101, 131-139.&lt;/ref&gt; and approximately correlate with the first six chapters of the book of [[Genesis]].<br /> ==''The Book of Abraham''==<br /> This book is the translation of some Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith, Jr., acquired in 1835.&lt;ref&gt;''History of the Church'', vol. 4, pp. 519-534.&lt;/ref&gt; The papyri contained writings of the biblical prophet Abraham, which included additional historic information beyond that which is found in the Bible as well as teachings about the Creation. This book also contains reproductions of three drawings, called facsimiles, which were included with the original papyri. The Book of Abraham was originally published as a series of articles in the Mormon newspaper ''[[Times and Seasons]]'' beginning March 1, 1842, in [[Nauvoo]], [[Illinois]].<br /> ==''Joseph Smith - Matthew''==<br /> This is the 24th chapter of the [[Gospel of Matthew]] as retranslated by Joseph Smith, Jr.&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/45/60-61#60 Doctrine and Covenants 45:60-61]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ==''Joseph Smith - History''==<br /> This is Joseph Smith, Jr.'s own account of the events that transpired to bring to light the Book of Mormon. This includes his confusion as a youth with the myriad different churches, his [[First Vision]] of God and [[Jesus Christ]], visits by the angel [[Moroni]], and Joseph's receiving of the original Book of Mormon writings. This work was first written in 1838 and published as a series of articles in the ''Times and Seasons'' beginning March 15, 1842.&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/pgp/introduction Introductory Note]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ==''The Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints''==<br /> These 13 articles were originally written in response to a request to Joseph Smith, Jr., for a brief history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and were intended as a brief doctrinal summary.&lt;ref&gt;''History of the Church'', vol. 4, pp. 535-541.&lt;/ref&gt; They were originally published March 1, 1842, in the ''Times and Seasons''.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:LDS Church]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Joseph_Smith&diff=1726590 2021-01-25T23:36:04Z

<p>Latent: Added page link</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Joseph Smith.gif|thumb|right|150px|Joseph Smith, Jr.]]<br /> &lt;small&gt;''For other Joseph Smiths, see [[Joseph F. Smith]] or [[Joseph Fielding Smith]].''&lt;/small&gt; <br /> <br /> '''Joseph Smith, Jr.''' (1805 - 1844) was the founder and 1st [[President]] of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]. Joseph Smith was the first [[prophet]], [[seer]] and [[revelator]] of the church. Joseph was born on December 23, 1805 in [[Sharon]], [[Vermont]]. <br /> ==Visions==<br /> [[Image:First Vision.jpg|thumb|125px|Joseph Smith's First Vision]]<br /> After hearing the conflicting claims of different Protestant preachers, Smith studied the Bible for himself. He decided to ask God which church he should join. In the Spring of 1820, Joseph said that he saw two beings, [[God]] (meaning the Father) and [[Jesus]], in a [[First Vision|vision]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,959-1,00.html The First Vision] Mormon.org&lt;/ref&gt; Smith claimed to have been repeatedly visited by an [[angel]] named [[Moroni]], from 1823 to 1827. According to Smith's account, Moroni showed him where to find buried gold plates. The plates were said to contain the full gospel of Jesus Christ in &quot;reformed Egyptian.&quot; Smith claimed to have translated these gold plates by the inspiration of God, using what he called &quot;Urim and Thummim&quot; (referring to the ancient sacred stones embedded on the breastplate of the high priest of Aaron, that gave information from God) that were also furnished to him for the purpose. He published the translation in 1830 as the [[Book of Mormon]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1293-1,00.html Translation of the Book of Mormon] Mormon.org&lt;/ref&gt; The plates are not available for examination because, according to Smith, the angel took them after the translation was completed.<br /> <br /> It was claimed that, on May 15, 1829, the resurrected [[John the Baptist]] appeared to Joseph and [[Oliver Cowdery]] and gave them the authority to [[baptism|baptize]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1291-1,00.html Authority to baptize] Mormon.org&lt;/ref&gt; In 1829 the [[apostle]]s [[Peter]], [[James the Apostle|James]], and [[John]] gave them the authority to restore Christ's Church.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1292-1,00.html Authority of Apostles] Mormon.org&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Joseph Smith also worked on a revision of the [[King James Bible]] known as the [[Inspired Version]] of the Bible. It was not published until after his death.<br /> <br /> ==Wives==<br /> Smith married [[Emma Hale]] (daughter of Isaac Hale) in 1827 against her father's wishes. A judge in South Bainbridge, [[New York]] married them. This angered her father, who said to Smith “You have stolen my daughter and married her. I had much rather have followed her to the grave.” &lt;ref&gt;MORMON ENIGMA: EMMA HALE SMITH (Newell &amp; Avery, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, 1994)&lt;/ref&gt; However, Emma was twenty-one at the time, so her father did not legally have to give consent.<br /> <br /> Later, in Nauvoo, Joseph Smith founded an impressive militia, announced his intention to run for President of the United States, and tried to establish [[polygamy]]. Between 1841 and 1843, Joseph married more than thirty wives although he kept the practice hidden from the public. Joseph claimed to receive a revelation regarding this “new and everlasting covenant” of plural marriage, partly directed at Emma - [[Doctrine and Covenants]] 132:<br /> <br /> D&amp;C 132:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord...<br /> <br /> D&amp;C 132:4 ...no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.<br /> <br /> D&amp;C 132:52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those [wives] that have been given unto my servant Joseph...<br /> <br /> D&amp;C 132:55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then...I will...give unto him an hundred fold in this world”<br /> <br /> D&amp;C 132:62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him...he cannot commit adultery...<br /> <br /> D&amp;C 132:64 ...if any man have a wife...and he teaches unto her [this] law...then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed... <br /> <br /> Despite the document's stipulation that the multiple wives be &quot;virgins&quot;, Smith was &quot;sealed&quot; to eleven women who had current marriages to other men (who were still alive at the time of each woman's marriage to Smith). Defenders of the church argue that, according to their theology, a sealing is not the same as a marriage (though marriage often accompanies a sealing), and that Joseph never had relations with any of these still-married women, so therefore Joseph wasn't committing polyandry.<br /> <br /> Smith's wives (and their husbands) were: Emma Hale, Fanny Alger (16 years old), Lucinda Morgan Harris (married to George W Harris), Louisa Beaman, Zina Huntington Jacobs (married to Henry Jacobs), Presendia Huntington Buell (married to Norman Buell), Agnes Coolbrith, Sylvia Sessions Lyon (married to Windsor Lyon), Mary Rollins Lightner (married to Adam Lightner), Patty Bartlett Sessions (married to David Sessions), Marinda Johnson Hyde (married to Orson Hyde), Elizabeth Davis Durfee (married to Jabez Durfee), Sarah Kingsley Cleveland (married to John Cleveland), Delcena Johnson, Eliza R. Snow, Sarah Ann Whitney (17 years old), Martha McBride Knight, Ruth Vose Sayers (married to Edward Sayers), Flora Ann Woodworth, Emily Dow Partridge, Eliza Maria Partridge, Almera Johnson, Lucy Walker (17 years old), Sarah Lawrence (17 years old), Maria Lawrence, Helen Mar Kimball (14 years old), Hanna Ells, Elvira Cowles Holmes (married to Jonathan Holmes), Rhoda Richards, Desdemona Fullmer, Olive Frost, Melissa Lott, Nancy Winchester (14 years old) and Fanny Young.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp Family Search] Familysearch.org&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/ Wives of Joseph Smith] WivesofJosephSmith.org&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Although there is some historic indication that Smith married more women than those listed here (such as Clarissa Reed Hancock, the mother of John Reed Hancock), the evidence is not conclusive.<br /> <br /> ==Imprisonment and Death==<br /> Smith had been imprisoned in [[Carthage]], [[Illinois]] for destroying the printing press of the Nauvoo Expositor, however, he was charged with treason not long after so that he could not post bail. The Expositor had denounced (in its only printed edition) &quot;false doctrines&quot; (for instance the &quot;doctrines of many gods&quot;) as well as leveled accusations of immorality and criminal activity. It also called for the repeal of the city charter, which would have removed all legal authority and protection from the city. Smith, the mayor at the time, saw this as libel, as well as dangerous to the city, so he had the printing press burned in the street. Due to outcry from many of their neighboring cities, he was imprisoned. On June 27th 1844, an angry mob stormed the prison. In an attempt to defend himself (with a pistol which had been smuggled in to him), Smith shot and wounded three men. He was apparently preparing to jump from the unbarred second floor window where he had been incarcerated, but was shot, causing him to fall injured to the ground below. Four men shot him to death on the ground. None of the assailants were convicted. His brother [[Hyrum]] (who was also armed with a pistol) was shot in the face and killed as well. josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith/menuitem.da0e1d4eb6d2d87f9c0a33b5f1e543a0/?vgnextoid=ad10001cfb340010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&amp;locale=0 Martyr for God] JosephSmith.net&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith JosephSmith.net] - The official web site on Joseph Smith by the LDS Church.<br /> *[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,957-1,00.html &quot;Who was Joseph Smith?&quot;] - At Mormon.org<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Smith, Joseph}}<br /> [[Category:Religious People]]<br /> [[Category:LDS Church]]<br /> [[Category:Mormon Prophets]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=First_Vision&diff=1726589 2021-01-25T23:34:09Z

<p>Latent: Creation of page</p> <hr /> <div>The '''First Vision''' of [[Joseph Smith]] is recognized by the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] (Mormons) as the starting event of their religious movement. According to the standard narrative of this event, Joseph Smith, while a young boy of 14, became concerned about his salvation and religious truth. While seeking God in the woods in the spring of 1820, a heavenly being (or beings) appeared to him and declared that God was going to inaugurate the “restitution of all things.” This vision, on April 6, 1820, is considered the foundation of the LDS church, so that LDS President [[Gordon Hinckley]] declared at the October 1998 Church Conference, “Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision . . . Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration.”&lt;ref&gt;Gordon B. Hinckley, “What Are People Asking About Us?” ''The Ensign'' (November 1998): 70–71.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The first published account of Smith’s vision was composed in 1838 or 1839 and then printed in the Mormon newspaper ''Times and Seasons'' in 1842. It was canonized in ''The Pearl of Great Price'' in 1880. In the canonical version Smith relates that when he was 15,&lt;ref&gt;According to the date of his birth, he was only 14; later in the account he makes the same mistake, saying that he was “an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age.”&lt;/ref&gt; there was a revival of religion in his neighborhood that resulted in his mother, sister, and two brothers joining the Presbyterian denomination. Smith was undecided about which church to join, and so he went into the words to pray. He was then overcome by “thick darkness,” after which a pillar of light appeared and “two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description” appeared above him. “One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is my Beloved Son, Hear Him!” After composing himself, Smith asked the personages which sect was right so that he could join it, to which the Personage replied that “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight” and Smith was forbidden to join any of them. Smith claimed that he returned home and began to share what he learned in this vision, which resulted in his experiencing “great persecution.”&lt;ref&gt;[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp?lang=eng Account of First Vision] 1.7–22.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ==Historical Problems==<br /> Historians have pointed out some problems that historical records of the time present to this account, in addition to the wrong age the account gives for Smith.<br /> #The official account speaks of a revival in the area in 1820, while historical records indicated a revival in the area occurring between 1824 and 1825. Examination of the church role records for the year 1820 showed that the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches showed either losses or only modest gains of a handful of people that year, not the massive numbers expected from a revival.&lt;ref&gt;H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, ''Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record'' (Salt Lake City: Smith Research Associates, 1994), pp. 17–25.&lt;/ref&gt; In the 1824 revival, approximately 300 people joined the Presbyterian, Baptist, and Methodist churches.<br /> #There are no records from the period of 1820 to 1838 of Smith sharing this record with anyone, despite his stating that his relating the vision brought him “great persecution.” This lack of any attestation of any attestation from contemporary sources is pointed out not only by Fawn Brodie, an apostate who wrote an extensive history of early Mormonism,&lt;ref&gt;Fawn M. Brodie, ''No Man Knows My History'' (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945 ed.), p. 24.&lt;/ref&gt; but also by LDS scholar James Allen.&lt;ref&gt;James B. Allen, “The Significance of Joseph Smith’s ‘First Vision’ in Mormon Thought,” in ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' (Autumn 1966): p. 33.&lt;/ref&gt; Similarly, LDS scholar Steven C. Harper wrote, “There is no evidence in the historical record that Joseph Smith told anyone but the minister of his vision for at least a decade.”&lt;ref&gt;Steven C. Harper ''First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), p. 11. This statement must be qualified by saying that the only record of recounting the vision to a minister comes from Smith’s later writings, not from any contemporary record.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #Smith was still involved in the occult practice of looking into a peep-stone in order to find hidden treasure in 1825; there had been no reformation in his life at this point.&lt;ref&gt;''Tiffany’s Monthly'', NY (August 1859), pp. 165–65.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #In March 1826, Smith was arrested in Bainbridge, New York and charged with being “a disorderly person and an impostor” because of his occult practices in looking for buried treasure. There are official court records of his conviction.&lt;ref&gt;Marquardt and Walters, ''Inventing Mormonism'', p. 70.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #In 1828, Smith applied for membership in the Methodist Church. His wife Emma was already a member of the church; both circumstances cannot be reconciled with the warning he supposedly received from divine beings in 1820 that the creeds of all denominations were “an abomination” and he was not to join any of them. In response to Smith’s request for church membership, Emma’s cousin Joseph Lewis raised an objection to allowing Smith’s name to be added to the church rolls on the grounds of Smith’s dealing in magic, the occult, and money-digging:&lt;blockquote&gt;I [Joseph Lewis], with Joshua McKune, a local preacher at that time, I think in June, 1828, heard on Saturday, that Joe Smith had joined the church on Wednesday afternoon, (as it was customary in those days to have circuit preaching at my father’s house on week-day). '''We thought it was a disgrace to the church to have a practicing necromancer, a dealer in enchantments and bleeding ghosts, in it'''. So on Sunday we went to father’s, the place of meeting that day, and got there in season to see Smith and talked with him some time in father’s shop before the meeting. Told him that his occupation, habits, and moral character were at variance with the discipline, that his name would be a disgrace to the church, that there should have been recantation, confession and at least promised reformation—that he could that day publicly ask that his name be stricken from the class book, or stand an investigation. He chose the former, and did that very day make the request that his name be taken off the class book.&lt;ref&gt;''The Amboy Journal'', (June 11, 1879): p. 1; also ''Early Mormon Documents'', vol. 4, pp. 309–10, as cited in “The First Vision 200 Years Later,” p. 6.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> ==Various Versions of the First Vision==<br /> In 1965, Mormon scholar Paul Cheesman finished his Master’s thesis at Brigham Young University entitled ''An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith’s Early Visions''. This contained an account, written in 1832 in Joseph Smith’s handwriting, of the First Vision. The 1832 account had been suppressed for over 130 years because of its divergences from the official or canonical version, which was written six years later. The handwritten account contradicts the “canonical” account found in the ''Pearl of Great Price'' in giving the correct age of Joseph as 15. More seriously, in the 1832 account only Jesus was said to have appeared, but in later versions it was either angels or the Father and Son who appeared to Smith. <br /> Also disagreeing with the canonical narration of the vision, “Most of the accounts of the First Vision prior to 1875 described the appearance of either one or more angels, but rarely God and Jesus.”&lt;ref&gt; “The First Vision 200 Years Later,” p. 3.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp?lang=eng Account of First Vision] in ''Pearl of Great Price''.<br /> *[http://utlm.org/newsletters/pdfnewsletters/134saltlakecitymessenger.pdf “The First Vision 200 Years Later”] in ''Salt Lake City Messenger'' 134 (June 2020): 1–16.<br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:Mormon Prophets]]<br /> [[Category:Joseph Smith]]<br /> [[Category:LDS Church]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&diff=1726445 2021-01-25T18:43:28Z

<p>Latent: Added explanation of why Book of Mormon contradicts later Mormon practice of polygamy.</p> <hr /> <div>'''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ'''&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]; Title page since 1982: ''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.'' Original title page: ''The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of [[Mormon]] upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.''&lt;/ref&gt; is one of the four standard works, or scriptures, of the [[Mormons|Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]] ([[Mormon]]s). The other standard works are the [[Bible]], the [[Pearl of Great Price]], and the [[Doctrine and Covenants]].<br /> [[Image:Moroni gives Joseph the plates.jpg|thumb|100px|Moroni gives Joseph Smith the plates]]<br /> [[Image:Joseph Translating.jpg|thumb|100px|Joseph Smith Translating the Plates]]<br /> Mormons believe that [[Joseph Smith]], Jr. translated the Book of Mormon from a set of gold plates he received from an angel named Moroni&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/34-35#34 &quot;History of Joseph Smith,&quot;] History of the Church Vol. 1&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)<br /> &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” &lt;ref&gt;[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20july%201993.htm/a%20treasured%20testament.htm &quot;A Treasured Testament,&quot;] Ensign, July 1993, 61&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> <br /> The Book of Mormon tells the story of the descendents of a man named Lehi, who took his family from Jerusalem to the Americas. According to the book, Lehi's wicked sons, Laman and Lemual, turned against his righteous sons, Nephi and Sam, and were cursed with dark skin.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/Alma3.htm GospelDoctrine.com]&lt;/ref&gt; Mormons believe that descendents of Lehi were the ancestors of some Native Americans; these people are referred to as &quot;Lamanites&quot; in the Book of Mormon:&lt;ref&gt;[http://search.ldslibrary.com/125037 Elder Spencer W. Kimball of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]&lt;/ref&gt; A post-resurrection appearance in the New World by [[Jesus]] is also described in the Book of Mormon. <br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Nephi and Sam's descendents, the Nephites, eventually turned to wickedness and were destroyed by the more numerous Lamanites. One of the last Nephites, Moroni, buried the golden plates in what is now New York State to keep them from falling into the hands of the Lamanites and being destroyed.&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]&lt;/ref&gt; Three Nephites were blessed with eternal life and still wander the Earth today serving others.&lt;ref&gt;[http://deseretmail.com/mormon-life/curric/story?story_id=1580 &quot;Clyde J. Williams on the Three Nephites and the Doctrine of Translation,&quot;] Thoughts on Gospel Doctrine Lesson 42, Deseret Book.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> In 1982, the subtitle, &quot;Another Testament of Jesus Christ,&quot; was added to the title page.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/bookofmormon.htm A Short Introduction to the Book of Mormon]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Mormons and other Latter-Day Saints believe that the book is of ancient origin and that the personages and events described therein are factual. At the same time, Mormons deny that the book is to be considered inerrant. Critics assert that its contents have been changed a number of times by LDS authorities; Mormons reply that the changes are merely grammatical corrections.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Historicity==<br /> <br /> The Book of Mormon is widely criticized for the absence of evidence supporting it. The list of missing artifacts includes almost forty entire cities (all cities named therein), animals (such as horses and cattle), metals (iron and steel), evidence of wars (involving multiple thousands of deaths), weapons (including swords, spears and armor), machinery and other technology cited within it - spanning the many hundreds of years covered by the narrative. <br /> <br /> Because no such supporting evidence has been found, the LDS church takes no official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon.<br /> <br /> Artifacts of such a nature (found in the Americas) have been found to have been introduced into the areas in question by Europeans colonists much later than the timeframe claimed in the Book of Mormon. Mormon Apologists have worked to find counterarguments and responses to all of these claims.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Mormon]] apologists have responded by citing, for example, the first Book of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi) in which discoveries of place locations thought not to have existed prior to discovery are to be found. An instance of this concerns the alleged discovery of the place known as &quot;Nahom&quot; as mentioned here ([http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/16.34?lang=eng#33]), a burial place which was discovered and is said by Mormons to be referred to in no other text.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Nahom FAIR Wiki- Mormon Apologetic resource- Nahom]&lt;/ref&gt; Likewise Old world geography in the Book has been pinpointed by apologists.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Old_World]&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> Opponents have pointed to linguistic anachronisms in the text, such as it being written entirely in a Sixteenth-century King James style and its use of words such as French word &quot;adieu&quot;. Mormon apologists argue that they have found numerous Semetic linguistic and literary traits within it which make it appear authentic, such as the inclusion of Chaismus&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms/Chiasmus Chiasmus]&lt;/ref&gt; and numerous other Hebrew traits within the text&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Mormons do ultimately confess that the main evidence and support for the Book of Mormon does not center upon history or language but upon faith that it is a divinely inspired document. <br /> <br /> Mormon apologist Jeff Lindsay has compiled his own list Book of Mormon evidences.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Contents==<br /> The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ &lt;ref&gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents&lt;/ref&gt; is divided up into many sections or parts, including a [[Title Page (Book of Mormon)|Title Page]], [[Introduction (Book of Mormon)|Introduction]], [[The Testimony of Three Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Three Witnesses]], [[The Testimony of Eight Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Eight Witnesses]], the [[Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Book of Mormon)|Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith]], [[A Brief Explanation about The Book of Mormon]], and the following main parts or divisions commonly referred to as &quot;books,&quot; as in &quot;The Book of Moroni,&quot; followed by the common abbreviation in parentheses: <br /> *[[First Nephi]] (1 Ne.)<br /> *[[Second Nephi]] (2 Ne.)<br /> *[[Jacob (Book of Mormon)|Jacob]] (Jacob)<br /> *[[Enos (Book of Mormon)|Enos]] (Enos)<br /> *[[Jarom (Book of Mormon)|Jarom]] (Jarom)<br /> *[[Omni (Book of Mormon)|Omni]] (Omni)<br /> *[[Words of Mormon]] (W of M)<br /> *[[Mosiah (Book of Mormon)|Mosiah]] (Mosiah)<br /> *[[Alma (Book of Mormon)|Alma]] (Alma)<br /> *[[Helaman (Book of Mormon)|Helaman]] (Hel.)<br /> *[[Third Nephi]] (3 Ne.)<br /> *[[Fourth Nephi]] (4 Ne.)<br /> *[[Mormon (Book of Mormon)|Mormon]] (Morm.)<br /> *[[Ether (Book of Mormon)|Ether]] (Ether)<br /> *[[Moroni (Book of Mormon)|Moroni]] (Moro.).<br /> <br /> The first sentence of the Introduction is quite self-explanatory: &quot;The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> *[[Objects listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> *[[People listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> *[[Places listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> <br /> ==Other denominations==<br /> The Book of Mormon is accepted as Scripture by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and by other Latter-day Saints denominations, the largest of which, the [[Community of Christ]] (est. 1860), publishes its own versions of the Book of Mormon with different chapter and verse divisions and one with &quot;modernized&quot; language. Other Christian denominations, Catholic and Protestant, reject the Book of Mormon, considering it to be neither inspired nor ancient.<br /> <br /> == Polygamy ==<br /> The Book of Mormon forbids [[polygamy]] without exception. Later &quot;revelations&quot; to Joseph Smith about polygamy came after he was caught in the act of adultery. The Book of Mormon says the following concerning plural marriage:<br /> <br /> ''&quot;Wherefore, my bretheren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and [[concubine]]s he shall have none... For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.&quot;'' (Jacob 2:27,30).<br /> <br /> The alleged revelation that authorized the practice of polygamy among Latter-day Saints during the 19th Century is recorded in the [[Doctrine and Covenants]], section 132.<br /> <br /> ==Notes and references==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents The Book of Mormon] - An online edition<br /> *[http://www.moroni10.com/Book_of_Mormon_Logic.html The Logical Arguments of the Book of Mormon], Kelly Bingham, November 1, 1997<br /> <br /> [[Category:Book of Mormon]]<br /> [[Category:LDS Church]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&diff=1726444 2021-01-25T18:40:57Z

<p>Latent: Corrected a sentence which has no relevant citation and which is contradicted by the immediately following quote.</p> <hr /> <div>'''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ'''&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]; Title page since 1982: ''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.'' Original title page: ''The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of [[Mormon]] upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.''&lt;/ref&gt; is one of the four standard works, or scriptures, of the [[Mormons|Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]] ([[Mormon]]s). The other standard works are the [[Bible]], the [[Pearl of Great Price]], and the [[Doctrine and Covenants]].<br /> [[Image:Moroni gives Joseph the plates.jpg|thumb|100px|Moroni gives Joseph Smith the plates]]<br /> [[Image:Joseph Translating.jpg|thumb|100px|Joseph Smith Translating the Plates]]<br /> Mormons believe that [[Joseph Smith]], Jr. translated the Book of Mormon from a set of gold plates he received from an angel named Moroni&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/34-35#34 &quot;History of Joseph Smith,&quot;] History of the Church Vol. 1&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)<br /> &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” &lt;ref&gt;[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20july%201993.htm/a%20treasured%20testament.htm &quot;A Treasured Testament,&quot;] Ensign, July 1993, 61&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> <br /> The Book of Mormon tells the story of the descendents of a man named Lehi, who took his family from Jerusalem to the Americas. According to the book, Lehi's wicked sons, Laman and Lemual, turned against his righteous sons, Nephi and Sam, and were cursed with dark skin.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/Alma3.htm GospelDoctrine.com]&lt;/ref&gt; Mormons believe that descendents of Lehi were the ancestors of some Native Americans; these people are referred to as &quot;Lamanites&quot; in the Book of Mormon:&lt;ref&gt;[http://search.ldslibrary.com/125037 Elder Spencer W. Kimball of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]&lt;/ref&gt; A post-resurrection appearance in the New World by [[Jesus]] is also described in the Book of Mormon. <br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Nephi and Sam's descendents, the Nephites, eventually turned to wickedness and were destroyed by the more numerous Lamanites. One of the last Nephites, Moroni, buried the golden plates in what is now New York State to keep them from falling into the hands of the Lamanites and being destroyed.&lt;ref&gt;[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]&lt;/ref&gt; Three Nephites were blessed with eternal life and still wander the Earth today serving others.&lt;ref&gt;[http://deseretmail.com/mormon-life/curric/story?story_id=1580 &quot;Clyde J. Williams on the Three Nephites and the Doctrine of Translation,&quot;] Thoughts on Gospel Doctrine Lesson 42, Deseret Book.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> In 1982, the subtitle, &quot;Another Testament of Jesus Christ,&quot; was added to the title page.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/bookofmormon.htm A Short Introduction to the Book of Mormon]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Mormons and other Latter-Day Saints believe that the book is of ancient origin and that the personages and events described therein are factual. At the same time, Mormons deny that the book is to be considered inerrant. Critics assert that its contents have been changed a number of times by LDS authorities; Mormons reply that the changes are merely grammatical corrections.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Historicity==<br /> <br /> The Book of Mormon is widely criticized for the absence of evidence supporting it. The list of missing artifacts includes almost forty entire cities (all cities named therein), animals (such as horses and cattle), metals (iron and steel), evidence of wars (involving multiple thousands of deaths), weapons (including swords, spears and armor), machinery and other technology cited within it - spanning the many hundreds of years covered by the narrative. <br /> <br /> Because no such supporting evidence has been found, the LDS church takes no official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon.<br /> <br /> Artifacts of such a nature (found in the Americas) have been found to have been introduced into the areas in question by Europeans colonists much later than the timeframe claimed in the Book of Mormon. Mormon Apologists have worked to find counterarguments and responses to all of these claims.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Mormon]] apologists have responded by citing, for example, the first Book of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi) in which discoveries of place locations thought not to have existed prior to discovery are to be found. An instance of this concerns the alleged discovery of the place known as &quot;Nahom&quot; as mentioned here ([http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/16.34?lang=eng#33]), a burial place which was discovered and is said by Mormons to be referred to in no other text.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Nahom FAIR Wiki- Mormon Apologetic resource- Nahom]&lt;/ref&gt; Likewise Old world geography in the Book has been pinpointed by apologists.&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Old_World]&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> Opponents have pointed to linguistic anachronisms in the text, such as it being written entirely in a Sixteenth-century King James style and its use of words such as French word &quot;adieu&quot;. Mormon apologists argue that they have found numerous Semetic linguistic and literary traits within it which make it appear authentic, such as the inclusion of Chaismus&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms/Chiasmus Chiasmus]&lt;/ref&gt; and numerous other Hebrew traits within the text&lt;ref&gt;[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Mormons do ultimately confess that the main evidence and support for the Book of Mormon does not center upon history or language but upon faith that it is a divinely inspired document. <br /> <br /> Mormon apologist Jeff Lindsay has compiled his own list Book of Mormon evidences.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Contents==<br /> The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ &lt;ref&gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents&lt;/ref&gt; is divided up into many sections or parts, including a [[Title Page (Book of Mormon)|Title Page]], [[Introduction (Book of Mormon)|Introduction]], [[The Testimony of Three Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Three Witnesses]], [[The Testimony of Eight Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Eight Witnesses]], the [[Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Book of Mormon)|Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith]], [[A Brief Explanation about The Book of Mormon]], and the following main parts or divisions commonly referred to as &quot;books,&quot; as in &quot;The Book of Moroni,&quot; followed by the common abbreviation in parentheses: <br /> *[[First Nephi]] (1 Ne.)<br /> *[[Second Nephi]] (2 Ne.)<br /> *[[Jacob (Book of Mormon)|Jacob]] (Jacob)<br /> *[[Enos (Book of Mormon)|Enos]] (Enos)<br /> *[[Jarom (Book of Mormon)|Jarom]] (Jarom)<br /> *[[Omni (Book of Mormon)|Omni]] (Omni)<br /> *[[Words of Mormon]] (W of M)<br /> *[[Mosiah (Book of Mormon)|Mosiah]] (Mosiah)<br /> *[[Alma (Book of Mormon)|Alma]] (Alma)<br /> *[[Helaman (Book of Mormon)|Helaman]] (Hel.)<br /> *[[Third Nephi]] (3 Ne.)<br /> *[[Fourth Nephi]] (4 Ne.)<br /> *[[Mormon (Book of Mormon)|Mormon]] (Morm.)<br /> *[[Ether (Book of Mormon)|Ether]] (Ether)<br /> *[[Moroni (Book of Mormon)|Moroni]] (Moro.).<br /> <br /> The first sentence of the Introduction is quite self-explanatory: &quot;The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> *[[Objects listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> *[[People listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> *[[Places listed in the Book of Mormon]]<br /> <br /> ==Other denominations==<br /> The Book of Mormon is accepted as Scripture by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and by other Latter-day Saints denominations, the largest of which, the [[Community of Christ]] (est. 1860), publishes its own versions of the Book of Mormon with different chapter and verse divisions and one with &quot;modernized&quot; language. Other Christian denominations, Catholic and Protestant, reject the Book of Mormon, considering it to be neither inspired nor ancient.<br /> <br /> == Polygamy ==<br /> Although the Book of Mormon generally forbids [[polygamy]], it never allows for its practice. The Book of Mormon says the following concerning plural marriage:<br /> <br /> ''&quot;Wherefore, my bretheren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and [[concubine]]s he shall have none... For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.&quot;'' (Jacob 2:27,30).<br /> <br /> The alleged revelation that authorized the practice of polygamy among Latter-day Saints during the 19th Century is recorded in the [[Doctrine and Covenants]], section 132.<br /> <br /> ==Notes and references==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents The Book of Mormon] - An online edition<br /> *[http://www.moroni10.com/Book_of_Mormon_Logic.html The Logical Arguments of the Book of Mormon], Kelly Bingham, November 1, 1997<br /> <br /> [[Category:Book of Mormon]]<br /> [[Category:LDS Church]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gordon_Hinckley&diff=1726386 2021-01-25T08:22:25Z

<p>Latent: Corrected a misspelling (one word)</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Gordon Hinckley.jpg|thumb|Gordon B. Hinckley]]<br /> '''Gordon Bitner Hinckley''' (June 23, 1910 - January 27, 2008) was the 15th president of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] in [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]]. Hinckley served for over 12 years as President of the church, 14 years as counselor in the [[First Presidency]], and 20 years as a member of the [[Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]].<br /> <br /> On June 23, 2004, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President [[George W. Bush]] in the [[White House]]. The medal is the highest honor awarded to civilians. <br /> * &quot;Millions of Americans reserve a special respect for Gordon B. Hinckley, who still works every day as President of the Mormon Church, and who, on this very day, turns 94 years old. Mr. Hinckley is the grandson of Mormon pioneers and has given devoted service to his church since 1935. He's always shown the heart of a servant, and the gifts of a leader. Through his discipline and faithfulness, he has proven a worthy successor to the many fine leaders before him. His church has given him its highest position of trust, and today this wise and patriotic man receives his country's highest civil honor.&quot; [https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040623-8.html]<br /> <br /> ==Gordon Hinckley’s Part in Events Related to the Mark Hofmann Murder Case==<br /> <br /> In the period from January of 1984 until the resolution of the case in January of 1987, Gordon Hinckley, as a member of the Quorum of 12 Apostles, was a key person in events related to the murder of two LDS church members: LDS Bishop Steven Christensen and Kathleen Sheets, the wife of Christensen’s former employer, both of whom were killed by package bombs on October 15, 1985. Motive for the murders was to remove Christensen as a witness against forgeries perpetrated by Mark Hofmann, who eventually pleaded guilty in a plea bargain in order to avoid the death penalty. Besides being a member of the Quorum of 12 Apostles, Hinckley was in effect the leading officer of the church at this time because of the age of Ezra Taft Benson, nominally the First President. <br /> <br /> Bishop Christensen knew Hofmann well, and trusted him as an honest dealer in documents related to the founding years of the LDS movement. In January of 1984, Christensen had paid Hofmann $45,000 (some accounts say $40,000) for a document called the “Salamander Letter” that described the involvement of the founder of the LDS movement, [[Joseph Smith]], with occult practices. The document, which later proved to be a forgery, had Smith dealing with a “magic salamander” that appeared to him when he was trying to dig up the golden plates that were the source of the [[Book of Mormon]]. The purported author of the letter was Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses whose names and testimonies appear as a frontispiece in every Book of Mormon.&lt;ref&gt;Smith later denounced Harris, along with fellow witnesses Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, as characters “too mean to mention” (Joseph Smith in the official LDS publication ''History of the Church'', Vol. 3, p. 228). On the same page, Smith characterizes Whitmer as belonging to a gang of “counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs.”&lt;/ref&gt; Christensen had also purchased another letter that was presented as from the pen of Harris, although both it and the Salamander Letter were forgeries perpetrated by Hofmann. <br /> <br /> Hofmann had spent two years as an LDS missionary, but in later life he began to doubt the doctrines of the church, thinking they were based on deception from the very start of the career of Joseph Smith. In his disillusionment with the doctrines he had been taught from his youth, Hofmann recognized an opportunity to use his knowledge of early church history to extort money from the church leadership. He became an expert forger. Gordon Hinckley was one who was deceived by his expertise, paying $15,000 for a document that pretended to be from Joseph Smith.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no83.htm “Salt Lake City Messenger,” no. 83 (Nov. 1992), p. 3.&lt;/ref&gt; Having successfully sold these two, plus other forgeries, to the church,&lt;ref&gt;&quot;Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie proclaimed that church leaders did have the gift of discernment: &quot;...the gift of the discerning of spirits is poured out upon presiding officials in God's kingdom; they have it given to them to discern all gifts and all spirits, lest any come among the saints and practice deception...&quot;&quot; (Ibid., p. 12). Hinckley, in these matters that were of great importance to questions of the validity of the church’s claims about its origin, was deceived.&lt;/ref&gt; which had an interest in buying them so that embarrassing facts about the origins of the movement would not be known, Hofmann set his sights on a more lucrative project: claiming that he had found the lost “McLellin Collection.” This was a series of documents from William McLellin, one of the members of the very first “Quorum of the Twelve Apostles” whose faith in the church was shaken because of changes that were being made in doctrines that were supposedly revelations of God. It was also known among Mormon historians that McLellin claimed to have information on Joseph Smith’s adulterous relationship with young Fannie Alger, information that was given to McLellin by Smith’s wife Emma. For these reasons, the church leadership was anxious to make sure that Hofmann would not sell any such documents to anyone else but to the LDS church, so that the church could make sure they would never be exposed to public view. To accomplish this, the $185,000 was allocated to a faithful member who would handle the transaction without it appearing that the church was involved, after which the McLellin documents would safely disappear. <br /> <br /> Before the $185,000 would be handed over to Hofmann, it was deemed necessary to appoint someone to verify that the documents were authentic. The church leadership assigned that task to Steven Christensen. But then things began to get uncomfortable for Hofmann, who had not had time to produce the forged collection before the designated day to meet with Christensen. Further, Hofmann was concerned because Gerald Tanner, an ex-Mormon who had become a Christian, had somehow obtained a copy of the Salamander Letter that the church was trying to hide from public view. Tanner, after careful analysis, expressed the opinion that the Salamander Letter was a forgery, despite LDS church experts declaring it authentic. Hofmann’s solution to his dilemma was to murder Christensen on the day that Christensen was intending to get his first view of the Collection, and then to murder Christensen’s former business partner on the same day so that it would look like the murderer was somehow associated with the business dealings of these two men. The second bomb, however, killed the partner’s wife instead. The day after these murders, a third bomb went off, by accident, in Hofmann’s car so that, contrary to his plans, he became a suspect in the previous day’s murders. Gerald Tanner thought that this bomb was intended for him. <br /> <br /> Gordon Hinckley, as acting President, along with other top leadership of the LDS church, was directly involved in dealing with the FBI in their investigation of the murders. Although Hofmann was an early suspect because of the bomb that went off in his car, the investigators could not determine a motive that would be needed in order to make a good case against him. Despite the insights of Gerald Tanner, Hofmann’s expertise as a forger was not yet known. In the attempts to determine a motive, and to find more facts about the case, detective Jim Baker, a chief investigator of the murders, said of the “cooperation” he got from Hinckley and others in the LDS leadership: “They're hiding something; the church is doing everything it can to make this as difficult as possible. I've never seen anything like this in a homicide investigation.”&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no70.htm ''Salt Lake City Messenger'' 70 (January 1989), p. 12].&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> After Mark Hofmann confessed, there was considerable criticism of the church’s role in the events related to the murders and the apparent cover-ups by the church regarding its suppression of documents. In an attempt to counter this criticism, church leaders commissioned Richard E. Turley Jr., Managing Director of the LDS Church Historical Department, to write a book presenting the church’s side of the issue. When the book appeared in 1992,&lt;ref&gt;Richard E. Turley, Jr., ''Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case'' (Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1992).&lt;/ref&gt; it revealed a hitherto hidden fact that has been characterized as “one of the most embarrassing secrets that a Mormon historian has ever revealed.”&lt;ref&gt;''Salt Lake City Messenger'' 83, p. 2.&lt;/ref&gt; During the long course of the criminal investigations, someone discovered that an important part of the McLellin Collection was in the First Presidency’s vault, where it had been since 1908. This fact was not made public until Turley’s book was published six years after Hofmann confessed. If it had been made known earlier, before Hofmann was arrested, his arrest would have taken place immediately, since the presence of the Collection in the First Presidency’s vault would have shown that Hofmann did not have the collection, and hence was a forgerer and a liar. The motive for the murders would then have been established, namely to remove the pressure on Hofmann to produce the documents. As it was, when this piece of information was kept from the investigators and the public, it allowed a murderer, Mark Hofmann, free to roam the streets of Salt Lake City. <br /> <br /> Despite protestations by the church leadership of not being afraid of honest inquiry into the start of their religion, the McLellan Collection—information from an individual who was intimate with the earliest personalities and events of the church—is just as locked up today as it has been for over 100 years.<br /> <br /> In these many dealings associated with the Mark Hofmann affair, Gordon Hinckley displayed his adroitness in dealing with the FBI investigators and in obscuring facts in presentations to the public while guiding the church through very troubled waters.<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/leader-biographies/president-gordon-b-hinckley Biography on LDS.org]<br /> *[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/time-line-of-significant-events-as-president Time Line of Significant Events as President]<br /> *[http://www.rcyoung.org/LDS/webhofmann.htm Time Line of Significant Events in the Mark Hofmann Case]<br /> *[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/feature-story-president-gordon-b-hinckley Feature story — President Gordon B. Hinckley]<br /> *[http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no83.htm ''Salt Lake City Messenger,'' no. 83, on the handling of the Mark Hofmann case by LDS leadership.]<br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Hinckley, Gordon}}<br /> [[Category:Mormon Prophets]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gordon_Hinckley&diff=1726385 2021-01-25T08:15:28Z

<p>Latent: Added section on Gordon Hinkley's activities in the Mark Hofmann case</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Gordon Hinckley.jpg|thumb|Gordon B. Hinckley]]<br /> '''Gordon Bitner Hinckley''' (June 23, 1910 - January 27, 2008) was the 15th president of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] in [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]]. Hinckley served for over 12 years as President of the church, 14 years as counselor in the [[First Presidency]], and 20 years as a member of the [[Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]].<br /> <br /> On June 23, 2004, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President [[George W. Bush]] in the [[White House]]. The medal is the highest honor awarded to civilians. <br /> * &quot;Millions of Americans reserve a special respect for Gordon B. Hinckley, who still works every day as President of the Mormon Church, and who, on this very day, turns 94 years old. Mr. Hinckley is the grandson of Mormon pioneers and has given devoted service to his church since 1935. He's always shown the heart of a servant, and the gifts of a leader. Through his discipline and faithfulness, he has proven a worthy successor to the many fine leaders before him. His church has given him its highest position of trust, and today this wise and patriotic man receives his country's highest civil honor.&quot; [https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040623-8.html]<br /> <br /> ==Gordon Hinckley’s Part in Events Related to the Mark Hofmann Murder Case==<br /> <br /> In the period from January of 1984 until the resolution of the case in January of 1987, Gordon Hinckley, as a member of the Quorum of 12 Apostles, was a key person in events related to the murder of two LDS church members: LDS Bishop Steven Christensen and Kathleen Sheets, the wife of Christensen’s former employer, both of whom were killed by package bombs on October 15, 1985. Motive for the murders was to remove Christensen as a witness against forgeries perpetrated by Mark Hofmann, who eventually pleaded guilty in a plea bargain in order to avoid the death penalty. Besides being a member of the Quorum of 12 Apostles, Hinckley was in effect the leading officer of the church at this time because of the age of Ezra Taft Benson, nominally the First President. <br /> <br /> Bishop Christensen knew Hofmann well, and trusted him as an honest dealer in documents related to the founding years of the LDS movement. In January of 1984, Christensen had paid Hofmann $45,000 (some accounts say $40,000) for a document called the “Salamander Letter” that described the involvement of the founder of the LDS movement, [[Joseph Smith]], with occult practices. The document, which later proved to be a forgery, had Smith dealing with a “magic salamander” that appeared to him when he was trying to dig up the golden plates that were the source of the [[Book of Mormon]]. The purported author of the letter was Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses whose names and testimonies appear as a frontispiece in every Book of Mormon.&lt;ref&gt;Smith later denounced Harris, along with fellow witnesses Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, as characters “too mean to mention” (Joseph Smith in the official LDS publication ''History of the Church'', Vol. 3, p. 228). On the same page, Smith characterizes Whitmer as belonging to a gang of “counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs.”&lt;/ref&gt; Christensen had also purchased another letter that was presented as from the pen of Harris, although both it and the Salamander Letter were forgeries perpetrated by Hofmann. <br /> <br /> Hofmann had spent two years as an LDS missionary, but in later life he began to doubt the doctrines of the church, thinking they were based on deception from the very start of the career of Joseph Smith. In his disillusionment with the doctrines he had been taught from his youth, Hofmann recognized an opportunity to use his knowledge of early church history to extort money from the church leadership. He became an expert forger. Gordon Hinckley was one who was deceived by his expertise, paying $15,000 for a document that pretended to be from Joseph Smith.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no83.htm “Salt Lake City Messenger,” no. 83 (Nov. 1992), p. 3.&lt;/ref&gt; Having successfully sold these two, plus other forgeries, to the church,&lt;ref&gt;&quot;Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie proclaimed that church leaders did have the gift of discernment: &quot;...the gift of the discerning of spirits is poured out upon presiding officials in God's kingdom; they have it given to them to discern all gifts and all spirits, lest any come among the saints and practice deception...&quot;&quot; (Ibid., p. 12). Hinckley, in these matters that were of great importance to questions of the validity of the church’s claims about its origin, was deceived.&lt;/ref&gt; which had an interest in buying them so that embarrassing facts about the origins of the movement would not be known, Hofmann set his sights on a more lucrative project: claiming that he had found the lost “McLellin Collection.” This was a series of documents from William McLellin, one of the members of the very first “Quorum of the Twelve Apostles” whose faith in the church was shaken because of changes that were being made in doctrines that were supposedly revelations of God. It was also known among Mormon historians that McLellin claimed to have information on Joseph Smith’s adulterous relationship with young Fannie Alger, information that was given to McLellin by Smith’s wife Emma. For these reasons, the church leadership was anxious to make sure that Hofmann would not sell any such documents to anyone else but to the LDS church, so that the church could make sure they would never be exposed to public view. To accomplish this, the $185,000 was allocated to a faithful member who would handle the transaction without it appearing that the church was involved, after which the McLellin documents would safely disappear. <br /> <br /> Before the $185,000 would be handed over to Hofmann, it was deemed necessary to appoint someone to verify that the documents were authentic. The church leadership assigned that task to Steven Christensen. But then things began to get uncomfortable for Hofmann, who had not had time to produce the forged collection before the designated day to meet with Christensen. Further, Hofmann was concerned because Gerald Tanner, an ex-Mormon who had become a Christian, had somehow obtained a copy of the Salamander Letter that the church was trying to hide from public view. Tanner, after careful analysis, expressed the opinion that the Salamander Letter was a forgery, despite LDS church experts declaring it authentic. Hofmann’s solution to his dilemma was to murder Christensen on the day that Christensen was intending to get his first view of the Collection, and then to murder Christensen’s former business partner on the same day so that it would look like the murderer was somehow associated with the business dealings of these two men. The second bomb, however, killed the partner’s wife instead. The day after these murders, a third bomb went off, by accident, in Hofmann’s car so that, contrary to his plans, he became a suspect in the previous day’s murders. Gerald Tanner thought that this bomb was intended for him. <br /> <br /> Gordon Hinckley, as acting President, along with other top leadership of the LDS church, was directly involved in dealing with the FBI in their investigation of the murders. Although Hofmann was an early suspect because of the bomb that went off in his car, the investigators could not determine a motive that would be needed in order to make a good case against him. Despite the insights of Gerald Tanner, Hofmann’s expertise as a forger was not yet known. In the attempts to determine a motive, and to find more facts about the case, detective Jim Baker, a chief investigator of the murders, said of the “cooperation” he got from Hinckcley and others in the LDS leadership: “They're hiding something; the church is doing everything it can to make this as difficult as possible. I've never seen anything like this in a homicide investigation.”&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no70.htm ''Salt Lake City Messenger'' 70 (January 1989), p. 12].&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> After Mark Hofmann confessed, there was considerable criticism of the church’s role in the events related to the murders and the apparent cover-ups by the church regarding its suppression of documents. In an attempt to counter this criticism, church leaders commissioned Richard E. Turley Jr., Managing Director of the LDS Church Historical Department, to write a book presenting the church’s side of the issue. When the book appeared in 1992,&lt;ref&gt;Richard E. Turley, Jr., ''Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case'' (Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1992).&lt;/ref&gt; it revealed a hitherto hidden fact that has been characterized as “one of the most embarrassing secrets that a Mormon historian has ever revealed.”&lt;ref&gt;''Salt Lake City Messenger'' 83, p. 2.&lt;/ref&gt; During the long course of the criminal investigations, someone discovered that an important part of the McLellin Collection was in the First Presidency’s vault, where it had been since 1908. This fact was not made public until Turley’s book was published six years after Hofmann confessed. If it had been made known earlier, before Hofmann was arrested, his arrest would have taken place immediately, since the presence of the Collection in the First Presidency’s vault would have shown that Hofmann did not have the collection, and hence was a forgerer and a liar. The motive for the murders would then have been established, namely to remove the pressure on Hofmann to produce the documents. As it was, when this piece of information was kept from the investigators and the public, it allowed a murderer, Mark Hofmann, free to roam the streets of Salt Lake City. <br /> <br /> Despite protestations by the church leadership of not being afraid of honest inquiry into the start of their religion, the McLellan Collection—information from an individual who was intimate with the earliest personalities and events of the church—is just as locked up today as it has been for over 100 years.<br /> <br /> In these many dealings associated with the Mark Hofmann affair, Gordon Hinckley displayed his adroitness in dealing with the FBI investigators and in obscuring facts in presentations to the public while guiding the church through very troubled waters.<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/leader-biographies/president-gordon-b-hinckley Biography on LDS.org]<br /> *[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/time-line-of-significant-events-as-president Time Line of Significant Events as President]<br /> *[http://www.rcyoung.org/LDS/webhofmann.htm Time Line of Significant Events in the Mark Hofmann Case]<br /> *[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/feature-story-president-gordon-b-hinckley Feature story — President Gordon B. Hinckley]<br /> *[http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no83.htm ''Salt Lake City Messenger,'' no. 83, on the handling of the Mark Hofmann case by LDS leadership.]<br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Hinckley, Gordon}}<br /> [[Category:Mormon Prophets]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harran_Stela&diff=1726186 2021-01-24T17:35:14Z

<p>Latent: Added two page references</p> <hr /> <div>The '''Harran Stela''' is a cuneiform text that [[Nabonidus]], king of [[Babylonia]], commissioned in order to relate his restoration of the Ehulhul Temple of the moon-god Sin. There are two copies extant; probably many more copies were made, but after the fall of Babylon the Persians obliterated records like this that were favorable to Nabonidus, replacing them with texts such as the Nabonidus Chronicle the Dream Text of Nabonidus that pretended to be from Nabonidus, but were rewritten in such a way to disparage Nabonidus and glorify [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus]].&lt;ref&gt;Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'', 95,125.&lt;/ref&gt; The importance of the Stela therefore is that it narrates events from a perspective different from the Persian narrative of events related to the final years of the Neo-Babylonian kingdom.<br /> ==Background of the Stela==<br /> The Harran Stela was composed in the fourteenth or fifteenth year of [[Nabonidus|Nabonidus, King of Babylon]], i.e. 542 to 540 BC, commemorating his restoration of the temple at Ehulhul.&lt;ref&gt;Beaulieu, ''Reign of Nabonidus'', 32.&lt;/ref&gt; Nabonidus relates how hostile kings were trying to be reconciled with him. The kings are named as &quot;the king of Egypt, the Medes and the land of the Arabs, all the hostile kings&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 562b.&lt;/ref&gt; The significance of this lies in its date of composition, just one to three years before Nabonidus lost his kingdom to the Medes and Persians.&lt;ref&gt;Beaulieu, ''Reign of Nabonidus'', 143.&lt;/ref&gt; It was also some 13 or 14 years after Cyrus had supposedly subjugated the Medes and became ruler of the combined empire of the Persians and Medes in 559 B.C. according to Herodotus and the consensus of modern historians who follow him. Nabonidus, however, makes no mention of the Persians who soon would be the leaders of those who captured his capital. This is consistent with Xenophon’s picture of the Persians still being the subordinate partner in the Medo-Persian confederacy at the time, with Cyrus the junior sovereign under his uncle, Cyaxares II king of Media.&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' 3.3.24–25, 4.1.19–21, 8.5.17–19, esp. 19.&lt;/ref&gt; Nowhere in any surviving inscription is Cyrus called the king of Media, unless it is maintained that the present inscription is interpreted that way; this would be in contradiction to other sources where Cyrus is referred to &quot;king of Anshan&quot;, &quot;king of Persia&quot;, &quot;the great king&quot; and similar titles.&lt;ref&gt;It would be circular reasoning to say that the Harran Stela shows that Cyrus is called the King of the Medes because the Medes are listed on the Harran Stela as the enemy of the Babylonians.&lt;/ref&gt; The Harran Stela therefore is evidence that just shortly before the fall of Babylon the king of the Medes, whose name is not given, not only existed, but was considered a more important enemy of the Babylonians than Cyrus and the Persians. All this is consistent with Xenophon’s history of Cyrus in the ''Cyropaedia'', but in contradiction to the accounts in Herodotus, followed by many modern historians, which portray the Persians, with the Medes subjugated under them, as the dominant force challenging Nabonidus for several years before the capture of Babylon. <br /> ==Importance of the Stela==<br /> The Stela, coming as it does from a source independent of the Persian takeover of Babylon, and hence not influenced by the Persian view of history, is an important and independent witness bearing on the question of whether the Medes played an important, even dominant, role in the capture of Babylon in 539 BC. When the other cuneiform texts from the time or not long after, namely the Cyrus Cylinder, the Verse Account of Nabonidus, and the Dream Text of Nabonidus, were deciphered starting in the late 19th century, it became apparent that these texts omitted virtually all references to the Medes as responsible for the demise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. The general picture they presented, starting with the [[Cyrus Cylinder]], was that Cyrus, a Persian, was Marduk’s choice to take over the city rather peacefully, and with the approbation of the people in the city, because Nabonidus had forsaken the worship of Marduk.&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 315a–316b.&lt;/ref&gt; It was necessary in this propaganda to minimize the role of the Medes because, as the Harran Stela shows, the Medes were a primary hated enemy in the years immediately preceding the fall of Babylon. Therefore the Persian rewrite of history minimized and even omitted any mention of the Medes, contrary to the express statement of Nabonidus that he counted the Medes as a principal enemy in the years immediately preceding the end of his kingship. As king, he surely would have known who were his principal enemies, and the fact that he mentions the Medes, not the Persians, shows that at that time the Persians were still under the suzerainty of the Medes. This is in keeping with Xenophon’s portrayal of affairs in the ''Cyropaedia''. When the other cuneiform texts that presented the Persian rewrite were first deciphered, this was taken as “proof” that Xenophon’s portrayal of the situation was wrong and that of Herodotus (which followed the Persian narrative) was correct. Since the Persian narrative minimized or eliminated the role of the Medians in the fall of Babylon, it was also necessary to omit references to the king of the Medes who had authority over Cyrus when the troops of Cyrus took the city. This is similar to the omission of Belshazzar in the Persian propaganda texts, so that his name was lost for many centuries, skeptics of the Bible claiming there was no such person, until some texts were found with his name in the 1860s and later.<br /> ==More recent scholarship on the Persian cuneiform texts==<br /> Some recent scholarship has recognized the propagandistic nature of the cuneiform texts that originated in the time of Cyrus and his successors. Thus Steven Hirsch wrote: “The real Cyrus was a master of propaganda, as can be seen from the Cyrus Cylinder, the Babylonian verse chronicle of Nabonidus’ fall, and the stories of Cyrus’ merciful treatment of conquered kings, all no doubt propagated with Cyrus’ encouragement or active participation.”&lt;ref&gt;Steven W. Hirsch, ''The Friendship of the Barbarians: Xenophon and the Persian Empire'' (Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 1985), 177, n. 69.&lt;/ref&gt; Similarly, R. J. van der Spek: “Cyrus was very successful in his propaganda and modern historiography is still influenced by it.”&lt;ref&gt; R. J. van der Spek, “Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations” in ''Extraction &amp; Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper'' (eds. Michael Kozuh et al.; SAOC 68; Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 2014), 260.&lt;/ref&gt; That Cyrus was a master of propaganda should not be surprising to anyone reading the ''Cyropaedia'', where Xenophon portrays Cyrus’s father Cambyses advising his son that, if he is to succeed as a general and statesman, he “must be designing and cunning, wily and deceitful, a thief and a robber . . .” (1.6.27). <br /> <br /> Unfortunately, that deceit has worked only too well in expunging from history the part that the Medes, and their king [[Cyaxares II]], played in the campaigns that led to the fall of Babylon in 539 BC to the combined forces of the Medes, Persians, and their allies. For many years the propaganda caused Belshazzar, as portrayed in the Book of Daniel, to be considered unhistorical. Some modern scholars are now pointing out that apparently the same fate has happened to the last king of the Medians, Cyrus’s uncle known in Xenophon as Cyaxares II and in the book of Daniel as “Darius the Mede.”&lt;ref&gt;For a treatment of recent scholarship in this regard, as well as a survey of the many writers from Josephus, Jerome and later who identified “Darius the Mede” with Cyaxares II, see Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'', 4–5, 62 n.1, 63, 64, 72.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.academia.edu/22476645/Darius_the_Mede_A_Reappraisal]Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014). <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.<br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder.<br /> *J. B. Pritchard, ed., ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament'' (3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969).<br /> *[https://babylonian-collection.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/YNER%2010%20-%20Beaulieu%20-%20The%20Reign%20of%20Nabonidus%20King%20of%20Babylon%20556-549%20BC%20(1989).pdf] Paul-Alain Beaulieu, ''The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. '' (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1989).<br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:Ancient History]]<br /> [[Category:Babylon]]<br /> [[Category:Neo-Babylonian Empire]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harran_Stela&diff=1726185 2021-01-24T17:31:06Z

<p>Latent: Added categories</p> <hr /> <div>The '''Harran Stela''' is a cuneiform text that [[Nabonidus]], king of Babylonia, commissioned in order to relate his restoration of the Ehulhul Temple of the moon-god Sin. There are two copies extant; probably many more copies were made, but after the fall of Babylon the Persians obliterated records like this that were favorable to Nabonidus, replacing them with texts such as the Nabonidus Chronicle the Dream Text of Nabonidus that pretended to be from Nabonidus, but were rewritten in such a way to disparage Nabonidus and glorify Cyrus.&lt;ref&gt;Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'', 95,125.&lt;/ref&gt; The importance of the Stela therefore is that it narrates events from a perspective different from the Persian narrative of events related to the final years of the Neo-Babylonian kingdom.<br /> ==Background of the Stela==<br /> The Harran Stela was composed in the fourteenth or fifteenth year of [[Nabonidus|Nabonidus, King of Babylon]], i.e. 542 to 540 BC, commemorating his restoration of the temple at Ehulhul.&lt;ref&gt;Beaulieu, ''Reign of Nabonidus'', 32.&lt;/ref&gt; Nabonidus relates how hostile kings were trying to be reconciled with him. The kings are named as &quot;the king of Egypt, the Medes and the land of the Arabs, all the hostile kings&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 562b.&lt;/ref&gt; The significance of this lies in its date of composition, just one to three years before Nabonidus lost his kingdom to the Medes and Persians.&lt;ref&gt;Beaulieu, ''Reign of Nabonidus'', 143.&lt;/ref&gt; It was also some 13 or 14 years after Cyrus had supposedly subjugated the Medes and became ruler of the combined empire of the Persians and Medes in 559 B.C. according to Herodotus and the consensus of modern historians who follow him. Nabonidus, however, makes no mention of the Persians who soon would be the leaders of those who captured his capital. This is consistent with Xenophon’s picture of the Persians still being the subordinate partner in the Medo-Persian confederacy at the time, with Cyrus the junior sovereign under his uncle, Cyaxares II king of Media.&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' 3.3.24–25, 4.1.19–21, 8.5.17–19, esp. 19.&lt;/ref&gt; Nowhere in any surviving inscription is Cyrus called the king of Media, unless it is maintained that the present inscription is interpreted that way; this would be in contradiction to other sources where Cyrus is referred to &quot;king of Anshan&quot;, &quot;king of Persia&quot;, &quot;the great king&quot; and similar titles.&lt;ref&gt;It would be circular reasoning to say that the Harran Stela shows that Cyrus is called the King of the Medes because the Medes are listed on the Harran Stela as the enemy of the Babylonians.&lt;/ref&gt; The Harran Stela therefore is evidence that just shortly before the fall of Babylon the king of the Medes, whose name is not given, not only existed, but was considered a more important enemy of the Babylonians than Cyrus and the Persians. All this is consistent with Xenophon’s history of Cyrus in the ''Cyropaedia'', but in contradiction to the accounts in Herodotus, followed by many modern historians, which portray the Persians, with the Medes subjugated under them, as the dominant force challenging Nabonidus for several years before the capture of Babylon. <br /> ==Importance of the Stela==<br /> The Stela, coming as it does from a source independent of the Persian takeover of Babylon, and hence not influenced by the Persian view of history, is an important and independent witness bearing on the question of whether the Medes played an important, even dominant, role in the capture of Babylon in 539 BC. When the other cuneiform texts from the time or not long after, namely the Cyrus Cylinder, the Verse Account of Nabonidus, and the Dream Text of Nabonidus, were deciphered starting in the late 19th century, it became apparent that these texts omitted virtually all references to the Medes as responsible for the demise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. The general picture they presented, starting with the [[Cyrus Cylinder]], was that Cyrus, a Persian, was Marduk’s choice to take over the city rather peacefully, and with the approbation of the people in the city, because Nabonidus had forsaken the worship of Marduk.&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 315a–316b.&lt;/ref&gt; It was necessary in this propaganda to minimize the role of the Medes because, as the Harran Stela shows, the Medes were a primary hated enemy in the years immediately preceding the fall of Babylon. Therefore the Persian rewrite of history minimized and even omitted any mention of the Medes, contrary to the express statement of Nabonidus that he counted the Medes as a principal enemy in the years immediately preceding the end of his kingship. As king, he surely would have known who were his principal enemies, and the fact that he mentions the Medes, not the Persians, shows that at that time the Persians were still under the suzerainty of the Medes. This is in keeping with Xenophon’s portrayal of affairs in the ''Cyropaedia''. When the other cuneiform texts that presented the Persian rewrite were first deciphered, this was taken as “proof” that Xenophon’s portrayal of the situation was wrong and that of Herodotus (which followed the Persian narrative) was correct. Since the Persian narrative minimized or eliminated the role of the Medians in the fall of Babylon, it was also necessary to omit references to the king of the Medes who had authority over Cyrus when the troops of Cyrus took the city. This is similar to the omission of Belshazzar in the Persian propaganda texts, so that his name was lost for many centuries, skeptics of the Bible claiming there was no such person, until some texts were found with his name in the 1860s and later.<br /> ==More recent scholarship on the Persian cuneiform texts==<br /> Some recent scholarship has recognized the propagandistic nature of the cuneiform texts that originated in the time of Cyrus and his successors. Thus Steven Hirsch wrote: “The real Cyrus was a master of propaganda, as can be seen from the Cyrus Cylinder, the Babylonian verse chronicle of Nabonidus’ fall, and the stories of Cyrus’ merciful treatment of conquered kings, all no doubt propagated with Cyrus’ encouragement or active participation.”&lt;ref&gt;Steven W. Hirsch, ''The Friendship of the Barbarians: Xenophon and the Persian Empire'' (Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 1985), 177, n. 69.&lt;/ref&gt; Similarly, R. J. van der Spek: “Cyrus was very successful in his propaganda and modern historiography is still influenced by it.”&lt;ref&gt; R. J. van der Spek, “Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations” in ''Extraction &amp; Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper'' (eds. Michael Kozuh et al.; SAOC 68; Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 2014), 260.&lt;/ref&gt; That Cyrus was a master of propaganda should not be surprising to anyone reading the ''Cyropaedia'', where Xenophon portrays Cyrus’s father Cambyses advising his son that, if he is to succeed as a general and statesman, he “must be designing and cunning, wily and deceitful, a thief and a robber . . .” (1.6.27). <br /> <br /> Unfortunately, that deceit has worked only too well in expunging from history the part that the Medes, and their king [[Cyaxares II]], played in the campaigns that led to the fall of Babylon in 539 BC to the combined forces of the Medes, Persians, and their allies. For many years the propaganda caused Belshazzar, as portrayed in the Book of Daniel, to be considered unhistorical. Some modern scholars are now pointing out that apparently the same fate has happened to the last king of the Medians, Cyrus’s uncle known in Xenophon as Cyaxares II and in the book of Daniel as “Darius the Mede.”&lt;ref&gt;For a treatment of recent scholarship in this regard, as well as a survey of the many writers from Josephus, Jerome and later who identified “Darius the Mede” with Cyaxares II, see Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'', 4–5, 62 n.1, 63, 64, 72.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.academia.edu/22476645/Darius_the_Mede_A_Reappraisal]Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014). <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.<br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder.<br /> *J. B. Pritchard, ed., ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament'' (3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969).<br /> *[https://babylonian-collection.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/YNER%2010%20-%20Beaulieu%20-%20The%20Reign%20of%20Nabonidus%20King%20of%20Babylon%20556-549%20BC%20(1989).pdf] Paul-Alain Beaulieu, ''The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. '' (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1989).<br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:Ancient History]]<br /> [[Category:Babylon]]<br /> [[Category:Neo-Babylonian Empire]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Darius_the_Mede&diff=1725783 2021-01-23T01:40:31Z

<p>Latent: Added link to Nabonidus page</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;TABLE ΒORDER ALIGN=&quot;RIGHT&quot; WIDTH=&quot;250&quot; BORDER=&quot;2&quot; BGCOLOR=&quot;CYAN&quot; RULES=&quot;NONE&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD COLSPAN=&quot;2&quot; ALIGN=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;”Darius the Mede” (=Cyaxares II), last king of Media&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;predecessor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Astyages&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;reign&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;ca. 550 BC to Dec. 538 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;successor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;[[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus the Great]]&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;father&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Astyages&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;mother&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;birth&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;c. 601 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt; <br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;death&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;December, 538 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;spouse&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;/TABLE&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Darius the Mede''' is a character appearing thrice in the biblical [[Book of Daniel]]. Meanwhile the exact identity of ''Darius the Mede'' remains the subject of heated debate representing &quot;the last great hurdle to the contextually historical authenticity of book&quot;: leading skeptics to claim ''Darius the Mede'' is nothing more than an easily dismissed fictional character, while reversely the class of &quot;historical harmonizers&quot; suggesting that ''Darius the Mede'' is simply another name for an existing historical figure.<br /> <br /> This subject is further complicated by [[Josephus]] simply stating that Darius the Mede was the son of [[Astyages]] king of the Medes and that he was known to the Greeks by another name, without qualifying what that name was.<br /> <br /> Meanwhile the broadly used &quot;[[Herodotus|Father of History]]&quot; also oft called &quot;the Father of Lies&quot; in his dramatic recount, records that [[Astyages]] had no son, but rather tells how the kingdom passed directly to [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] by force of arms &lt;ref&gt;[[Herodotus]], ''Histories'' 1.109.3, 1.129.4&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> Thus [[Herodotus|Herodotus']] account stands in direct opposition to [[Josephus|Josephus']] statement and [[Xenophon|Xenophon's]] far more extensive and detailed book on the subject which extensively relates how [[Astyages|Astyages']] son was [[Cyaxares II]], which when combined with Josephus provides a natural solution on the subject.<br /> <br /> But with the only extant clay tablets, the [[Uruk King List]] and [[Ptolemy's Canon]] (of which, both of the latter are known not to be perfect) ''seeming'' to support the direct passage of power to [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus II]], the grounds for debate have been established. Meanwhile the most authoritative [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] of [[Darius I]] does reference &quot;Cyaxares&quot; twice, but it remains questionable if these refer to [[Astyages]] father [[Cyaxares I]] or son [[Cyaxares II]]. Therefore the academic community remains divided.<br /> <br /> It must also be noted that while a host of other individuals have been proposed for the identity of ''Darius the Mede'', the case for synergy with [[Cyaxares II]] remains the most historically plausible outcome.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Arguments for Fictional==<br /> It is sufficient to say on this subject that without a clear clay tablet on the subject, skeptics hold the character of [[Darius the Mede]] is either &quot;literary fiction, appropriate to the genre of a court contest tale&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Hill, Andrew, ''Expositor's Commentary'', Zondervan, 2009, p.114.[https://books.google.com.au/books?id=bCPBrAfBSdgC&amp;pg=PA114&amp;dq=expositor%27s+commentary+%22Generally+for+critical+commentators+the+character+is+simply+a+literary+fiction+appropriate+to+the+Genre+of+court-contest+tale%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi9q8_JwP_oAhWy7XMBHcSsCIoQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=expositor's%20commentary%20%22Generally%20for%20critical%20commentators%20the%20character%20is%20simply%20a%20literary%20fiction%20appropriate%20to%20the%20Genre%20of%20court-contest%20tale%22&amp;f=false]&lt;/ref&gt; or similarly a literary composite of several individuals as sumarized by Hill&lt;ref&gt;Hill, Andrew, ''Expositor's Commentary'', Zondervan, 2009, p.114.[https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/The_Expositor_s_Bible_Commentary/bCPBrAfBSdgC?q=expositor%27s+commentary+%22Generally+for+critical+commentators+the+character+is+simply+a+literary+fiction+appropriate+to+the+Genre+of+court-contest+tale%22&amp;gbpv=1#f=false]&lt;/ref&gt; and therefore the entire chapter as fiction. This as Barnes notes&lt;ref&gt;Barnes Commentary, ''Daniel 6:1, Section 2'' - &quot;Considerable importance is to be attached to the question who was Darius the Mede, as it has been made a ground of objection to the Scripture narrative, that no person by that name is mentioned in the Greek writers.&quot;<br /> [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; is generally presented as evidence that possibly the entire book is not considered to be of any historical value and is to be disqualified entirely.<br /> <br /> ==Arguments for Cyaxares II==<br /> In Xenophon's historical narrative, some time after the natural death of his grandfather [[Astyages]], [[Cyrus II the Great]], while still a youth and not yet king of Persia, entered into the employ of his uncle [[Cyaxares II]] as general of the army in a mutual defence pact against Assyria (Babylon). In this capacity [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] campaigns with [[Cyaxares II]] at the first and then by himself until his eventual conquest of [[Babylon]]. In this narrative, it must be noted that all conquests are officially in the name of the alliance which was ultimately at the expense and direction of the king of the Medes. After which [[Cyrus the Great]] returns to the capital city of [[Ecbatana]] in Media and presents [[Cyaxares II]] with a palace in Babylon as a token of victory and receives [[Cyaxares II]]'s daughter as his wife with the kingdom of Media as her dowry. Xenophon's account then details Cyrus' trip home to Persia where he receives the title of King upon the death of his father [[Cambyses I]].<br /> <br /> This position when combined with Josephs' assertion that [[Darius the Mede]] was the son of [[Astyages]] but known to the Greeks by another name, it makes it only natural to conclude that:<br /> * Darius the Mede is Cyaxares II.<br /> * &quot;Darius the Mede received (Aramaic: ''qabel'') the kingdom&quot; (Dan. 5:31) despite being actually conquered by Cyrus&quot; (Dan. 5:31) as <br /> * Cyrus at that point was simply heir of Persia and the greatly loved General of the Coalition Army.<br /> <br /> As discussed at the start, while the character of [[Cyaxares II]] is not generally accepted amidst the classical histories such as [[Herodotus]], the reconstructed fragments of [[Ctesias]], the [[Uruk King Lit]], the [[Ptolemy's Canon|Cannon of Ptolemy]]&lt;ref&gt;Ptolemy's ''Canon''[https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]&lt;/ref&gt; or even on a currently available clay tablet (other than two possible references in the [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]]), [[Cyaxares II]] presents the most natural solution to the problem and is the summary position of several Bible commentaries such as: ''Benson Commentary''&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 9:1 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 6:1[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 5:30-31 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/5.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; ''Barnes Notes''&lt;ref&gt;Barnes Notes, Daniel 9:1[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; &amp; the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentaries.<br /> <br /> Finally even [[Saint Jerome]] asserts that ''Darius the Mede'' is [[Cyaxares II]], son of [[Astyages]],&lt;ref&gt;Jerome, ''Commentariorum in Danielem libri III&lt;IV&gt;'', 820-21.&lt;/ref&gt; leaving Benson to conclude &quot;so that it appears to have been the generally received opinion in [[Saint Jerome|Jerome's]] time, as it probably was also in the time of Josephus, which was not more than five or six hundred years after [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]].&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Benson's Commentaries, Daniel 6:1 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore [[Alexander the Great|Alexander's]] known love and constant study of the [[Cyropaedia]] (and thereby [[Aristotle|Aristotle's]] recommendation) show peer acceptance of the identity of [[Cyaxares II]] by both academia and heads of state not 100-200 years from the events they record.<br /> <br /> ==Arguments for Other Identities==<br /> ===Darius the Mede as Astyages===<br /> At first glance, the identification of Daniel’s Darius as Astyages has some strong points in its favor. He was a Mede; further, a Median king. Xenophon, Herodotus, and Ctesias agree that he was the maternal grandfather of Cyrus the Great, which could explain the authority over Cyrus that is implicit in Darius the Mede’s command in Daniel 6:6–9 that could only have been exercised by the highest authority in the empire. This view was taken by some early Christian writers, and seems to have been last maintained by Bernard Alfrink in 1928.&lt;ref&gt;Bernard Alfrink, “Darius Medus,” ''Biblica'' 9 (1928): 316–40.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> This view runs into several difficulties. Xenophon stated that Astyages died several years before Cyrus began his multi-year campaign against the Babylonians. Neither Herodotus, who portrays Astyages as an enemy of Cyrus, nor the cuneiform inscriptions given any indication that Astyages was reinstalled as king after Cyrus (allegedly) deposed him. According to Herodotus, Astyages began his reign 64 years before the death of Cyrus in 530 BC.&lt;ref&gt;''Histories'' 1.130.1, 1.214.3).&lt;/ref&gt; If he was about 62 years old when Babylon was captured in 539 BC (Daniel 5:31), this would make him about seven years old when he became king in 594 according to Herodotus’s figures; becoming king at such an early age is unlikely. For these and other reasons such as its lack of attestation in any ancient source, identifying Darius the Mede as Astyages has few if any supporters at present.<br /> <br /> ===Darius as Gobryas/Gubaru, governor of the Gutians===<br /> Gubaru (Greek ''Gobryas'', as in Xenophon) was governor of the Gutians, whom some scholars suggest may be the ancestors of the modern Kurds.&lt;ref&gt;Jamie Stokes, ed., ''Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East'' (New York: Infobase, 2009), 380; Egon von Eickstedt, ''Türken, Kurden und Iraner seit dem Altertum'' (Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer, 1961) as reviewed by D. P. Erdbrink in ''Central Asiatic Journal'' 12:1 (1968): 64–65; Alexander Prokhorov, article “Guti” in ''Great Soviet Encyclopedia'' (31 vols.; New York: McMillan, 1973), 7:498.&lt;/ref&gt; According to Xenophon, Gobryas/Gubaru, along with Gadatas, was leader of the forces that captured Babylon,&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' 7.5.23–32.&lt;/ref&gt; a statement that finds verification in the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]].&lt;ref&gt;''ANET'', 306b.&lt;/ref&gt; The Chronicle also states that Cyrus appointed Gobryas as governor of the city, and then Gobryas installed sub-governors in Babylon. “This could explain why Daniel states that Darius “received the kingdom (6:1 [English Translations 5:31]) and “was made king” (9:1), according to this view, by Cyrus.”&lt;ref&gt;Andrew E. Steinmann, ''Daniel'' in the ''Concordia Commentary Series'' (St. Louis: Concordia, 2008), 291–92.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> This view was rather popular among conservative Bible commentators in the first three-quarters of the twentieth century. Its fall from popularity is explained by several points which mitigate against it. 1) Gobryas was not a Mede, whereas Daniel 9:1 says Darius was “of the seed of the Medes.” He was a Gutian, also called an Assyrian (=Babylonian) by Xenophon&lt;ref&gt;(''Cyropaedia'' 4.6.2)&lt;/ref&gt; because, until they joined Cyrus, Gutia was a Babylonian province. 2) According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, Gobryas died 25 days after the capture of Babylon,&lt;ref&gt;''ANET'', 306b.&lt;/ref&gt; which does not allow enough time to accommodate the various activities ascribed to him in Daniel chapter 6. 3) As governor (not king) under Cyrus, Gobryas would not have had the authority to issue a decree that no prayers were to be made to any other king or to any god except to him for 30 days.<br /> ===Darius as Ugbaru, Persian-appointed governor of Babylon===<br /> John Whitcomb advocated that Daniel’s Darius was not Gobryas (Gubaru), governor of the Gutians, but a certain Ugbaru, a governor of Babylon whose name is found in several cuneiform texts.&lt;ref&gt;John C. Whitcomb Jr., ''Darius the Mede'' (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1963).&lt;/ref&gt; However, this identification was abandoned after Lester Grabbe pointed out that Ugbaru did not become governor of Babylon until the fourth year of Cyrus, which does not fit the statements in Daniel that make Darius the king immediately after the capture of the city in 539 BC.&lt;ref&gt;Lester L. Grabbe, “Another Look at the ''Gestalt'' of Darius the Mede,” ''Catholic Bible Quarterly'' 50:2 (1988): 206–7.&lt;/ref&gt; Whitcomb’s identification is therefore now generally discredited.<br /> ===Darius as Cyrus===<br /> The view that “Darius” was just another name of Cyrus was advocated by D.J. Wiseman.&lt;ref&gt;Donald J. Wiseman, “The Last Days of Babylon,” ''Christianity Today'' 2/4 (November 25, 1957): 7–10.&lt;/ref&gt; To support this identification, Wiseman and those who have followed him have argued that Daniel 5:31 should be translated as “So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, ''that is'', in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” This contrasts with the usual translations which give “. . . in the reign of Darius, ''and'' in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” The difference centers on one word, the Aramaic (and Hebrew) conjunction ''waw'', (pronounced ''vav'' in modern Hebrew), which is usually translated “and.” Andrew Steinmann, who accepts Wiseman’s interpretation, points out the following Scriptures where the meaning “that is” must be taken for this conjunction: 1 Chronicles 5:26, Daniel 2:28, and Daniel 3:2.&lt;ref&gt;Steinmann, ''Daniel'', 293.&lt;/ref&gt; One advantage of Wiseman’s interpretation is that it is in harmony with the authority that Darius must have had in order to issue a decree that no one could pray to any other king or god except to him for 30 days (Daniel 6:6–9), necessarily implying that he was the highest authority in the empire at that time. Another advantage is that, with this interpretation, Darius the Mede has not “disappeared from history” outside of the book of Daniel and works depending on it; his personage is remembered in all the ancient literature referring to Cyrus the Great.<br /> <br /> The problems with this identification may be listed as follows. <br /> # Darius was of “the seed of the Medes” (Daniel 9:1), and he is also called a Median in 5:31 and 11:1. In contrast, Cyrus is called a Persian or king of the Persians in 6:28 and 10:1 and also 2 Chronicles 36:22, Ezra 1:1, and 4:5. Although Cyrus’s mother was Mandane, daughter of Astyages the king of the Medes, ethnicity in the ancient Near East was reckoned through the father’s line, not the mother’s. <br /> # The equation Cyrus=Darius makes it difficult to understand why the author of Daniel would repeatedly make distinctions between “Darius the Mede” and “Cyrus the Persian.” <br /> # In Cyrus’s inscriptions, and in other ancient references, Cyrus is never referred to as a Mede or as a king of the Medes; he is always “Cyrus the Persian,” “Cyrus King of Persia,” or “Cyrus King of Anshan” (a capital of Persia). <br /> # According to Xenophon,&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' 1.2.8, 9; 1.5.4.&lt;/ref&gt; Cyrus was about 27 years of age when he assumed the generalship of the combined Median and Persian armies in preparation for war with the Babylonians under their chosen general, Croesus of Lydia. This was apparently a year or two before the eventual defeat of Croesus and his forces in 547 BC, which would make Cyrus about 29 in 547 and about 37 when his forces captured Babylon in 539 BC. This is consistent with the “Dream Text” of [[Nabonidus]] that calls Cyrus a “young servant” of Marduk when he became leader of the Medes and Persians.&lt;ref&gt;Paul-Alain Beaulieu, ''The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C.'' (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 108.&lt;/ref&gt; Darius “the Mede”, however, was about 62 years of age in 539 BC (Daniel 5:31).<br /> ===Darius as Cambyses II, son and successor of Cyrus===<br /> This identification was proposed by the Anglican clergyman Charles Boutflower.&lt;ref&gt;Charles Boutflower, ''In and around the Book of Daniel'' (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1923; reprint; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), 142–45.&lt;/ref&gt; It was based in part on some cuneiform texts suggesting that Cambyses II may have been appointed coregent by his father soon after the capture of Babylon. He could therefore properly be called “king,” and might fill the role of the Darius who “received the kingdom” (Daniel 5:31). <br /> <br /> There are many problems with Boutflower’s view. 1) Although Cambyses’s grandmother and great-grandfather were Medes, Cambyses and Cyrus were always called Persians, not Medes. 2) Cambyses could not have issued the decree of Daniel 6:6–9 while his father Cyrus was still the supreme ruler. 3) Daniel’s Darius was about 62 years of age when Babylon fell to the combined forces under the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:31). In the section above, it was shown that Cyrus himself was only about 37 years of age at this time, and his son would naturally be several years younger. These objections show why Boutflower’s view has never found acceptance among other scholars.<br /> <br /> ==How Did Darius the Mede Disappear from History? Or Did He?==<br /> Typical of the skepticism that much of critical scholarship expresses towards Daniel’s “Darius the Mede” is the claim from John J. Collins: “No such person as Darius the Mede is known to have existed apart from the narration of Daniel . . . No such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history.”&lt;ref&gt;John J. Collins, ''Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 30, 33.&lt;/ref&gt; The latter statement is particularly interesting, because it implicitly denies that the Bible is a source of history. Similarly, Carol Newsom writes of “the wholly fictitious character of Darius the Mede,”&lt;ref&gt;Carol A. Newsom with Brennan W. Breed, ''Daniel: A Commentary'', Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 192.&lt;/ref&gt; and George Buchanan confidently declares, “Darius the Mede never existed.”&lt;ref&gt;George Wesley Buchanan, ''The Book of Daniel'', Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 30.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> Such dogmatic statements lose their force when it is realized that for over 1700 years, historians and biblical scholars found no problem in accepting that the name “Darius” used by Daniel was an alternate name or “throne name” for the [[Cyaxares II]] who plays a major role in Xenophon’s ''Cyropaedia''. It is well known that Near Eastern monarchs, when they took the throne, adopted a throne name in addition to their given name. Rüdiger Schmitt provides the given names of Achaemenid rulers who succeeded Cyrus II whose better-known throne names were Artaxerxes I, Darius II, Artaxerxes II, Artaxerxes III, and Darius III.&lt;ref&gt;Rüdiger Schmitt, “Achaemenid Throne-Names,” ''Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli'' 42 (1982): 83–86, 90.&lt;/ref&gt; It should be expected, then, that Cyaxares II would have another name besides the one name that is given to him by Xenophon. That this was the case is indicated by Josephus. When referring to the Darius of Daniel, Josephus wrote that this Darius (“Darius the Mede”) “was called by another name among the Greeks” (''Antiquities'' 10.248). In the same passage, Josephus says that Darius was a son of Astyages and a kinsman of Cyrus. Both of these statements show that Josephus was in agreement with Xenophon’s portraits of Astyages and Cyaxares II in the ''Cyropaedia'', where Cyaxares is presented as the son of Astyages and the maternal uncle of Cyrus. <br /> <br /> ===First refutation of idea that “Darius the Mede is not known to history”===<br /> This historical identification, that Daniel’s Darius was identical to Xenophon’s Cyaxares II, continued for many centuries after Josephus and was espoused by eminent Jewish and Christian scholars. Steven Anderson lists the following writers who accepted this identification: Jerome (3rd century AD), John Calvin (16th century), James Ussher (17th century), Charles Rollin and William Lowth (18th century), and in the 19th century Thomas Hartwell Horne, Wilhelm Gesenius, Humphrey Prideaux, E. W. Hengstenberg, C. F. Keil in the Keil and Delitzsch commentary, and Otto Zöckler in Lange’s Commentary.&lt;ref&gt;Anderson, ''Darius the Mede'', 3–5.&lt;/ref&gt; For these authors, the resemblance of Daniel’s Darius with Xenophon’s Cyaxares was so compelling that Keil wrote, “The account given by Xenophon regarding Cyaxares so fully agrees with the narrative of Daniel regarding Darius the Mede, that, as Hitzig confesses, “the identity of the two is beyond a doubt.””&lt;ref&gt;C. F. Keil, ''Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel'', in ''Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament'' (trans. M. G. Easton; Edinburgh: T. &amp; T. Clark, 1872; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 198.&lt;/ref&gt; A discussion of why this position, held for many centuries by such a distinguished list of authors, fell into disfavor beginning in the late 19th century is presented on the [[Cyaxares II]] page. For now, the relevant point is that, contrary to the statement of Collins, once the traditional view is taken that Daniel’s Darius = Xenophon’s Cyaxares, it is by no means true that “No such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history.” <br /> ===Second refutation of the idea that “Darius the Mede is not known to history.”===<br /> Three of the great conservative commentators of the 19th century, Hengstenberg, Keil (''Keil and Delitzsch commentary''), and Zöckler (''Lange’s Commentary''), cited references to a king Darius who was preceded Darius I Hystapses (522–486 BC).&lt;ref&gt;[https://archive.org/stream/dissertationsongendan00heng]E. W. Hengstenberg, ''Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel and the Integrity of Zechariah'' (tr. B. P. Pratten; Edingburgh: T &amp; T Clark, 1848), 41–42.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Keil, ''Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel'', 199–200.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Otto Zöckler, ''The Book of the Prophet Daniel: Theologically and Homiletically Expounded'' (tr. &amp; ed. James Strong; vol. 13 of ''Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical'', ed. John Peter Lange and Philip Schaff (New York: Scribner, Armstrong &amp; Co., 1876), 36.&lt;/ref&gt; These authors cite references in two early authors, Berossus (3rd century BC) and Harpocration (2nd century AD) for evidence of this King Darius who was earlier than Darius I. The Berossus passage is preserved in Josephus (''Against Apion'' 1.153) and in the ''Chronicle'' of Eusebius, a work that survives only in an Armenian translation. Josephus/Berossus relates the defeat of Nabonidus by Cyrus, after which Nabonidus “was humanely treated by Cyrus, who dismissed him from Babylonia, but gave him Carmania for his residence.” The extract from Eusebius agrees with Josephus’s citation, but adds to it: “(But) Darius the king took away some of his province for himself.”&lt;ref&gt; Josef Karst, ed., ''Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Commentar'', vol. 5 of ''Eusebius Werke'' (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911), 246.&lt;/ref&gt; This is referring to the time of the defeat of Nabonidus (539 BC), not the time of the later Darius I Hystapses. If this earlier Darius was able to override the disposition of Cyrus for Nabonidus, it means that he had a higher authority than Cyrus, which is compatible with Xenophon’s portrayal of Cyrus being under the suzerainty of Cyaxares until the death of the latter. It is also compatible with the “Darius the Mede” of Daniel, who had authority to issue an edict that no one could pray to any other god or king but to him for thirty days, an edict that could not have been issued if there was an authority higher than him in the realm (Daniel 6:7-9). Notice that the events of Daniel 6 take place after the forces under Cyrus captured Babylon; Cyrus was still alive, but at this point he was not yet the supreme authority in the empire.<br /> <br /> [[Harpocration]] was associated with [[Library of Alexandria|the great library in Alexandria]], and so he had access to many ancient works that were lost when the library was burned. In his work ''The Lexicon of the Ten Orators'', under the entry “Daric,” (being a coinage) [[Harpocration]] wrote, “But darics are not named, as most suppose, after [[Darius I|Darius]] [i.e. Darius I Hystapses, 522-486 BC] the father of [[Xerxes I the Great|Xerxes]], but after a certain other more ancient king.” This is thus a second historical reference to the existence of an earlier Darius, who must have been the supreme authority in his time, since he had authority to issue coinage in his name. These two references from ancient authors of this earlier king Darius can be taken as independent of the remembrance of [[Cyaxares II]] in [[Xenophon]], although the force of evidence implies that [[Xenophon|Xenophon’s]] [[Cyaxares II|Cyaxares]] was the same person as this “earlier” Darius, and both were the personage identified as “Darius the Mede” in the book of Daniel.<br /> <br /> ==In Daniel 5==<br /> Herein [[Darius the Mede]] seizes the kingdom and rules as king at the fall of Babylon. This narrative has historically presented problems for Biblical scholars as it is an undisputed historical fact that Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon. While many positions exist on the subject, we shall examine each below in separate sections.<br /> ==In Daniel 10 through 11==<br /> ==External Links==<br /> https://www.bitchute.com/video/r9npZoqtD4HA/<br /> ==Resources==<br /> *J. B. Pritchard, ed., ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament'' (3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969). Abbreviated ''ANET''.<br /> *[https://www.academia.edu/22476645/Darius_the_Mede_A_Reappraisal]Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014). <br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder. <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.<br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]The Nabonidus Chronicle.<br /> ==References==</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Cyaxares_II&diff=1725716 2021-01-22T23:49:23Z

<p>Latent: Added link to Nabonidus page</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;FONT SIZE=&quot;2&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TABLE ΒORDER ALIGN=&quot;RIGHT&quot; WIDTH=&quot;250&quot; BORDER=&quot;2&quot; BGCOLOR=&quot;CYAN&quot; RULES=&quot;NONE&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD COLSPAN=&quot;2&quot; ALIGN=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;&lt;FONT SIZE=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Cyaxares II,&lt;br&gt;King of Media&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;predecessor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;[[Astyages]]&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;successor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;[[Cyrus II the Great]]&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;birth&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;death&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Dec. 538 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;spouse &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;father&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Astyages&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;mother&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;/TABLE&gt;<br /> &lt;/FONT&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Cyaxares II''', is the alleged son and successor of the legendary [[Astyages]], King of the [[Medes]] in [[Ecbatana]] who reigned from 561 to 536 BC according to Barnes’ Notes,&lt;ref&gt;Barnes' Notes on the Bible, Daniel 9:1.[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; but for whom a better ending date might be late 538 BC (see below). The generally accepted narrative is that the throne passed straight from [[Astyages]] to [[Cyrus the Great]].<br /> <br /> == Original Sources ==<br /> The son of [[Astyages]], [[Cyaxares II]] (not to be confused with [[Cyaxares I]], father of [[Astyages]]) does not ''specifically'' exist in any surviving or currently available extant cuniform tablets or the likes; but he does possibly exist with a potential dual reference in the absolutely monumental [[bas-relief]] [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] (''see below'').<br /> <br /> Meanwhile the strongest ''specific'' literary evidence for his existence lies within the pages [[Xenophon|Xenohon's]] crowning work, the ''[[Cyropaedia]]'', who as a Greek military commander served in [[Cyrus the Younger|Cyrus']] army. This work was so highly prized by [[Alexander the Great]], that he made it his perpetual study&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, 'Cyropaedia'', Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK&lt;/ref&gt;; by extension it was obviously also recommended to him by his mentor and tutor [[Aristotle]]&lt;ref&gt;[[Quintus Curtius Rufus]], History of Alexander, 1.9&lt;/ref&gt;. Likewise did [[Julius Caesar]]&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, 'Cyropaedia'', Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK&lt;/ref&gt;. Meanwhile [[Scipio Africanus]] is reported to have carried it with him everywhere&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, 'Cyropaedia'', Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK&lt;/ref&gt;. This combined with a possible identity match with [[Josephus|Josephus']] [[Darius the Mede|Darius, King of Media]]&lt;ref&gt;Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'', 10.11.2.[https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-10.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;, &quot;the son of Astyages, [who] had another name among the Greeks&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'', 10.11.4.[https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-10.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; creates a good case. Compoundingly, two of the rebels listed in [[Darius I|Darius I's]] [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] claimed &quot;to be of the family of Cyaxares&quot;: which has naturally created debate if these are references to [[Cyaxares I]] or to the possible [[Cyaxares II]]. Finally those who accept the [[Book of Daniel]] to be true, note that it was [[Darius the Mede]] who officially seized the kingdom&lt;ref&gt;Daniel 5:31&lt;/ref&gt;, which happily correlates all three of these literary sources to their reasoning.<br /> <br /> Alternatively, [[Cyaxares II]] does not appear in [[Ptolemy's Canon]]&lt;ref&gt;Livius, Ptolemy's ''Canon''. [https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]&lt;/ref&gt; or the [[Uruk King List]]&lt;ref&gt;Livius, Uruk King List.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/uruk-king-list/]&lt;/ref&gt;. But neither of these feature [[Belshazzar]] who became effective king of Babylon after his father [[Nabonidas]] capture now confirmed to us by the Nabonidus Cylinder (from Ur)&lt;ref&gt;Livius, ''Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur''.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/nabonidus-cylinder-from-ur/]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Livius, ''ABC 7 (Nabonidus Chronicle)'', Column iii.16.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]&lt;/ref&gt;. Similarly [[Ptolemy's Canon|Ptolemy]] does not list [[Nerglissar|Nerglissar's]] son [[Labasi-Marduk]] while the [[Uruk King List|Uruk]] does.<br /> <br /> Meanwhile [[Cyaxares II]] existence is further called into question when the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] openly states that: 1. [[Cyrus|Cyrus the Great]] attacked [[Astyages]] and that the army betrayed [[Astyages]]&lt;ref&gt;Livius, ''ABC 7 (Nabonidus Chronicle)'', Column ii. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]&lt;/ref&gt; thereby 2. denying [[Astyages]] throne passed to [[Cyaxares II]] at all. This account is in harmony with Herodotus' narrative which may be derived from the [[Nabonidus Chronicle|Chronicle]] or another common source.<br /> <br /> Clearly, legitimate debate over these sources does exist. Therefore in the following sections we shall examine these sources in more detail.<br /> <br /> === In the works of Xenophon ===<br /> According to [[Xenophon]], ''Cyaxares II'' ruled as king after the natural death of [[Astyages]] and sought to defended [[Medes|Media]] from Assyrian/[[Babylonia|Babylonian]] aggression, promoting his yet unascended nephew [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus]] as General/leader of the allied forces. Furthermore, [[Xenophon]] in great detail records the history of [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus']] pre-emptive strike and campaigns with ''Cyaxares II'', the first battle of which the king of Babylon (probably [[Neriglissar]]) was decisively defeated and slain. During the plunder of this battle [[Cyaxares II]] and [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] were separated and Cyrus continued to campaign alone with [[Cyaxares II]] eventually returning to [[Ecbatana]]. The volume records how Cyrus fused the alliance of nations under his banner until after several years Cyrus stands at the very gates of [[Babylon]] itself. [[Xenophon]] then very significantly records how after the conquest of [[Babylon]], [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] travelled to [[Ecbatana]] wherein he met [[Cyaxares II]], gifting him a palace in Babylon and accepted the hand of his daughter with the Kingdom of Media as her dowry. [[Xenophon]] then records how [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] travelled to Persia after the death of his father [[Cambyses I]] to receive his father's office.<br /> <br /> This record stands in direct contrast regarding the existence of [[Cyaxares II]] with the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]]&lt;ref&gt;''Nabonidus Chronicle'', ''Column ii.1-4'', [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]&lt;/ref&gt;, [[Herodotus]] and [[Ctesias]] accounts, [[Ptolemy's Canon]]&lt;ref&gt;Ptolemy's Canon, [https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]&lt;/ref&gt; and the [[Uruk King List]]&lt;ref&gt;Uruk King List.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/uruk-king-list/]&lt;/ref&gt; on the one side. But on the other, it alone offers a satisfactory reason as to why the authoritative [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] twice has rebels claiming to be &quot;of the family of Cyaxares&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], Behistun Inscription, Rebellion of Phraortes.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-13/]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], Behistun Inscription, Rebellion of Tritantaechmes. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-21/]&lt;/ref&gt; and not &quot;of the family of Astyages&quot; (being the last monarch of Media if the likes of the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] are true); while it must also be noted that if these rebels were referring to [[Astyages]] father [[Cyaxares I]], then claims to the throne that are over a hundred years old does not make for a strong case! It must also be noted that this inscription is the dictate of [[Darius I]] himself, who in turn is the son of one [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus']] right hand men who lived these events. Now when one considers the [[Book of Daniel|Book of Daniel's]] claim that Darius the Mede &quot;received the kingdom&quot; (rather than the Cyrus) despite known physical history, this claim is harmonized when [[Josephus]] records that &quot;Darius the Mede&quot; &quot;was the son of Astyages&quot; but &quot;known to the Greeks by another name&quot;.<br /> <br /> Herein, historians are forced to make a choice between the account of [[Xenophon|Xenophon's]] ''[[Cyropaedia]]'', backed by the immensely authoritative [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]], or these contrary works.<br /> <br /> === In the works of Josephus ===<br /> Josephus does not use the title of &quot;''Cyaxares''&quot;, but rather names [[Darius the Mede]] as the son of [[Astyages]], simply acknowledging that [[Darius the Mede]] is known by another name among the Greeks. Considering the possible candidates at the time, this has led many to comment on this convergence and conclude that Josephus' [[Darius the Mede]], son of [[Astyages]] is [[Cyaxares II]].<br /> <br /> === In the Behistun Inscription ===<br /> The [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] details the nine self-proclaimed kings who rebelled in [[Darius I|Darius Hystspes']] first year of power whom he subdued. Two of those rebels claimed to be &quot;of the family Cyaxares&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-13/]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-21/]&lt;/ref&gt;, of whom the former claimed a false identity while the later may well have been legitimate (but a rebel none the less). Regardless, this gives rise to the debate if they are referring to [[Cyaxares I]], father of [[Astyages]] or to [[Astyages|Astyages']] possible son and successor [[Cyaxares II]].<br /> <br /> It must be noted that [[Phraortes]] claimed &quot;I am Khshathrita, of the family of Cyaxares&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-13/]&lt;/ref&gt;as did [[Tritantaechmes]]&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-21/]&lt;/ref&gt; claimed to be of &quot;Cyaxares&quot;: if they refer to [[Cyaxares I]] over a hundred years prior, then their legitimate claim to the throne would be extremely small, if they refer to a potential [[Cyaxares II]] two generations later, then a much more legitimate claim could be substantiated.<br /> <br /> ==When did Cyaxares II die?==<br /> Since Cyaxares II does not appear in official records that were compiled after his death, and which official records were used by later sources such as Ptolemy’s ''Canon'' in setting forth the sequence of kings, there are no known direct sources that can be used to specify exactly the years of his reign (assuming that he really did reign as king of Media as Xenophon relates). There are, however, some sources from which estimates can be made of the time of his death. The first of these is the statement in the ''Cyropaedia'' (8.6.22) that, after the capture of Babylon, Cyrus shared his time between three capitals: Babylon, Susa the capital of Persia, and Ecbatana the capital of Media. ''Cyropaedia'' 8.7.1 says that his last trip to Persia was in the seventh year of his reign. Cyrus died in August of 530 BC&lt;ref&gt;Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, ''Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A. D. 75'' (Providence: Brown Univ. Press, 1956), 14).&lt;/ref&gt;, implying that, in the source used by Xenophon, his full reign began in about 537 BC. He would only be reckoning Ecbatana, traditional capital of the Medians, as one of his capitals after the death of Cyaxares. This information from the ''Cyropaedia'' therefore suggests that in the period from 539 to late 538 or early 537 BC, Cyaxares was still alive and reigning.<br /> <br /> Another means of estimating the time that Cyaxares was still alive and ruling after the capture of Babylon comes from contract texts. William Shea did an extensive study of Babylonian contract texts which dated the contract to a year of Cyrus.&lt;ref&gt;William H. Shea, “An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period II,” ''Andrews University Seminary Studies'' 9 (1997): 99–128.&lt;/ref&gt; He examined several texts that named the reigning king as Cyrus, the first of which was dated to the 23rd day of the seventh month (Tishri) of the “accession year” of Cyrus, that is the year in which he was recognized as king in Babylon. This agrees with the statement in the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] that Cyrus defeated the army of [[Nabonidus]] in the seventh month, causing the Babylonians to revolt (possibly Persian propaganda) and Nabonidus to flee. Shea found three texts dated to this seventh month of Cyrus’s accession year. In all of them Cyrus was called “King of Lands” and also “King of Babylon.” This is followed by 29 contract texts dating from the eighth month of Cyrus’s accession year to the ninth month of his year one (Kislev, Nov/Dec 538 BC) the title “King of Lands” is retained, but the title “King of Babylon” is dropped for Cyrus, returning in contract texts dated to the tenth month, year one (December 538/January 537 BC). Shea surmised that the reason for the puzzling omission of “King of Babylon” as a titulary for Cyrus for 14 months was because someone else was honored with that title during this time, and he conjectured that that person was Gubaru, leader of the Gutians (Xenophon’s Gobryas), an identification that is not feasible, because, among other reasons, the Nabonidus Chronicle relates that Gubaru died only 25 days after the conquest of Babylon. If, however, Cyrus let it be known that the people should give Cyaxares the title “King of Babylon” in deference to his uncle (a deference that appears at critical places in the ''Cyropaedia''), then this information could be used to date the death of Cyaxares to the time when the title “King of Babylon” reverted back to Cyrus, i.e. to some time just before year one of Cyrus, month ten, day 16 (December 23, 538 BC), the earliest date after the 13-month hiatus in giving this title to Cyrus. This would place the death of Cyaxares just shortly before that time, i.e. probably sometime in December, 538, in good agreement with Xenophon’s statement that Cyrus made use of all three capitals, including Ecbatana, in the last seven years of his reign, 537 to 530 BC. This date for the death of Cyaxares is in agreement with the book of Daniel, where the references to “Darius the Mede” in Daniel 5:31, 6:28, 9:1, 10:1, and 11:1 imply that his length of reign in Babylon was not long before he was superseded by Cyrus. <br /> ==Similarities between Xenophon’s Cyaxares II and Daniel’s Darius the Mede==<br /> * Both were kings of Media in the sixth century BC.<br /> * Both were contemporaries of Cyrus, king of Persia.<br /> * Both were the highest rulers in the empire, having authority over Cyrus right after the fall of Babylon in 539 BC (''Cyropaedia'' 8.5.17, 20; Daniel 6:6–9). <br /> * Both were given to fits of immoderate anger (''Cyropaedia'' 4.5.9: Cyaxares had a “reputation for being violent and unreasonable”; Daniel 6:24: families of plotters against Daniel were thrown to the lions, not just the plotters). <br /> * Both were vainglorious, i.e. the praise and adulation of the people were so important to them that they took actions to receive that praise that were not in their best interests (''Cyropaedia'' 4.5.51–53, 5.5.1–2, 38–40; 8.5.17; Daniel 6:6–9). <br /> [[File:Medo-Persia - Achaemid Family Tree - inc Otanes &amp; Cyaxares II.PNG | 700px | thumb | center | The Achaemid Family Tree showing the merging of the royal houses of the Medes and the Persians to create the Medo-Persian Empire.]]<br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.academia.edu/22476645/Darius_the_Mede_A_Reappraisal]Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014). <br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder. <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.<br /> == References ==<br /> [[Category:Ancient History]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Cyrus_II_the_Great&diff=1725715 2021-01-22T23:46:38Z

<p>Latent: Linked to Nabonidus page</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;FONT SIZE=&quot;2&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TABLE ΒORDER ALIGN=&quot;RIGHT&quot; WIDTH=&quot;250&quot; BORDER=&quot;2&quot; BGCOLOR=&quot;CYAN&quot; RULES=&quot;NONE&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD COLSPAN=&quot;2&quot;&gt;[[image:Cyrus portrait.jpg | thumb | center]]&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD COLSPAN=&quot;2&quot; ALIGN=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;&lt;FONT SIZE=&quot;3&quot;&gt;[[Cyrus II the Great]]&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;predecessor (Persia)&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;[[Cambyses I]]&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;predecessor (Medo-Persia)&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;[[Cyaxares II]]&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;successor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;[[Cambyses II]]&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;birth&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;ca. 576 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;death&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;530 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;spouse #1&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;[[Cassandane]] (died Feb/Mar 539 BC)&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;spouse #2&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Unnamed daughter of [[Cyaxares II]]&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;father&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;[[Cambyses I]]&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;mother&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;[[Mandane]], daughter of [[Astyages]]&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;/TABLE&gt;<br /> &lt;/FONT&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Cyrus II''' (also called '''Cyrus the Great''') (576–530 BC) was the Emperor of the [[Persian Empire]]. He is famous for conquering [[Babylon]] and letting the [[Jew]]s go back to [[Israel]].&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> At its greatest extent, the Achaemenid Persian Empire was the largest ancient empire, spanning three continents: [[Europe]], [[Asia]], and [[Africa]]. The empire included modern-day [[Iran]], [[Iraq]], [[Jordan]], [[Israel]], [[Syria]], [[Lebanon]], [[Turkey]], [[Egypt]] [[Afghanistan]], [[Pakistan]], [[Libya]], and northern [[Saudi Arabia]].<br /> <br /> =General History=<br /> Unfortunately the history of Cyrus the Great has not only had to stand the test of time, but also the essentially biased religious debates and onslaught of the literary genre of historical fiction. Yet the undeniable fact is that people tend to choose the history that best fits their narrative in both the academic world and in the lives of private individuals.<br /> <br /> Therefore in the below section ''Original Sources'' we shall try to provide some overview as an aid to the reader.<br /> <br /> ==Original Sources==<br /> Below we shall examine synopsis of the life of Cyrus the Great by examining each the original sources<br /> <br /> ===Herodotus===<br /> Herodotus’s relates that Cyrus’s grandfather Astyages, king of Media, was warned in dreams that his daughter Mandane would give birth to a child who would eventually usurp his throne. In order to prevent this, Astyages had Mandane marry a Persian commoner named Cambyses so the child would not be part of his royal house. Then, when his daughter was about to bear her son, Astyages commissioned one of his servants to go to Mandane in Persia and slay the child. The servant was unwilling to kill the child himself, and so committed the task to a certain herdsman. The herdsman’s wife was about to give birth, and when she did so the child was stillborn. The couple buried the stillborn child and pretended they had carried out their commission, thereafter raising Cyrus themselves.&lt;ref&gt;''Histories'' 1.107.1 –1.113.3.&lt;/ref&gt; When Cyrus reached manhood and his true identity was revealed, Cyrus and the Persians became inveterate enemies of Astyages, eventually defeating him in battle (559 BC)&lt;ref&gt;''Histories'' 1.214.3.&lt;/ref&gt; and confining him to his palace. (This is unlikely in itself and casts doubt on Herodotus’s whole scenario about Astyages; would a conqueror leave a conquered king in his capital while the conqueror was involved in foreign campaigns?) After that the domination of the Persians over the Medes continued for several years before, and then after, the capture of Babylon. According to Herodotus, when Cyrus conquered Astyages he made the Medes “slaves instead of masters and the Persians, who were the slaves, are now the masters of the Medes.” &lt;ref&gt;''Histories'' 1.129.4.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> According to Herodotus, then, Cyrus became overlord of the Medes, so that both Medes and Persians were subject to him well before the fall of Babylon to their forces and the forces of their allies (539 BC). Cyrus’s died, according to Herodotus, after the Persians were defeated by the forces of Tomyris, queen of the Massagetae. When the queen came upon Cyrus’s corpse she dipped his head in a skein of blood. &lt;ref&gt;''Histories''1.212.1 –2.114.5.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Xenophon===<br /> In his ''Cyropaedia'' (Education of Cyrus) Xenophon agrees with Herodotus that Cyrus’s mother was Mandane, daughter of Astyages king of Media, but Xenophon makes it clear that the Cambyses she married was king of Persia, not a commoner. Xenophon relates that when Cyrus was twelve or slightly older, Mandane took him from Persia to Ecbatana, the Median capital, at the request of Astyages. The boy and his grandfather immediately developed a liking for each other, and when Mandane wanted to return, Astyages requested that the boy remain with him in order to complete his education. Cyrus agreed, saying he especially wanted to learn to ride a horse, a skill at which the Medes excelled but which the Persians did not practice at the time. The cordial relations between Astyages and his grandson continued during the years while Cyrus grew to manhood, and in no instance does Xenophon portray anything but affection between grandfather and grandson as long as Astyages was alive.<br /> When Astyages died, the kingdom passed, not to Cyrus, but to the son of Astyages, [[Cyaxares II]] (''Cyropaedia'' 1.5.2). Cyaxares II, the brother of Mandane, was therefore the uncle of Cyrus. Cyrus became king of the Persians (only) on the death of his father Cambyses I, but he and the Persians remained, according to Xenophon, under the suzerainty of Cyaxares and the Medes until the death of Cyaxares, which happened about two years after the capture of Babylon in 539 BC. After Babylon was captured, Cyaxares had given his daughter in marriage to Cyrus, whose first wife apparently died a few weeks after the capture of Babylon,&lt;ref&gt;[[Nabonidus Chronicle]], as cited in Jean-Jacques Glassner, ''Mesopotamian Chronicles'' (ed. Benjamin R. Forster; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 239. The translation of Glassner that has the mourning period for the queen (and hence her death) occurring in the month Adar (February/March) is to be preferred to the earlier translation found in James Pritchard, ed., ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament'' (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969), 306b, that has the mourning start in Arahshamnu (=Heshvan, October/November).&lt;/ref&gt; with her dowry being the combined rule of the Medes and the Persians. This meant that after the death of Cyaxares the Persians instead of the Medes therefore became dominant in the empire that now included Babylonia and many other subject peoples. After a seven-year rule of the combined empire (537–530 BC),&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' (8.7.1)&lt;/ref&gt; Cyrus died a peaceful death and was succeeded by his son Cambyses II.&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' (8.7.11)&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Reconciling Herodotus &amp; Xenophon===<br /> The account given by Herodotus regarding the birth and early upbringing of Cyrus is plainly fabulous, with precedents in other fables of the ancient Near East. Herodotus himself casts doubts on its authenticity when he writes at the end of the tale that “there are no less than three other accounts of Cyrus which I could give” (1.195.1). The cuneiform records from the time of Cyrus also contradict Herodotus’s statement that Cyrus’s father was a commoner. In the [[Cyrus Cylinder]] Cyrus states that his father Cambyses, grandfather Cyrus I, and great-grandfather Teispes were all kings of Persia before him, thus contradicting Herodotus but supporting Xenophon on Cyrus’s background.&lt;ref&gt; Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 316a.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> Regarding the death of Cyrus (peaceful in Xenophon, bloody in Herodotus), Shahrokh Razmjou wrote, “The story in Herodotus . . . seems to be fictitious.”&lt;ref&gt;Shahrokh Razmjou, ”The Cyrus Cylinder: A Persian Perspective,” in ''The Cyrus Cylinder: The King of Persia’s Proclamation from Ancient Babylon'', ed. Irving Finkel (London: I. B. Tauris, 2013), 125, n. 8.&lt;/ref&gt; Steven Anderson comments: “Aside from the way in which such an account [of Herodotus] seems too sensational to be true, one may also note that Cyrus had carefully prepared a tomb for himself in Pasargadae which remains to this day. If statements by other classical writers are to be believed, this tomb actually housed Cyrus’ corpse in antiquity, and was not merely a centopath.”&lt;ref&gt;Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (revision of the author’s PhD dissertation at Dallas Theological Seminary) (Grand Rapids, 2014), 30.[https://www.amazon.com/Darius-Mede-Reappraisal-Steven-Anderson/dp/1502390388/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=Darius+the+Mede%3A+A+Reappraisal&amp;qid=1610231403&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1]&lt;/ref&gt; The existence of the tomb in Persia argues for a peaceful burial, not his death in the far-off land of the Massagetae as Herodotus relates. Herodotus himself once again casts doubt on his own account of the death of Cyrus when he relates “Many stories are told of Cyrus' death; this, that I have told, is the most credible” (2.114.5).<br /> <br /> ===in the Cuneiform===<br /> In the late 1800s several cuneiform texts dealing with the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire were found and translated. None of these texts named Cyaxares II, and, more than that, most of them had Cyrus taking over the kingship of Media and Persia directly from Astyages, with no room for an intervening Median king. The conclusion seemed obvious: Herodotus was correct in maintaining that Astyages had no male heir, and hence Xenophon, who had a great deal to say about Cyaxares II as the son of Astyages and uncle of Darius, must be rejected. It was now understood that Cyrus became king of both Media and Persia by defeating the Medes, including his grandfather Astyages, several years before the fall of Babylon in 539 BC, just as Herodotus said.<br /> Later scholarship, however, began pointing out some problems with the cuneiform texts. If the supposed coup of Cyrus was such a definite act, why could not these texts agree on when it happened, and the circumstances of the coup? The Dream Text of Nabonidus said that Cyrus and the Persians defeated the Medes in the third year of [[Nabonidus]] (553/552 BC); &lt;ref&gt;Paul-Alain Beaulieu, ''The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C.'' (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 108.&lt;/ref&gt;the Nabonidus Chronicle seems to place it in Nabonidus’s sixth year (550/549);&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 305b.&lt;/ref&gt; and Herodotus, by giving Cyrus 29 years of reign, would place it in 559 BC (Histories 1.214.3). The Cyrus Cylinder, which is apparently the earliest of these documents, does not say that Cyrus defeated the Medes in war, claiming only that Marduk “made the Guti country and all the Mandan hordes [Median troops] bow in submission to his (i.e. Cyrus’) feet.”&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 315b.&lt;/ref&gt; According to the Cyropaedia (4.6.1–11) the Gutians were not conquered militarily by Cyrus. Their governor Gobryas/Ugbaru submitted voluntarily because of the wrongs done to him by Belshazzar. The submission of the Medes to Cyrus could be similar, which would be more in keeping with Xenophon’s account that has the Median soldiery willingly serving Cyrus even while they were still under the ''de jure'' rule of their king, [[Cyaxares II]].<br /> <br /> =in the Bible=<br /> In the Bible, Cyrus is mentioned in 2 Chronicles (36:22, 23) as the monarch who issued a decree allowing the Jews to return to their homeland from Babylon. His name appears repeatedly in the book of Ezra that relates details regarding those who returned from exile. The book of Daniel has three references (Daniel 1:21, 6:28, 10:1) that name him as reigning some time after the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, but apparently (according to the usual reading of the texts) with a Median king named [[Darius the Mede|Darius]] intervening between the Babylonian [[Belshazzar]] and the Persian Cyrus.<br /> Cyrus is mentioned in Isaiah in the following passages:&lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, who frustrates the signs of liars . . . who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfill all my purpose’; saying of Jerusalem, “She shall be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘your foundation shall be laid’” (Isaiah 44:24, 25, 28, ESV). Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed: “I will go before you and level the exalted places, I will break in pieces the doors of bronze and cut through the bars of Iron. I will give you the treasures of darkness and the hoards in secret places, that you may know that it is I, the LORD, the God of Israel, who call you by your name. For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name. I name you, though you do not know me. I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other (45:1–6). I have stirred him up in righteousness, and I will make all his ways level; he shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for price or reward,” says the LORD of hosts (45:13). . . calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country (46:11). “Assemble all of you, and listen! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD loves him; he shall perform his purpose on Babylon, and his arm shall be against the Chaldreans. I, even I, have spoken and called him; I have brought him, and he will prosper in his way” (48:14, 15).&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> The problem with these passages are that they are prophetic, which means that those who do not believe that God exists have to explain them away by saying they are ''vaticinia ex eventu'' (prophecies after the event), that is, writings that look back on a historical event but which pretend they were written before the event as prophecy of the future. Thus in much of the “critical” literature on Isaiah, it is presented as a foregone conclusion that these portions of Isaiah were written after Cyrus’s decree, but ultimately that conclusion, no matter how confidently asserted, is based on the critics ''a priori'' assumption that there is no God, or, if there is a God, he either does not know the future or, if he knows it, he is incapable of, or unwilling to, impart this knowledge to his prophets or anyone else. For those who believe that God not only exists, but that he desires to make his will and his foresight known, there is no reason to take as their starting place the presupposition of the skeptics that prophecy is impossible, the presupposition that controls much of the modern criticism of the book of Isaiah and the Bible in general. The prophetic references to Cyrus in Isaiah are therefore something of a watershed between these two opposing ways of approaching and interpreting the Bible.<br /> <br /> Josephus (''Antiquities'' 11:1–3) relates that the Jews read these prophecies of Isaiah to Cyrus, and this reading of the prophecies caused Cyrus to assemble the leaders of the Jews and announce to them his decision that they could go back to their country and rebuild the city and the Temple. As might be expected, skeptics with ''a priori'' presuppositions about the impossibility of predictive prophecy confidently label this passage in Josephus as unhistorical, but a reading of the passage shows that, if the prophecy really was written over a century and a half earlier by the historical Isaiah, what the Jews did in approaching Cyrus about the prophecy was entirely reasonable and to be expected.<br /> [[File:Medo-Persia - Achaemid Family Tree - inc Otanes &amp; Cyaxares II.PNG | 700px | thumb | center | The Achaemid Family Tree showing the merging or the royal houses of the Medes and the Persians to create the Medo-Persian Empire.]]<br /> =External links=<br /> *[http://www.iranchamber.com/history/achaemenids/achaemenids.php History of Iran: Achaemenid Empire]<br /> *[http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/persianempir1/a/persiaintro_2.htm The Achaemenid Empire, 550-330 B.C.] <br /> *[http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/acha/hd_acha.htm The Achaemenid Persian Empire (550–330 B.C.)] <br /> * The Nabonidus Chronicle [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/] <br /> *''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell [http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, <br /> =References=<br /> [[Category:International Political Figures]]<br /> [[Category:Ancient History]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Cyrus_Cylinder&diff=1722902 2021-01-21T02:52:54Z

<p>Latent: Creation of page</p> <hr /> <div>The '''Cyrus Cylinder''' is a barrel-shaped clay artifact inscribed, in cuneiform, with an account of the deeds of [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus the Great]] in conquering Babylon, thus ending the [[Neo-Babylonian Empire]] and starting the reckoning of the [[Persian Empire]]. It was found by Hormuzd Rassam in 1876 amidst the ruins of the Esaglia Temple in Babylon. It is universally recognized as a propaganda piece that was commissioned by Cyrus in order to present a very favorable view of his conquest to the Babylonian populace and to the world in general.<br /> ==Text==<br /> The initial lines of the text, as given by Hanspeter Schaudig,&lt;ref&gt;Hanspeter Schaudig, “The Text of the Cyrus Cylinder,” in ''Cyrus the Great: Life and Lore'' (Ilex Series 21; ed. M. Rahim Shayegan; Boston: Harvard Univ. Press, 2019), 21–25. For the older translation of Rawlinson, see James J. B. Pritchard, ed., ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament'' (3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969), 315b–316b.&lt;/ref&gt; are as follows:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;[When (. . . ) Mardu]k, the king of the whole of heaven and earth, . . . . . . . . subju]gated [. . . . . who] laid waste [''the land'' in accordance with] his (=Marduk’s) [wr]ath [. . . . . . . . . . .] the regions] of the world [. . . . .t]o his (=Marduk’s anger [. . . and without (the consent) of] his great heart, a low and unworthy man (= Nabonidus)&lt;ref&gt;The ruler of Babylon is not named. As shown here, Schaudig thinks the reference is to Nabonidus, as does Mordechai Cogan, “Achaemenid Inscriptions: Cyrus: Cyrus Cylinder,” in ''The Context of Scripture II'' (ed. W. W. Hallo; 3 vols; Leiden: 1997–), 2.315). Finkel and van der Spek, however, think the reference is to Belshaszzar: Irving Finkel, “The Cyrus Cylinder: the Babylonian Perspective,” in ''The Cyrus Cylinder: The King of Persia’s Proclamation from Ancient Babylon'' (ed. Irving Finkel; London: I. B. Tauris, 2013), 4; R. J. van der Spek, “Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations,” in ''Extraction &amp; Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper'' (eds. Michael Kozuh et al.; SAOC 68; Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 2014), 252.&lt;/ref&gt; was installed as lord of his (= Marduk’s) country. [. . . . . . . . . . . .] , , , , (Nabonidus) imposed on them. He ma[de] a counterfeit of (Marduk’s temple Esagil [. . . . . .] . . . for (the city of) Ur and the rest of the sacred cities, rites, which were inappropriate to them (i.e. the sacred cities and the gods), [improper] sac[rifices . . .]. He spoke [''insolence''] every day and was not afraid (of Marduk’s wrath). As an insult, (Nabonidus) brought the daily offerings to a halt and inter[fered with the rites. He s]et up [. . .] in the midst of the sacred cities. In his heart he br[oug]ht ruin on all of them by a yoke without relief. (Nabonidus) brought the daily offerings to a halt and inter[fered with the rites. He s]et up [. . .] in the midst of the sacred cities. In his heart he br[oug]ht to an end the worship of Mardkuk, king of the gods. He [d]id yet more evil to (Marduk’s holy) city every day. [. . . . He ''tormented''] its [people], he brought ruin on all of them by a yoke without relief.&lt;/blockquote&gt;In this rendering of a translation, an ellipsis ( . . .) means text is missing that cannot be restored, while square brackets indicate the translator’s estimation of text that can be reasonably restored. Words enclosed in parentheses are explanations from the translator. This introduction sets the tone for what follows: Nabonidus has shown himself unworthy to be the ruler of Babylon. The introductory sentences also show that what follows will not be a disinterested historical account, but propaganda directed to the recently defeated Babylonians in order to help them willingly submit to their new conquerors, Cyrus and his Medo-Persian coalition. <br /> <br /> The Cylinder continues with a standard motif of Near Eastern conquerors: the gods have ordained that the conqueror should now be the ruler of the conquered people: &lt;blockquote&gt;At their complaints, the Enlil-of-the-gods (=Marduk) became furiously enraged a[nd . . . . ''Nabonidus violated''] their (= the gods’) sacred territories, (and so) the gods who dwelt therein deserted their shrines. Arousing (Marduk’s) wrath, (Nabonidus then) had (the statues of) the gods brought into Babylon (from their proper cities). But Marduk, the l[ofty Enlil-of-the-god]s, relented and felt pity for the cities whose dwelling-places were lying in ruins. He made up [his] mind and had mercy on the people of Babylonia who had become like (living) dead. (Marduk) scanned and checked all countries, looking for a righteous king, dear to his hear, and finally he took with his very hand Cyrus, king of the city of Anshan, and calling his name, he appointed him to be king of the entire world. (Marduk) make bow down at (Cyrus’) feet the land of the Gutians and all of the Ummān-Manda. And all the people that (Marduk) had given into his hands, (Cyrus) tended most carefully like a shepherd in truth and righteousness. Marduk, the great lord, who takes care of his people, saw with pleasure his good deeds and his righteous heart. He commanded (Cyrus) to set out for Babylon, he made him take the way to Tintir (=Babylon), and, like a friend and companion, he walked at his side. &lt;/blockquote&gt;Cyrus’s takeover of Babylon is then described as peaceful, despite the exceedingly large army he commanded: &lt;blockquote&gt;(Cyrus’) vast troops whose number, like the water in a river, could not be counted, marched at his side, girt with their weapons. Without any fight or battle (Marduk) had him enter Babylon and saved his city Babylon from hardship. (Marduk) delivered into (Cyrus’) hands Nabonidus, the king who would not revere him. All the people of Babylon, the entire land of Sumer and Akkad (=Babylonia), nobles and governors, bowed down before (Cyrus) and kissed his feet, with shining faces they rejoiced at his kingship. Sweetly they hailed him as the lord through whose help they had come to life again from the perils of death, praising his name as the one who has saved them all from distress and disaster.&lt;/blockquote&gt; Cyrus identifies himself:&lt;blockquote&gt;I am Cyrus, the king of the world, the great king, the mighty king, the king of Babylon, king of the land of Sumer and Akkad, the king of the four quarters of the world, son of Cambyses, the great king, the mighty king, king of the city of Anshan, descendant of Teispes, the great king, king of the city of Anshan, eternal scion of kingship, whose rule Bēl (=Marduk) and Nabû dearly love, whose k[in]gship they desired for their own delight. When I entered Babylon in peace, I took up my lordly abode in the royal palace amidst jubilation and rejoicing. Marduk, the great lord, bestowed on me as my destiny that wide heart of mine, (as a token) of someone who loves Babylon, and so I do revere him every day. My vast troops walked around in Babylon in peace, and I did not permit anybody to frighten (the people of) the land of S[umer] and Akkad.&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> The panegyric continues by recounting how Cyrus brought relief to the people from their oppression and how he returned to their proper cities and temples the images of the gods that Nabonidus had brought to Babylon. He also relates that he sent various people-groups who had been displaced back to their homelands. He restored the daily sacrifices in Babylon, repaired the wall of the city, and completed the building of a quay. The text finishes with a prayer to Marduk’s blessing on Cyrus.<br /> ==Significance of the text==<br /> This text was apparently the first in a series of public proclamations that established something of a new genre: official proclamations from the Persian court regarding the faults of Nabonidus and the much better situation now that the Persians were in control. Although a modern reader readily recognizes that many of the claims are sheer propaganda, there are some aspects of the text that shed light on the passages in the Bible that credit Cyrus as the king who allowed the Jewish people to return to their homeland (2 Chronicles 36:22–23; Ezra 1:1–4). Also, in the interest of diplomacy, he allowed himself to be presented, conveniently, as a faithful worshipper of the god or gods of the people he was addressing. It is generally thought that Cyrus followed the Zoroastrian religion of the preceding kings of Persia, thus worshipping Ahura Mazda as the supreme being, but this did not prevent him from presenting himself as a faithful worshipper of the Babylonian god Marduk when it served his political purposes. <br /> <br /> Despite these insights that the publication of the Cyrus Cylinder and related documents gave into the history of the time, the content of the Cylinder produced some apparent conflicts with that history as it was derived from other sources. These conflicts will be addressed next.<br /> ===Conflict of the Cyrus Cylinder with Herodotus’s ''Histories''===<br /> In his ''Histories'' (1.107.1 to 1.129.4), Herodotus relates that [[Astyages]], king of Media, had dreams that foretold that one day his daughter Mandane would bear a child who would usurp his kingdom and become lord of all Asia. In order to prevent this, Astyages gave his daughter in marriage to a commoner named Cambyses, so that the grandson would not be of the royal line. Later he went even further and ordered that when the child was born, he would be killed. The herdsman to whom this task was entrusted, however, spared the child, and when the child (Cyrus) grew up and eventually learned of these circumstances, he became an inveterate enemy of his grandfather Astyages. After gathering an army of Persians, Astyages was defeated in battle and the Persians made the Medes “slaves instead of masters and the Persians, who were the slaves, are now the masters of the Medes” (''Histories''1.129.4).<br /> <br /> In the late 1800s, when the Cyrus Cylinder and other cuneiform texts came to light and were translated, it became clear that Cyrus was not the son of a commoner; his father Cambyses I and grandfather Teispes were kings of Persia before him. Despite this clear contradiction of the background of Cyrus as related in Herodotus, the consensus among modern historians is still that Cyrus and the Persians defeated Astyages and the Medians, making them subordinate to the Persians, all this happening several years before the fall of Babylon to Cyrus and his forces in 539 BC. <br /> ===Conflict of the Cyrus Cylinder with Xenophon’s ''Cyropaedia''===<br /> Xenophon’s ''[[Cyropaedia]]'' agrees with the cuneiform texts and contradicts Herodotus: Cyrus was the son of Cambyses I, king of Persia. Also in disagreement with Herodotus, the ''[[Cyropaedia]]'' portrays the relationship with his grandfather Astyages as always cordial, from the first time that they met when Cyrus was about 12 until the death of Astyages a few years before the initial defeat of the Babylonian coalition under the command of Croesus, king of Lydia, in 547 BC. At the time of that battle, the kingship of Media had passed on to Cyaxares II, son of Astyages and grandson of Cyaxares I. The Medes were still overlords of the Persians, even though, before he died, Astyages had requested of Cambyses I and the Persian Council of Elders that his favored grandson Cyrus would be general over the combined Median and Persian armies. <br /> <br /> When he became general of the combined armies, Cyrus was still subject to his temperamental overlord, Cyaxares II. This relationship continued until just after the capture of Babylon in 539 BC by the forces under Cyrus. After affairs were settled in the city, Cyrus went to his uncle in Ecbatana, the Median capital, “and when they had exchanged greetings, the first thing Cyrus told Cyaxares was that a palace had been selected for him in Babylon, and official headquarters, so that he might occupy a residence of his own whenever he came there; and then he also gave him many splendid presents” (''Cyropaedia'' 8.5.17). Cyaxares responded by offering his daughter as wife to Cyrus, “and with her I offer you all Media as a dowry, for I have no legitimate male issue” (8.5.19). Cyaxares died less than two years after this, at which time the Persians officially became the leaders in the Medo-Persian coalition, even though Cyrus had been the leader of their combined armies for several years before that.<br /> <br /> The problem that the Cyrus Cylinder, when it was found and translated, presented to Xenophon’s account was that there was no mention of Cyaxares II in this or in any of the later cuneiform accounts produced by Cyrus and his successors. Therefore in the late eighteenth century historians decided that the essential features of Herodotus’s story (except the birth narrative) must be true. After seventeen centuries of scholarship, starting with Josephus in the first century, that favored Xenophon’s account over that of Herodotus, the pendulum swung in favor of Herodotus. The verdict: there was no such person as Cyaxares II, son of Astyages, although no one could offer a satisfactory explanation of why Xenophon invented him. The main themes of the ''Cyropaedia''—the education and character of Cyrus, and Xenophon’s digressions on the ideal ruler and military commander—could have been presented without such a person. In that regard there is something of a similarity with the “critical” view of Darius the Mede in the biblical book of Daniel, chapter 6: There was no such person as Daniel’s Darius, even though the book of Daniel could have been written just as well without him. The story of Daniel in the lions’ den would be more acceptable to modern historians if the king who reluctantly allowed this to happen had been Cyrus rather than “Darius the Mede.” And so Xenophon’s Cyaxares II and Daniel’s Darius the Mede, both of whom curiously are presented by their respective authors as being the supreme authority over Babylon immediately after the end of the Neo-Babylonian empire in 539 BC, have shared a similar fate: they were consigned to non-existence in the world of historical reality.<br /> ===Conflict of the Cyrus Cylinder with the “[[Harran Stela]]” of Nabonidus===<br /> Recent scholarship has recognized that the Cyrus Cylinder, and texts that followed in its genre, must be recognized as propaganda that sought to rewrite the history of the time so that it was favorable to the Persian conquerors while casting the previous Babylonian regime, particularly Nabonidus, in a bad light. Among the cuneiform texts of this type are the “Verse Account” of Nabonidus and the “Dream Text” of Nabonidus; both of these were Persian adaptations of earlier genuine texts of Nabonidus, but which were rewritten to reflect badly on Nabonidus. The previous authentic Babylonian texts were then systematically destroyed. This is all consistent with a passage in the ''Cyropaedia'' in which Cambyses I tells his son Cyrus, who is about to engage in the first conflict with the Babylonians, that a great general or leader of men “must be designing and cunning, wily and deceitful, a thief and a robber . . .” (1.6.27). Cyrus apparently followed this advice, so that Steven Hirsch writes, “The real Cyrus was a master of propaganda, as can be seen from the Cyrus Cylinder, the Babylonian verse chronicle of Nabonidus’ fall, and the stories of Cyrus’ merciful treatment of conquered kings, all no doubt propagated with Cyrus’ encouragement or active participation.”&lt;ref&gt; Steven W. Hirsch, ''The Friendship of the Barbarians: Xenophon and the Persian Empire'' (Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 1985), 177, n. 69.&lt;/ref&gt; In a similar vein, J. van der Spek: “Cyrus was very successful in his propaganda and modern historiography is still influenced by it.”&lt;ref&gt;R. J. van der Spek, “Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations,” in ''Extraction &amp; Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper'' (eds. Michael Kozuh et al.; SAOC 68; Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 2014), 260.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Harran Stela was composed in the fourteenth or fifteenth year of Nabonidus, i.e. 542 to 540 BC, commemorating his restoration of the temple at Ehulhul. Nabonidus relates how hostile kings were trying to be reconciled with him. The kings are named as &quot;the king of Egypt, the Medes and the land of the Arabs, all the hostile kings&quot;.&lt;ref&gt; J. B. Pritchard, ed., ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament'' (3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969), 562b.&lt;/ref&gt; The significance of this lies in its date of composition, just one to three years before Nabonidus lost his kingdom to the Medes and Persians.&lt;ref&gt; Paul-Alain Beaulieu, ''The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. '' (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 143.&lt;/ref&gt; It was also some 13 or 14 years after Cyrus had supposedly subjugated the Medes and became ruler of the combined empire of the Persians and Medes in 559 BC, according to Herodotus and the consensus of modern historians who follow him. Nabonidus, however, makes no mention of the Persians who soon would be the leaders of those who captured his capital. This is consistent with Xenophon’s picture of the Persians still being the subordinate partner in the Medo-Persian confederacy at the time, with Cyrus the junior sovereign under his uncle, Cyaxares II king of Media.&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' 3.3.24–25, 4.1.19–21, 8.5.17–19, esp. 19.&lt;/ref&gt; Nowhere in any surviving inscription is Cyrus called the king of Media, unless it is maintained that the present inscription is interpreted that way; this would be in contradiction to other sources where Cyrus is referred to &quot;king of Anshan&quot;, &quot;king of Persia&quot;, &quot;the great king&quot; and similar titles.&lt;ref&gt;It would be circular reasoning to say that the Harran Stela shows that Cyrus is called the King of the Medes because the Medes are listed on the Harran Stela as the enemy of the Babylonians.&lt;/ref&gt; The Harran Stela therefore is evidence that just shortly before the fall of Babylon the king of the Medes, whose name is not given, not only existed, but was considered a more important enemy of the Babylonians than Cyrus and the Persians. All this is consistent with Xenophon’s history of Cyrus in the ''Cyropaedia'', but in contradiction to the accounts in Herodotus, followed by many modern historians, which portray the Persians, with the Medes subjugated under them, as the dominant force challenging Nabonidus for several years before the capture of Babylon.<br /> <br /> ==Attempts to reconcile the Cyrus Cylinder with the conflicting accounts==<br /> <br /> --This section to be filed in later--<br /> <br /> ==References==</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Cyaxares_II&diff=1722173 2021-01-18T22:19:27Z

<p>Latent: Removed that picture of Cyrus from the infobox. Fixed date of death in infobox.</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;FONT SIZE=&quot;2&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TABLE ΒORDER ALIGN=&quot;RIGHT&quot; WIDTH=&quot;250&quot; BORDER=&quot;2&quot; BGCOLOR=&quot;CYAN&quot; RULES=&quot;NONE&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD COLSPAN=&quot;2&quot; ALIGN=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;&lt;FONT SIZE=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Cyaxares II,&lt;br&gt;King of Media&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;predecessor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;[[Astyages]]&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;successor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;[[Cyrus II the Great]]&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;birth&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;death&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Dec. 538 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;spouse &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;father&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Astyages&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;mother&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;/TABLE&gt;<br /> &lt;/FONT&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Cyaxares II''', is the alleged son and successor of the legendary [[Astyages]], King of the [[Medes]] in [[Ecbatana]] who reigned from 561 to 536 BC according to Barnes’ Notes,&lt;ref&gt;Barnes' Notes on the Bible, Daniel 9:1.[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; but for whom a better ending date might be late 538 BC (see below). The generally accepted narrative is that the throne passed straight from [[Astyages]] to [[Cyrus the Great]].<br /> <br /> == Original Sources ==<br /> The son of [[Astyages]], [[Cyaxares II]] (not to be confused with [[Cyaxares I]], father of [[Astyages]]) does not ''specifically'' exist in any surviving or currently available extant cuniform tablets or the likes; but he does possibly exist with a potential dual reference in the absolutely monumental [[bas-relief]] [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] (''see below'').<br /> <br /> Meanwhile the strongest ''specific'' literary evidence for his existence lies within the pages [[Xenophon|Xenohon's]] crowning work, the ''[[Cyropaedia]]'', who as a Greek military commander served in [[Cyrus the Younger|Cyrus']] army. This work was so highly prized by [[Alexander the Great]], that he made it his perpetual study&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, 'Cyropaedia'', Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK&lt;/ref&gt;; by extension it was obviously also recommended to him by his mentor and tutor [[Aristotle]]&lt;ref&gt;[[Quintus Curtius Rufus]], History of Alexander, 1.9&lt;/ref&gt;. Likewise did [[Julius Caesar]]&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, 'Cyropaedia'', Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK&lt;/ref&gt;. Meanwhile [[Scipio Africanus]] is reported to have carried it with him everywhere&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, 'Cyropaedia'', Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK&lt;/ref&gt;. This combined with a possible identity match with [[Josephus|Josephus']] [[Darius the Mede|Darius, King of Media]]&lt;ref&gt;Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'', 10.11.2.[https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-10.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;, &quot;the son of Astyages, [who] had another name among the Greeks&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'', 10.11.4.[https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-10.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; creates a good case. Compoundingly, two of the rebels listed in [[Darius I|Darius I's]] [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] claimed &quot;to be of the family of Cyaxares&quot;: which has naturally created debate if these are references to [[Cyaxares I]] or to the possible [[Cyaxares II]]. Finally those who accept the [[Book of Daniel]] to be true, note that it was [[Darius the Mede]] who officially seized the kingdom&lt;ref&gt;Daniel 5:31&lt;/ref&gt;, which happily correlates all three of these literary sources to their reasoning.<br /> <br /> Alternatively, [[Cyaxares II]] does not appear in [[Ptolemy's Canon]]&lt;ref&gt;Livius, Ptolemy's ''Canon''. [https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]&lt;/ref&gt; or the [[Uruk King List]]&lt;ref&gt;Livius, Uruk King List.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/uruk-king-list/]&lt;/ref&gt;. But neither of these feature [[Belshazzar]] who became effective king of Babylon after his father [[Nabonidas]] capture now confirmed to us by the Nabonidus Cylinder (from Ur)&lt;ref&gt;Livius, ''Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur''.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/nabonidus-cylinder-from-ur/]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Livius, ''ABC 7 (Nabonidus Chronicle)'', Column iii.16.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]&lt;/ref&gt;. Similarly [[Ptolemy's Canon|Ptolemy]] does not list [[Nerglissar|Nerglissar's]] son [[Labasi-Marduk]] while the [[Uruk King List|Uruk]] does.<br /> <br /> Meanwhile [[Cyaxares II]] existence is further called into question when the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] openly states that: 1. [[Cyrus|Cyrus the Great]] attacked [[Astyages]] and that the army betrayed [[Astyages]]&lt;ref&gt;Livius, ''ABC 7 (Nabonidus Chronicle)'', Column ii. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]&lt;/ref&gt; thereby 2. denying [[Astyages]] throne passed to [[Cyaxares II]] at all. This account is in harmony with Herodotus' narrative which may be derived from the [[Nabonidus Chronicle|Chronicle]] or another common source.<br /> <br /> Clearly, legitimate debate over these sources does exist. Therefore in the following sections we shall examine these sources in more detail.<br /> <br /> === In the works of Xenophon ===<br /> According to [[Xenophon]], ''Cyaxares II'' ruled as king after the natural death of [[Astyages]] and sought to defended [[Medes|Media]] from Assyrian/[[Babylonia|Babylonian]] aggression, promoting his yet unascended nephew [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus]] as General/leader of the allied forces. Furthermore, [[Xenophon]] in great detail records the history of [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus']] pre-emptive strike and campaigns with ''Cyaxares II'', the first battle of which the king of Babylon (probably [[Neriglissar]]) was decisively defeated and slain. During the plunder of this battle [[Cyaxares II]] and [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] were separated and Cyrus continued to campaign alone with [[Cyaxares II]] eventually returning to [[Ecbatana]]. The volume records how Cyrus fused the alliance of nations under his banner until after several years Cyrus stands at the very gates of [[Babylon]] itself. [[Xenophon]] then very significantly records how after the conquest of [[Babylon]], [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] travelled to [[Ecbatana]] wherein he met [[Cyaxares II]], gifting him a palace in Babylon and accepted the hand of his daughter with the Kingdom of Media as her dowry. [[Xenophon]] then records how [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] travelled to Persia after the death of his father [[Cambyses I]] to receive his father's office.<br /> <br /> This record stands in direct contrast regarding the existence of [[Cyaxares II]] with the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]]&lt;ref&gt;''Nabonidus Chronicle'', ''Column ii.1-4'', [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]&lt;/ref&gt;, [[Herodotus]] and [[Ctesias]] accounts, [[Ptolemy's Canon]]&lt;ref&gt;Ptolemy's Canon, [https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]&lt;/ref&gt; and the [[Uruk King List]]&lt;ref&gt;Uruk King List.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/uruk-king-list/]&lt;/ref&gt; on the one side. But on the other, it alone offers a satisfactory reason as to why the authoritative [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] twice has rebels claiming to be &quot;of the family of Cyaxares&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], Behistun Inscription, Rebellion of Phraortes.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-13/]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], Behistun Inscription, Rebellion of Tritantaechmes. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-21/]&lt;/ref&gt; and not &quot;of the family of Astyages&quot; (being the last monarch of Media if the likes of the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] are true); while it must also be noted that if these rebels were referring to [[Astyages]] father [[Cyaxares I]], then claims to the throne that are over a hundred years old does not make for a strong case! It must also be noted that this inscription is the dictate of [[Darius I]] himself, who in turn is the son of one [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus']] right hand men who lived these events. Now when one considers the [[Book of Daniel|Book of Daniel's]] claim that Darius the Mede &quot;received the kingdom&quot; (rather than the Cyrus) despite known physical history, this claim is harmonized when [[Josephus]] records that &quot;Darius the Mede&quot; &quot;was the son of Astyages&quot; but &quot;known to the Greeks by another name&quot;.<br /> <br /> Herein, historians are forced to make a choice between the account of [[Xenophon|Xenophon's]] ''[[Cyropaedia]]'', backed by the immensely authoritative [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]], or these contrary works.<br /> <br /> === In the works of Josephus ===<br /> Josephus does not use the title of &quot;''Cyaxares''&quot;, but rather names [[Darius the Mede]] as the son of [[Astyages]], simply acknowledging that [[Darius the Mede]] is known by another name among the Greeks. Considering the possible candidates at the time, this has led many to comment on this convergence and conclude that Josephus' [[Darius the Mede]], son of [[Astyages]] is [[Cyaxares II]].<br /> <br /> === In the Behistun Inscription ===<br /> The [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] details the nine self-proclaimed kings who rebelled in [[Darius I|Darius Hystspes']] first year of power whom he subdued. Two of those rebels claimed to be &quot;of the family Cyaxares&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-13/]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-21/]&lt;/ref&gt;, of whom the former claimed a false identity while the later may well have been legitimate (but a rebel none the less). Regardless, this gives rise to the debate if they are referring to [[Cyaxares I]], father of [[Astyages]] or to [[Astyages|Astyages']] possible son and successor [[Cyaxares II]].<br /> <br /> It must be noted that [[Phraortes]] claimed &quot;I am Khshathrita, of the family of Cyaxares&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-13/]&lt;/ref&gt;as did [[Tritantaechmes]]&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-21/]&lt;/ref&gt; claimed to be of &quot;Cyaxares&quot;: if they refer to [[Cyaxares I]] over a hundred years prior, then their legitimate claim to the throne would be extremely small, if they refer to a potential [[Cyaxares II]] two generations later, then a much more legitimate claim could be substantiated.<br /> <br /> ==When did Cyaxares II die?==<br /> Since Cyaxares II does not appear in official records that were compiled after his death, and which official records were used by later sources such as Ptolemy’s ''Canon'' in setting forth the sequence of kings, there are no known direct sources that can be used to specify exactly the years of his reign (assuming that he really did reign as king of Media as Xenophon relates). There are, however, some sources from which estimates can be made of the time of his death. The first of these is the statement in the ''Cyropaedia'' (8.6.22) that, after the capture of Babylon, Cyrus shared his time between three capitals: Babylon, Susa the capital of Persia, and Ecbatana the capital of Media. ''Cyropaedia'' 8.7.1 says that his last trip to Persia was in the seventh year of his reign. Cyrus died in August of 530 BC&lt;ref&gt;Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, ''Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A. D. 75'' (Providence: Brown Univ. Press, 1956), 14).&lt;/ref&gt;, implying that, in the source used by Xenophon, his full reign began in about 537 BC. He would only be reckoning Ecbatana, traditional capital of the Medians, as one of his capitals after the death of Cyaxares. This information from the ''Cyropaedia'' therefore suggests that in the period from 539 to late 538 or early 537 BC, Cyaxares was still alive and reigning.<br /> <br /> Another means of estimating the time that Cyaxares was still alive and ruling after the capture of Babylon comes from contract texts. William Shea did an extensive study of Babylonian contract texts which dated the contract to a year of Cyrus.&lt;ref&gt;William H. Shea, “An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period II,” ''Andrews University Seminary Studies'' 9 (1997): 99–128.&lt;/ref&gt; He examined several texts that named the reigning king as Cyrus, the first of which was dated to the 23rd day of the seventh month (Tishri) of the “accession year” of Cyrus, that is the year in which he was recognized as king in Babylon. This agrees with the statement in the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] that Cyrus defeated the army of Nabonidus in the seventh month, causing the Babylonians to revolt (possibly Persian propaganda) and Nabonidus to flee. Shea found three texts dated to this seventh month of Cyrus’s accession year. In all of them Cyrus was called “King of Lands” and also “King of Babylon.” This is followed by 29 contract texts dating from the eighth month of Cyrus’s accession year to the ninth month of his year one (Kislev, Nov/Dec 538 BC) the title “King of Lands” is retained, but the title “King of Babylon” is dropped for Cyrus, returning in contract texts dated to the tenth month, year one (December 538/January 537 BC). Shea surmised that the reason for the puzzling omission of “King of Babylon” as a titulary for Cyrus for 14 months was because someone else was honored with that title during this time, and he conjectured that that person was Gubaru, leader of the Gutians (Xenophon’s Gobryas), an identification that is not feasible, because, among other reasons, the Nabonidus Chronicle relates that Gubaru died only 25 days after the conquest of Babylon. If, however, Cyrus let it be known that the people should give Cyaxares the title “King of Babylon” in deference to his uncle (a deference that appears at critical places in the ''Cyropaedia''), then this information could be used to date the death of Cyaxares to the time when the title “King of Babylon” reverted back to Cyrus, i.e. to some time just before year one of Cyrus, month ten, day 16 (December 23, 538 BC), the earliest date after the 13-month hiatus in giving this title to Cyrus. This would place the death of Cyaxares just shortly before that time, i.e. probably sometime in December, 538, in good agreement with Xenophon’s statement that Cyrus made use of all three capitals, including Ecbatana, in the last seven years of his reign, 537 to 530 BC. This date for the death of Cyaxares is in agreement with the book of Daniel, where the references to “Darius the Mede” in Daniel 5:31, 6:28, 9:1, 10:1, and 11:1 imply that his length of reign in Babylon was not long before he was superseded by Cyrus. <br /> ==Similarities between Xenophon’s Cyaxares II and Daniel’s Darius the Mede==<br /> * Both were kings of Media in the sixth century BC.<br /> * Both were contemporaries of Cyrus, king of Persia.<br /> * Both were the highest rulers in the empire, having authority over Cyrus right after the fall of Babylon in 539 BC (''Cyropaedia'' 8.5.17, 20; Daniel 6:6–9). <br /> * Both were given to fits of immoderate anger (''Cyropaedia'' 4.5.9: Cyaxares had a “reputation for being violent and unreasonable”; Daniel 6:24: families of plotters against Daniel were thrown to the lions, not just the plotters). <br /> * Both were vainglorious, i.e. the praise and adulation of the people were so important to them that they took actions to receive that praise that were not in their best interests (''Cyropaedia'' 4.5.51–53, 5.5.1–2, 38–40; 8.5.17; Daniel 6:6–9). <br /> [[File:Medo-Persia - Achaemid Family Tree - inc Otanes &amp; Cyaxares II.PNG | 700px | thumb | center | The Achaemid Family Tree showing the merging of the royal houses of the Medes and the Persians to create the Medo-Persian Empire.]]<br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.academia.edu/22476645/Darius_the_Mede_A_Reappraisal]Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014). <br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder. <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.<br /> == References ==<br /> [[Category:Ancient History]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:AnthonyPvanDuyn&diff=1722158 2021-01-18T21:43:21Z

<p>Latent: Nabonidas versus Nabonidus</p> <hr /> <div>{{greeting<br /> |username=DavidB4<br /> |sig=<br /> }}<br /> Thanks for your contributions so far! When you get a chance, would you mind taking a look at my question here: [[Talk:Ahasuerus]]? Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|&lt;font color=&quot;ForestGreen&quot;&gt;DavidB4&lt;/font&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])&lt;/sup&gt; 14:47, 26 April 2020 (EDT)<br /> ::Sorry for not responding earlier. You will find your question answered.--<br /> <br /> Greetings Anthony. I see we're working in the same area related to personalities associated with the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Do you think it would be profitable if we could communicate somehow, in addition to this more or less public place? Conservapedia does not have any way to send email messages to another user, although Wikipedia does. If you still have your Wikipedia account, you could post its moniker here and I would give you mine. That way we could send each other e-mail addresses and communicate that way, if you are interested. Thanks for all you work so far. [[User talk:Latent]]<br /> ::Greetings Latent, thanks for your efforts too. It does seem that our efforts are harmonizing in an age of willful academic naivety. You can email me directly on asvanduyn@gmail.com. This is my spam email, but I can give you a personal one from there. I do hate email, prefering authentic human communication. I will remove this posted email address in one week. Regards, Anthony.<br /> <br /> Greetings Anthony. I sent you an email. You can erase this message too when you erase the above one. By the way, I see you have just now created a stub page [[Nabonidas]]. You apparently missed that I had already created a page for him, using the more usual spelling [[Nabonidus]]. [[User talk:Latent]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Darius_the_Mede&diff=1722130 2021-01-18T19:18:43Z

<p>Latent: Added ANET and Nabonidus Chronicle to the Resources section</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;TABLE ΒORDER ALIGN=&quot;RIGHT&quot; WIDTH=&quot;250&quot; BORDER=&quot;2&quot; BGCOLOR=&quot;CYAN&quot; RULES=&quot;NONE&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD COLSPAN=&quot;2&quot; ALIGN=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;”Darius the Mede” (=Cyaxares II), last king of Media&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;predecessor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Astyages&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;reign&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;ca. 550 BC to Dec. 538 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;successor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;[[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus the Great]]&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;father&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Astyages&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;mother&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;birth&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;ca. 602 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt; <br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;death&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;December, 538 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;spouse&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;/TABLE&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Darius the Mede''' is a character appearing thrice in the biblical [[Book of Daniel]]. Meanwhile the exact identity of ''Darius the Mede'' remains the subject of heated debate representing &quot;the last great hurdle to the contextually historical authenticity of book&quot;: leading skeptics to claim ''Darius the Mede'' is nothing more than an easily dismissed fictional character, while reversely the class of &quot;historical harmonizers&quot; suggesting that ''Darius the Mede'' is simply another name for an existing historical figure.<br /> <br /> This subject is further complicated by [[Josephus]] simply stating that Darius the Mede was the son of [[Astyages]] king of the Medes and that he was known to the Greeks by another name, without qualifying what that name was.<br /> <br /> Meanwhile the broadly used &quot;[[Herodotus|Father of History]]&quot; also oft called &quot;the Father of Lies&quot; in his dramatic recount, records that [[Astyages]] had no son, but rather tells how the kingdom passed directly to [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] by force of arms &lt;ref&gt;[[Herodotus]], ''Histories'' 1.109.3, 1.129.4&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> Thus [[Herodotus|Herodotus']] account stands in direct opposition to [[Josephus|Josephus']] statement and [[Xenophon|Xenophon's]] far more extensive and detailed book on the subject which extensively relates how [[Astyages|Astyages']] son was [[Cyaxares II]], which when combined with Josephus provides a natural solution on the subject.<br /> <br /> But with the only extant clay tablets, the [[Uruk King List]] and [[Ptolemy's Canon]] (of which, both of the latter are known not to be perfect) ''seeming'' to support the direct passage of power to [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus II]], the grounds for debate have been established. Meanwhile the most authoritative [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] of [[Darius I]] does reference &quot;Cyaxares&quot; twice, but it remains questionable if these refer to [[Astyages]] father [[Cyaxares I]] or son [[Cyaxares II]]. Therefore the academic community remains divided.<br /> <br /> It must also be noted that while a host of other individuals have been proposed for the identity of ''Darius the Mede'', the case for synergy with [[Cyaxares II]] remains the most historically plausible outcome.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Arguments for Fictional==<br /> It is sufficient to say on this subject that without a clear clay tablet on the subject, skeptics hold the character of [[Darius the Mede]] is either &quot;literary fiction, appropriate to the genre of a court contest tale&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Hill, Andrew, ''Expositor's Commentary'', Zondervan, 2009, p.114.[https://books.google.com.au/books?id=bCPBrAfBSdgC&amp;pg=PA114&amp;dq=expositor%27s+commentary+%22Generally+for+critical+commentators+the+character+is+simply+a+literary+fiction+appropriate+to+the+Genre+of+court-contest+tale%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi9q8_JwP_oAhWy7XMBHcSsCIoQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=expositor's%20commentary%20%22Generally%20for%20critical%20commentators%20the%20character%20is%20simply%20a%20literary%20fiction%20appropriate%20to%20the%20Genre%20of%20court-contest%20tale%22&amp;f=false]&lt;/ref&gt; or similarly a literary composite of several individuals as sumarized by Hill&lt;ref&gt;Hill, Andrew, ''Expositor's Commentary'', Zondervan, 2009, p.114.[https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/The_Expositor_s_Bible_Commentary/bCPBrAfBSdgC?q=expositor%27s+commentary+%22Generally+for+critical+commentators+the+character+is+simply+a+literary+fiction+appropriate+to+the+Genre+of+court-contest+tale%22&amp;gbpv=1#f=false]&lt;/ref&gt; and therefore the entire chapter as fiction. This as Barnes notes&lt;ref&gt;Barnes Commentary, ''Daniel 6:1, Section 2'' - &quot;Considerable importance is to be attached to the question who was Darius the Mede, as it has been made a ground of objection to the Scripture narrative, that no person by that name is mentioned in the Greek writers.&quot;<br /> [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; is generally presented as evidence that possibly the entire book is not considered to be of any historical value and is to be disqualified entirely.<br /> <br /> ==Arguments for Cyaxares II==<br /> In Xenophon's historical narrative, some time after the natural death of his grandfather [[Astyages]], [[Cyrus II the Great]], while still a youth and not yet king of Persia, entered into the employ of his uncle [[Cyaxares II]] as general of the army in a mutual defence pact against Assyria (Babylon). In this capacity [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] campaigns with [[Cyaxares II]] at the first and then by himself until his eventual conquest of [[Babylon]]. In this narrative, it must be noted that all conquests are officially in the name of the alliance which was ultimately at the expense and direction of the king of the Medes. After which [[Cyrus the Great]] returns to the capital city of [[Ecbatana]] in Media and presents [[Cyaxares II]] with a palace in Babylon as a token of victory and receives [[Cyaxares II]]'s daughter as his wife with the kingdom of Media as her dowry. Xenophon's account then details Cyrus' trip home to Persia where he receives the title of King upon the death of his father [[Cambyses I]].<br /> <br /> This position when combined with Josephs' assertion that [[Darius the Mede]] was the son of [[Astyages]] but known to the Greeks by another name, it makes it only natural to conclude that:<br /> * Darius the Mede is Cyaxares II.<br /> * &quot;Darius the Mede received (Aramaic: ''qabel'') the kingdom&quot; (Dan. 5:31) despite being actually conquered by Cyrus&quot; (Dan. 5:31) as <br /> * Cyrus at that point was simply heir of Persia and the greatly loved General of the Coalition Army.<br /> <br /> As discussed at the start, while the character of [[Cyaxares II]] is not generally accepted amidst the classical histories such as [[Herodotus]], the reconstructed fragments of [[Ctesias]], the [[Uruk King Lit]], the [[Ptolemy's Canon|Cannon of Ptolemy]]&lt;ref&gt;Ptolemy's ''Canon''[https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]&lt;/ref&gt; or even on a currently available clay tablet (other than two possible references in the [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]]), [[Cyaxares II]] presents the most natural solution to the problem and is the summary position of several Bible commentaries such as: ''Benson Commentary''&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 9:1 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 6:1[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 5:30-31 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/5.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; ''Barnes Notes''&lt;ref&gt;Barnes Notes, Daniel 9:1[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; &amp; the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentaries.<br /> <br /> Finally even [[Saint Jerome]] asserts that ''Darius the Mede'' is [[Cyaxares II]], son of [[Astyages]],&lt;ref&gt;Jerome, ''Commentariorum in Danielem libri III&lt;IV&gt;'', 820-21.&lt;/ref&gt; leaving Benson to conclude &quot;so that it appears to have been the generally received opinion in [[Saint Jerome|Jerome's]] time, as it probably was also in the time of Josephus, which was not more than five or six hundred years after [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]].&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Benson's Commentaries, Daniel 6:1 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore [[Alexander the Great|Alexander's]] known love and constant study of the [[Cyropaedia]] (and thereby [[Aristotle|Aristotle's]] recommendation) show peer acceptance of the identity of [[Cyaxares II]] by both academia and heads of state not 100-200 years from the events they record.<br /> <br /> ==Arguments for Other Identities==<br /> ===Darius the Mede as Astyages===<br /> At first glance, the identification of Daniel’s Darius as Astyages has some strong points in its favor. He was a Mede; further, a Median king. Xenophon, Herodotus, and Ctesias agree that he was the maternal grandfather of Cyrus the Great, which could explain the authority over Cyrus that is implicit in Darius the Mede’s command in Daniel 6:6–9 that could only have been exercised by the highest authority in the empire. This view was taken by some early Christian writers, and seems to have been last maintained by Bernard Alfrink in 1928.&lt;ref&gt;Bernard Alfrink, “Darius Medus,” ''Biblica'' 9 (1928): 316–40.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> This view runs into several difficulties. Xenophon stated that Astyages died several years before Cyrus began his multi-year campaign against the Babylonians. Neither Herodotus, who portrays Astyages as an enemy of Cyrus, nor the cuneiform inscriptions given any indication that Astyages was reinstalled as king after Cyrus (allegedly) deposed him. According to Herodotus, Astyages began his reign 64 years before the death of Cyrus in 530 BC.&lt;ref&gt;''Histories'' 1.130.1, 1.214.3).&lt;/ref&gt; If he was about 62 years old when Babylon was captured in 539 BC (Daniel 5:31), this would make him about seven years old when he became king in 594 according to Herodotus’s figures; becoming king at such an early age is unlikely. For these and other reasons such as its lack of attestation in any ancient source, identifying Darius the Mede as Astyages has few if any supporters at present.<br /> <br /> ===Darius as Gobryas/Gubaru, governor of the Gutians===<br /> Gubaru (Greek ''Gobryas'', as in Xenophon) was governor of the Gutians, whom some scholars suggest may be the ancestors of the modern Kurds.&lt;ref&gt;Jamie Stokes, ed., ''Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East'' (New York: Infobase, 2009), 380; Egon von Eickstedt, ''Türken, Kurden und Iraner seit dem Altertum'' (Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer, 1961) as reviewed by D. P. Erdbrink in ''Central Asiatic Journal'' 12:1 (1968): 64–65; Alexander Prokhorov, article “Guti” in ''Great Soviet Encyclopedia'' (31 vols.; New York: McMillan, 1973), 7:498.&lt;/ref&gt; According to Xenophon, Gobryas/Gubaru, along with Gadatas, was leader of the forces that captured Babylon,&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' 7.5.23–32.&lt;/ref&gt; a statement that finds verification in the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]].&lt;ref&gt;''ANET'', 306b.&lt;/ref&gt; The Chronicle also states that Cyrus appointed Gobryas as governor of the city, and then Gobryas installed sub-governors in Babylon. “This could explain why Daniel states that Darius “received the kingdom (6:1 [English Translations 5:31]) and “was made king” (9:1), according to this view, by Cyrus.”&lt;ref&gt;Andrew E. Steinmann, ''Daniel'' in the ''Concordia Commentary Series'' (St. Louis: Concordia, 2008), 291–92.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> This view was rather popular among conservative Bible commentators in the first three-quarters of the twentieth century. Its fall from popularity is explained by several points which mitigate against it. 1) Gobryas was not a Mede, whereas Daniel 9:1 says Darius was “of the seed of the Medes.” He was a Gutian, also called an Assyrian (=Babylonian) by Xenophon&lt;ref&gt;(''Cyropaedia'' 4.6.2)&lt;/ref&gt; because, until they joined Cyrus, Gutia was a Babylonian province. 2) According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, Gobryas died 25 days after the capture of Babylon,&lt;ref&gt;''ANET'', 306b.&lt;/ref&gt; which does not allow enough time to accommodate the various activities ascribed to him in Daniel chapter 6. 3) As governor (not king) under Cyrus, Gobryas would not have had the authority to issue a decree that no prayers were to be made to any other king or to any god except to him for 30 days.<br /> ===Darius as Ugbaru, Persian-appointed governor of Babylon===<br /> John Whitcomb advocated that Daniel’s Darius was not Gobryas (Gubaru), governor of the Gutians, but a certain Ugbaru, a governor of Babylon whose name is found in several cuneiform texts.&lt;ref&gt;John C. Whitcomb Jr., ''Darius the Mede'' (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1963).&lt;/ref&gt; However, this identification was abandoned after Lester Grabbe pointed out that Ugbaru did not become governor of Babylon until the fourth year of Cyrus, which does not fit the statements in Daniel that make Darius the king immediately after the capture of the city in 539 BC.&lt;ref&gt;Lester L. Grabbe, “Another Look at the ''Gestalt'' of Darius the Mede,” ''Catholic Bible Quarterly'' 50:2 (1988): 206–7.&lt;/ref&gt; Whitcomb’s identification is therefore now generally discredited.<br /> ===Darius as Cyrus===<br /> The view that “Darius” was just another name of Cyrus was advocated by D.J. Wiseman.&lt;ref&gt;Donald J. Wiseman, “The Last Days of Babylon,” ''Christianity Today'' 2/4 (November 25, 1957): 7–10.&lt;/ref&gt; To support this identification, Wiseman and those who have followed him have argued that Daniel 5:31 should be translated as “So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, ''that is'', in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” This contrasts with the usual translations which give “. . . in the reign of Darius, ''and'' in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” The difference centers on one word, the Aramaic (and Hebrew) conjunction ''waw'', (pronounced ''vav'' in modern Hebrew), which is usually translated “and.” Andrew Steinmann, who accepts Wiseman’s interpretation, points out the following Scriptures where the meaning “that is” must be taken for this conjunction: 1 Chronicles 5:26, Daniel 2:28, and Daniel 3:2.&lt;ref&gt;Steinmann, ''Daniel'', 293.&lt;/ref&gt; One advantage of Wiseman’s interpretation is that it is in harmony with the authority that Darius must have had in order to issue a decree that no one could pray to any other king or god except to him for 30 days (Daniel 6:6–9), necessarily implying that he was the highest authority in the empire at that time. Another advantage is that, with this interpretation, Darius the Mede has not “disappeared from history” outside of the book of Daniel and works depending on it; his personage is remembered in all the ancient literature referring to Cyrus the Great.<br /> <br /> The problems with this identification may be listed as follows. <br /> # Darius was of “the seed of the Medes” (Daniel 9:1), and he is also called a Median in 5:31 and 11:1. In contrast, Cyrus is called a Persian or king of the Persians in 6:28 and 10:1 and also 2 Chronicles 36:22, Ezra 1:1, and 4:5. Although Cyrus’s mother was Mandane, daughter of Astyages the king of the Medes, ethnicity in the ancient Near East was reckoned through the father’s line, not the mother’s. <br /> # The equation Cyrus=Darius makes it difficult to understand why the author of Daniel would repeatedly make distinctions between “Darius the Mede” and “Cyrus the Persian.” <br /> # In Cyrus’s inscriptions, and in other ancient references, Cyrus is never referred to as a Mede or as a king of the Medes; he is always “Cyrus the Persian,” “Cyrus King of Persia,” or “Cyrus King of Anshan” (a capital of Persia). <br /> # According to Xenophon,&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' 1.2.8, 9; 1.5.4.&lt;/ref&gt; Cyrus was about 27 years of age when he assumed the generalship of the combined Median and Persian armies in preparation for war with the Babylonians under their chosen general, Croesus of Lydia. This was apparently a year or two before the eventual defeat of Croesus and his forces in 547 BC, which would make Cyrus about 29 in 547 and about 37 when his forces captured Babylon in 539 BC. This is consistent with the “Dream Text” of Nabonidus that calls Cyrus a “young servant” of Marduk when he became leader of the Medes and Persians.&lt;ref&gt;Paul-Alain Beaulieu, ''The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C.'' (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 108.&lt;/ref&gt; Darius “the Mede”, however, was about 62 years of age in 539 BC (Daniel 5:31).<br /> ===Darius as Cambyses II, son and successor of Cyrus===<br /> This identification was proposed by the Anglican clergyman Charles Boutflower.&lt;ref&gt;Charles Boutflower, ''In and around the Book of Daniel'' (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1923; reprint; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), 142–45.&lt;/ref&gt; It was based in part on some cuneiform texts suggesting that Cambyses II may have been appointed coregent by his father soon after the capture of Babylon. He could therefore properly be called “king,” and might fill the role of the Darius who “received the kingdom” (Daniel 5:31). <br /> <br /> There are many problems with Boutflower’s view. 1) Although Cambyses’s grandmother and great-grandfather were Medes, Cambyses and Cyrus were always called Persians, not Medes. 2) Cambyses could not have issued the decree of Daniel 6:6–9 while his father Cyrus was still the supreme ruler. 3) Daniel’s Darius was about 62 years of age when Babylon fell to the combined forces under the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:31). In the section above, it was shown that Cyrus himself was only about 37 years of age at this time, and his son would naturally be several years younger. These objections show why Boutflower’s view has never found acceptance among other scholars.<br /> <br /> ==How Did Darius the Mede Disappear from History? Or Did He?==<br /> Typical of the skepticism that much of critical scholarship expresses towards Daniel’s “Darius the Mede” is the claim from John J. Collins: “No such person as Darius the Mede is known to have existed apart from the narration of Daniel . . . No such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history.”&lt;ref&gt;John J. Collins, ''Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 30, 33.&lt;/ref&gt; The latter statement is particularly interesting, because it implicitly denies that the Bible is a source of history. Similarly, Carol Newsom writes of “the wholly fictitious character of Darius the Mede,”&lt;ref&gt;Carol A. Newsom with Brennan W. Breed, ''Daniel: A Commentary'', Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 192.&lt;/ref&gt; and George Buchanan confidently declares, “Darius the Mede never existed.”&lt;ref&gt;George Wesley Buchanan, ''The Book of Daniel'', Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 30.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> Such dogmatic statements lose their force when it is realized that for over 1700 years, historians and biblical scholars found no problem in accepting that the name “Darius” used by Daniel was an alternate name or “throne name” for the [[Cyaxares II]] who plays a major role in Xenophon’s ''Cyropaedia''. It is well known that Near Eastern monarchs, when they took the throne, adopted a throne name in addition to their given name. Rüdiger Schmitt provides the given names of Achaemenid rulers who succeeded Cyrus II whose better-known throne names were Artaxerxes I, Darius II, Artaxerxes II, Artaxerxes III, and Darius III.&lt;ref&gt;Rüdiger Schmitt, “Achaemenid Throne-Names,” ''Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli'' 42 (1982): 83–86, 90.&lt;/ref&gt; It should be expected, then, that Cyaxares II would have another name besides the one name that is given to him by Xenophon. That this was the case is indicated by Josephus. When referring to the Darius of Daniel, Josephus wrote that this Darius (“Darius the Mede”) “was called by another name among the Greeks” (''Antiquities'' 10.248). In the same passage, Josephus says that Darius was a son of Astyages and a kinsman of Cyrus. Both of these statements show that Josephus was in agreement with Xenophon’s portraits of Astyages and Cyaxares II in the ''Cyropaedia'', where Cyaxares is presented as the son of Astyages and the maternal uncle of Cyrus. <br /> <br /> ===First refutation of idea that “Darius the Mede is not known to history”===<br /> This historical identification, that Daniel’s Darius was identical to Xenophon’s Cyaxares II, continued for many centuries after Josephus and was espoused by eminent Jewish and Christian scholars. Steven Anderson lists the following writers who accepted this identification: Jerome (3rd century AD), John Calvin (16th century), James Ussher (17th century), Charles Rollin and William Lowth (18th century), and in the 19th century Thomas Hartwell Horne, Wilhelm Gesenius, Humphrey Prideaux, E. W. Hengstenberg, C. F. Keil in the Keil and Delitzsch commentary, and Otto Zöckler in Lange’s Commentary.&lt;ref&gt;Anderson, ''Darius the Mede'', 3–5.&lt;/ref&gt; For these authors, the resemblance of Daniel’s Darius with Xenophon’s Cyaxares was so compelling that Keil wrote, “The account given by Xenophon regarding Cyaxares so fully agrees with the narrative of Daniel regarding Darius the Mede, that, as Hitzig confesses, “the identity of the two is beyond a doubt.””&lt;ref&gt;C. F. Keil, ''Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel'', in ''Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament'' (trans. M. G. Easton; Edinburgh: T. &amp; T. Clark, 1872; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 198.&lt;/ref&gt; A discussion of why this position, held for many centuries by such a distinguished list of authors, fell into disfavor beginning in the late 19th century is presented on the [[Cyaxares II]] page. For now, the relevant point is that, contrary to the statement of Collins, once the traditional view is taken that Daniel’s Darius = Xenophon’s Cyaxares, it is by no means true that “No such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history.” <br /> ===Second refutation of the idea that “Darius the Mede is not known to history.”===<br /> Three of the great conservative commentators of the 19th century, Hengstenberg, Keil (''Keil and Delitzsch commentary''), and Zöckler (''Lange’s Commentary''), cited references to a king Darius who was preceded Darius I Hystapses (522–486 BC).&lt;ref&gt;[https://archive.org/stream/dissertationsongendan00heng]E. W. Hengstenberg, ''Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel and the Integrity of Zechariah'' (tr. B. P. Pratten; Edingburgh: T &amp; T Clark, 1848), 41–42.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Keil, ''Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel'', 199–200.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Otto Zöckler, ''The Book of the Prophet Daniel: Theologically and Homiletically Expounded'' (tr. &amp; ed. James Strong; vol. 13 of ''Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical'', ed. John Peter Lange and Philip Schaff (New York: Scribner, Armstrong &amp; Co., 1876), 36.&lt;/ref&gt; These authors cite references in two early authors, Berossus (3rd century BC) and Harpocration (2nd century AD) for evidence of this King Darius who was earlier than Darius I. The Berossus passage is preserved in Josephus (''Against Apion'' 1.153) and in the ''Chronicle'' of Eusebius, a work that survives only in an Armenian translation. Josephus/Berossus relates the defeat of Nabonidus by Cyrus, after which Nabonidus “was humanely treated by Cyrus, who dismissed him from Babylonia, but gave him Carmania for his residence.” The extract from Eusebius agrees with Josephus’s citation, but adds to it: “(But) Darius the king took away some of his province for himself.”&lt;ref&gt; Josef Karst, ed., ''Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Commentar'', vol. 5 of ''Eusebius Werke'' (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911), 246.&lt;/ref&gt; This is referring to the time of the defeat of Nabonidus (539 BC), not the time of the later Darius I Hystapses. If this earlier Darius was able to override the disposition of Cyrus for Nabonidus, it means that he had a higher authority than Cyrus, which is compatible with Xenophon’s portrayal of Cyrus being under the suzerainty of Cyaxares until the death of the latter. It is also compatible with the “Darius the Mede” of Daniel, who had authority to issue an edict that no one could pray to any other god or king but to him for thirty days, an edict that could not have been issued if there was an authority higher than him in the realm (Daniel 6:7-9). Notice that the events of Daniel 6 take place after the forces under Cyrus captured Babylon; Cyrus was still alive, but at this point he was not yet the supreme authority in the empire.<br /> <br /> [[Harpocration]] was associated with [[Library of Alexandria|the great library in Alexandria]], and so he had access to many ancient works that were lost when the library was burned. In his work ''The Lexicon of the Ten Orators'', under the entry “Daric,” (being a coinage) [[Harpocration]] wrote, “But darics are not named, as most suppose, after [[Darius I|Darius]] [i.e. Darius I Hystapses, 522-486 BC] the father of [[Xerxes I the Great|Xerxes]], but after a certain other more ancient king.” This is thus a second historical reference to the existence of an earlier Darius, who must have been the supreme authority in his time, since he had authority to issue coinage in his name. These two references from ancient authors of this earlier king Darius can be taken as independent of the remembrance of [[Cyaxares II]] in [[Xenophon]], although the force of evidence implies that [[Xenophon|Xenophon’s]] [[Cyaxares II|Cyaxares]] was the same person as this “earlier” Darius, and both were the personage identified as “Darius the Mede” in the book of Daniel.<br /> <br /> ==In Daniel 5==<br /> Herein [[Darius the Mede]] seizes the kingdom and rules as king at the fall of Babylon. This narrative has historically presented problems for Biblical scholars as it is an undisputed historical fact that Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon. While many positions exist on the subject, we shall examine each below in separate sections.<br /> ==In Daniel 10 through 11==<br /> ==External Links==<br /> https://www.bitchute.com/video/r9npZoqtD4HA/<br /> ==Resources==<br /> *J. B. Pritchard, ed., ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament'' (3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969). Abbreviated ''ANET''.<br /> *[https://www.academia.edu/22476645/Darius_the_Mede_A_Reappraisal]Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014). <br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder. <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.<br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]The Nabonidus Chronicle.<br /> ==References==</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Darius_the_Mede&diff=1722128 2021-01-18T18:59:18Z

<p>Latent: Supplied content for section &quot;Arguments for Other Identities&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;TABLE ΒORDER ALIGN=&quot;RIGHT&quot; WIDTH=&quot;250&quot; BORDER=&quot;2&quot; BGCOLOR=&quot;CYAN&quot; RULES=&quot;NONE&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD COLSPAN=&quot;2&quot; ALIGN=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;”Darius the Mede” (=Cyaxares II), last king of Media&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;predecessor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Astyages&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;reign&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;ca. 550 BC to Dec. 538 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;successor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;[[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus the Great]]&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;father&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Astyages&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;mother&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;birth&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;ca. 602 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt; <br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;death&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;December, 538 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;spouse&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;/TABLE&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Darius the Mede''' is a character appearing thrice in the biblical [[Book of Daniel]]. Meanwhile the exact identity of ''Darius the Mede'' remains the subject of heated debate representing &quot;the last great hurdle to the contextually historical authenticity of book&quot;: leading skeptics to claim ''Darius the Mede'' is nothing more than an easily dismissed fictional character, while reversely the class of &quot;historical harmonizers&quot; suggesting that ''Darius the Mede'' is simply another name for an existing historical figure.<br /> <br /> This subject is further complicated by [[Josephus]] simply stating that Darius the Mede was the son of [[Astyages]] king of the Medes and that he was known to the Greeks by another name, without qualifying what that name was.<br /> <br /> Meanwhile the broadly used &quot;[[Herodotus|Father of History]]&quot; also oft called &quot;the Father of Lies&quot; in his dramatic recount, records that [[Astyages]] had no son, but rather tells how the kingdom passed directly to [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] by force of arms &lt;ref&gt;[[Herodotus]], ''Histories'' 1.109.3, 1.129.4&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> Thus [[Herodotus|Herodotus']] account stands in direct opposition to [[Josephus|Josephus']] statement and [[Xenophon|Xenophon's]] far more extensive and detailed book on the subject which extensively relates how [[Astyages|Astyages']] son was [[Cyaxares II]], which when combined with Josephus provides a natural solution on the subject.<br /> <br /> But with the only extant clay tablets, the [[Uruk King List]] and [[Ptolemy's Canon]] (of which, both of the latter are known not to be perfect) ''seeming'' to support the direct passage of power to [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus II]], the grounds for debate have been established. Meanwhile the most authoritative [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] of [[Darius I]] does reference &quot;Cyaxares&quot; twice, but it remains questionable if these refer to [[Astyages]] father [[Cyaxares I]] or son [[Cyaxares II]]. Therefore the academic community remains divided.<br /> <br /> It must also be noted that while a host of other individuals have been proposed for the identity of ''Darius the Mede'', the case for synergy with [[Cyaxares II]] remains the most historically plausible outcome.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Arguments for Fictional==<br /> It is sufficient to say on this subject that without a clear clay tablet on the subject, skeptics hold the character of [[Darius the Mede]] is either &quot;literary fiction, appropriate to the genre of a court contest tale&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Hill, Andrew, ''Expositor's Commentary'', Zondervan, 2009, p.114. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=bCPBrAfBSdgC&amp;pg=PA114&amp;dq=expositor%27s+commentary+%22Generally+for+critical+commentators+the+character+is+simply+a+literary+fiction+appropriate+to+the+Genre+of+court-contest+tale%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi9q8_JwP_oAhWy7XMBHcSsCIoQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=expositor's%20commentary%20%22Generally%20for%20critical%20commentators%20the%20character%20is%20simply%20a%20literary%20fiction%20appropriate%20to%20the%20Genre%20of%20court-contest%20tale%22&amp;f=false&lt;/ref&gt; or similarly a literary composite of several individuals as sumarized by Hill&lt;ref&gt;Hill, Andrew, ''Expositor's Commentary'', Zondervan, 2009, p.114. https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/The_Expositor_s_Bible_Commentary/bCPBrAfBSdgC?q=expositor%27s+commentary+%22Generally+for+critical+commentators+the+character+is+simply+a+literary+fiction+appropriate+to+the+Genre+of+court-contest+tale%22&amp;gbpv=1#f=false&lt;/ref&gt; and therefore the entire chapter as fiction. This as Barnes notes&lt;ref&gt;Barnes Commentary, ''Daniel 6:1, Section 2'' - &quot;Considerable importance is to be attached to the question who was Darius the Mede, as it has been made a ground of objection to the Scripture narrative, that no person by that name is mentioned in the Greek writers.&quot;<br /> [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; is generally presented as evidence that possibly the entire book is not considered to be of any historical value and is to be disqualified entirely.<br /> <br /> ==Arguments for Cyaxares II==<br /> In Xenophon's historical narrative, some time after the natural death of his grandfather [[Astyages]], [[Cyrus II the Great]], while still a youth and not yet king of Persia, entered into the employ of his uncle [[Cyaxares II]] as general of the army in a mutual defence pact against Assyria (Babylon). In this capacity [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] campaigns with [[Cyaxares II]] at the first and then by himself until his eventual conquest of [[Babylon]]. In this narrative, it must be noted that all conquests are officially in the name of the alliance which was ultimately at the expense and direction of the king of the Medes. After which [[Cyrus the Great]] returns to the capital city of [[Ecbatana]] in Media and presents [[Cyaxares II]] with a palace in Babylon as a token of victory and receives [[Cyaxares II]]'s daughter as his wife with the kingdom of Media as her dowry. Xenophon's account then details Cyrus' trip home to Persia where he receives the title of King upon the death of his father [[Cambyses I]].<br /> <br /> This position when combined with Josephs' assertion that [[Darius the Mede]] was the son of [[Astyages]] but known to the Greeks by another name, it makes it only natural to conclude that:<br /> * Darius the Mede is Cyaxares II.<br /> * &quot;Darius the Mede received (Aramaic: ''qabel'') the kingdom&quot; (Dan. 5:31) despite being actually conquered by Cyrus&quot; (Dan. 5:31) as <br /> * Cyrus at that point was simply heir of Persia and the greatly loved General of the Coalition Army.<br /> <br /> As discussed at the start, while the character of [[Cyaxares II]] is not generally accepted amidst the classical histories such as [[Herodotus]], the reconstructed fragments of [[Ctesias]], the [[Uruk King Lit]], the [[Ptolemy's Canon|Cannon of Ptolemy]]&lt;ref&gt;Ptolemy's ''Canon''[https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]&lt;/ref&gt; or even on a currently available clay tablet (other than two possible references in the [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]]), [[Cyaxares II]] presents the most natural solution to the problem and is the summary position of several Bible commentaries such as: ''Benson Commentary''&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 9:1 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 6:1[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 5:30-31 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/5.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; ''Barnes Notes''&lt;ref&gt;Barnes Notes, Daniel 9:1[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; &amp; the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentaries.<br /> <br /> Finally even [[Saint Jerome]] asserts that ''Darius the Mede'' is [[Cyaxares II]], son of [[Astyages]],&lt;ref&gt;Jerome, ''Commentariorum in Danielem libri III&lt;IV&gt;'', 820-21.&lt;/ref&gt; leaving Benson to conclude &quot;so that it appears to have been the generally received opinion in [[Saint Jerome|Jerome's]] time, as it probably was also in the time of Josephus, which was not more than five or six hundred years after [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]].&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Benson's Commentaries, Daniel 6:1 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore [[Alexander the Great|Alexander's]] known love and constant study of the [[Cyropaedia]] (and thereby [[Aristotle|Aristotle's]] recommendation) show peer acceptance of the identity of [[Cyaxares II]] by both academia and heads of state not 100-200 years from the events they record.<br /> <br /> ==Arguments for Other Identities==<br /> ===Darius the Mede as Astyages===<br /> At first glance, the identification of Daniel’s Darius as Astyages has some strong points in its favor. He was a Mede; further, a Median king. Xenophon, Herodotus, and Ctesias agree that he was the maternal grandfather of Cyrus the Great, which could explain the authority over Cyrus that is implicit in Darius the Mede’s command in Daniel 6:6–9 that could only have been exercised by the highest authority in the empire. This view was taken by some early Christian writers, and seems to have been last maintained by Bernard Alfrink in 1928.&lt;ref&gt;Bernard Alfrink, “Darius Medus,” ''Biblica'' 9 (1928): 316–40.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> This view runs into several difficulties. Xenophon stated that Astyages died several years before Cyrus began his multi-year campaign against the Babylonians. Neither Herodotus, who portrays Astyages as an enemy of Cyrus, nor the cuneiform inscriptions given any indication that Astyages was reinstalled as king after Cyrus (allegedly) deposed him. According to Herodotus, Astyages began his reign 64 years before the death of Cyrus in 530 BC.&lt;ref&gt;''Histories'' 1.130.1, 1.214.3).&lt;/ref&gt; If he was about 62 years old when Babylon was captured in 539 BC (Daniel 5:31), this would make him about seven years old when he became king in 594 according to Herodotus’s figures; becoming king at such an early age is unlikely. For these and other reasons such as its lack of attestation in any ancient source, identifying Darius the Mede as Astyages has few if any supporters at present.<br /> <br /> ===Darius as Gobryas/Gubaru, governor of the Gutians===<br /> Gubaru (Greek ''Gobryas'', as in Xenophon) was governor of the Gutians, whom some scholars suggest may be the ancestors of the modern Kurds.&lt;ref&gt;Jamie Stokes, ed., ''Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East'' (New York: Infobase, 2009), 380; Egon von Eickstedt, ''Türken, Kurden und Iraner seit dem Altertum'' (Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer, 1961) as reviewed by D. P. Erdbrink in ''Central Asiatic Journal'' 12:1 (1968): 64–65; Alexander Prokhorov, article “Guti” in ''Great Soviet Encyclopedia'' (31 vols.; New York: McMillan, 1973), 7:498.&lt;/ref&gt; According to Xenophon, Gobryas/Gubaru, along with Gadatas, was leader of the forces that captured Babylon,&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' 7.5.23–32.&lt;/ref&gt; a statement that finds verification in the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]].&lt;ref&gt;''ANET'', 306b.&lt;/ref&gt; The Chronicle also states that Cyrus appointed Gobryas as governor of the city, and then Gobryas installed sub-governors in Babylon. “This could explain why Daniel states that Darius “received the kingdom (6:1 [English Translations 5:31]) and “was made king” (9:1), according to this view, by Cyrus.”&lt;ref&gt;Andrew E. Steinmann, ''Daniel'' in the ''Concordia Commentary Series'' (St. Louis: Concordia, 2008), 291–92.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> This view was rather popular among conservative Bible commentators in the first three-quarters of the twentieth century. Its fall from popularity is explained by several points which mitigate against it. 1) Gobryas was not a Mede, whereas Daniel 9:1 says Darius was “of the seed of the Medes.” He was a Gutian, also called an Assyrian (=Babylonian) by Xenophon&lt;ref&gt;(''Cyropaedia'' 4.6.2)&lt;/ref&gt; because, until they joined Cyrus, Gutia was a Babylonian province. 2) According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, Gobryas died 25 days after the capture of Babylon,&lt;ref&gt;''ANET'', 306b.&lt;/ref&gt; which does not allow enough time to accommodate the various activities ascribed to him in Daniel chapter 6. 3) As governor (not king) under Cyrus, Gobryas would not have had the authority to issue a decree that no prayers were to be made to any other king or to any god except to him for 30 days.<br /> ===Darius as Ugbaru, Persian-appointed governor of Babylon===<br /> John Whitcomb advocated that Daniel’s Darius was not Gobryas (Gubaru), governor of the Gutians, but a certain Ugbaru, a governor of Babylon whose name is found in several cuneiform texts.&lt;ref&gt;John C. Whitcomb Jr., ''Darius the Mede'' (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1963).&lt;/ref&gt; However, this identification was abandoned after Lester Grabbe pointed out that Ugbaru did not become governor of Babylon until the fourth year of Cyrus, which does not fit the statements in Daniel that make Darius the king immediately after the capture of the city in 539 BC.&lt;ref&gt;Lester L. Grabbe, “Another Look at the ''Gestalt'' of Darius the Mede,” ''Catholic Bible Quarterly'' 50:2 (1988): 206–7.&lt;/ref&gt; Whitcomb’s identification is therefore now generally discredited.<br /> ===Darius as Cyrus===<br /> The view that “Darius” was just another name of Cyrus was advocated by D.J. Wiseman.&lt;ref&gt;Donald J. Wiseman, “The Last Days of Babylon,” ''Christianity Today'' 2/4 (November 25, 1957): 7–10.&lt;/ref&gt; To support this identification, Wiseman and those who have followed him have argued that Daniel 5:31 should be translated as “So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, ''that is'', in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” This contrasts with the usual translations which give “. . . in the reign of Darius, ''and'' in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” The difference centers on one word, the Aramaic (and Hebrew) conjunction ''waw'', (pronounced ''vav'' in modern Hebrew), which is usually translated “and.” Andrew Steinmann, who accepts Wiseman’s interpretation, points out the following Scriptures where the meaning “that is” must be taken for this conjunction: 1 Chronicles 5:26, Daniel 2:28, and Daniel 3:2.&lt;ref&gt;Steinmann, ''Daniel'', 293.&lt;/ref&gt; One advantage of Wiseman’s interpretation is that it is in harmony with the authority that Darius must have had in order to issue a decree that no one could pray to any other king or god except to him for 30 days (Daniel 6:6–9), necessarily implying that he was the highest authority in the empire at that time. Another advantage is that, with this interpretation, Darius the Mede has not “disappeared from history” outside of the book of Daniel and works depending on it; his personage is remembered in all the ancient literature referring to Cyrus the Great.<br /> <br /> The problems with this identification may be listed as follows. <br /> # Darius was of “the seed of the Medes” (Daniel 9:1), and he is also called a Median in 5:31 and 11:1. In contrast, Cyrus is called a Persian or king of the Persians in 6:28 and 10:1 and also 2 Chronicles 36:22, Ezra 1:1, and 4:5. Although Cyrus’s mother was Mandane, daughter of Astyages the king of the Medes, ethnicity in the ancient Near East was reckoned through the father’s line, not the mother’s. <br /> # The equation Cyrus=Darius makes it difficult to understand why the author of Daniel would repeatedly make distinctions between “Darius the Mede” and “Cyrus the Persian.” <br /> # In Cyrus’s inscriptions, and in other ancient references, Cyrus is never referred to as a Mede or as a king of the Medes; he is always “Cyrus the Persian,” “Cyrus King of Persia,” or “Cyrus King of Anshan” (a capital of Persia). <br /> # According to Xenophon,&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' 1.2.8, 9; 1.5.4.&lt;/ref&gt; Cyrus was about 27 years of age when he assumed the generalship of the combined Median and Persian armies in preparation for war with the Babylonians under their chosen general, Croesus of Lydia. This was apparently a year or two before the eventual defeat of Croesus and his forces in 547 BC, which would make Cyrus about 29 in 547 and about 37 when his forces captured Babylon in 539 BC. This is consistent with the “Dream Text” of Nabonidus that calls Cyrus a “young servant” of Marduk when he became leader of the Medes and Persians.&lt;ref&gt;Paul-Alain Beaulieu, ''The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C.'' (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 108.&lt;/ref&gt; Darius “the Mede”, however, was about 62 years of age in 539 BC (Daniel 5:31).<br /> ===Darius as Cambyses II, son and successor of Cyrus===<br /> This identification was proposed by the Anglican clergyman Charles Boutflower.&lt;ref&gt;Charles Boutflower, ''In and around the Book of Daniel'' (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1923; reprint; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), 142–45.&lt;/ref&gt; It was based in part on some cuneiform texts suggesting that Cambyses II may have been appointed coregent by his father soon after the capture of Babylon. He could therefore properly be called “king,” and might fill the role of the Darius who “received the kingdom” (Daniel 5:31). <br /> <br /> There are many problems with Boutflower’s view. 1) Although Cambyses’s grandmother and great-grandfather were Medes, Cambyses and Cyrus were always called Persians, not Medes. 2) Cambyses could not have issued the decree of Daniel 6:6–9 while his father Cyrus was still the supreme ruler. 3) Daniel’s Darius was about 62 years of age when Babylon fell to the combined forces under the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:31). In the section above, it was shown that Cyrus himself was only about 37 years of age at this time, and his son would naturally be several years younger. These objections show why Boutflower’s view has never found acceptance among other scholars.<br /> <br /> ==How Did Darius the Mede Disappear from History? Or Did He?==<br /> Typical of the skepticism that much of critical scholarship expresses towards Daniel’s “Darius the Mede” is the claim from John J. Collins: “No such person as Darius the Mede is known to have existed apart from the narration of Daniel . . . No such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history.”&lt;ref&gt;John J. Collins, ''Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 30, 33.&lt;/ref&gt; The latter statement is particularly interesting, because it implicitly denies that the Bible is a source of history. Similarly, Carol Newsom writes of “the wholly fictitious character of Darius the Mede,”&lt;ref&gt;Carol A. Newsom with Brennan W. Breed, ''Daniel: A Commentary'', Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 192.&lt;/ref&gt; and George Buchanan confidently declares, “Darius the Mede never existed.”&lt;ref&gt;George Wesley Buchanan, ''The Book of Daniel'', Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 30.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> Such dogmatic statements lose their force when it is realized that for over 1700 years, historians and biblical scholars found no problem in accepting that the name “Darius” used by Daniel was an alternate name or “throne name” for the [[Cyaxares II]] who plays a major role in Xenophon’s ''Cyropaedia''. It is well known that Near Eastern monarchs, when they took the throne, adopted a throne name in addition to their given name. Rüdiger Schmitt provides the given names of Achaemenid rulers who succeeded Cyrus II whose better-known throne names were Artaxerxes I, Darius II, Artaxerxes II, Artaxerxes III, and Darius III.&lt;ref&gt;Rüdiger Schmitt, “Achaemenid Throne-Names,” ''Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli'' 42 (1982): 83–86, 90.&lt;/ref&gt; It should be expected, then, that Cyaxares II would have another name besides the one name that is given to him by Xenophon. That this was the case is indicated by Josephus. When referring to the Darius of Daniel, Josephus wrote that this Darius (“Darius the Mede”) “was called by another name among the Greeks” (''Antiquities'' 10.248). In the same passage, Josephus says that Darius was a son of Astyages and a kinsman of Cyrus. Both of these statements show that Josephus was in agreement with Xenophon’s portraits of Astyages and Cyaxares II in the ''Cyropaedia'', where Cyaxares is presented as the son of Astyages and the maternal uncle of Cyrus. <br /> <br /> ===First refutation of idea that “Darius the Mede is not known to history”===<br /> This historical identification, that Daniel’s Darius was identical to Xenophon’s Cyaxares II, continued for many centuries after Josephus and was espoused by eminent Jewish and Christian scholars. Steven Anderson lists the following writers who accepted this identification: Jerome (3rd century AD), John Calvin (16th century), James Ussher (17th century), Charles Rollin and William Lowth (18th century), and in the 19th century Thomas Hartwell Horne, Wilhelm Gesenius, Humphrey Prideaux, E. W. Hengstenberg, C. F. Keil in the Keil and Delitzsch commentary, and Otto Zöckler in Lange’s Commentary.&lt;ref&gt;Anderson, ''Darius the Mede'', 3–5.&lt;/ref&gt; For these authors, the resemblance of Daniel’s Darius with Xenophon’s Cyaxares was so compelling that Keil wrote, “The account given by Xenophon regarding Cyaxares so fully agrees with the narrative of Daniel regarding Darius the Mede, that, as Hitzig confesses, “the identity of the two is beyond a doubt.””&lt;ref&gt;C. F. Keil, ''Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel'', in ''Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament'' (trans. M. G. Easton; Edinburgh: T. &amp; T. Clark, 1872; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 198.&lt;/ref&gt; A discussion of why this position, held for many centuries by such a distinguished list of authors, fell into disfavor beginning in the late 19th century is presented on the [[Cyaxares II]] page. For now, the relevant point is that, contrary to the statement of Collins, once the traditional view is taken that Daniel’s Darius = Xenophon’s Cyaxares, it is by no means true that “No such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history.” <br /> ===Second refutation of the idea that “Darius the Mede is not known to history.”===<br /> Three of the great conservative commentators of the 19th century, Hengstenberg, Keil (''Keil and Delitzsch commentary''), and Zöckler (''Lange’s Commentary''), cited references to a king Darius who was preceded Darius I Hystapses (522–486 BC).&lt;ref&gt;[https://archive.org/stream/dissertationsongendan00heng]E. W. Hengstenberg, ''Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel and the Integrity of Zechariah'' (tr. B. P. Pratten; Edingburgh: T &amp; T Clark, 1848), 41–42.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Keil, ''Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel'', 199–200.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Otto Zöckler, ''The Book of the Prophet Daniel: Theologically and Homiletically Expounded'' (tr. &amp; ed. James Strong; vol. 13 of ''Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical'', ed. John Peter Lange and Philip Schaff (New York: Scribner, Armstrong &amp; Co., 1876), 36.&lt;/ref&gt; These authors cite references in two early authors, Berossus (3rd century BC) and Harpocration (2nd century AD) for evidence of this King Darius who was earlier than Darius I. The Berossus passage is preserved in Josephus (''Against Apion'' 1.153) and in the ''Chronicle'' of Eusebius, a work that survives only in an Armenian translation. Josephus/Berossus relates the defeat of Nabonidus by Cyrus, after which Nabonidus “was humanely treated by Cyrus, who dismissed him from Babylonia, but gave him Carmania for his residence.” The extract from Eusebius agrees with Josephus’s citation, but adds to it: “(But) Darius the king took away some of his province for himself.”&lt;ref&gt; Josef Karst, ed., ''Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Commentar'', vol. 5 of ''Eusebius Werke'' (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911), 246.&lt;/ref&gt; This is referring to the time of the defeat of Nabonidus (539 BC), not the time of the later Darius I Hystapses. If this earlier Darius was able to override the disposition of Cyrus for Nabonidus, it means that he had a higher authority than Cyrus, which is compatible with Xenophon’s portrayal of Cyrus being under the suzerainty of Cyaxares until the death of the latter. It is also compatible with the “Darius the Mede” of Daniel, who had authority to issue an edict that no one could pray to any other god or king but to him for thirty days, an edict that could not have been issued if there was an authority higher than him in the realm (Daniel 6:7-9). Notice that the events of Daniel 6 take place after the forces under Cyrus captured Babylon; Cyrus was still alive, but at this point he was not yet the supreme authority in the empire.<br /> <br /> [[Harpocration]] was associated with [[Library of Alexandria|the great library in Alexandria]], and so he had access to many ancient works that were lost when the library was burned. In his work ''The Lexicon of the Ten Orators'', under the entry “Daric,” (being a coinage) [[Harpocration]] wrote, “But darics are not named, as most suppose, after [[Darius I|Darius]] [i.e. Darius I Hystapses, 522-486 BC] the father of [[Xerxes I the Great|Xerxes]], but after a certain other more ancient king.” This is thus a second historical reference to the existence of an earlier Darius, who must have been the supreme authority in his time, since he had authority to issue coinage in his name. These two references from ancient authors of this earlier king Darius can be taken as independent of the remembrance of [[Cyaxares II]] in [[Xenophon]], although the force of evidence implies that [[Xenophon|Xenophon’s]] [[Cyaxares II|Cyaxares]] was the same person as this “earlier” Darius, and both were the personage identified as “Darius the Mede” in the book of Daniel.<br /> <br /> ==In Daniel 5==<br /> Herein [[Darius the Mede]] seizes the kingdom and rules as king at the fall of Babylon. This narrative has historically presented problems for Biblical scholars as it is an undisputed historical fact that Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon. While many positions exist on the subject, we shall examine each below in separate sections.<br /> ==In Daniel 10 through 11==<br /> ==External Links==<br /> https://www.bitchute.com/video/r9npZoqtD4HA/<br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.academia.edu/22476645/Darius_the_Mede_A_Reappraisal]Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014). <br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder. <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.<br /> ==References==</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Darius_the_Mede&diff=1722117 2021-01-18T15:35:18Z

<p>Latent: Corrected a slight confusion about Darius I and his son Xerxes</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;TABLE ΒORDER ALIGN=&quot;RIGHT&quot; WIDTH=&quot;250&quot; BORDER=&quot;2&quot; BGCOLOR=&quot;CYAN&quot; RULES=&quot;NONE&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD COLSPAN=&quot;2&quot; ALIGN=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;”Darius the Mede” (=Cyaxares II), last king of Media&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;predecessor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Astyages&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;reign&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;ca. 550 BC to Dec. 538 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;successor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;[[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus the Great]]&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;father&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Astyages&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;mother&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;birth&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;ca. 602 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt; <br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;death&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;December, 538 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;spouse&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;/TABLE&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Darius the Mede''' is a character appearing thrice in the biblical [[Book of Daniel]]. Meanwhile the exact identity of ''Darius the Mede'' remains the subject of heated debate representing &quot;the last great hurdle to the contextually historical authenticity of book&quot;: leading skeptics to claim ''Darius the Mede'' is nothing more than an easily dismissed fictional character, while reversely the class of &quot;historical harmonizers&quot; suggesting that ''Darius the Mede'' is simply another name for an existing historical figure.<br /> <br /> This subject is further complicated by [[Josephus]] simply stating that Darius the Mede was the son of [[Astyages]] king of the Medes and that he was known to the Greeks by another name, without qualifying what that name was.<br /> <br /> Meanwhile the broadly used &quot;[[Herodotus|Father of History]]&quot; also oft called &quot;the Father of Lies&quot; in his dramatic recount, records that [[Astyages]] had no son, but rather tells how the kingdom passed directly to [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] by force of arms &lt;ref&gt;[[Herodotus]], ''Histories'' 1.109.3, 1.129.4&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> Thus [[Herodotus|Herodotus']] account stands in direct opposition to [[Josephus|Josephus']] statement and [[Xenophon|Xenophon's]] far more extensive and detailed book on the subject which extensively relates how [[Astyages|Astyages']] son was [[Cyaxares II]], which when combined with Josephus provides a natural solution on the subject.<br /> <br /> But with the only extant clay tablets, the [[Uruk King List]] and [[Ptolemy's Canon]] (of which, both of the latter are known not to be perfect) ''seeming'' to support the direct passage of power to [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus II]], the grounds for debate have been established. Meanwhile the most authoritative [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] of [[Darius I]] does reference &quot;Cyaxares&quot; twice, but it remains questionable if these refer to [[Astyages]] father [[Cyaxares I]] or son [[Cyaxares II]]. Therefore the academic community remains divided.<br /> <br /> It must also be noted that while a host of other individuals have been proposed for the identity of ''Darius the Mede'', the case for synergy with [[Cyaxares II]] remains the most historically plausible outcome.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Arguments for Fictional==<br /> It is sufficient to say on this subject that without a clear clay tablet on the subject, skeptics hold the character of [[Darius the Mede]] is either &quot;literary fiction, appropriate to the genre of a court contest tale&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Hill, Andrew, ''Expositor's Commentary'', Zondervan, 2009, p.114. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=bCPBrAfBSdgC&amp;pg=PA114&amp;dq=expositor%27s+commentary+%22Generally+for+critical+commentators+the+character+is+simply+a+literary+fiction+appropriate+to+the+Genre+of+court-contest+tale%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi9q8_JwP_oAhWy7XMBHcSsCIoQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=expositor's%20commentary%20%22Generally%20for%20critical%20commentators%20the%20character%20is%20simply%20a%20literary%20fiction%20appropriate%20to%20the%20Genre%20of%20court-contest%20tale%22&amp;f=false&lt;/ref&gt; or similarly a literary composite of several individuals as sumarized by Hill&lt;ref&gt;Hill, Andrew, ''Expositor's Commentary'', Zondervan, 2009, p.114. https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/The_Expositor_s_Bible_Commentary/bCPBrAfBSdgC?q=expositor%27s+commentary+%22Generally+for+critical+commentators+the+character+is+simply+a+literary+fiction+appropriate+to+the+Genre+of+court-contest+tale%22&amp;gbpv=1#f=false&lt;/ref&gt; and therefore the entire chapter as fiction. This as Barnes notes&lt;ref&gt;Barnes Commentary, ''Daniel 6:1, Section 2'' - &quot;Considerable importance is to be attached to the question who was Darius the Mede, as it has been made a ground of objection to the Scripture narrative, that no person by that name is mentioned in the Greek writers.&quot;<br /> [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; is generally presented as evidence that possibly the entire book is not considered to be of any historical value and is to be disqualified entirely.<br /> <br /> ==Arguments for Cyaxares II==<br /> In Xenophon's historical narrative, some time after the natural death of his grandfather [[Astyages]], [[Cyrus II the Great]], while still a youth and not yet king of Persia, entered into the employ of his uncle [[Cyaxares II]] as general of the army in a mutual defence pact against Assyria (Babylon). In this capacity [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] campaigns with [[Cyaxares II]] at the first and then by himself until his eventual conquest of [[Babylon]]. In this narrative, it must be noted that all conquests are officially in the name of the alliance which was ultimately at the expense and direction of the king of the Medes. After which [[Cyrus the Great]] returns to the capital city of [[Ecbatana]] in Media and presents [[Cyaxares II]] with a palace in Babylon as a token of victory and receives [[Cyaxares II]]'s daughter as his wife with the kingdom of Media as her dowry. Xenophon's account then details Cyrus' trip home to Persia where he receives the title of King upon the death of his father [[Cambyses I]].<br /> <br /> This position when combined with Josephs' assertion that [[Darius the Mede]] was the son of [[Astyages]] but known to the Greeks by another name, it makes it only natural to conclude that:<br /> * Darius the Mede is Cyaxares II.<br /> * &quot;Darius the Mede received (Aramaic: ''qabel'') the kingdom&quot; (Dan. 5:31) despite being actually conquered by Cyrus&quot; (Dan. 5:31) as <br /> * Cyrus at that point was simply heir of Persia and the greatly loved General of the Coalition Army.<br /> <br /> As discussed at the start, while the character of [[Cyaxares II]] is not generally accepted amidst the classical histories such as [[Herodotus]], the reconstructed fragments of [[Ctesias]], the [[Uruk King Lit]], the [[Ptolemy's Canon|Cannon of Ptolemy]]&lt;ref&gt;Ptolemy's ''Canon''[https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]&lt;/ref&gt; or even on a currently available clay tablet (other than two possible references in the [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]]), [[Cyaxares II]] presents the most natural solution to the problem and is the summary position of several Bible commentaries such as: ''Benson Commentary''&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 9:1 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 6:1[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 5:30-31 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/5.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; ''Barnes Notes''&lt;ref&gt;Barnes Notes, Daniel 9:1[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; &amp; the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentaries.<br /> <br /> Finally even [[Saint Jerome]] asserts that ''Darius the Mede'' is [[Cyaxares II]], son of [[Astyages]],&lt;ref&gt;Jerome, ''Commentariorum in Danielem libri III&lt;IV&gt;'', 820-21.&lt;/ref&gt; leaving Benson to conclude &quot;so that it appears to have been the generally received opinion in [[Saint Jerome|Jerome's]] time, as it probably was also in the time of Josephus, which was not more than five or six hundred years after [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]].&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Benson's Commentaries, Daniel 6:1 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; Furthermore [[Alexander the Great|Alexander's]] known love and constant study of the [[Cyropaedia]] (and thereby [[Aristotle|Aristotle's]] recommendation) show peer acceptance of the identity of [[Cyaxares II]] by both academia and heads of state not 100-200 years from the events they record.<br /> <br /> ==Arguments for Other Identites==<br /> ''Please help Conservapedia by adding to this section''<br /> <br /> ==How Did Darius the Mede Disappear from History? Or Did He?==<br /> Typical of the skepticism that much of critical scholarship expresses towards Daniel’s “Darius the Mede” is the claim from John J. Collins: “No such person as Darius the Mede is known to have existed apart from the narration of Daniel . . . No such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history.”&lt;ref&gt;John J. Collins, ''Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 30, 33.&lt;/ref&gt; The latter statement is particularly interesting, because it implicitly denies that the Bible is a source of history. Similarly, Carol Newsom writes of “the wholly fictitious character of Darius the Mede,”&lt;ref&gt;Carol A. Newsom with Brennan W. Breed, ''Daniel: A Commentary'', Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 192.&lt;/ref&gt; and George Buchanan confidently declares, “Darius the Mede never existed.”&lt;ref&gt;George Wesley Buchanan, ''The Book of Daniel'', Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 30.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> Such dogmatic statements lose their force when it is realized that for over 1700 years, historians and biblical scholars found no problem in accepting that the name “Darius” used by Daniel was an alternate name or “throne name” for the [[Cyaxares II]] who plays a major role in Xenophon’s ''Cyropaedia''. It is well known that Near Eastern monarchs, when they took the throne, adopted a throne name in addition to their given name. Rüdiger Schmitt provides the given names of Achaemenid rulers who succeeded Cyrus II whose better-known throne names were Artaxerxes I, Darius II, Artaxerxes II, Artaxerxes III, and Darius III.&lt;ref&gt;Rüdiger Schmitt, “Achaemenid Throne-Names,” ''Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli'' 42 (1982): 83–86, 90.&lt;/ref&gt; It should be expected, then, that Cyaxares II would have another name besides the one name that is given to him by Xenophon. That this was the case is indicated by Josephus. When referring to the Darius of Daniel, Josephus wrote that this Darius (“Darius the Mede”) “was called by another name among the Greeks” (''Antiquities'' 10.248). In the same passage, Josephus says that Darius was a son of Astyages and a kinsman of Cyrus. Both of these statements show that Josephus was in agreement with Xenophon’s portraits of Astyages and Cyaxares II in the ''Cyropaedia'', where Cyaxares is presented as the son of Astyages and the maternal uncle of Cyrus. <br /> <br /> ===First refutation of idea that “Darius the Mede is not known to history”===<br /> This historical identification, that Daniel’s Darius was identical to Xenophon’s Cyaxares II, continued for many centuries after Josephus and was espoused by eminent Jewish and Christian scholars. Steven Anderson lists the following writers who accepted this identification: Jerome (3rd century AD), John Calvin (16th century), James Ussher (17th century), Charles Rollin and William Lowth (18th century), and in the 19th century Thomas Hartwell Horne, Wilhelm Gesenius, Humphrey Prideaux, E. W. Hengstenberg, C. F. Keil in the Keil and Delitzsch commentary, and Otto Zöckler in Lange’s Commentary.&lt;ref&gt;Anderson, ''Darius the Mede'', 3–5.&lt;/ref&gt; For these authors, the resemblance of Daniel’s Darius with Xenophon’s Cyaxares was so compelling that Keil wrote, “The account given by Xenophon regarding Cyaxares so fully agrees with the narrative of Daniel regarding Darius the Mede, that, as Hitzig confesses, “the identity of the two is beyond a doubt.””&lt;ref&gt;C. F. Keil, ''Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel'', in ''Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament'' (trans. M. G. Easton; Edinburgh: T. &amp; T. Clark, 1872; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 198.&lt;/ref&gt; A discussion of why this position, held for many centuries by such a distinguished list of authors, fell into disfavor beginning in the late 19th century is presented on the [[Cyaxares II]] page. For now, the relevant point is that, contrary to the statement of Collins, once the traditional view is taken that Daniel’s Darius = Xenophon’s Cyaxares, it is by no means true that “No such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history.” <br /> ===Second refutation of the idea that “Darius the Mede is not known to history.”===<br /> Three of the great conservative commentators of the 19th century, Hengstenberg, Keil (''Keil and Delitzsch commentary''), and Zöckler (''Lange’s Commentary''), cited references to a king Darius who was preceded Darius I Hystapses (522–486 BC).&lt;ref&gt;[https://archive.org/stream/dissertationsongendan00heng]E. W. Hengstenberg, ''Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel and the Integrity of Zechariah'' (tr. B. P. Pratten; Edingburgh: T &amp; T Clark, 1848), 41–42.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Keil, ''Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel'', 199–200.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Otto Zöckler, ''The Book of the Prophet Daniel: Theologically and Homiletically Expounded'' (tr. &amp; ed. James Strong; vol. 13 of ''Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical'', ed. John Peter Lange and Philip Schaff (New York: Scribner, Armstrong &amp; Co., 1876), 36.&lt;/ref&gt; These authors cite references in two early authors, Berossus (3rd century BC) and Harpocration (2nd century AD) for evidence of this King Darius who was earlier than Darius I. The Berossus passage is preserved in Josephus (''Against Apion'' 1.153) and in the ''Chronicle'' of Eusebius, a work that survives only in an Armenian translation. Josephus/Berossus relates the defeat of Nabonidus by Cyrus, after which Nabonidus “was humanely treated by Cyrus, who dismissed him from Babylonia, but gave him Carmania for his residence.” The extract from Eusebius agrees with Josephus’s citation, but adds to it: “(But) Darius the king took away some of his province for himself.”&lt;ref&gt; Josef Karst, ed., ''Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Commentar'', vol. 5 of ''Eusebius Werke'' (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911), 246.&lt;/ref&gt; This is referring to the time of the defeat of Nabonidus (539 BC), not the time of the later Darius I Hystapses. If this earlier Darius was able to override the disposition of Cyrus for Nabonidus, it means that he had a higher authority than Cyrus, which is compatible with Xenophon’s portrayal of Cyrus being under the suzerainty of Cyaxares until the death of the latter. It is also compatible with the “Darius the Mede” of Daniel, who had authority to issue an edict that no one could pray to any other god or king but to him for thirty days, an edict that could not have been issued if there was an authority higher than him in the realm (Daniel 6:7-9). Notice that the events of Daniel 6 take place after the forces under Cyrus captured Babylon; Cyrus was still alive, but at this point he was not yet the supreme authority in the empire.<br /> <br /> [[Harpocration]] was associated with [[Library of Alexandria|the great library in Alexandria]], and so he had access to many ancient works that were lost when the library was burned. In his work ''The Lexicon of the Ten Orators'', under the entry “Daric,” (being a coinage) [[Harpocration]] wrote, “But darics are not named, as most suppose, after [[Darius I|Darius]] [i.e. Darius I Hystapses, 522-486 BC] the father of [[Xerxes I the Great|Xerxes]], but after a certain other more ancient king.” This is thus a second historical reference to the existence of an earlier Darius, who must have been the supreme authority in his time, since he had authority to issue coinage in his name. These two references from ancient authors of this earlier king Darius can be taken as independent of the remembrance of [[Cyaxares II]] in [[Xenophon]], although the force of evidence implies that [[Xenophon|Xenophon’s]] [[Cyaxares II|Cyaxares]] was the same person as this “earlier” Darius, and both were the personage identified as “Darius the Mede” in the book of Daniel.<br /> <br /> ==In Daniel 5==<br /> Herein [[Darius the Mede]] seizes the kingdom and rules as king at the fall of Babylon. This narrative has historically presented problems for Biblical scholars as it is an undisputed historical fact that Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon. While many positions exist on the subject, we shall examine each below in separate sections.<br /> ==In Daniel 10 through 11==<br /> ==External Links==<br /> https://www.bitchute.com/video/r9npZoqtD4HA/<br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.academia.edu/22476645/Darius_the_Mede_A_Reappraisal]Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014). <br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder. <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.<br /> ==References==</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nabonidus&diff=1721600 2021-01-16T11:47:59Z

<p>Latent: Created page.</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;TABLE ΒORDER ALIGN=&quot;RIGHT&quot; WIDTH=&quot;250&quot; BORDER=&quot;2&quot; BGCOLOR=&quot;CYAN&quot; RULES=&quot;NONE&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD COLSPAN=&quot;2&quot; ALIGN=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;Nabonidus, King of Babylon&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;predecessor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Labashi-Marduk&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;reign&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;556–539 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;successor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;[[Cyaxares II]] (=“Darius the Mede”)&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;birth&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown; probably well before 607 BC based on age of mother&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;death&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;sometime after 539 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;father&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Nabu-Balatsu-iqbi&lt;ref&gt;Beaulieu, ''Reign of Nabonidus'', 68.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;mother&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Adad-Guppi&lt;ref&gt;Ibid.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;spouse&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt; Nitocris?&lt;ref&gt;Herodotus, &quot;Histories&quot; 1.188.1&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;son&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;[[Belshazzar]]&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;/TABLE&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Nabonidus''' (cuneiform ''Nabu-Na’id'') was the last ruler of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. He is also sometimes called the first archaeologist because, in his restoration of temples, he dug to find their foundation deposits in order to learn about the past history of kings and times. He came to power in a coup that killed his predecessor, Labashi-Marduk. He lost his kingdom to the forces of Media, Persia, and their allies under the command of [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus the Great]] in 539 BC but was dealt with mercifully by Cyrus and spent his last days, according to Berossus, in Carmania, a province in what is now Iran.<br /> <br /> ==The early years of Nabonidus==<br /> In an inscription from early in his reign, Nabonidus relates “I am Nabonidus, the only son, who has nobody. In my mind there was no thought of kingship.”&lt;ref&gt;Beaulieu, ''Reign of Nabonidus'', 67.&lt;/ref&gt; He was part of the conspiracy against Labashi-Marduk, and was then chosen by the conspirators to be their king (556 BC). Nothing is known for certain about his father except his name. An inscription of his mother tells of her being born in the twentieth year of Ashurbannipal, 648/47 BC. She died in April of 547, at an age of 101 or 102. During her life she was devoted to the worship of the moon-god Sin, so much so that some have thought she was a priestess of Sin. This background helps explain what is regarded as the chief mistake of Nabonidus’s career: his apparent abandonment of the worship of Babylon’s chief god, Marduk, choosing instead to spend most of his years as king in the desert of Arabia, worshipping Sin. Cyrus was able to use this neglect of worship of Marduk to claim that Marduk, displeased with Nabonidus, rejected him and chose Cyrus to rule over Babylon in his place, a narrative that Cyrus realized would appeal to the people of Babylon and which he greatly exploited in the propaganda texts that he produced after his conquest of Babylon.<br /> <br /> If Nabonidus’s mother bore him before the age of 40 his birth year would be 607 BC or earlier, making him 51 years of age or older when he became king in 556 BC. He went to Tema in the desert of Arabia in his third year, 553 BC, and spent most of his time there from that point on. In that same third year he appointed his son [[Belshazzar]] as king to reign in Babylon.&lt;ref&gt;''ANET'', 313b&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ==Last years of Nabonidus==<br /> The [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] relates that in the final battles with the forces under Cyrus, Nabonidus, who apparently was defending Sippar, fled from the forces of Cyrus.&lt;ref&gt;''ANET'', 306b.&lt;/ref&gt; Neither Nabonidus nor Cyrus were present at Babylon when Cyrus’s generals Gadatas and Gobryas (Ugbaru) took the city, Cyrus entering seventeen days later.&lt;ref&gt;Ibid.&lt;/ref&gt; Nabonidus therefore was not killed when the city fell, but his son Belshazzar was slain on the very night the city was captured, according to Xenophon’s ''Cyropaedia'' (7.5.26–30) and Daniel 5:31. Xenophon (7.5.15) and Herodotus (''Histories'' 1.191.6) also mention that it was at a time of festival that the city was taken, again in agreement with the book of Daniel (Daniel 5:1). <br /> <br /> Josephus, citing Berossus, relates that after he was defeated by the forces of Cyrus, Nabonidus “was humanely treated by Cyrus, who dismissed him from Babylonia, but gave him Carmania for his residence.”&lt;ref&gt;Josephus, ''Against Apion'' 1.153).&lt;/ref&gt; Carmania was a province in Iran, roughly equivalent to the modern province of Kerman. An extract from Eusebius that has survived only in an Armenian translation also cites the same passage in Berossus, but adds to it: “(But) Darius the king took away some of his province for himself.”&lt;ref&gt;Josef Karst, ed., ''Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Commentar'', vol. 5 of ''Eusebius Werke'' (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911), 246.&lt;/ref&gt; The timeframe is the time of the defeat of Nabonidus, not the time of Darius I Hystapses (522–486 BC), so that the eminent nineteenth-century commentators Hengstenberg, Keil, and Zökler used this to show that there was a Darius before Darius Hystapses, namely Daniel’s “[[Darius the Mede]]”.&lt;ref&gt;E. W. Hengstenberg, ''Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel and the Integrity of Zechariah'' (trans. B. P. Pratten; Edinburgh: T. &amp; T. Clark, 1848), 40–43.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;C. F. Keil, ''Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel'', in ''Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament'' (trans. M. G. Easton; Edinburgh: T. &amp; T. Clark, 1872; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 198.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Otto Zöckler, ''The Book of the Prophet Daniel: Theologically and Homiletically Expounded'', trans. and ed. by James Strong, in John Peter Lange, ''Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical'' (12 vols.; ed. &amp; trans. Philip Schaff; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), 7.35–36.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://babylonian-collection.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/YNER%2010%20-%20Beaulieu%20-%20The%20Reign%20of%20Nabonidus%20King%20of%20Babylon%20556-549%20BC%20(1989).pdf] Paul-Alain Beaulieu, ''The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. '' (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1989). <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.<br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]The Nabonidus Chronicle. <br /> *J. B. Pritchard, ed., ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament'' (3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969). Abbreviated as ''ANET''. <br /> ==References==</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Belshazzar&diff=1721489 2021-01-15T16:01:21Z

<p>Latent: Balanced parentheses in footnote 12</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;TABLE ΒORDER ALIGN=&quot;RIGHT&quot; WIDTH=&quot;250&quot; BORDER=&quot;2&quot; BGCOLOR=&quot;CYAN&quot; RULES=&quot;NONE&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD COLSPAN=&quot;2&quot; ALIGN=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;&lt;FONT SIZE=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Belshazzar, last king of Babylon, coregent of Nabonidus&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;father&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Nabonidus&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;mother&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Nitocris?&lt;ref&gt;Herodotus, &quot;Histories&quot; 1.188.1&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;reign&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;550-539 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;died&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;October 12, 539 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;succeeded by&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Darius the Mede (=Cyaxares II)&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;/TABLE&gt;<br /> '''Belshazzar''', (Greek: Βαλτασάρ, Baltasár, Aramaic בֵּלְשַׁאצַּר, from Akkadian: 𒂗𒈗𒋀, Bēl-šar-uṣur, meaning &quot;[[Bel]] protect the king&quot;), oldest son of [[Nabonidus]], was named as co-regent by his father Nabonidus (556-539 BC) in Nabonidus's third year, 553 BC.&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 313b.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;''Verse Account'' ii.5.&lt;/ref&gt; He reigned in Babylon while his father spent his time in the Arabian desert worshipping the moon-god Sin, and/or possibly subjugating the Arab tribes. Belshazzar's reign, and his life, came to an end when he was killed on the night that Babylon fell to the combined armies of the Medes and Persians and their allies under the command of [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus]].&lt;ref&gt;Daniel 5:30&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia'' 7.5.30.&lt;/ref&gt; The [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] dates the end of the [[Neo-Bablyonian Empire]], and thus the death of Belshazzar, to the 16th of Tashritu/Tishri, i.e. October 12, 539 BC.&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard,''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', p. 306b.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;''Nabonidus Chronicle'' iii.5.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> According to the ''Verse Account of Nabonidus'', [[Nabonidus]] allocated the government of the city of Babylon to Belshazzar for 10 years, giving him the kingship over the city, while he dwelt at the Arabian oasis of Tema (possibly in an effort to control lucrative Arabian trade routes).&lt;ref&gt;Verse Account, ii.5; Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 313b.&lt;/ref&gt; This means that the people, government and army officials saw Belshazzar more than Nabonidus. Likewise the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] states that [[Nabonidus]] fled from the area of Babylon before the city fell to [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus's]] forces.<br /> <br /> Some note as evidence of Belshazzar's subordinate role in his co-regency, that Belshazzar offered the prophet Daniel to be third ruler in the kingdom&lt;ref&gt;Daniel 5:7&lt;/ref&gt; because he didn't have authority to promote Daniel any higher.<br /> <br /> === Historical Identification ===<br /> For centuries the identity of Belshazzar lay lost to history, preserved only in the [[Book of Daniel]], consequentially used by many as a challenge to the historical accuracy of said volume.&lt;ref&gt; [https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Hd9BDQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT198&amp;dq=%22there+was+a+further+secular+controversy+for+many+centuries+over+the+existence+of+Belshazzar%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwik5oLZ6oLpAhW87XMBHeL0AuQQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22there%20was%20a%20further%20secular%20controversy%20for%20many%20centuries%20over%20the%20existence%20of%20Belshazzar%22&amp;f=false] Becher, Dave, ''The Tripartite Helmet of Hope and Salvation''.&lt;/ref&gt; Andrew Steinmann writes: &lt;blockquote&gt;Until the 1860s no historical source except the book of Daniel and works dependent on Daniel (e.g., Baruch 1:11) could provide independent confirmation of the existence of Belshazzar. Since he is not mentioned in any of the Greek historians, many nineteenth-century critical scholars viewed Daniel 5 as a purely fictional account about a fictional king . . . However, beginning in the 1860s, Babylonian sources came to light that named Belshazzar as the son of Nabonidus. They also stated that Belshazzar was made coregent over Babylon. These texts vindicated the historical nature of Daniel’s account. Furthermore, since these texts had been buried and forgotten and all memory of Belshazzar had been lost to history outside of the Bible and works dependent on it, they furnished proof positive that the writer of Daniel 5 must have been a contemporary who lived during the events recorded in the chapter. Since writers in later centuries, including writers during the Maccabean era, would have had no knowledge of Belshazzar based on the forgotten Babylonian texts, Daniel 5 could not have been composed in later centuries, disproving the long-held critical view that Daniel was written during the Maccabean era.&lt;ref&gt;{{cite book| first = Andrew E. | last = Steinmann | title =Daniel | publisher = Concordia | location = St. Louis, MO| date = 2008 | page = 260}}&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Similarly, Joseph Free wrote, “The matter concerning Belshazzar, far from being an error in the Scriptures, is one of the many striking confirmations of the Word of God which have been demonstrated by archaeology.”&lt;ref&gt;Joseph Free, ''Archaeology and Bible History'' (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1950), 235.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The multiple challenges that the historical records relevant to Belshazzar present to the “critical” or anti-supernatural view of the composition of the book of Daniel may be enumerated as follows:<br /> # The naming of Belshazzar in the Book of Daniel is, by itself, evidence of the sixth century BC composition of the book. In the Persian rewrite of history that occurred in the time of Cyrus the Great and later,&lt;ref&gt;“The real Cyrus was a master of propaganda, as can be seen from the Cyrus Cylinder, the Babylonian verse chronicle of Nabonidus’ fall, and the stories of Cyrus’ merciful treatment of conquered kings, all no doubt propagated with Cyrus’ encouragement or active participation” (Steven W. Hirsch, ''The Friendship of the Barbarians: Xenophon and the Persian Empire'' [Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 1985], 177, n. 69).&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;“Cyrus was very successful in his propaganda and modern historiography is still influenced by it” (R. J. van der Spek, “Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations” in ''Extraction &amp; Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper'' [eds. Michael Kozuh et al.; SAOC 68; Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 2014], 260).&lt;/ref&gt; the name of Belshazzar was erased from official records. In what is probably the earliest cuneiform text related to the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians, the [[Cyrus Cylinder]], Belshazzar is not mentioned at all (and certainly not by name), unless he, and not Nabonidus, is the “incompetent person” mentioned in the opening lines (A3) of the Cylinder. In the following portion of the Cylinder where the fall of Babylon to the armies under Cyrus is described, Nabonidus is mentioned, but not Belshazzar, who was actually reigning in Babylon at the time. This process of expunging Belshazzar from history continued in later Persian cuneiform texts, so that Xenophon, writing about 170 years after the Medo-Persian capture of Babylon, apparently does not even know the name of the king who was ruling in Babylon at the time of its fall, referring to him only as “this young fellow who has just come to the throne” (''Cyropaedia'' 5.2.27). This presents a difficulty to critics of the Bible who maintain that the Book of Daniel, or at least major parts of it, were written in the second century BC. It is, however, consistent with the traditional Jewish and Christian view that the book reflects accurately events of the sixth century BC because the book was written not long after the events it describes. <br /> # Further evidence of the early composition of the Book of Daniel is found in its designation of Belshazzar as king. Liberal scholarship on this matter is represented by the oft-cited author John Collins, who wrote, “The fact remains that there is no evidence to corroborate the claim of Daniel 5 that Belshazzar was king in any sense at the time of the fall of Babylon.”&lt;ref&gt;John J. Collins, ''Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 32, 33.&lt;/ref&gt; Collins apparently has not read the ''Verse Account'', where Nabonidus states that, when he retreated to the Arabian Desert, “He entrusted the “Camp” to his oldest (son), the first-born . . . He let (everything) go, entrusted the kingship to him.”&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 313b.&lt;/ref&gt; Nor does he show any knowledge of the ''Cyropaedia'', where “this young fellow who has just come to the throne” is repeatedly given the title of king&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' 4.6.3; 5.2.27; 5.4.12, 24, 26, 33; 7.5.29.&lt;/ref&gt; If the mistaken “absence” of texts referring to Belshazzar as king can be cited as evidence of a second-century writing of Daniel by a pious fraud who did not know the true circumstances of the time, then intellectual honesty should require that this documented evidence to the contrary should be accepted as evidence for the book’s sixth-century authorship. <br /> # Further evidence showing the early authorship of Daniel’s account of Belshazzar is found in Daniel chapter 5, where the capture of Babylon and the end of the Neo-Bablyonian Empire is said to occur when the king and his court were involved in a great drinking party/festival (Daniel ch. 5). Both Xenophon &lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' 7.5.21, 25.&lt;/ref&gt; and Herodotus&lt;ref&gt;''Histories'' 1.191.6.&lt;/ref&gt; affirm that the Babylonians were carelessly involved in a festival when the city was taken. Once again, this is a historical detail that lends weight to the early authorship of the book of Daniel.<br /> # Daniel 5:31 relates that Belshazzar was slain on the night of the banquet. This is confirmed by Xenophon in a passage that should be included in every commentary on the Book of Daniel (''Cyropaedia'' 7:25–30).<br /> # As mentioned below, the fact that Belshazzar was only able to offer Daniel the third position in the kingdom because he, Belshazzar, was still under the suzerainty of his father Nabonidus, is another indication of the sixth-century authorship of the Book of Daniel. By the second century BC, all knowledge of this relationship between Nabonidus and Belshazzar kingship seems to have been lost. Even Belshazzar’s name was seemingly forgotten as early as when Herodotus wrote his ''Histories'' in about 430 BC and when Xenophon wrote the ''Cyropaedia'' in about 370 BC. <br /> All of these references to the activities, position, and fate of Belshazzar in early sources outside of the Book of Daniel testify to the historical accuracy of the author of Daniel, an accuracy that is difficult to explain if Daniel chapter 5 is merely “historical fiction,” as confidently asserted by liberal scholarship and as relentlessly maintained by all blogs and encyclopedia sites controlled by atheists and others who deny the historical accuracy of the Bible.<br /> <br /> === Debated Points ===<br /> Some suggest that scenes recorded in the [[Book of Daniel]]'s lavish party as a coronation festival as Belshazzar seized the throne.&lt;ref&gt;[https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Hd9BDQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT199&amp;dq=%22there+is+scholarly+speculation+that+after+Cyrus+had+defeated+Nabonidas%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiroYWB74LpAhXkjeYKHbLRDgoQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22there%20is%20scholarly%20speculation%20that%20after%20Cyrus%20had%20defeated%20Nabonidas%22&amp;f=false] Beacher, Dave, ''The Tripartite Helmet of Hope and Salvation''.&lt;/ref&gt; This point is negated by some claiming that the festival was the annual drunken and debauched fertility festival celebrating the union of Nimrod &amp; Semarimis. Meanwhile others{{citation needed}} working from the ancient custom of 'apprentice kings' (thus creating a clear line of succession), note that Belshazzar offers the Prophet Daniel to be third in the kingdom: as [[Nabonidus]] was the first, ''Belshazzar'' was the second and Daniel was made the third ruler in the kingdom.&lt;ref&gt;Daniel 5:7&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder<br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]The Nabonidus Chronicle <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell<br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/verse-account-of-nabonidus/] The Verse Account of Nabonidus <br /> *J. B. Pritchard, ed., ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament'' (3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969).<br /> <br /> == References ==</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Belshazzar&diff=1721488 2021-01-15T15:59:48Z

<p>Latent: Added citation of Joseph Free</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;TABLE ΒORDER ALIGN=&quot;RIGHT&quot; WIDTH=&quot;250&quot; BORDER=&quot;2&quot; BGCOLOR=&quot;CYAN&quot; RULES=&quot;NONE&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD COLSPAN=&quot;2&quot; ALIGN=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;&lt;FONT SIZE=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Belshazzar, last king of Babylon, coregent of Nabonidus&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;father&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Nabonidus&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;mother&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Nitocris?&lt;ref&gt;Herodotus, &quot;Histories&quot; 1.188.1&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;reign&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;550-539 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;died&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;October 12, 539 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;succeeded by&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Darius the Mede (=Cyaxares II)&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;/TABLE&gt;<br /> '''Belshazzar''', (Greek: Βαλτασάρ, Baltasár, Aramaic בֵּלְשַׁאצַּר, from Akkadian: 𒂗𒈗𒋀, Bēl-šar-uṣur, meaning &quot;[[Bel]] protect the king&quot;), oldest son of [[Nabonidus]], was named as co-regent by his father Nabonidus (556-539 BC) in Nabonidus's third year, 553 BC.&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 313b.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;''Verse Account'' ii.5.&lt;/ref&gt; He reigned in Babylon while his father spent his time in the Arabian desert worshipping the moon-god Sin, and/or possibly subjugating the Arab tribes. Belshazzar's reign, and his life, came to an end when he was killed on the night that Babylon fell to the combined armies of the Medes and Persians and their allies under the command of [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus]].&lt;ref&gt;Daniel 5:30&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia'' 7.5.30.&lt;/ref&gt; The [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] dates the end of the [[Neo-Bablyonian Empire]], and thus the death of Belshazzar, to the 16th of Tashritu/Tishri, i.e. October 12, 539 BC.&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard,''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', p. 306b.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;''Nabonidus Chronicle'' iii.5.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> According to the ''Verse Account of Nabonidus'', [[Nabonidus]] allocated the government of the city of Babylon to Belshazzar for 10 years, giving him the kingship over the city, while he dwelt at the Arabian oasis of Tema (possibly in an effort to control lucrative Arabian trade routes).&lt;ref&gt;Verse Account, ii.5; Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 313b.&lt;/ref&gt; This means that the people, government and army officials saw Belshazzar more than Nabonidus. Likewise the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] states that [[Nabonidus]] fled from the area of Babylon before the city fell to [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus's]] forces.<br /> <br /> Some note as evidence of Belshazzar's subordinate role in his co-regency, that Belshazzar offered the prophet Daniel to be third ruler in the kingdom&lt;ref&gt;Daniel 5:7&lt;/ref&gt; because he didn't have authority to promote Daniel any higher.<br /> <br /> === Historical Identification ===<br /> For centuries the identity of Belshazzar lay lost to history, preserved only in the [[Book of Daniel]], consequentially used by many as a challenge to the historical accuracy of said volume.&lt;ref&gt; [https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Hd9BDQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT198&amp;dq=%22there+was+a+further+secular+controversy+for+many+centuries+over+the+existence+of+Belshazzar%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwik5oLZ6oLpAhW87XMBHeL0AuQQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22there%20was%20a%20further%20secular%20controversy%20for%20many%20centuries%20over%20the%20existence%20of%20Belshazzar%22&amp;f=false] Becher, Dave, ''The Tripartite Helmet of Hope and Salvation''.&lt;/ref&gt; Andrew Steinmann writes: &lt;blockquote&gt;Until the 1860s no historical source except the book of Daniel and works dependent on Daniel (e.g., Baruch 1:11) could provide independent confirmation of the existence of Belshazzar. Since he is not mentioned in any of the Greek historians, many nineteenth-century critical scholars viewed Daniel 5 as a purely fictional account about a fictional king . . . However, beginning in the 1860s, Babylonian sources came to light that named Belshazzar as the son of Nabonidus. They also stated that Belshazzar was made coregent over Babylon. These texts vindicated the historical nature of Daniel’s account. Furthermore, since these texts had been buried and forgotten and all memory of Belshazzar had been lost to history outside of the Bible and works dependent on it, they furnished proof positive that the writer of Daniel 5 must have been a contemporary who lived during the events recorded in the chapter. Since writers in later centuries, including writers during the Maccabean era, would have had no knowledge of Belshazzar based on the forgotten Babylonian texts, Daniel 5 could not have been composed in later centuries, disproving the long-held critical view that Daniel was written during the Maccabean era.&lt;ref&gt;{{cite book| first = Andrew E. | last = Steinmann | title =Daniel | publisher = Concordia | location = St. Louis, MO| date = 2008 | page = 260}}&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Similarly, Joseph Free wrote, “The matter concerning Belshazzar, far from being an error in the Scriptures, is one of the many striking confirmations of the Word of God which have been demonstrated by archaeology.”&lt;ref&gt;Joseph Free, ''Archaeology and Bible History'' (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1950, 235.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The multiple challenges that the historical records relevant to Belshazzar present to the “critical” or anti-supernatural view of the composition of the book of Daniel may be enumerated as follows:<br /> # The naming of Belshazzar in the Book of Daniel is, by itself, evidence of the sixth century BC composition of the book. In the Persian rewrite of history that occurred in the time of Cyrus the Great and later,&lt;ref&gt;“The real Cyrus was a master of propaganda, as can be seen from the Cyrus Cylinder, the Babylonian verse chronicle of Nabonidus’ fall, and the stories of Cyrus’ merciful treatment of conquered kings, all no doubt propagated with Cyrus’ encouragement or active participation” (Steven W. Hirsch, ''The Friendship of the Barbarians: Xenophon and the Persian Empire'' [Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 1985], 177, n. 69).&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;“Cyrus was very successful in his propaganda and modern historiography is still influenced by it” (R. J. van der Spek, “Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations” in ''Extraction &amp; Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper'' [eds. Michael Kozuh et al.; SAOC 68; Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 2014], 260).&lt;/ref&gt; the name of Belshazzar was erased from official records. In what is probably the earliest cuneiform text related to the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians, the [[Cyrus Cylinder]], Belshazzar is not mentioned at all (and certainly not by name), unless he, and not Nabonidus, is the “incompetent person” mentioned in the opening lines (A3) of the Cylinder. In the following portion of the Cylinder where the fall of Babylon to the armies under Cyrus is described, Nabonidus is mentioned, but not Belshazzar, who was actually reigning in Babylon at the time. This process of expunging Belshazzar from history continued in later Persian cuneiform texts, so that Xenophon, writing about 170 years after the Medo-Persian capture of Babylon, apparently does not even know the name of the king who was ruling in Babylon at the time of its fall, referring to him only as “this young fellow who has just come to the throne” (''Cyropaedia'' 5.2.27). This presents a difficulty to critics of the Bible who maintain that the Book of Daniel, or at least major parts of it, were written in the second century BC. It is, however, consistent with the traditional Jewish and Christian view that the book reflects accurately events of the sixth century BC because the book was written not long after the events it describes. <br /> # Further evidence of the early composition of the Book of Daniel is found in its designation of Belshazzar as king. Liberal scholarship on this matter is represented by the oft-cited author John Collins, who wrote, “The fact remains that there is no evidence to corroborate the claim of Daniel 5 that Belshazzar was king in any sense at the time of the fall of Babylon.”&lt;ref&gt;John J. Collins, ''Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 32, 33.&lt;/ref&gt; Collins apparently has not read the ''Verse Account'', where Nabonidus states that, when he retreated to the Arabian Desert, “He entrusted the “Camp” to his oldest (son), the first-born . . . He let (everything) go, entrusted the kingship to him.”&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 313b.&lt;/ref&gt; Nor does he show any knowledge of the ''Cyropaedia'', where “this young fellow who has just come to the throne” is repeatedly given the title of king&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' 4.6.3; 5.2.27; 5.4.12, 24, 26, 33; 7.5.29.&lt;/ref&gt; If the mistaken “absence” of texts referring to Belshazzar as king can be cited as evidence of a second-century writing of Daniel by a pious fraud who did not know the true circumstances of the time, then intellectual honesty should require that this documented evidence to the contrary should be accepted as evidence for the book’s sixth-century authorship. <br /> # Further evidence showing the early authorship of Daniel’s account of Belshazzar is found in Daniel chapter 5, where the capture of Babylon and the end of the Neo-Bablyonian Empire is said to occur when the king and his court were involved in a great drinking party/festival (Daniel ch. 5). Both Xenophon &lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' 7.5.21, 25.&lt;/ref&gt; and Herodotus&lt;ref&gt;''Histories'' 1.191.6.&lt;/ref&gt; affirm that the Babylonians were carelessly involved in a festival when the city was taken. Once again, this is a historical detail that lends weight to the early authorship of the book of Daniel.<br /> # Daniel 5:31 relates that Belshazzar was slain on the night of the banquet. This is confirmed by Xenophon in a passage that should be included in every commentary on the Book of Daniel (''Cyropaedia'' 7:25–30).<br /> # As mentioned below, the fact that Belshazzar was only able to offer Daniel the third position in the kingdom because he, Belshazzar, was still under the suzerainty of his father Nabonidus, is another indication of the sixth-century authorship of the Book of Daniel. By the second century BC, all knowledge of this relationship between Nabonidus and Belshazzar kingship seems to have been lost. Even Belshazzar’s name was seemingly forgotten as early as when Herodotus wrote his ''Histories'' in about 430 BC and when Xenophon wrote the ''Cyropaedia'' in about 370 BC. <br /> All of these references to the activities, position, and fate of Belshazzar in early sources outside of the Book of Daniel testify to the historical accuracy of the author of Daniel, an accuracy that is difficult to explain if Daniel chapter 5 is merely “historical fiction,” as confidently asserted by liberal scholarship and as relentlessly maintained by all blogs and encyclopedia sites controlled by atheists and others who deny the historical accuracy of the Bible.<br /> <br /> === Debated Points ===<br /> Some suggest that scenes recorded in the [[Book of Daniel]]'s lavish party as a coronation festival as Belshazzar seized the throne.&lt;ref&gt;[https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Hd9BDQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT199&amp;dq=%22there+is+scholarly+speculation+that+after+Cyrus+had+defeated+Nabonidas%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiroYWB74LpAhXkjeYKHbLRDgoQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22there%20is%20scholarly%20speculation%20that%20after%20Cyrus%20had%20defeated%20Nabonidas%22&amp;f=false] Beacher, Dave, ''The Tripartite Helmet of Hope and Salvation''.&lt;/ref&gt; This point is negated by some claiming that the festival was the annual drunken and debauched fertility festival celebrating the union of Nimrod &amp; Semarimis. Meanwhile others{{citation needed}} working from the ancient custom of 'apprentice kings' (thus creating a clear line of succession), note that Belshazzar offers the Prophet Daniel to be third in the kingdom: as [[Nabonidus]] was the first, ''Belshazzar'' was the second and Daniel was made the third ruler in the kingdom.&lt;ref&gt;Daniel 5:7&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder<br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]The Nabonidus Chronicle <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell<br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/verse-account-of-nabonidus/] The Verse Account of Nabonidus <br /> *J. B. Pritchard, ed., ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament'' (3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969).<br /> <br /> == References ==</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:AnthonyPvanDuyn&diff=1721266 2021-01-14T16:30:38Z

<p>Latent: Invitation to dialogue from Latent</p> <hr /> <div>{{greeting<br /> |username=DavidB4<br /> |sig=<br /> }}<br /> Thanks for your contributions so far! When you get a chance, would you mind taking a look at my question here: [[Talk:Ahasuerus]]? Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|&lt;font color=&quot;ForestGreen&quot;&gt;DavidB4&lt;/font&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])&lt;/sup&gt; 14:47, 26 April 2020 (EDT)<br /> ::Sorry for not responding earlier. You will find your question answered.--<br /> <br /> Greetings Anthony. I see we're working in the same area related to personalities associated with the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Do you think it would be profitable if we could communicate somehow, in addition to this more or less public place? Conservapedia does not have any way to send email messages to another user, although Wikipedia does. If you still have your Wikipedia account, you could post its moniker here and I would give you mine. That way we could send each other e-mail addresses and communicate that way, if you are interested. Thanks for all you work so far. [[User talk:Latent]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Annals_of_the_World&diff=1721263 2021-01-14T16:17:20Z

<p>Latent: Corrected some statements that showed lack of knowledge, and misrepresentation, of Thiele's scholarship</p> <hr /> <div>'''The Annals of the World''' is the massive compendium of [[ancient history]] by [[James Ussher]]. The original [[Latin]] manuscript titled ''Annales veteris testamenti a prima mundi origine deducti'' (The Annals of the Old Testament, Deduced from the First Origin of the World), was published in two parts, in 1650 and 1654 respectively. An English translation was published in 1658,&lt;ref&gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/491/ Archbishop’s achievement] ''Creation'' 26(1):24–27, December 2003 (footnote 1).&lt;/ref&gt; after his death.<br /> <br /> In 2003 [[Larry Pierce]] translated the original manuscript into [[English]] and published his translation, first in hardcover and subsequently in softcover. The ''Annals'' has also been bundled into a downloadable archive&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.winsite.com/bin/Info?21000000038229 ''The Annals of the World''] at WinSite. This is an executable E-book, contained in a .zip file, and is apparently the 1658 English edition.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The ''Annals'' begins at a calculated [[date of creation]] and continues through to the destruction of the [[Temple of Jerusalem]] in 70 AD. Dates derived from it were included in the margins of many [[King James Version]] and other [[Bible]]s throughout the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.&lt;ref&gt;For an example, see ''The Holy Bible'', in the Authorized King James Version, from William Collins and World Publishers (no date given).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Publication data ==<br /> :by [[James Ussher]]<br /> :[[Larry Pierce]], editor<br /> :960 page hardcover<br /> :ISBN 0890513600<br /> <br /> === How to Cite This Resource ===<br /> In Conservapedia, copy the block-quoted text exactly as it appears:<br /> * MLA style:&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;nowiki&gt;&lt;ref name=Ussher&gt;[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World]]'', [[Larry Pierce]], ed., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003 (ISBN 0890513600), pghh. &lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/nowiki&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> In print, copy and format as follows:<br /> * MLA style:&lt;blockquote&gt;James Ussher, ''The Annals of the World'', Larry Pierce, ed., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003, pghh.&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Note that numbered paragraphs, not pages, are the best parts to cite from the ''Annals''.<br /> <br /> == Review ==<br /> [[Image:James_Ussher.jpg|thumb|150px|[[James Ussher]]]]<br /> By [[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> [[James Ussher]] (4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656) must surely rank with [[Herodotus]], [[Thucydides]], [[Plutarch]], [[Suetonius]], [[Tacitus]], [[Cassius Dio]], and [[Pliny the Elder]] and [[Pliny the Younger|Younger]] as an historian. ''The Annals of the World,'' his magnum opus, is the result of a lifetime of travel, study, and research.<br /> <br /> Ussher attempted to join the Bible to all other works of recorded history, and to present a unified treatment of the natural and political history of the world from Creation to 70 AD, the date of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by the future [[Rome|Roman]] Emperor [[Titus]]. To do this, he relied heavily on ancient historical sources, and even traveled to the [[Mediterranean Sea|Mediterranean]] region to examine as many primary sources as he could. No one since (perhaps) [[Flavius Josephus]] had attempted to join Biblical and extra-Biblical history as Ussher did.<br /> <br /> ===The Chronology===<br /> Most people remember Ussher for the [[chronology]] that bears his name—and with good reason, because Ussher determined to settle the chronology of the Bible before he attempted to unite other chronologies with it. He first had to decide which text of the Old Testament he would use—the [[Septuagint]], the [[Samaritan Pentateuch]], or the [[Masoretic Text]]. He chose the Masoretic after determining that it was as reliable as any ancient text could be, and was as close to an original as he could obtain.<br /> <br /> After deciding on the text, he further relied on a number of internal clues in various parts of the Old Testament, including:<br /> *The detailed genealogy from [[Adam]] to [[Noah]]&lt;ref&gt;{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=5|verses=1-32|version=KJV}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> *The equally detailed reckoning of the [[Great Flood]],&lt;ref&gt;{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=7|verses=1-24|version=KJV}}&lt;/ref&gt; and of the birth of [[Arphaxad]] two years later&lt;ref&gt;{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=10-11|version=KJV}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> *The genealogy from [[Arphaxad]] through [[Abraham]]&lt;ref&gt;{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=12-32|version=KJV}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> *The detailed biographies of [[Abraham]], [[Isaac]], and [[Jacob]]<br /> *The biography of [[Joseph]], including his sale into slavery in [[Egypt]] and his tenure as [[Joseph#The Viceroy|viceroy]] of that country.<br /> *The explicit statement of the number of years of the &quot;sojourn in Egypt&quot; of the [[Israelites]]<br /> *The equally explicit statement of the number of years between the [[Exodus of Israel]] and the groundbreaking on the [[Temple of Jerusalem|Temple]]<br /> *The richly detailed lists of the kings of the [[United Kingdom of Israel|United Kingdom]] and the Divided Kingdoms of Israel, Northern ([[Northern Kingdom|Israel]]) and Southern ([[Southern Kingdom|Judah]])<br /> *The reckoning of the years of the [[Exile of Israel|Exile]] and the eventual [[Restoration of Israel]]<br /> *The prophecy of [[Daniel]] involving &quot;seventy sevens&quot; of years.<br /> <br /> Further to this, he assumed:<br /> *That the 430-year &quot;sojourn&quot;&lt;ref&gt;{{Bible ref|book=Exodus|chap=12|verses=40-41|version=KJV}}&lt;/ref&gt; began with Abraham's departure from [[Haran (country)|Haran]] into [[Canaan]]. He relied on a verse in [[Galatians]]&lt;ref&gt;{{Bible ref|book=Galatians|chap=3|verses=17|version=KJV}}&lt;/ref&gt; for this determination.<br /> *That God was essentially finished with national Israel, according to the doctrine of [[Covenant Theology]]<br /> *That all the prophecies mentioned in [[Revelation]] are already fulfilled, a doctrine called [[Preterism]] today<br /> <br /> Finally, he did not rely on any archaeological theories concerning the date of the Fall of Jerusalem. Instead, he back-calculated the age of the earth from the date of the death of [[Nebuchadnezzar II]].<br /> <br /> ===Extra-Biblical or &quot;Profane&quot; Sources===<br /> Ussher relied on extra-Biblical historical sources when they treated subjects that the Bible did not treat. The Bible was always his standard source, and every other source would have to yield to the Bible in his treatment.<br /> <br /> The most important extra-Biblical sources he had were [[Astronomy|astronomical]] records. [[Astronomical dating]] is widely used for uniting the chronologies of two different civilizations. Of course, astronomical dates are only as reliable as are the records of the observations of astronomical events. Ussher understood this and thus relied heavily on historical mentions of total eclipses of the [[sun]] and [[moon]], sightings of the [[planets]], and so on. He also used astronomical dating to calculate that the birth of Christ was four years ''earlier'' than the traditional [[Julian]] reckoning—probably relying on the notes of the German astronomer [[Johannes Kepler]].<br /> <br /> Ussher used a number of other sources, including histories by [[Flavius Josephus|Josephus]] and other ancient historians. Yet the most remarkable treatment by Ussher of any given source must be his treatment of [[Manetho]], the [[Greece|Greek]] priest who made the first attempt at a [[Egyptian chronology|chronology]] of ancient Egypt. Manetho assumed that the many &quot;Dynasties&quot; of [[Pharaoh]]s ran consecutively. This implied that the First Dynasty of Egypt began earlier than the Great Flood—which Ussher knew to be impossible. Ussher solved the problem in a unique way: he truncated Manetho's chronology and simply discarded all Dynasties earlier than the Middle Kingdom as myths. But, relying on the records of Manetho that he kept, he assumed that ''two'' Pharaohs named [[Ramesses]] reigned for sixty-six years each, and that the first of these was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. It would be left to modern-day Christian Egyptologists to correct these errors.<br /> <br /> Ussher also used Greek mythological sources, and actually assumed that many of the personages of classical mythology were real kings and queens—a debatable proposition at best. He used a number of other sources, chiefly for Assyrian history—and, sadly, a fire in [[Dublin]], [[Ireland]] destroyed many of these sources. But many other sources survive, and those that do, concord with the ''Annals'' to a remarkable degree.<br /> <br /> ===Reliability===<br /> The ''Annals'' are, of necessity, a secondary source. Such a source is only as reliable as are its primaries. Given that, Ussher is in remarkable agreement—usually exactly or within one or two years—with most modern historians in their treatment of Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greco-Macedonian, and Roman history. Indeed, Ussher places the destruction of the Temple by [[Nebuchadnezzar II]] of Babylon at 588 BC, very close to the 586 BC date that most modern archaeologists have assigned to this event.<br /> <br /> He calculates the date of [[Creation]] as [[October 23]], [[4004 BC]]. This date derives from two key assumptions: that [[Abraham]] was born when his father [[Terah]] was 130 years of age rather than seventy, and that the Sojourn in Egypt began with the Abrahamic Covenant and not with the entry of [[Jacob]] into Egypt. Neither assumption is incontrovertible. The sharpest controversy, however, developed with [[Edwin R. Thiele]]'s dissertation on the chronology of the Divided Kingdoms. This [[Biblical chronology dispute]] goes to the heart of any assessment of reliability, for it turns on whether one accepts Scripture as primary, or will allow secular evidence—sometimes of questionable reliability itself—to trump Scripture. A recent article published in &quot;Bible and Spade&quot; shows several places where Ussher’s chronology contradicts quite plain Scriptural texts at several places, as well as contradicting well-established secular dates, whereas the chronology of Edwin Thiele, especially as slightly modified by Leslie McFall and other later writers in the Thiele tradition, gives both a better agreement with specific Scriptural texts and with firmly established dates from the Ancient Near East.&lt;ref&gt;Rodger C. Young, “Ussher Explained and Corrected,” ''Bible and Spade'' 31.2 (2018), 47–58.[http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/ussher.html]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> His arbitrary rejection of half of Manetho's king lists results from his repetition of Manetho's original error—assuming that the kings of Egypt, as listed, all ruled consecutively. Furthermore, he probably never realized that the ancient kings of Egypt routinely re-wrote the histories of their predecessors in a manner in which [[George Orwell]] would later predict that future governments would behave. The correction of the historical record of Egypt would be left to modern archaeologists.<br /> <br /> That aside, his reckoning of the kings of the Divided Kingdom Kingdom has needed various corrections because of its conflict with the biblical text in a few places, as well as its conflict with well-established dates in Assyrian history such as the tribute of Menahem to Tiglath-Pileser III. For the latter synchronism, Edwin Thiele was much criticized because his chronology did not agree with the traditional date for the tribute, but the finding of the Iran Stela showed that Thiele’s chronology in this matter, as derived from the Bible, was correct, while Ussher’s chronology in this matter contradicts both the Bible and the Assyrian data.&lt;ref&gt;Young, “Ussher Explained and Corrected,” 50–51 and 57 (picture caption).&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> His calculations of the dates of the [[Crucifixion]] and [[Resurrection]] of [[Jesus Christ]] show the same exacting attention to detail that inform the rest of the Annals. Most importantly, Ussher laid a remarkably solid foundation for historical research, one that has held up remarkably well for nearly four centuries. If, therefore, the ''Annals'' suffers from reliability problems, then they result almost entirely with problems with the secular or &quot;profane&quot; sources that Ussher had available to him, and less often from a questionable interpretation of Scripture.<br /> <br /> ===Completeness===<br /> Ussher stopped his account at 70 AD, in the belief that the history of the [[Judaism|Jews]] ended in that year. But his treatment of the history of Western civilization up to that year is breathtakingly comprehensive. His assumptions concerning various early kings mentioned in classical myths are probably not accurate. But his treatment of classical history beyond, say, 1300 BC is as rich as is the treatment of modern history in any conventional textbook.<br /> <br /> Moreover, many of his assumptions concerning ancient events have proved accurate, even though for centuries the ''Annals'' were the only Western extra-Biblical source attesting to them. These included:<br /> *The [[Trojan War]], which Ussher places during the era of the [[Judges]]. Until the archaeologist [[Heinrich Schliemann]] discovered the site, no one accepted the existence of a city called [[Troy]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.royalty.nu/legends/Troy.html The Trojan War: History, Myth, and Honor]&lt;/ref&gt; Schliemann would later discover positive evidence of the [[Mycenean]] civilization.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.uark.edu/campus-resources/achilles/age/myceneans.html Myceneans] at the University of Arkansas&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> *The existence of the [[Assyrian]]s and their wars with the Kingdom of Israel In regard to this, many archaeologists assumed that the Assyrians never existed—before the eventual discovery of the site of [[Nineveh]], capital of this empire, mentioned by [[Jonah]].&lt;ref&gt;Russell, John Malcolm. ''The Final Sack of Nineveh''. [[New Haven]], [[Connecticut]]: [[Yale University]] Press, 1998. ISBN 0300074182&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> === Supplemental Resources ===<br /> The current edition of the ''Annals'' also includes eight valuable Appendices that lay a thorough foundation for Ussher's methods and calculations. These Appendices include a very thorough description of the Roman Republican and early Julian [[calendar]] (including full particulars on the placement of the Calends, Nones, and Ides in every month of each one), a discussion of Ussher's calculated time-line for the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, two different essays regarding the chronology of the Assyrian Empire, a set of ancient maps, a discussion of the Hebrew calendar and why its epoch begins so much later than Creation seems to, and finally, a discussion of why [[archaeology]] in general is less reliable than the Bible (because it has such a poor track record of sustaining any given conclusion from one decade to the next). Anyone attempting to settle any question of Ussher's chronological calculations must study these Appendices to see exactly how Ussher worked, and how he stayed as close to Scripture as has any man before or since.<br /> <br /> ===Conclusion===<br /> ''The Annals of the World'' is one of the most comprehensive textbooks of ancient history available, although its chronology, particularly of the kingdom period, has needed modification to be in more exact agreement with specific biblical texts, texts that agree with confirmed secular dates from the Ancient Near East. It would make a valuable addition to any school or home-schooler's library, for its comprehensive treatment of ancient history alone. And even if Ussher's reckoning of the Exodus and other key dates in Judeo-Christian history are misplaced, this work is invaluable in showing how Ussher assigned those dates to begin with, and what assumptions he made.<br /> <br /> == External Reviews ==<br /> *[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/archbishop.asp Archbishop's Achievement] by [[Jonathan Sarfati]]. Creation 26(1):24–27, December 2003<br /> *[http://www.pocketpcreviews.net/content/view/55/67/ Review of the ''Annals''] at PocketPCReviews.net<br /> *[http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/ussher.html “Ussher Explained and Corrected”] by Rodger C. Young, ''Bible and Spade'' 31.2 (2018), 47–58.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> * [[Biblical genealogy]]<br /> * [[Biblical chronology]]<br /> <br /> == External links ==<br /> <br /> *[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/E-Books/christ/ussher/ussherindex.htm E-Book - The Annals of The World]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Religious People|Ussher, James]]<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Annals of the World, The}}<br /> [[Category:Books]]<br /> [[Category:History]]<br /> [[Category:Bible Chronology]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Darius_the_Mede&diff=1721231 2021-01-14T02:30:19Z

<p>Latent: Added Infobox</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;TABLE ΒORDER ALIGN=&quot;RIGHT&quot; WIDTH=&quot;250&quot; BORDER=&quot;2&quot; BGCOLOR=&quot;CYAN&quot; RULES=&quot;NONE&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD COLSPAN=&quot;2&quot; ALIGN=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;”Darius the Mede” (=Cyaxares II), last king of Media&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;predecessor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Astyages&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;reign&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;ca. 550 BC to Dec. 538 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;successor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;[[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus the Great]]&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;father&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Astyages&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;mother&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;birth&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;ca. 602 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt; <br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;death&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;December, 538 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;spouse&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;unknown&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;/TABLE&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Darius the Mede''' is a character appearing thrice in the biblical [[Book of Daniel]]. The exact identity of &quot;Darius the Mede&quot; remains the subject of heated debate representing &quot;the last great hurdle to the contextually historical authenticity of book&quot; with skeptics claiming him to be fictional and &quot;historical harmonizers&quot; suggesting that this is simply another name for a real historical individual.<br /> <br /> This subject is further complicated by [[Josephus]] simply stating that Darius the Mede was the son of [[Astyages]] king of the Medes and that he was known to the Greeks by another name, without qualifying what that was. Meanwhile the broadly used &quot;[[Herodotus|Father of History]]&quot; also oft called &quot;the Father of Lies&quot; in his dramatic recount, records that [[Astyages]] had no son, but rather tells how the kingdom passed directly to [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] by force of arms (''Histories'' 1.109.3, 1.129.4). Yet [[Herodotus|Herodotus']] account stands in direct opposition to [[Xenophon|Xenophon's]] far more extensive and detailed book on the subject, which was written about 60 years later and was constantly studied by [[Alexander the Great]]. The [[Cyropaedia]] provides a natural solution to the question of the existence and identity of Darius the Mede. But with the only extant clay tablets and Ptolemy's Canon ''seeming'' to support the direct passage of power to [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus II]] and the [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] references to Cyaxares being questionable as to whether the Cyaxares in the Inscription is Cyaxares I, father of [[Astyages]] or Cyaxares II his son, the academic community remains divided.<br /> <br /> Below in separate sections we shall examine each of the three instances with the finer details. But immediately we shall examine the cases for each suggested individual.<br /> <br /> ''PLEASE NOTE THIS PAGE IS STILL UNDER INITIAL CONSTRUCTION!''<br /> <br /> ==Arguments for Fictional==<br /> It is sufficient to say on this subject that without a clear clay tablet on the subject, skeptics hold the character of [[Darius the Mede]] to be purely fictional and therefore the entire chapter as fiction. This as Barnes notes&lt;ref&gt;Barnes Commentary, ''Daniel 6:1, Section 2'' - &quot;Considerable importance is to be attached to the question who was Darius the Mede, as it has been made a ground of objection to the Scripture narrative, that no person by that name is mentioned in the Greek writers.&quot;<br /> [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; is generally presented as evidence that the entire book is not considered to be of any historical value and is to be disqualified entirely.<br /> <br /> ==Arguments for Cyaxares II==<br /> In Xenophon's historical narrative, some time after the natural death of his grandfather [[Astyages]], [[Cyrus II the Great]], while still a youth and not yet king of Persia, entered into the employ of his uncle [[Cyaxares II]] as general of the army in a mutual defence pact against Assyria (Babylon). In this capacity [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] campaigns with [[Cyaxares II]] at the first and then by himself until his eventual conquest of [[Babylon]]. In this narrative, it must be noted that all conquests are officially in the name of the alliance which was ultimately at the expense and direction of the king of the Medes. After which [[Cyrus the Great]] returns to the capital city of [[Ecbatana]] in Media and presents [[Cyaxares II]] with a palace in Babylon as a token of victory and receives [[Cyaxares II]]'s daughter as his wife with the kingdom of Media as her dowry. Xenophon's account then details Cyrus' trip home to Persia where he receives the title of King upon the death of his father [[Cambyses I]].<br /> <br /> This position when combined with Josephs' assertion that [[Darius the Mede]] was the son of [[Astyages]] but known to the Greeks by another name, it makes it only natural to conclude that:<br /> * Darius the Mede is Cyaxares II.<br /> * &quot;Darius the Mede received (Aramaic ''qabel'') the kingdom&quot; (Dan. 5:31) despite being actually conquered by Cyrus&quot; (Dan. 5:31) as <br /> * Cyrus at that point was simply heir of Persia and the greatly loved General of the Coalition Army.<br /> <br /> As discussed at the start, while the character of [[Cyaxares II]] is not generally accepted amidst the classical histories such as [[Herodotus]], [[Ctesias]], the Cannon of Ptolemy&lt;ref&gt;Ptolemy's ''Canon''[https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]&lt;/ref&gt; or even on a currently available clay tablet (other than two possible references in the [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]]), [[Cyaxares II]] presents the most natural solution to the problem and is the summary position of several Bible commentaries such as: ''Benson Commentary''&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 9:1 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 6:1[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 5:30-31 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/5.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; ''Barnes Notes''&lt;ref&gt;Barnes Notes, Daniel 9:1[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; &amp; the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentaries.<br /> <br /> Finally even Saint Jerome asserts that Darius the Mede is [[Cyaxares II]], son of [[Astyages]],&lt;ref&gt;Jerome, ''Commentariorum in Danielem libri III&lt;IV&gt;'', 820-21.&lt;/ref&gt; leaving Benson to conclude &quot;so that it appears to have been the generally received opinion in [Jerome's] time, as it probably was also in the time of Josephus, which was not more than five or six hundred years after [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]].&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Benson's Commentaries, Daniel 6:1 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; Alexander's love of the [[Cyropaedia]] and thereby [[Aristotle|Aristotle's]] recommendation show acceptance of the identity of [[Cyaxares II]] by heads of state not 100-200 years from the events they record.<br /> ==How Did Darius the Mede Disappear from History? Or Did He?==<br /> Typical of the skepticism that much of critical scholarship expresses towards Daniel’s “Darius the Mede” is the claim from John J. Collins: “No such person as Darius the Mede is known to have existed apart from the narration of Daniel . . . No such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history.”&lt;ref&gt;John J. Collins, ''Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 30, 33.&lt;/ref&gt; The latter statement is particularly interesting, because it implicitly denies that the Bible is a source of history. Similarly, Carol Newsom writes of “the wholly fictitious character of Darius the Mede,”&lt;ref&gt;Carol A. Newsom with Brennan W. Breed, ''Daniel: A Commentary'', Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 192.&lt;/ref&gt; and George Buchanan confidently declares, “Darius the Mede never existed.”&lt;ref&gt;George Wesley Buchanan, ''The Book of Daniel'', Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 30.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> Such dogmatic statements lose their force when it is realized that for over 1700 years, historians and biblical scholars found no problem in accepting that the name “Darius” used by Daniel was an alternate name or “throne name” for the [[Cyaxares II]] who plays a major role in Xenophon’s ''Cyropaedia''. It is well known that Near Eastern monarchs, when they took the throne, adopted a throne name in addition to their given name. Rüdiger Schmitt provides the given names of Achaemenid rulers who succeeded Cyrus II whose better-known throne names were Artaxerxes I, Darius II, Artaxerxes II, Artaxerxes III, and Darius III.&lt;ref&gt;Rüdiger Schmitt, “Achaemenid Throne-Names,” ''Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli'' 42 (1982): 83–86, 90.&lt;/ref&gt; It should be expected, then, that Cyaxares II would have another name besides the one name that is given to him by Xenophon. That this was the case is indicated by Josephus. When referring to the Darius of Daniel, Josephus wrote that this Darius (“Darius the Mede”) “was called by another name among the Greeks” (''Antiquities'' 10.248). In the same passage, Josephus says that Darius was a son of Astyages and a kinsman of Cyrus. Both of these statements show that Josephus was in agreement with Xenophon’s portraits of Astyages and Cyaxares II in the ''Cyropaedia'', where Cyaxares is presented as the son of Astyages and the maternal uncle of Cyrus. <br /> ===First refutation of idea that “Darius the Mede is not known to history”===<br /> This historical identification, that Daniel’s Darius was identical to Xenophon’s Cyaxares II, continued for many centuries after Josephus and was espoused by eminent Jewish and Christian scholars. Steven Anderson lists the following writers who accepted this identification: Jerome (3rd century AD), John Calvin (16th century), James Ussher (17th century), Charles Rollin and William Lowth (18th century), and in the 19th century Thomas Hartwell Horne, Wilhelm Gesenius, Humphrey Prideaux, E. W. Hengstenberg, C. F. Keil in the Keil and Delitzsch commentary, and Otto Zöckler in Lange’s Commentary.&lt;ref&gt;Anderson, ''Darius the Mede'', 3–5.&lt;/ref&gt; For these authors, the resemblance of Daniel’s Darius with Xenophon’s Cyaxares was so compelling that Keil wrote, “The account given by Xenophon regarding Cyaxares so fully agrees with the narrative of Daniel regarding Darius the Mede, that, as Hitzig confesses, “the identity of the two is beyond a doubt.””&lt;ref&gt;C. F. Keil, ''Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel'', in ''Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament'' (trans. M. G. Easton; Edinburgh: T. &amp; T. Clark, 1872; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 198.&lt;/ref&gt; A discussion of why this position, held for many centuries by such a distinguished list of authors, fell into disfavor beginning in the late 19th century is presented on the [[Cyaxares II]] page. For now, the relevant point is that, contrary to the statement of Collins, once the traditional view is taken that Daniel’s Darius = Xenophon’s Cyaxares, it is by no means true that “No such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history.” <br /> ===Second refutation of the idea that “Darius the Mede is not known to history.”===<br /> Three of the great conservative commentators of the 19th century, Hengstenberg, Keil (''Keil and Delitzsch commentary''), and Zöckler (''Lange’s Commentary''), cited references to a king Darius who was who preceded Darius I Hystapses (522–486 BC).&lt;ref&gt;[https://archive.org/stream/dissertationsongendan00heng]E. W. Hengstenberg, ''Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel and the Integrity of Zechariah'' (tr. B. P. Pratten; Edingburgh: T &amp; T Clark, 1848), 41–42.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Keil, ''Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel'', 199–200.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Otto Zöckler, ''The Book of the Prophet Daniel: Theologically and Homiletically Expounded'' (tr. &amp; ed. James Strong; vol. 13 of ''Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical'', ed. John Peter Lange and Philip Schaff (New York: Scribner, Armstrong &amp; Co., 1876), 36.&lt;/ref&gt; These authors cite references in two early authors, Berossus (3rd century BC) and Harpocration (2nd century AD) for evidence of this King Darius who was earlier than Darius I. The Berossus passage is preserved in Josephus (''Against Apion'' 1.153) and in the ''Chronicle'' of Eusebius, a work that survives only in an Armenian translation. Josephus/Berossus relates the defeat of Nabonidus by Cyrus, after which Nabonidus “was humanely treated by Cyrus, who dismissed him from Babylonia, but gave him Carmania for his residence.” The extract from Eusebius agrees with Josephus’s citation, but adds to it: “(But) Darius the king took away some of his province for himself.”&lt;ref&gt; Josef Karst, ed., ''Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Commentar'', vol. 5 of ''Eusebius Werke'' (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911), 246.&lt;/ref&gt; This is referring to the time of the defeat of Nabonidus (539 BC), not the time of the later Darius I Hystapses. If this earlier Darius was able to override the disposition of Cyrus for Nabonidus, it means that he had a higher authority than Cyrus, which is compatible with Xenophon’s portrayal of Cyrus being under the suzerainty of Cyaxares until the death of the latter. It is also compatible with the “Darius the Mede” of Daniel, who had authority to issue an edict that no one could pray to any other god or king but to him for thirty days, an edict that could not have been issued if there was an authority higher than him in the realm (Daniel 6:7-9). Notice that the events of Daniel 6 take place after the forces under Cyrus captured Babylon; Cyrus was still alive, but at this point he was not yet the supreme authority in the empire.<br /> <br /> Harpocration was associated with the great library in Alexandria, and so he had access to many ancient works that were lost when the library was burned. In his work ''The Lexicon of the Ten Orators'', under the entry “Daric,” Harpocration wrote, “But darics are not named, as most suppose, after Darius the father of Xerxes [Darius I Hystapses], 522-486 BC), but after a certain other more ancient king.” This is thus a second historical reference to the existence of an earlier Darius, who must have been the supreme authority in his time, since he had authority to issue coinage in his name. These two references from ancient authors of this earlier king Darius can be taken as independent of the remembrance of Cyaxares II in Xenophon, although the force of evidence implies that Xenophon’s Cyaxares was the same person as this “earlier” Darius, and both were the personage identified as “Darius the Mede” in the book of Daniel. <br /> ==In Daniel 5==<br /> Herein [[Darius the Mede]] seizes the kingdom and rules as king at the fall of Babylon. This narrative has historically presented problems for Biblical scholars as it is an undisputed historical fact that Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon. While many positions exist on the subject, we shall examine each below in separate sections.<br /> ==In Daniel 10 through 11==<br /> ==External Links==<br /> https://www.bitchute.com/video/r9npZoqtD4HA/<br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.academia.edu/22476645/Darius_the_Mede_A_Reappraisal]Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014). <br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder. <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.<br /> ==References==</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Cyrus_II_the_Great&diff=1721230 2021-01-14T02:27:54Z

<p>Latent: Improved the Infobox</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;FONT SIZE=&quot;2&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TABLE ΒORDER ALIGN=&quot;RIGHT&quot; WIDTH=&quot;250&quot; BORDER=&quot;2&quot; BGCOLOR=&quot;CYAN&quot; RULES=&quot;NONE&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD COLSPAN=&quot;2&quot;&gt;[[image:Cyrus portrait.jpg | thumb | center]]&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD COLSPAN=&quot;2&quot; ALIGN=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;&lt;FONT SIZE=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Cyrus the Great&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;predecessor (Persia)&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Cambyses I&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;predecessor (Medo-Persia)&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Cyaxares II&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;successor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Cambyses II&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;birth&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;ca. 576 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;death&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;530 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;spouse #1&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Cassandane (died Feb/Mar 539 BC)&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;spouse #2&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Unnamed daughter of Cyaxares II&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;father&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Cambyses I&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;mother&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Mandane, daughter of Astyages&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;/TABLE&gt;<br /> &lt;/FONT&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Cyrus II''' (also called '''Cyrus the Great''') (576–530 BC) was the Emperor of the [[Persian Empire]]. He is famous for conquering [[Babylon]] and letting the [[Jew]]s go back to [[Israel]].&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> At its greatest extent, the Achaemenid Persian Empire was the largest ancient empire, spanning three continents: [[Europe]], [[Asia]], and [[Africa]]. The empire included modern-day [[Iran]], [[Iraq]], [[Jordan]], [[Israel]], [[Syria]], [[Lebanon]], [[Turkey]], [[Egypt]] [[Afghanistan]], [[Pakistan]], [[Libya]], and northern [[Saudi Arabia]].<br /> <br /> ==Conflicting Histories of Cyrus in Herodotus, Xenophon, and the Cuneiform Texts==<br /> ===Background and Career of Cyrus according to Herodotus===<br /> Herodotus’s relates that Cyrus’s grandfather Astyages, king of Media, was warned in dreams that his daughter Mandane would give birth to a child who would eventually usurp his throne. In order to prevent this, Astyages had Mandane marry a Persian commoner named Cambyses so the child would not be part of his royal house. Then, when his daughter was about to bear her son, Astyages commissioned one of his servants to go to Mandane in Persia and slay the child. The servant was unwilling to kill the child himself, and so committed the task to a certain herdsman. The herdsman’s wife was about to give birth, and when she did so the child was stillborn. The couple buried the stillborn child and pretended they had carried out their commission, thereafter raising Cyrus themselves.&lt;ref&gt;''Histories'' 1.107.1 –1.113.3.&lt;/ref&gt; When Cyrus reached manhood and his true identity was revealed, Cyrus and the Persians became inveterate enemies of Astyages, eventually defeating him in battle (559 BC)&lt;ref&gt;''Histories'' 1.214.3.&lt;/ref&gt; and confining him to his palace. (This is unlikely in itself and casts doubt on Herodotus’s whole scenario about Astyages; would a conqueror leave a conquered king in his capital while the conqueror was involved in foreign campaigns?) After that the domination of the Persians over the Medes continued for several years before, and then after, the capture of Babylon. According to Herodotus, when Cyrus conquered Astyages he made the Medes “slaves instead of masters and the Persians, who were the slaves, are now the masters of the Medes.” &lt;ref&gt;''Histories'' 1.129.4.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> According to Herodotus, then, Cyrus became overlord of the Medes, so that both Medes and Persians were subject to him well before the fall of Babylon to their forces and the forces of their allies (539 BC). Cyrus’s died, according to Herodotus, after the Persians were defeated by the forces of Tomyris, queen of the Massagetae. When the queen came upon Cyrus’s corpse she dipped his head in a skein of blood. &lt;ref&gt;''Histories''1.212.1 –2.114.5.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ===Background and Career of Cyrus according to Xenophon===<br /> In his ''Cyropaedia'' (Education of Cyrus) Xenophon agrees with Herodotus that Cyrus’s mother was Mandane, daughter of Astyages king of Media, but Xenophon makes it clear that the Cambyses she married was king of Persia, not a commoner. Xenophon relates that when Cyrus was twelve or slightly older, Mandane took him from Persia to Ecbatana, the Median capital, at the request of Astyages. The boy and his grandfather immediately developed a liking for each other, and when Mandane wanted to return, Astyages requested that the boy remain with him in order to complete his education. Cyrus agreed, saying he especially wanted to learn to ride a horse, a skill at which the Medes excelled but which the Persians did not practice at the time. The cordial relations between Astyages and his grandson continued during the years while Cyrus grew to manhood, and in no instance does Xenophon portray anything but affection between grandfather and grandson as long as Astyages was alive.<br /> When Astyages died, the kingdom passed, not to Cyrus, but to the son of Astyages, [[Cyaxares II]] (''Cyropaedia'' 1.5.2). Cyaxares II, the brother of Mandane, was therefore the uncle of Cyrus. Cyrus became king of the Persians (only) on the death of his father Cambyses I, but he and the Persians remained, according to Xenophon, under the suzerainty of Cyaxares and the Medes until the death of Cyaxares, which happened about two years after the capture of Babylon in 539 BC. After Babylon was captured, Cyaxares had given his daughter in marriage to Cyrus, whose first wife apparently died a few weeks after the capture of Babylon,&lt;ref&gt;[[Nabonidus Chronicle]], as cited in Jean-Jacques Glassner, ''Mesopotamian Chronicles'' (ed. Benjamin R. Forster; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 239. The translation of Glassner that has the mourning period for the queen (and hence her death) occurring in the month Adar (February/March) is to be preferred to the earlier translation found in James Pritchard, ed., ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament'' (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969), 306b, that has the mourning start in Arahshamnu (=Heshvan, October/November).&lt;/ref&gt; with her dowry being the combined rule of the Medes and the Persians. This meant that after the death of Cyaxares the Persians instead of the Medes therefore became dominant in the empire that now included Babylonia and many other subject peoples. After a seven-year rule of the combined empire (537–530 BC),&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' (8.7.1)&lt;/ref&gt; Cyrus died a peaceful death and was succeeded by his son Cambyses II.&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' (8.7.11)&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ===Deciding between the two contradictory accounts of the life of Cyrus (Herodotus and Xenophon)===<br /> The account given by Herodotus regarding the birth and early upbringing of Cyrus is plainly fabulous, with precedents in other fables of the ancient Near East. Herodotus himself casts doubts on its authenticity when he writes at the end of the tale that “there are no less than three other accounts of Cyrus which I could give” (1.195.1). The cuneiform records from the time of Cyrus also contradict Herodotus’s statement that Cyrus’s father was a commoner. In the [[Cyrus Cylinder]] Cyrus states that his father Cambyses, grandfather Cyrus I, and great-grandfather Teispes were all kings of Persia before him, thus contradicting Herodotus but supporting Xenophon on Cyrus’s background.&lt;ref&gt; Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 316a.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> Regarding the death of Cyrus (peaceful in Xenophon, bloody in Herodotus), Shahrokh Razmjou wrote, “The story in Herodotus . . . seems to be fictitious.”&lt;ref&gt;Shahrokh Razmjou, ”The Cyrus Cylinder: A Persian Perspective,” in ''The Cyrus Cylinder: The King of Persia’s Proclamation from Ancient Babylon'', ed. Irving Finkel (London: I. B. Tauris, 2013), 125, n. 8.&lt;/ref&gt; Steven Anderson comments: “Aside from the way in which such an account [of Herodotus] seems too sensational to be true, one may also note that Cyrus had carefully prepared a tomb for himself in Pasargadae which remains to this day. If statements by other classical writers are to be believed, this tomb actually housed Cyrus’ corpse in antiquity, and was not merely a centopath.”&lt;ref&gt;Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (revision of the author’s PhD dissertation at Dallas Theological Seminary) (Grand Rapids, 2014), 30.[https://www.amazon.com/Darius-Mede-Reappraisal-Steven-Anderson/dp/1502390388/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=Darius+the+Mede%3A+A+Reappraisal&amp;qid=1610231403&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1]&lt;/ref&gt; The existence of the tomb in Persia argues for a peaceful burial, not his death in the far-off land of the Massagetae as Herodotus relates. Herodotus himself once again casts doubt on his own account of the death of Cyrus when he relates “Many stories are told of Cyrus' death; this, that I have told, is the most credible” (2.114.5).<br /> ===Testimony of the cuneiform evidence related to the history of Cyrus===<br /> In the late 1800s several cuneiform texts dealing with the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire were found and translated. None of these texts named Cyaxares II, and, more than that, most of them had Cyrus taking over the kingship of Media and Persia directly from Astyages, with no room for an intervening Median king. The conclusion seemed obvious: Herodotus was correct in maintaining that Astyages had no male heir, and hence Xenophon, who had a great deal to say about Cyaxares II as the son of Astyages and uncle of Darius, must be rejected. It was now understood that Cyrus became king of both Media and Persia by defeating the Medes, including his grandfather Astyages, several years before the fall of Babylon in 539 BC, just as Herodotus said.<br /> Later scholarship, however, began pointing out some problems with the cuneiform texts. If the supposed coup of Cyrus was such a definite act, why could not these texts agree on when it happened, and the circumstances of the coup? The Dream Text of Nabonidus said that Cyrus and the Persians defeated the Medes in the third year of Nabonidus (553/552 BC); &lt;ref&gt;Paul-Alain Beaulieu, ''The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C.'' (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 108.&lt;/ref&gt;the Nabonidus Chronicle seems to place it in Nabonidus’s sixth year (550/549);&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 305b.&lt;/ref&gt; and Herodotus, by giving Cyrus 29 years of reign, would place it in 559 BC (Histories 1.214.3). The Cyrus Cylinder, which is apparently the earliest of these documents, does not say that Cyrus defeated the Medes in war, claiming only that Marduk “made the Guti country and all the Mandan hordes [Median troops] bow in submission to his (i.e. Cyrus’) feet.”&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 315b.&lt;/ref&gt; According to the Cyropaedia (4.6.1–11) the Gutians were not conquered militarily by Cyrus. Their governor Gobryas/Ugbaru submitted voluntarily because of the wrongs done to him by Belshazzar. The submission of the Medes to Cyrus could be similar, which would be more in keeping with Xenophon’s account that has the Median soldiery willingly serving Cyrus even while they were still under the ''de jure'' rule of their king, [[Cyaxares II]]. <br /> ==Cyrus the Great in the Bible==<br /> In the Bible, Cyrus is mentioned in 2 Chronicles (36:22, 23) as the monarch who issued a decree allowing the Jews to return to their homeland from Babylon. His name appears repeatedly in the book of Ezra that relates details regarding those who returned from exile. The book of Daniel has three references (Daniel 1:21, 6:28, 10:1) that name him as reigning some time after the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, but apparently (according to the usual reading of the texts) with a Median king named [[Darius the Mede|Darius]] intervening between the Babylonian [[Belshazzar]] and the Persian Cyrus.<br /> Cyrus is mentioned in Isaiah in the following passages:&lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, who frustrates the signs of liars . . . who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfill all my purpose’; saying of Jerusalem, “She shall be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘your foundation shall be laid’” (Isaiah 44:24, 25, 28, ESV). Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed: “I will go before you and level the exalted places, I will break in pieces the doors of bronze and cut through the bars of Iron. I will give you the treasures of darkness and the hoards in secret places, that you may know that it is I, the LORD, the God of Israel, who call you by your name. For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name. I name you, though you do not know me. I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other (45:1–6). I have stirred him up in righteousness, and I will make all his ways level; he shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for price or reward,” says the LORD of hosts (45:13). . . calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country (46:11). “Assemble all of you, and listen! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD loves him; he shall perform his purpose on Babylon, and his arm shall be against the Chaldreans. I, even I, have spoken and called him; I have brought him, and he will prosper in his way” (48:14, 15).&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> The problem with these passages are that they are prophetic, which means that those who do not believe that God exists have to explain them away by saying they are ''vaticinia ex eventu'' (prophecies after the event), that is, writings that look back on a historical event but which pretend they were written before the event as prophecy of the future. Thus in much of the “critical” literature on Isaiah, it is presented as a foregone conclusion that these portions of Isaiah were written after Cyrus’s decree, but ultimately that conclusion, no matter how confidently asserted, is based on the critics ''a priori'' assumption that there is no God, or, if there is a God, he either does not know the future or, if he knows it, he is incapable of, or unwilling to, impart this knowledge to his prophets or anyone else. For those who believe that God not only exists, but that he desires to make his will and his foresight known, there is no reason to take as their starting place the presupposition of the skeptics that prophecy is impossible, the presupposition that controls much of the modern criticism of the book of Isaiah and the Bible in general. The prophetic references to Cyrus in Isaiah are therefore something of a watershed between these two opposing ways of approaching and interpreting the Bible.<br /> <br /> Josephus (''Antiquities'' 11:1–3) relates that the Jews read these prophecies of Isaiah to Cyrus, and this reading of the prophecies caused Cyrus to assemble the leaders of the Jews and announce to them his decision that they could go back to their country and rebuild the city and the Temple. As might be expected, skeptics with ''a priori'' presuppositions about the impossibility of predictive prophecy confidently label this passage in Josephus as unhistorical, but a reading of the passage shows that, if the prophecy really was written over a century and a half earlier by the historical Isaiah, what the Jews did in approaching Cyrus about the prophecy was entirely reasonable and to be expected.<br /> [[File:Medo-Persia - Achaemid Family Tree - inc Otanes &amp; Cyaxares II.PNG | 700px | thumb | center | The Achaemid Family Tree showing the merging or the royal houses of the Medes and the Persians to create the Medo-Persian Empire.]]<br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://www.iranchamber.com/history/achaemenids/achaemenids.php History of Iran: Achaemenid Empire]<br /> *[http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/persianempir1/a/persiaintro_2.htm The Achaemenid Empire, 550-330 B.C.] <br /> *[http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/acha/hd_acha.htm The Achaemenid Persian Empire (550–330 B.C.)] <br /> * The Nabonidus Chronicle [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/] <br /> *''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell [http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, <br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:International Political Figures]]<br /> [[Category:Ancient History]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Cyaxares_II&diff=1721229 2021-01-14T02:24:08Z

<p>Latent: Replaced previous box at top with an Infobox</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;FONT SIZE=&quot;2&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TABLE ΒORDER ALIGN=&quot;RIGHT&quot; WIDTH=&quot;250&quot; BORDER=&quot;2&quot; BGCOLOR=&quot;CYAN&quot; RULES=&quot;NONE&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD COLSPAN=&quot;2&quot;&gt;[[image:Cyrus portrait.jpg | thumb | center]]&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD COLSPAN=&quot;2&quot; ALIGN=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;&lt;FONT SIZE=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Cyrus the Great&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;predecessor (Persia)&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Cambyses I&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;predecessor (Medo-Persia)&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Cyaxares II&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;successor&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Cambyses II&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;birth&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;ca. 576 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;death&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;530 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;B&gt;spouse #1&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Cassandane (died Feb/Mar 539 BC)&lt;/TD&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;spouse #2&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Unnamed daughter of Cyaxares II&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;father&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Cambyses I&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;mother&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Mandane, daughter of Astyages&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;/TABLE&gt;<br /> &lt;/FONT&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Cyaxares II''', is the alleged son and successor of the legendary [[Astyages]], King of the [[Medes]] in [[Ecbatana]] who reigned from 561 to 536 BC according to Barnes’ Notes,&lt;ref&gt;Barnes' Notes on the Bible, Daniel 9:1.[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; but for whom a better ending date might be late 538 BC (see below). The generally accepted narrative is that the throne passed straight from [[Astyages]] to [[Cyrus the Great]].<br /> <br /> == Original Sources ==<br /> The son of [[Astyages]], [[Cyaxares II]] (not to be confused with [[Cyaxares I]], father of [[Astyages]]) does not ''specifically'' exist in any surviving or currently available extant cuniform tablets or the likes; but he does possibly exist with a potential dual reference in the absolutely monumental [[bas-relief]] [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] (''see below'').<br /> <br /> Meanwhile the strongest ''specific'' literary evidence for his existence lies within the pages [[Xenophon|Xenohon's]] crowning work, the ''[[Cyropaedia]]'', who as a Greek military commander served in [[Cyrus the Younger|Cyrus']] army. This work was so highly prized by [[Alexander the Great]], that he made it his perpetual study&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, 'Cyropaedia'', Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK&lt;/ref&gt;; by extension it was obviously also recommended to him by his mentor and tutor [[Aristotle]]&lt;ref&gt;[[Quintus Curtius Rufus]], History of Alexander, 1.9&lt;/ref&gt;. Likewise did [[Julius Caesar]]&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, 'Cyropaedia'', Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK&lt;/ref&gt;. Meanwhile [[Scipio Africanus]] is reported to have carried it with him everywhere&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, 'Cyropaedia'', Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK&lt;/ref&gt;. This combined with a possible identity match with [[Josephus|Josephus']] [[Darius the Mede|Darius, King of Media]]&lt;ref&gt;Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'', 10.11.2.[https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-10.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;, &quot;the son of Astyages, [who] had another name among the Greeks&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'', 10.11.4.[https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-10.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; creates a good case. Compoundingly, two of the rebels listed in [[Darius I|Darius I's]] [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] claimed &quot;to be of the family of Cyaxares&quot;: which has naturally created debate if these are references to [[Cyaxares I]] or to the possible [[Cyaxares II]]. Finally those who accept the [[Book of Daniel]] to be true, note that it was [[Darius the Mede]] who officially seized the kingdom&lt;ref&gt;Daniel 5:31&lt;/ref&gt;, which happily correlates all three of these literary sources to their reasoning.<br /> <br /> Alternatively, [[Cyaxares II]] does not appear in [[Ptolemy's Canon]]&lt;ref&gt;Livius, Ptolemy's ''Canon''. [https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]&lt;/ref&gt; or the [[Uruk King List]]&lt;ref&gt;Livius, Uruk King List.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/uruk-king-list/]&lt;/ref&gt;. But neither of these feature [[Belshazzar]] who became effective king of Babylon after his father [[Nabonidas]] capture now confirmed to us by the Nabonidus Cylinder (from Ur)&lt;ref&gt;Livius, ''Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur''.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/nabonidus-cylinder-from-ur/]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Livius, ''ABC 7 (Nabonidus Chronicle)'', Column iii.16.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]&lt;/ref&gt;. Similarly [[Ptolemy's Canon|Ptolemy]] does not list [[Nerglissar|Nerglissar's]] son [[Labasi-Marduk]] while the [[Uruk King List|Uruk]] does.<br /> <br /> Meanwhile [[Cyaxares II]] existence is further called into question when the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] openly states that: 1. [[Cyrus|Cyrus the Great]] attacked [[Astyages]] and that the army betrayed [[Astyages]]&lt;ref&gt;Livius, ''ABC 7 (Nabonidus Chronicle)'', Column ii. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]&lt;/ref&gt; thereby 2. denying [[Astyages]] throne passed to [[Cyaxares II]] at all. This account is in harmony with Herodotus' narrative which may be derived from the [[Nabonidus Chronicle|Chronicle]] or another common source.<br /> <br /> Clearly, legitimate debate over these sources does exist. Therefore in the following sections we shall examine these sources in more detail.<br /> <br /> === In the works of Xenophon ===<br /> According to [[Xenophon]], ''Cyaxares II'' ruled as king after the natural death of [[Astyages]] and sought to defended [[Medes|Media]] from Assyrian/[[Babylonia|Babylonian]] aggression, promoting his yet unascended nephew [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus]] as General/leader of the allied forces. Furthermore, [[Xenophon]] in great detail records the history of [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus']] pre-emptive strike and campaigns with ''Cyaxares II'', the first battle of which the king of Babylon (probably [[Neriglissar]]) was decisively defeated and slain. During the plunder of this battle [[Cyaxares II]] and [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] were separated and Cyrus continued to campaign alone with [[Cyaxares II]] eventually returning to [[Ecbatana]]. The volume records how Cyrus fused the alliance of nations under his banner until after several years Cyrus stands at the very gates of [[Babylon]] itself. [[Xenophon]] then very significantly records how after the conquest of [[Babylon]], [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] travelled to [[Ecbatana]] wherein he met [[Cyaxares II]], gifting him a palace in Babylon and accepted the hand of his daughter with the Kingdom of Media as her dowry. [[Xenophon]] then records how [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] travelled to Persia after the death of his father [[Cambyses I]] to receive his father's office.<br /> <br /> This record stands in direct contrast regarding the existence of [[Cyaxares II]] with the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]]&lt;ref&gt;''Nabonidus Chronicle'', ''Column ii.1-4'', [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]&lt;/ref&gt;, [[Herodotus]] and [[Ctesias]] accounts, [[Ptolemy's Canon]]&lt;ref&gt;Ptolemy's Canon, [https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]&lt;/ref&gt; and the [[Uruk King List]]&lt;ref&gt;Uruk King List.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/uruk-king-list/]&lt;/ref&gt; on the one side. But on the other, it alone offers a satisfactory reason as to why the authoritative [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] twice has rebels claiming to be &quot;of the family of Cyaxares&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], Behistun Inscription, Rebellion of Phraortes.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-13/]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], Behistun Inscription, Rebellion of Tritantaechmes. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-21/]&lt;/ref&gt; and not &quot;of the family of Astyages&quot; (being the last monarch of Media if the likes of the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] are true); while it must also be noted that if these rebels were referring to [[Astyages]] father [[Cyaxares I]], then claims to the throne that are over a hundred years old does not make for a strong case! It must also be noted that this inscription is the dictate of [[Darius I]] himself, who in turn is the son of one [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus']] right hand men who lived these events. Now when one considers the [[Book of Daniel|Book of Daniel's]] claim that Darius the Mede &quot;received the kingdom&quot; (rather than the Cyrus) despite known physical history, this claim is harmonized when [[Josephus]] records that &quot;Darius the Mede&quot; &quot;was the son of Astyages&quot; but &quot;known to the Greeks by another name&quot;.<br /> <br /> Herein, historians are forced to make a choice between the account of [[Xenophon|Xenophon's]] ''[[Cyropaedia]]'', backed by the immensely authoritative [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]], or these contrary works.<br /> <br /> === In the works of Josephus ===<br /> Josephus does not use the title of &quot;''Cyaxares''&quot;, but rather names [[Darius the Mede]] as the son of [[Astyages]], simply acknowledging that [[Darius the Mede]] is known by another name among the Greeks. Considering the possible candidates at the time, this has led many to comment on this convergence and conclude that Josephus' [[Darius the Mede]], son of [[Astyages]] is [[Cyaxares II]].<br /> <br /> === In the Behistun Inscription ===<br /> The [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] details the nine self-proclaimed kings who rebelled in [[Darius I|Darius Hystspes']] first year of power whom he subdued. Two of those rebels claimed to be &quot;of the family Cyaxares&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-13/]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-21/]&lt;/ref&gt;, of whom the former claimed a false identity while the later may well have been legitimate (but a rebel none the less). Regardless, this gives rise to the debate if they are referring to [[Cyaxares I]], father of [[Astyages]] or to [[Astyages|Astyages']] possible son and successor [[Cyaxares II]].<br /> <br /> It must be noted that [[Phraortes]] claimed &quot;I am Khshathrita, of the family of Cyaxares&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-13/]&lt;/ref&gt;as did [[Tritantaechmes]]&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-21/]&lt;/ref&gt; claimed to be of &quot;Cyaxares&quot;: if they refer to [[Cyaxares I]] over a hundred years prior, then their legitimate claim to the throne would be extremely small, if they refer to a potential [[Cyaxares II]] two generations later, then a much more legitimate claim could be substantiated.<br /> <br /> ==When did Cyaxares II die?==<br /> Since Cyaxares II does not appear in official records that were compiled after his death, and which official records were used by later sources such as Ptolemy’s ''Canon'' in setting forth the sequence of kings, there are no known direct sources that can be used to specify exactly the years of his reign (assuming that he really did reign as king of Media as Xenophon relates). There are, however, some sources from which estimates can be made of the time of his death. The first of these is the statement in the ''Cyropaedia'' (8.6.22) that, after the capture of Babylon, Cyrus shared his time between three capitals: Babylon, Susa the capital of Persia, and Ecbatana the capital of Media. ''Cyropaedia'' 8.7.1 says that his last trip to Persia was in the seventh year of his reign. Cyrus died in August of 530 BC&lt;ref&gt;Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, ''Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A. D. 75'' (Providence: Brown Univ. Press, 1956), 14).&lt;/ref&gt;, implying that, in the source used by Xenophon, his full reign began in about 537 BC. He would only be reckoning Ecbatana, traditional capital of the Medians, as one of his capitals after the death of Cyaxares. This information from the ''Cyropaedia'' therefore suggests that in the period from 539 to late 538 or early 537 BC, Cyaxares was still alive and reigning.<br /> <br /> Another means of estimating the time that Cyaxares was still alive and ruling after the capture of Babylon comes from contract texts. William Shea did an extensive study of Babylonian contract texts which dated the contract to a year of Cyrus.&lt;ref&gt;William H. Shea, “An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period II,” ''Andrews University Seminary Studies'' 9 (1997): 99–128.&lt;/ref&gt; He examined several texts that named the reigning king as Cyrus, the first of which was dated to the 23rd day of the seventh month (Tishri) of the “accession year” of Cyrus, that is the year in which he was recognized as king in Babylon. This agrees with the statement in the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] that Cyrus defeated the army of Nabonidus in the seventh month, causing the Babylonians to revolt (possibly Persian propaganda) and Nabonidus to flee. Shea found three texts dated to this seventh month of Cyrus’s accession year. In all of them Cyrus was called “King of Lands” and also “King of Babylon.” This is followed by 29 contract texts dating from the eighth month of Cyrus’s accession year to the ninth month of his year one (Kislev, Nov/Dec 538 BC) the title “King of Lands” is retained, but the title “King of Babylon” is dropped for Cyrus, returning in contract texts dated to the tenth month, year one (December 538/January 537 BC). Shea surmised that the reason for the puzzling omission of “King of Babylon” as a titulary for Cyrus for 14 months was because someone else was honored with that title during this time, and he conjectured that that person was Gubaru, leader of the Gutians (Xenophon’s Gobryas), an identification that is not feasible, because, among other reasons, the Nabonidus Chronicle relates that Gubaru died only 25 days after the conquest of Babylon. If, however, Cyrus let it be known that the people should give Cyaxares the title “King of Babylon” in deference to his uncle (a deference that appears at critical places in the ''Cyropaedia''), then this information could be used to date the death of Cyaxares to the time when the title “King of Babylon” reverted back to Cyrus, i.e. to some time just before year one of Cyrus, month ten, day 16 (December 23, 538 BC), the earliest date after the 13-month hiatus in giving this title to Cyrus. This would place the death of Cyaxares just shortly before that time, i.e. probably sometime in December, 538, in good agreement with Xenophon’s statement that Cyrus made use of all three capitals, including Ecbatana, in the last seven years of his reign, 537 to 530 BC. This date for the death of Cyaxares is in agreement with the book of Daniel, where the references to “Darius the Mede” in Daniel 5:31, 6:28, 9:1, 10:1, and 11:1 imply that his length of reign in Babylon was not long before he was superseded by Cyrus. <br /> ==Similarities between Xenophon’s Cyaxares II and Daniel’s Darius the Mede==<br /> * Both were kings of Media in the sixth century BC.<br /> * Both were contemporaries of Cyrus, king of Persia.<br /> * Both were the highest rulers in the empire, having authority over Cyrus right after the fall of Babylon in 539 BC (''Cyropaedia'' 8.5.17, 20; Daniel 6:6–9). <br /> * Both were given to fits of immoderate anger (''Cyropaedia'' 4.5.9: Cyaxares had a “reputation for being violent and unreasonable”; Daniel 6:24: families of plotters against Daniel were thrown to the lions, not just the plotters). <br /> * Both were vainglorious, i.e. the praise and adulation of the people were so important to them that they took actions to receive that praise that were not in their best interests (''Cyropaedia'' 4.5.51–53, 5.5.1–2, 38–40; 8.5.17; Daniel 6:6–9). <br /> [[File:Medo-Persia - Achaemid Family Tree - inc Otanes &amp; Cyaxares II.PNG | 700px | thumb | center | The Achaemid Family Tree showing the merging of the royal houses of the Medes and the Persians to create the Medo-Persian Empire.]]<br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.academia.edu/22476645/Darius_the_Mede_A_Reappraisal]Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014). <br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder. <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.<br /> == References ==<br /> [[Category:Ancient History]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Belshazzar&diff=1721214 2021-01-14T01:15:41Z

<p>Latent: Added Infobox</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;TABLE ΒORDER ALIGN=&quot;RIGHT&quot; WIDTH=&quot;250&quot; BORDER=&quot;2&quot; BGCOLOR=&quot;CYAN&quot; RULES=&quot;NONE&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD COLSPAN=&quot;2&quot; ALIGN=&quot;CENTER&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;&lt;FONT SIZE=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Belshazzar, last king of Babylon, coregent of Nabonidus&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;father&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Nabonidus&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;mother&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Nitocris?&lt;ref&gt;Herodotus, &quot;Histories&quot; 1.188.1&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;reign&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;550-539 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;died&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;October 12, 539 BC&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;B&gt;succeeded by&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD VALIGN=&quot;top&quot;&gt;Darius the Mede (=Cyaxares II)&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;<br /> &lt;/TABLE&gt;<br /> '''Belshazzar''', (Greek: Βαλτασάρ, Baltasár, Aramaic בֵּלְשַׁאצַּר, from Akkadian: 𒂗𒈗𒋀, Bēl-šar-uṣur, meaning &quot;[[Bel]] protect the king&quot;), oldest son of [[Nabonidus]], was named as co-regent by his father Nabonidus (556-539 BC) in Nabonidus's third year, 553 BC.&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 313b.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;''Verse Account'' ii.5.&lt;/ref&gt; He reigned in Babylon while his father spent his time in the Arabian desert worshipping the moon-god Sin, and/or possibly subjugating the Arab tribes. Belshazzar's reign, and his life, came to an end when he was killed on the night that Babylon fell to the combined armies of the Medes and Persians and their allies under the command of [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus]].&lt;ref&gt;Daniel 5:30&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia'' 7.5.30.&lt;/ref&gt; The [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] dates the end of the [[Neo-Bablyonian Empire]], and thus the death of Belshazzar, to the 16th of Tashritu/Tishri, i.e. October 12, 539 BC.&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard,''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', p. 306b.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;''Nabonidus Chronicle'' iii.5.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> According to the ''Verse Account of Nabonidus'', [[Nabonidus]] allocated the government of the city of Babylon to Belshazzar for 10 years, giving him the kingship over the city, while he dwelt at the Arabian oasis of Tema (possibly in an effort to control lucrative Arabian trade routes).&lt;ref&gt;Verse Account, ii.5; Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 313b.&lt;/ref&gt; This means that the people, government and army officials saw Belshazzar more than Nabonidus. Likewise the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] states that [[Nabonidus]] fled from the area of Babylon before the city fell to [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus's]] forces.<br /> <br /> Some note as evidence of Belshazzar's subordinate role in his co-regency, that Belshazzar offered the prophet Daniel to be third ruler in the kingdom&lt;ref&gt;Daniel 5:7&lt;/ref&gt; because he didn't have authority to promote Daniel any higher.<br /> <br /> === Historical Identification ===<br /> For centuries the identity of Belshazzar lay lost to history, preserved only in the [[Book of Daniel]], consequentially used by many as a challenge to the historical accuracy of said volume.&lt;ref&gt; [https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Hd9BDQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT198&amp;dq=%22there+was+a+further+secular+controversy+for+many+centuries+over+the+existence+of+Belshazzar%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwik5oLZ6oLpAhW87XMBHeL0AuQQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22there%20was%20a%20further%20secular%20controversy%20for%20many%20centuries%20over%20the%20existence%20of%20Belshazzar%22&amp;f=false] Becher, Dave, ''The Tripartite Helmet of Hope and Salvation''.&lt;/ref&gt; Andrew Steinmann writes: &lt;blockquote&gt;Until the 1860s no historical source except the book of Daniel and works dependent on Daniel (e.g., Baruch 1:11) could provide independent confirmation of the existence of Belshazzar. Since he is not mentioned in any of the Greek historians, many nineteenth-century critical scholars viewed Daniel 5 as a purely fictional account about a fictional king . . . However, beginning in the 1860s, Babylonian sources came to light that named Belshazzar as the son of Nabonidus. They also stated that Belshazzar was made coregent over Babylon. These texts vindicated the historical nature of Daniel’s account. Furthermore, since these texts had been buried and forgotten and all memory of Belshazzar had been lost to history outside of the Bible and works dependent on it, they furnished proof positive that the writer of Daniel 5 must have been a contemporary who lived during the events recorded in the chapter. Since writers in later centuries, including writers during the Maccabean era, would have had no knowledge of Belshazzar based on the forgotten Babylonian texts, Daniel 5 could not have been composed in later centuries, disproving the long-held critical view that Daniel was written during the Maccabean era.&lt;ref&gt;{{cite book| first = Andrew E. | last = Steinmann | title =Daniel | publisher = Concordia | location = St. Louis, MO| date = 2008 | page = 260}}&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> The multiple challenges that the historical records relevant to Belshazzar present to the “critical” or anti-supernatural view of the composition of the book of Daniel may be enumerated as follows:<br /> # The naming of Belshazzar in the Book of Daniel is, by itself, evidence of the sixth century BC composition of the book. In the Persian rewrite of history that occurred in the time of Cyrus the Great and later,&lt;ref&gt;“The real Cyrus was a master of propaganda, as can be seen from the Cyrus Cylinder, the Babylonian verse chronicle of Nabonidus’ fall, and the stories of Cyrus’ merciful treatment of conquered kings, all no doubt propagated with Cyrus’ encouragement or active participation” (Steven W. Hirsch, ''The Friendship of the Barbarians: Xenophon and the Persian Empire'' [Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 1985], 177, n. 69).&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;“Cyrus was very successful in his propaganda and modern historiography is still influenced by it” (R. J. van der Spek, “Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations” in ''Extraction &amp; Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper'' [eds. Michael Kozuh et al.; SAOC 68; Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 2014], 260).&lt;/ref&gt; the name of Belshazzar was erased from official records. In what is probably the earliest cuneiform text related to the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians, the [[Cyrus Cylinder]], Belshazzar is not mentioned at all (and certainly not by name), unless he, and not Nabonidus, is the “incompetent person” mentioned in the opening lines (A3) of the Cylinder. In the following portion of the Cylinder where the fall of Babylon to the armies under Cyrus is described, Nabonidus is mentioned, but not Belshazzar, who was actually reigning in Babylon at the time. This process of expunging Belshazzar from history continued in later Persian cuneiform texts, so that Xenophon, writing about 170 years after the Medo-Persian capture of Babylon, apparently does not even know the name of the king who was ruling in Babylon at the time of its fall, referring to him only as “this young fellow who has just come to the throne” (''Cyropaedia'' 5.2.27). This presents a difficulty to critics of the Bible who maintain that the Book of Daniel, or at least major parts of it, were written in the second century BC. It is, however, consistent with the traditional Jewish and Christian view that the book reflects accurately events of the sixth century BC because the book was written not long after the events it describes. <br /> # Further evidence of the early composition of the Book of Daniel is found in its designation of Belshazzar as king. Liberal scholarship on this matter is represented by the oft-cited author John Collins, who wrote, “The fact remains that there is no evidence to corroborate the claim of Daniel 5 that Belshazzar was king in any sense at the time of the fall of Babylon.”&lt;ref&gt;John J. Collins, ''Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 32, 33.&lt;/ref&gt; Collins apparently has not read the ''Verse Account'', where Nabonidus states that, when he retreated to the Arabian Desert, “He entrusted the “Camp” to his oldest (son), the first-born . . . He let (everything) go, entrusted the kingship to him.”&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 313b.&lt;/ref&gt; Nor does he show any knowledge of the ''Cyropaedia'', where “this young fellow who has just come to the throne” is repeatedly given the title of king&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' 4.6.3; 5.2.27; 5.4.12, 24, 26, 33; 7.5.29.&lt;/ref&gt; If the mistaken “absence” of texts referring to Belshazzar as king can be cited as evidence of a second-century writing of Daniel by a pious fraud who did not know the true circumstances of the time, then intellectual honesty should require that this documented evidence to the contrary should be accepted as evidence for the book’s sixth-century authorship. <br /> # Further evidence showing the early authorship of Daniel’s account of Belshazzar is found in Daniel chapter 5, where the capture of Babylon and the end of the Neo-Bablyonian Empire is said to occur when the king and his court were involved in a great drinking party/festival (Daniel ch. 5). Both Xenophon &lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' 7.5.21, 25.&lt;/ref&gt; and Herodotus&lt;ref&gt;''Histories'' 1.191.6.&lt;/ref&gt; affirm that the Babylonians were carelessly involved in a festival when the city was taken. Once again, this is a historical detail that lends weight to the early authorship of the book of Daniel.<br /> # Daniel 5:31 relates that Belshazzar was slain on the night of the banquet. This is confirmed by Xenophon in a passage that should be included in every commentary on the Book of Daniel (''Cyropaedia'' 7:25–30).<br /> # As mentioned below, the fact that Belshazzar was only able to offer Daniel the third position in the kingdom because he, Belshazzar, was still under the suzerainty of his father Nabonidus, is another indication of the sixth-century authorship of the Book of Daniel. By the second century BC, all knowledge of this relationship between Nabonidus and Belshazzar kingship seems to have been lost. Even Belshazzar’s name was seemingly forgotten as early as when Herodotus wrote his ''Histories'' in about 430 BC and when Xenophon wrote the ''Cyropaedia'' in about 370 BC. <br /> All of these references to the activities, position, and fate of Belshazzar in early sources outside of the Book of Daniel testify to the historical accuracy of the author of Daniel, an accuracy that is difficult to explain if Daniel chapter 5 is merely “historical fiction,” as confidently asserted by liberal scholarship and as relentlessly maintained by all blogs and encyclopedia sites controlled by atheists and others who deny the historical accuracy of the Bible. <br /> <br /> === Debated Points ===<br /> Some suggest that scenes recorded in the [[Book of Daniel]]'s lavish party as a coronation festival as Belshazzar seized the throne.&lt;ref&gt;[https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Hd9BDQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT199&amp;dq=%22there+is+scholarly+speculation+that+after+Cyrus+had+defeated+Nabonidas%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiroYWB74LpAhXkjeYKHbLRDgoQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22there%20is%20scholarly%20speculation%20that%20after%20Cyrus%20had%20defeated%20Nabonidas%22&amp;f=false] Beacher, Dave, ''The Tripartite Helmet of Hope and Salvation''.&lt;/ref&gt; This point is negated by some claiming that the festival was the annual drunken and debauched fertility festival celebrating the union of Nimrod &amp; Semarimis. Meanwhile others{{citation needed}} working from the ancient custom of 'apprentice kings' (thus creating a clear line of succession), note that Belshazzar offers the Prophet Daniel to be third in the kingdom: as [[Nabonidus]] was the first, ''Belshazzar'' was the second and Daniel was made the third ruler in the kingdom.&lt;ref&gt;Daniel 5:7&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder<br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]The Nabonidus Chronicle <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell<br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/verse-account-of-nabonidus/] The Verse Account of Nabonidus <br /> *J. B. Pritchard, ed., ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament'' (3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969).<br /> <br /> == References ==</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harran_Stela&diff=1721209 2021-01-14T01:06:00Z

<p>Latent: Removed a duplicate line</p> <hr /> <div>===The Harran Stela===<br /> The Harran Stela is a cuneiform text that [[Nabonidus]], king of Babylonia, commissioned in order to relate his restoration of the Ehulhul Temple of the moon-god Sin. There are two copies extant; probably many more copies were made, but after the fall of Babylon the Persians obliterated records like this that were favorable to Nabonidus, replacing them with texts such as the Nabonidus Chronicle the Dream Text of Nabonidus that pretended to be from Nabonidus, but were rewritten in such a way to disparage Nabonidus and glorify Cyrus.&lt;ref&gt;Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'', 95,125.&lt;/ref&gt; The importance of the Stela therefore is that it narrates events from a perspective different from the Persian narrative of events related to the final years of the Neo-Babylonian kingdom.<br /> ==Background of the Stela==<br /> The Harran Stela was composed in the fourteenth or fifteenth year of [[Nabonidus|Nabonidus, King of Babylon]], i.e. 542 to 540 BC, commemorating his restoration of the temple at Ehulhul.&lt;ref&gt;Beaulieu, ''Reign of Nabonidus'', 32.&lt;/ref&gt; Nabonidus relates how hostile kings were trying to be reconciled with him. The kings are named as &quot;the king of Egypt, the Medes and the land of the Arabs, all the hostile kings&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 562b.&lt;/ref&gt; The significance of this lies in its date of composition, just one to three years before Nabonidus lost his kingdom to the Medes and Persians.&lt;ref&gt;Beaulieu, ''Reign of Nabonidus'', 143.&lt;/ref&gt; It was also some 13 or 14 years after Cyrus had supposedly subjugated the Medes and became ruler of the combined empire of the Persians and Medes in 559 B.C. according to Herodotus and the consensus of modern historians who follow him. Nabonidus, however, makes no mention of the Persians who soon would be the leaders of those who captured his capital. This is consistent with Xenophon’s picture of the Persians still being the subordinate partner in the Medo-Persian confederacy at the time, with Cyrus the junior sovereign under his uncle, Cyaxares II king of Media.&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' 3.3.24–25, 4.1.19–21, 8.5.17–19, esp. 19.&lt;/ref&gt; Nowhere in any surviving inscription is Cyrus called the king of Media, unless it is maintained that the present inscription is interpreted that way; this would be in contradiction to other sources where Cyrus is referred to &quot;king of Anshan&quot;, &quot;king of Persia&quot;, &quot;the great king&quot; and similar titles.&lt;ref&gt;It would be circular reasoning to say that the Harran Stela shows that Cyrus is called the King of the Medes because the Medes are listed on the Harran Stela as the enemy of the Babylonians.&lt;/ref&gt; The Harran Stela therefore is evidence that just shortly before the fall of Babylon the king of the Medes, whose name is not given, not only existed, but was considered a more important enemy of the Babylonians than Cyrus and the Persians. All this is consistent with Xenophon’s history of Cyrus in the ''Cyropaedia'', but in contradiction to the accounts in Herodotus, followed by many modern historians, which portray the Persians, with the Medes subjugated under them, as the dominant force challenging Nabonidus for several years before the capture of Babylon. <br /> ==Importance of the Stela==<br /> The Stela, coming as it does from a source independent of the Persian takeover of Babylon, and hence not influenced by the Persian view of history, is an important and independent witness bearing on the question of whether the Medes played an important, even dominant, role in the capture of Babylon in 539 BC. When the other cuneiform texts from the time or not long after, namely the Cyrus Cylinder, the Verse Account of Nabonidus, and the Dream Text of Nabonidus, were deciphered starting in the late 19th century, it became apparent that these texts omitted virtually all references to the Medes as responsible for the demise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. The general picture they presented, starting with the [[Cyrus Cylinder]], was that Cyrus, a Persian, was Marduk’s choice to take over the city rather peacefully, and with the approbation of the people in the city, because Nabonidus had forsaken the worship of Marduk.&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 315a–316b.&lt;/ref&gt; It was necessary in this propaganda to minimize the role of the Medes because, as the Harran Stela shows, the Medes were a primary hated enemy in the years immediately preceding the fall of Babylon. Therefore the Persian rewrite of history minimized and even omitted any mention of the Medes, contrary to the express statement of Nabonidus that he counted the Medes as a principal enemy in the years immediately preceding the end of his kingship. As king, he surely would have known who were his principal enemies, and the fact that he mentions the Medes, not the Persians, shows that at that time the Persians were still under the suzerainty of the Medes. This is in keeping with Xenophon’s portrayal of affairs in the ''Cyropaedia''. When the other cuneiform texts that presented the Persian rewrite were first deciphered, this was taken as “proof” that Xenophon’s portrayal of the situation was wrong and that of Herodotus (which followed the Persian narrative) was correct. Since the Persian narrative minimized or eliminated the role of the Medians in the fall of Babylon, it was also necessary to omit references to the king of the Medes who had authority over Cyrus when the troops of Cyrus took the city. This is similar to the omission of Belshazzar in the Persian propaganda texts, so that his name was lost for many centuries, skeptics of the Bible claiming there was no such person, until some texts were found with his name in the 1860s and later.<br /> ==More recent scholarship on the Persian cuneiform texts==<br /> Some recent scholarship has recognized the propagandistic nature of the cuneiform texts that originated in the time of Cyrus and his successors. Thus Steven Hirsch wrote: “The real Cyrus was a master of propaganda, as can be seen from the Cyrus Cylinder, the Babylonian verse chronicle of Nabonidus’ fall, and the stories of Cyrus’ merciful treatment of conquered kings, all no doubt propagated with Cyrus’ encouragement or active participation.”&lt;ref&gt;Steven W. Hirsch, ''The Friendship of the Barbarians: Xenophon and the Persian Empire'' (Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 1985), 177, n. 69.&lt;/ref&gt; Similarly, R. J. van der Spek: “Cyrus was very successful in his propaganda and modern historiography is still influenced by it.”&lt;ref&gt; R. J. van der Spek, “Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations” in ''Extraction &amp; Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper'' (eds. Michael Kozuh et al.; SAOC 68; Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 2014), 260.&lt;/ref&gt; That Cyrus was a master of propaganda should not be surprising to anyone reading the ''Cyropaedia'', where Xenophon portrays Cyrus’s father Cambyses advising his son that, if he is to succeed as a general and statesman, he “must be designing and cunning, wily and deceitful, a thief and a robber . . .” (1.6.27). <br /> <br /> Unfortunately, that deceit has worked only too well in expunging from history the part that the Medes, and their king [[Cyaxares II]], played in the campaigns that led to the fall of Babylon in 539 BC to the combined forces of the Medes, Persians, and their allies. For many years the propaganda caused Belshazzar, as portrayed in the Book of Daniel, to be considered unhistorical. Some modern scholars are now pointing out that apparently the same fate has happened to the last king of the Medians, Cyrus’s uncle known in Xenophon as Cyaxares II and in the book of Daniel as “Darius the Mede.”&lt;ref&gt;For a treatment of recent scholarship in this regard, as well as a survey of the many writers from Josephus, Jerome and later who identified “Darius the Mede” with Cyaxares II, see Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'', 4–5, 62 n.1, 63, 64, 72.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.academia.edu/22476645/Darius_the_Mede_A_Reappraisal]Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014). <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.<br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder.<br /> *J. B. Pritchard, ed., ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament'' (3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969).<br /> *[https://babylonian-collection.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/YNER%2010%20-%20Beaulieu%20-%20The%20Reign%20of%20Nabonidus%20King%20of%20Babylon%20556-549%20BC%20(1989).pdf] Paul-Alain Beaulieu, ''The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. '' (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1989).<br /> ==References==</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harran_Stela&diff=1721206 2021-01-14T01:04:59Z

<p>Latent: Page created</p> <hr /> <div>=Harran Stela=<br /> ===The Harran Stela===<br /> The Harran Stela is a cuneiform text that [[Nabonidus]], king of Babylonia, commissioned in order to relate his restoration of the Ehulhul Temple of the moon-god Sin. There are two copies extant; probably many more copies were made, but after the fall of Babylon the Persians obliterated records like this that were favorable to Nabonidus, replacing them with texts such as the Nabonidus Chronicle the Dream Text of Nabonidus that pretended to be from Nabonidus, but were rewritten in such a way to disparage Nabonidus and glorify Cyrus.&lt;ref&gt;Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'', 95,125.&lt;/ref&gt; The importance of the Stela therefore is that it narrates events from a perspective different from the Persian narrative of events related to the final years of the Neo-Babylonian kingdom.<br /> ==Background of the Stela==<br /> The Harran Stela was composed in the fourteenth or fifteenth year of [[Nabonidus|Nabonidus, King of Babylon]], i.e. 542 to 540 BC, commemorating his restoration of the temple at Ehulhul.&lt;ref&gt;Beaulieu, ''Reign of Nabonidus'', 32.&lt;/ref&gt; Nabonidus relates how hostile kings were trying to be reconciled with him. The kings are named as &quot;the king of Egypt, the Medes and the land of the Arabs, all the hostile kings&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 562b.&lt;/ref&gt; The significance of this lies in its date of composition, just one to three years before Nabonidus lost his kingdom to the Medes and Persians.&lt;ref&gt;Beaulieu, ''Reign of Nabonidus'', 143.&lt;/ref&gt; It was also some 13 or 14 years after Cyrus had supposedly subjugated the Medes and became ruler of the combined empire of the Persians and Medes in 559 B.C. according to Herodotus and the consensus of modern historians who follow him. Nabonidus, however, makes no mention of the Persians who soon would be the leaders of those who captured his capital. This is consistent with Xenophon’s picture of the Persians still being the subordinate partner in the Medo-Persian confederacy at the time, with Cyrus the junior sovereign under his uncle, Cyaxares II king of Media.&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' 3.3.24–25, 4.1.19–21, 8.5.17–19, esp. 19.&lt;/ref&gt; Nowhere in any surviving inscription is Cyrus called the king of Media, unless it is maintained that the present inscription is interpreted that way; this would be in contradiction to other sources where Cyrus is referred to &quot;king of Anshan&quot;, &quot;king of Persia&quot;, &quot;the great king&quot; and similar titles.&lt;ref&gt;It would be circular reasoning to say that the Harran Stela shows that Cyrus is called the King of the Medes because the Medes are listed on the Harran Stela as the enemy of the Babylonians.&lt;/ref&gt; The Harran Stela therefore is evidence that just shortly before the fall of Babylon the king of the Medes, whose name is not given, not only existed, but was considered a more important enemy of the Babylonians than Cyrus and the Persians. All this is consistent with Xenophon’s history of Cyrus in the ''Cyropaedia'', but in contradiction to the accounts in Herodotus, followed by many modern historians, which portray the Persians, with the Medes subjugated under them, as the dominant force challenging Nabonidus for several years before the capture of Babylon. <br /> ==Importance of the Stela==<br /> The Stela, coming as it does from a source independent of the Persian takeover of Babylon, and hence not influenced by the Persian view of history, is an important and independent witness bearing on the question of whether the Medes played an important, even dominant, role in the capture of Babylon in 539 BC. When the other cuneiform texts from the time or not long after, namely the Cyrus Cylinder, the Verse Account of Nabonidus, and the Dream Text of Nabonidus, were deciphered starting in the late 19th century, it became apparent that these texts omitted virtually all references to the Medes as responsible for the demise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. The general picture they presented, starting with the [[Cyrus Cylinder]], was that Cyrus, a Persian, was Marduk’s choice to take over the city rather peacefully, and with the approbation of the people in the city, because Nabonidus had forsaken the worship of Marduk.&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 315a–316b.&lt;/ref&gt; It was necessary in this propaganda to minimize the role of the Medes because, as the Harran Stela shows, the Medes were a primary hated enemy in the years immediately preceding the fall of Babylon. Therefore the Persian rewrite of history minimized and even omitted any mention of the Medes, contrary to the express statement of Nabonidus that he counted the Medes as a principal enemy in the years immediately preceding the end of his kingship. As king, he surely would have known who were his principal enemies, and the fact that he mentions the Medes, not the Persians, shows that at that time the Persians were still under the suzerainty of the Medes. This is in keeping with Xenophon’s portrayal of affairs in the ''Cyropaedia''. When the other cuneiform texts that presented the Persian rewrite were first deciphered, this was taken as “proof” that Xenophon’s portrayal of the situation was wrong and that of Herodotus (which followed the Persian narrative) was correct. Since the Persian narrative minimized or eliminated the role of the Medians in the fall of Babylon, it was also necessary to omit references to the king of the Medes who had authority over Cyrus when the troops of Cyrus took the city. This is similar to the omission of Belshazzar in the Persian propaganda texts, so that his name was lost for many centuries, skeptics of the Bible claiming there was no such person, until some texts were found with his name in the 1860s and later.<br /> ==More recent scholarship on the Persian cuneiform texts==<br /> Some recent scholarship has recognized the propagandistic nature of the cuneiform texts that originated in the time of Cyrus and his successors. Thus Steven Hirsch wrote: “The real Cyrus was a master of propaganda, as can be seen from the Cyrus Cylinder, the Babylonian verse chronicle of Nabonidus’ fall, and the stories of Cyrus’ merciful treatment of conquered kings, all no doubt propagated with Cyrus’ encouragement or active participation.”&lt;ref&gt;Steven W. Hirsch, ''The Friendship of the Barbarians: Xenophon and the Persian Empire'' (Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 1985), 177, n. 69.&lt;/ref&gt; Similarly, R. J. van der Spek: “Cyrus was very successful in his propaganda and modern historiography is still influenced by it.”&lt;ref&gt; R. J. van der Spek, “Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations” in ''Extraction &amp; Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper'' (eds. Michael Kozuh et al.; SAOC 68; Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 2014), 260.&lt;/ref&gt; That Cyrus was a master of propaganda should not be surprising to anyone reading the ''Cyropaedia'', where Xenophon portrays Cyrus’s father Cambyses advising his son that, if he is to succeed as a general and statesman, he “must be designing and cunning, wily and deceitful, a thief and a robber . . .” (1.6.27). <br /> <br /> Unfortunately, that deceit has worked only too well in expunging from history the part that the Medes, and their king [[Cyaxares II]], played in the campaigns that led to the fall of Babylon in 539 BC to the combined forces of the Medes, Persians, and their allies. For many years the propaganda caused Belshazzar, as portrayed in the Book of Daniel, to be considered unhistorical. Some modern scholars are now pointing out that apparently the same fate has happened to the last king of the Medians, Cyrus’s uncle known in Xenophon as Cyaxares II and in the book of Daniel as “Darius the Mede.”&lt;ref&gt;For a treatment of recent scholarship in this regard, as well as a survey of the many writers from Josephus, Jerome and later who identified “Darius the Mede” with Cyaxares II, see Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'', 4–5, 62 n.1, 63, 64, 72.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.academia.edu/22476645/Darius_the_Mede_A_Reappraisal]Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014). <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.<br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder.<br /> *J. B. Pritchard, ed., ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament'' (3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969).<br /> *[https://babylonian-collection.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/YNER%2010%20-%20Beaulieu%20-%20The%20Reign%20of%20Nabonidus%20King%20of%20Babylon%20556-549%20BC%20(1989).pdf] Paul-Alain Beaulieu, ''The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. '' (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1989).<br /> ==References==</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Cyaxares_II&diff=1720988 2021-01-12T23:19:10Z

<p>Latent: Added two sections at end (dating death of Cyaxares and comparison with Darius the Mede)</p> <hr /> <div>'''Cyaxares II''', is the alleged son and successor of the legendary [[Astyages]], King of the [[Medes]] in [[Ecbatana]] who reigned from 561 to 536 BC according to Barnes’ Notes,&lt;ref&gt;Barnes' Notes on the Bible, Daniel 9:1. [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; but for whom a better ending date might be late 538 BC (see below). The generally accepted narrative is that the throne passed straight from [[Astyages]] to [[Cyrus the Great]].<br /> <br /> == Original Sources ==<br /> The son of [[Astyages]], [[Cyaxares II]] (not to be confused with [[Cyaxares I]], father of [[Astyages]]) does not ''specifically'' exist in any surviving or currently available extant cuniform tablets or the likes; but he does possibly exist with a potential dual reference in the absolutely monumental [[bas-relief]] [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] (''see below'').<br /> <br /> Meanwhile the strongest ''specific'' literary evidence for his existence lies within the pages [[Xenophon|Xenohon's]] crowning work, the ''[[Cyropaedia]]'', who as a Greek military commander served in [[Cyrus the Younger|Cyrus']] army. This work was so highly prized by [[Alexander the Great]], that he made it his perpetual study&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, 'Cyropaedia'', Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK&lt;/ref&gt;; by extension it was obviously also recommended to him by his mentor and tutor [[Aristotle]]&lt;ref&gt;[[Quintus Curtius Rufus]], History of Alexander, 1.9&lt;/ref&gt;. Likewise did [[Julius Caesar]]&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, 'Cyropaedia'', Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK&lt;/ref&gt;. Meanwhile [[Scipio Africanus]] is reported to have carried it with him everywhere&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, 'Cyropaedia'', Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK&lt;/ref&gt;. This combined with a possible identity match with [[Josephus|Josephus']] [[Darius the Mede|Darius, King of Media]]&lt;ref&gt;Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'', 10.11.2.[https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-10.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;, &quot;the son of Astyages, [who] had another name among the Greeks&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'', 10.11.4.[https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-10.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; creates a good case. Compoundingly, two of the rebels listed in [[Darius I|Darius I's]] [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] claimed &quot;to be of the family of Cyaxares&quot;: which has naturally created debate if these are references to [[Cyaxares I]] or to the possible [[Cyaxares II]]. Finally those who accept the [[Book of Daniel]] to be true, note that it was [[Darius the Mede]] who officially seized the kingdom&lt;ref&gt;Daniel 5:31&lt;/ref&gt;, which happily correlates all three of these literary sources to their reasoning.<br /> <br /> Alternitively, [[Cyaxares II]] does not appear in [[Ptolemy's Canon]]&lt;ref&gt;Livius, Ptolemy's ''Canon''. [https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]&lt;/ref&gt; or the [[Uruk King List]]&lt;ref&gt;Livius, Uruk King List.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/uruk-king-list/]&lt;/ref&gt;. But neither of these feature [[Belshazzar]] who became effective king of Babylon after his father [[Nabonidas]] capture now confirmed to us by the Nabonidus Cylinder (from Ur)&lt;ref&gt;Livius, ''Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur''.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/nabonidus-cylinder-from-ur/]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Livius, ''ABC 7 (Nabonidus Chronicle)'', Column iii.16.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]&lt;/ref&gt;. Similarly [[Ptolemy's Canon|Ptolemy]] does not list [[Nerglissar|Nerglissar's]] son [[Labasi-Marduk]] while the [[Uruk King List|Uruk]] does.<br /> <br /> Meanwhile [[Cyaxares II]] existence is further called into question when the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] openly states that: 1. [[Cyrus|Cyrus the Great]] attacked [[Astyages]] and that the army betrayed [[Astyages]]&lt;ref&gt;Livius, ''ABC 7 (Nabonidus Chronicle)'', Column ii. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]&lt;/ref&gt; thereby 2. denying [[Astyages]] throne passed to [[Cyaxares II]] at all. This account is in harmony with Herodotus' narrative which may be derived from the [[Nabonidus Chronicle|Chronicle]] or another common source.<br /> <br /> Clearly, legitimate debate over these sources does exist. Therefore in the following sections we shall examine these sources in more detail.<br /> <br /> === In the works of Xenophon ===<br /> According to [[Xenophon]], ''Cyaxares II'' ruled as king after the natural death of [[Astyages]] and sought to defended [[Medes|Media]] from Assyrian/[[Babylonia|Babylonian]] aggression, promoting his yet unascended nephew [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus]] as General/leader of the allied forces. Furthermore, [[Xenophon]] in great detail records the history of [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus']] pre-emptive strike and campaigns with ''Cyaxares II'', the first battle of which the king of Babylon (probably [[Neriglissar]]) was decisively defeated and slain. During the plunder of this battle [[Cyaxares II]] and [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] were separated and Cyrus continued to campaign alone with [[Cyaxares II]] eventually returning to [[Ecbatana]]. The volume records how Cyrus fused the alliance of nations under his banner until after several years Cyrus stands at the very gates of [[Babylon]] itself. [[Xenophon]] then very significantly records how after the conquest of [[Babylon]], [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] travelled to [[Ecbatana]] wherein he met [[Cyaxares II]], gifting him a palace in Babylon and accepted the hand of his daughter with the Kingdom of Media as her dowry. [[Xenophon]] then records how [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] travelled to Persia after the death of his father [[Cambyses I]] to receive his father's office.<br /> <br /> This record stands in direct contrast regarding the existence of [[Cyaxares II]] with the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]]&lt;ref&gt;''Nabonidus Chronicle'', ''Column ii.1-4'', [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]&lt;/ref&gt;, [[Herodotus]] and [[Ctesias]] accounts, [[Ptolemy's Canon]]&lt;ref&gt;Ptolemy's Canon, [https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]&lt;/ref&gt; and the [[Uruk King List]]&lt;ref&gt;Uruk King List.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/uruk-king-list/]&lt;/ref&gt; on the one side. But on the other, it alone offers a satisfactory reason as to why the authoritative [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] twice has rebels claiming to be &quot;of the family of Cyaxares&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], Behistun Inscription, Rebellion of Phraortes.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-13/]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], Behistun Inscription, Rebellion of Tritantaechmes. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-21/]&lt;/ref&gt; and not &quot;of the family of Astyages&quot; (being the last monarch of Media if the likes of the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] are true); while it must also be noted that if these rebels were referring to [[Astyages]] father [[Cyaxares I]], then claims to the throne that are over a hundred years old does not make for a strong case! It must also be noted that this inscription is the dictate of [[Darius I]] himself, who in turn is the son of one [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus']] right hand men who lived these events. Now when one considers the [[Book of Daniel|Book of Daniel's]] claim that Darius the Mede &quot;received the kingdom&quot; (rather than the Cyrus) despite known physical history, this claim is harmonized when [[Josephus]] records that &quot;Darius the Mede&quot; &quot;was the son of Astyages&quot; but &quot;known to the Greeks by another name&quot;.<br /> <br /> Herein, historians are forced to make a choice between the account of [[Xenophon|Xenophon's]] ''[[Cyropaedia]]'', backed by the immensely authoritative [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]], or these contrary works.<br /> <br /> === In the works of Josephus ===<br /> Josephus does not use the title of &quot;''Cyaxares''&quot;, but rather names [[Darius the Mede]] as the son of [[Astyages]], simply acknowledging that [[Darius the Mede]] is known by another name among the Greeks. Considering the possible candidates at the time, this has led many to comment on this convergence and conclude that Josephus' [[Darius the Mede]], son of [[Astyages]] is [[Cyaxares II]].<br /> <br /> === In the Behistun Inscription ===<br /> The [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] details the nine self-proclaimed kings who rebelled in [[Darius I|Darius Hystspes']] first year of power whom he subdued. Two of those rebels claimed to be &quot;of the family Cyaxares&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-13/]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-21/]&lt;/ref&gt;, of whom the former claimed a false identity while the later may well have been legitimate (but a rebel none the less). Regardless, this gives rise to the debate if they are referring to [[Cyaxares I]], father of [[Astyages]] or to [[Astyages|Astyages']] possible son and successor [[Cyaxares II]].<br /> <br /> It must be noted that [[Phraortes]] claimed &quot;I am Khshathrita, of the family of Cyaxares&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-13/]&lt;/ref&gt;as did [[Tritantaechmes]]&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-21/]&lt;/ref&gt; claimed to be of &quot;Cyaxares&quot;: if they refer to [[Cyaxares I]] over a hundred years prior, then their legitimate claim to the throne would be extremely small, if they refer to a potential [[Cyaxares II]] two generations later, then a much more legitimate claim could be substantiated.<br /> <br /> ==When did Cyaxares II die?==<br /> Since Cyaxares II does not appear in official records that were compiled after his death, and which official records were used by later sources such as Ptolemy’s ''Canon'' in setting forth the sequence of kings, there are no known direct sources that can be used to specify exactly the years of his reign (assuming that he really did reign as king of Media as Xenophon relates). There are, however, some sources from which estimates can be made of the time of his death. The first of these is the statement in the ''Cyropaedia'' (8.6.22) that, after the capture of Babylon, Cyrus shared his time between three capitals: Babylon, Susa the capital of Persia, and Ecbatana the capital of Media. ''Cyropaedia'' 8.7.1 says that his last trip to Persia was in the seventh year of his reign. Cyrus died in August of 530 BC&lt;ref&gt;Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, ''Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A. D. 75'' (Providence: Brown Univ. Press, 1956), 14).&lt;/ref&gt;, implying that, in the source used by Xenophon, his full reign began in about 537 BC. He would only be reckoning Ecbatana, traditional capital of the Medians, as one of his capitals after the death of Cyaxares. This information from the ''Cyropaedia'' therefore suggests that in the period from 539 to late 538 or early 537 BC, Cyaxares was still alive and reigning.<br /> <br /> Another means of estimating the time that Cyaxares was still alive and ruling after the capture of Babylon comes from contract texts. William Shea did an extensive study of Babylonian contract texts which dated the contract to a year of Cyrus.&lt;ref&gt;William H. Shea, “An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period II,” ''Andrews University Seminary Studies'' 9 (1997): 99–128.&lt;/ref&gt; He examined several texts that named the reigning king as Cyrus, the first of which was dated to the 23rd day of the seventh month (Tishri) of the “accession year” of Cyrus, that is the year in which he was recognized as king in Babylon. This agrees with the statement in the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] that Cyrus defeated the army of Nabonidus in the seventh month, causing the Babylonians to revolt (possibly Persian propaganda) and Nabonidus to flee. Shea found three texts dated to this seventh month of Cyrus’s accession year. In all of them Cyrus was called “King of Lands” and also “King of Babylon.” This is followed by 29 contract texts dating from the eighth month of Cyrus’s accession year to the ninth month of his year one (Kislev, Nov/Dec 538 BC) the title “King of Lands” is retained, but the title “King of Babylon” is dropped for Cyrus, returning in contract texts dated to the tenth month, year one (December 538/January 537 BC). Shea surmised that the reason for the puzzling omission of “King of Babylon” as a titulary for Cyrus for 14 months was because someone else was honored with that title during this time, and he conjectured that that person was Gubaru, leader of the Gutians (Xenophon’s Gobryas), an identification that is not feasible, because, among other reasons, the Nabonidus Chronicle relates that Gubaru died only 25 days after the conquest of Babylon. If, however, Cyrus let it be known that the people should give Cyaxares the title “King of Babylon” in deference to his uncle (a deference that appears at critical places in the ''Cyropaedia''), then this information could be used to date the death of Cyaxares to the time when the title “King of Babylon” reverted back to Cyrus, i.e. to some time just before year one of Cyrus, month ten, day 16 (December 23, 538 BC), the earliest date after the 13-month hiatus in giving this title to Cyrus. This would place the death of Cyaxares just shortly before that time, i.e. probably sometime in December, 538, in good agreement with Xenophon’s statement that Cyrus made use of all three capitals, including Ecbatana, in the last seven years of his reign, 537 to 530 BC. This date for the death of Cyaxares is in general agreement with the book of Daniel, where the references to “Darius the Mede” in Daniel 5:31, 6:28, 9:1, 10:1, and 11:1 imply that his length of reign in Babylon was not long before he was superseded by Cyrus. <br /> ==Similarities between Xenophon’s Cyaxares II and Daniel’s Darius the Mede==<br /> * Both were kings of Media in the sixth century BC.<br /> * Both were contemporaries of Cyrus, king of Persia.<br /> * Both were the highest rulers in the empire, having authority over Cyrus right after the fall of Babylon in 539 BC (''Cyropaedia'' 8.5.17, 20; Daniel 6:6–9). <br /> * Both were given to fits of immoderate anger (''Cyropaedia'' 4.5.9: Cyaxares had a “reputation for being violent and unreasonable”; Daniel 6:24: families of plotters against Daniel were thrown to the lions, not just the plotters). <br /> * Both were vainglorious, i.e. the praise and adulation of the people were so important to them that they took actions to receive that praise that were not in their best interests (''Cyropaedia'' 4.5.51–53, 5.5.1–2, 38–40; 8.5.17; Daniel 6:6–9). <br /> [[File:Medo-Persia - Achaemid Family Tree - inc Otanes &amp; Cyaxares II.PNG | 700px | thumb | center | The Achaemid Family Tree showing the merging of the royal houses of the Medes and the Persians to create the Medo-Persian Empire.]]<br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.academia.edu/22476645/Darius_the_Mede_A_Reappraisal]Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014). <br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder. <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.<br /> == References ==<br /> [[Category:Ancient History]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Cyaxares_II&diff=1720775 2021-01-12T01:18:30Z

<p>Latent: Tidied up external Web references. Enlarged genealogical chart so it is readable.</p> <hr /> <div>'''Cyaxares II''', is the alleged son and successor of the legendary [[Astyages]], King of the [[Medes]] in [[Ecbatana]] who allegedly reigned from 561 to 536 BC&lt;ref&gt;Barnes' Notes on the Bible, Daniel 9:1. [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;. The generally accepted narrative is that the throne passed straight from [[Astyages]] to [[Cyrus the Great]].<br /> <br /> == Original Sources ==<br /> The son of [[Astyages]], [[Cyaxares II]] (not to be confused with [[Cyaxares I]], father of [[Astyages]]) does not ''specifically'' exist in any surviving or currently available extant cuniform tablets or the likes; but he does possibly exist with a potential dual reference in the absolutely monumental [[bas-relief]] [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] (''see below'').<br /> <br /> Meanwhile the strongest ''specific'' literary evidence for his existence lies within the pages [[Xenophon|Xenohon's]] crowning work, the ''[[Cyropaedia]]'', who as a Greek military commander served in [[Cyrus the Younger|Cyrus']] army. This work was so highly prized by [[Alexander the Great]], that he made it his perpetual study&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, 'Cyropaedia'', Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK&lt;/ref&gt;; by extension it was obviously also recommended to him by his mentor and tutor [[Aristotle]]&lt;ref&gt;[[Quintus Curtius Rufus]], History of Alexander, 1.9&lt;/ref&gt;. Likewise did [[Julius Caesar]]&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, 'Cyropaedia'', Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK&lt;/ref&gt;. Meanwhile [[Scipio Africanus]] is reported to have carried it with him everywhere&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, 'Cyropaedia'', Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK&lt;/ref&gt;. This combined with a possible identity match with [[Josephus|Josephus']] [[Darius the Mede|Darius, King of Media]]&lt;ref&gt;Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'', 10.11.2.[https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-10.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;, &quot;the son of Astyages, [who] had another name among the Greeks&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'', 10.11.4.[https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-10.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; creates a good case. Compoundingly, two of the rebels listed in [[Darius I|Darius I's]] [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] claimed &quot;to be of the family of Cyaxares&quot;: which has naturally created debate if these are references to [[Cyaxares I]] or to the possible [[Cyaxares II]]. Finally those who accept the [[Book of Daniel]] to be true, note that it was [[Darius the Mede]] who officially seized the kingdom&lt;ref&gt;Daniel 5:31&lt;/ref&gt;, which happily correlates all three of these literary sources to their reasoning.<br /> <br /> Alternitively, [[Cyaxares II]] does not appear in [[Ptolemy's Canon]]&lt;ref&gt;Livius, Ptolemy's ''Canon''. [https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]&lt;/ref&gt; or the [[Uruk King List]]&lt;ref&gt;Livius, Uruk King List.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/uruk-king-list/]&lt;/ref&gt;. But neither of these feature [[Belshazzar]] who became effective king of Babylon after his father [[Nabonidas]] capture now confirmed to us by the Nabonidus Cylinder (from Ur)&lt;ref&gt;Livius, ''Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur''.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/nabonidus-cylinder-from-ur/]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Livius, ''ABC 7 (Nabonidus Chronicle)'', Column iii.16.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]&lt;/ref&gt;. Similarly [[Ptolemy's Canon|Ptolemy]] does not list [[Nerglissar|Nerglissar's]] son [[Labasi-Marduk]] while the [[Uruk King List|Uruk]] does.<br /> <br /> Meanwhile [[Cyaxares II]] existence is further called into question when the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] openly states that: 1. [[Cyrus|Cyrus the Great]] attacked [[Astyages]] and that the army betrayed [[Astyages]]&lt;ref&gt;Livius, ''ABC 7 (Nabonidus Chronicle)'', Column ii. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]&lt;/ref&gt; thereby 2. denying [[Astyages]] throne passed to [[Cyaxares II]] at all. This account is in harmony with Herodotus' narrative which may be derived from the [[Nabonidus Chronicle|Chronicle]] or another common source.<br /> <br /> Clearly, legitimate debate over these sources does exist. Therefore in the following sections we shall examine these sources in more detail.<br /> <br /> === In the works of Xenophon ===<br /> According to [[Xenophon]], ''Cyaxares II'' ruled as king after the natural death of [[Astyages]] and sought to defended [[Medes|Media]] from Assyrian/[[Babylonia|Babylonian]] aggression, promoting his yet unascended nephew [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus]] as General/leader of the allied forces. Furthermore, [[Xenophon]] in great detail records the history of [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus']] pre-emptive strike and campaigns with ''Cyaxares II'', the first battle of which the king of Babylon (probably [[Neriglissar]]) was decisively defeated and slain. During the plunder of this battle [[Cyaxares II]] and [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] were separated and Cyrus continued to campaign alone with [[Cyaxares II]] eventually returning to [[Ecbatana]]. The volume records how Cyrus fused the alliance of nations under his banner until after several years Cyrus stands at the very gates of [[Babylon]] itself. [[Xenophon]] then very significantly records how after the conquest of [[Babylon]], [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] travelled to [[Ecbatana]] wherein he met [[Cyaxares II]], gifting him a palace in Babylon and accepted the hand of his daughter with the Kingdom of Media as her dowry. [[Xenophon]] then records how [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] travelled to Persia after the death of his father [[Cambyses I]] to receive his father's office.<br /> <br /> This record stands in direct contrast regarding the existence of [[Cyaxares II]] with the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]]&lt;ref&gt;''Nabonidus Chronicle'', ''Column ii.1-4'', [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]&lt;/ref&gt;, [[Herodotus]] and [[Ctesias]] accounts, [[Ptolemy's Canon]]&lt;ref&gt;Ptolemy's Canon, [https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]&lt;/ref&gt; and the [[Uruk King List]]&lt;ref&gt;Uruk King List.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/uruk-king-list/]&lt;/ref&gt; on the one side. But on the other, it alone offers a satisfactory reason as to why the authoritative [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] twice has rebels claiming to be &quot;of the family of Cyaxares&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], Behistun Inscription, Rebellion of Phraortes.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-13/]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], Behistun Inscription, Rebellion of Tritantaechmes. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-21/]&lt;/ref&gt; and not &quot;of the family of Astyages&quot; (being the last monarch of Media if the likes of the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] are true); while it must also be noted that if these rebels were referring to [[Astyages]] father [[Cyaxares I]], then claims to the throne that are over a hundred years old does not make for a strong case! It must also be noted that this inscription is the dictate of [[Darius I]] himself, who in turn is the son of one [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus']] right hand men who lived these events. Now when one considers the [[Book of Daniel|Book of Daniel's]] claim that Darius the Mede &quot;received the kingdom&quot; (rather than the Cyrus) despite known physical history, this claim is harmonized when [[Josephus]] records that &quot;Darius the Mede&quot; &quot;was the son of Astyages&quot; but &quot;known to the Greeks by another name&quot;.<br /> <br /> Herein, historians are forced to make a choice between the account of [[Xenophon|Xenophon's]] ''[[Cyropaedia]]'', backed by the immensely authoritative [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]], or these contrary works.<br /> <br /> === In the works of Josephus ===<br /> Josephus does not use the title of &quot;''Cyaxares''&quot;, but rather names [[Darius the Mede]] as the son of [[Astyages]], simply acknowledging that [[Darius the Mede]] is known by another name among the Greeks. Considering the possible candidates at the time, this has led many to comment on this convergence and conclude that Josephus' [[Darius the Mede]], son of [[Astyages]] is [[Cyaxares II]].<br /> <br /> === In the Behistun Inscription ===<br /> The [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] details the nine self-proclaimed kings who rebelled in [[Darius I|Darius Hystspes']] first year of power whom he subdued. Two of those rebels claimed to be &quot;of the family Cyaxares&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-13/]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-21/]&lt;/ref&gt;, of whom the former claimed a false identity while the later may well have been legitimate (but a rebel none the less). Regardless, this gives rise to the debate if they are referring to [[Cyaxares I]], father of [[Astyages]] or to [[Astyages|Astyages']] possible son and successor [[Cyaxares II]].<br /> <br /> It must be noted that [[Phraortes]] claimed &quot;I am Khshathrita, of the family of Cyaxares&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''.[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-13/]&lt;/ref&gt;as did [[Tritantaechmes]]&lt;ref&gt;[[Darius I]], ''Behistun Inscription''. [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/behistun-persian-text/behistun-t-21/]&lt;/ref&gt; claimed to be of &quot;Cyaxares&quot;: if they refer to [[Cyaxares I]] over a hundred years prior, then their legitimate claim to the throne would be extremely small, if they refer to a potential [[Cyaxares II]] two generations later, then a much more legitimate claim could be substantiated.<br /> [[File:Medo-Persia - Achaemid Family Tree - inc Otanes &amp; Cyaxares II.PNG | 700px | thumb | center | The Achaemid Family Tree showing the merging of the royal houses of the Medes and the Persians to create the Medo-Persian Empire.]]<br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.academia.edu/22476645/Darius_the_Mede_A_Reappraisal]Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014). <br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder. <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.<br /> == References ==<br /> [[Category:Ancient History]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Darius_the_Mede&diff=1720658 2021-01-11T20:53:21Z

<p>Latent: Corrected some mistakes and improved wording in a few places</p> <hr /> <div>'''Darius the Mede''' is a character appearing thrice in the biblical [[Book of Daniel]]. The exact identity of &quot;Darius the Mede&quot; remains the subject of heated debate representing &quot;the last great hurdle to the contextually historical authenticity of book&quot; with skeptics claiming him to be fictional and &quot;historical harmonizers&quot; suggesting that this is simply another name for a real historical individual.<br /> <br /> This subject is further complicated by [[Josephus]] simply stating that Darius the Mede was the son of [[Astyages]] king of the Medes and that he was known to the Greeks by another name, without qualifying what that was. Meanwhile the broadly used &quot;[[Herodotus|Father of History]]&quot; also oft called &quot;the Father of Lies&quot; in his dramatic recount, records that [[Astyages]] had no son, but rather tells how the kingdom passed directly to [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] by force of arms (''Histories'' 1.109.3, 1.129.4). Yet [[Herodotus|Herodotus']] account stands in direct opposition to [[Xenophon|Xenophon's]] far more extensive and detailed book on the subject, which was written about 60 years later and was constantly studied by [[Alexander the Great]]. The [[Cyropaedia]] provides a natural solution to the question of the existence and identity of Darius the Mede. But with the only extant clay tablets and Ptolemy's Canon ''seeming'' to support the direct passage of power to [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus II]] and the [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] references to Cyaxares being questionable as to whether the Cyaxares in the Inscription is Cyaxares I, father of [[Astyages]] or Cyaxares II his son, the academic community remains divided.<br /> <br /> Below in separate sections we shall examine each of the three instances with the finer details. But immediately we shall examine the cases for each suggested individual.<br /> <br /> ''PLEASE NOTE THIS PAGE IS STILL UNDER INITIAL CONSTRUCTION!''<br /> <br /> ==Arguments for Fictional==<br /> It is sufficient to say on this subject that without a clear clay tablet on the subject, skeptics hold the character of [[Darius the Mede]] to be purely fictional and therefore the entire chapter as fiction. This as Barnes notes&lt;ref&gt;Barnes Commentary, ''Daniel 6:1, Section 2'' - &quot;Considerable importance is to be attached to the question who was Darius the Mede, as it has been made a ground of objection to the Scripture narrative, that no person by that name is mentioned in the Greek writers.&quot;<br /> [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; is generally presented as evidence that the entire book is not considered to be of any historical value and is to be disqualified entirely.<br /> <br /> ==Arguments for Cyaxares II==<br /> In Xenophon's historical narrative, some time after the natural death of his grandfather [[Astyages]], [[Cyrus II the Great]], while still a youth and not yet king of Persia, entered into the employ of his uncle [[Cyaxares II]] as general of the army in a mutual defence pact against Assyria (Babylon). In this capacity [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] campaigns with [[Cyaxares II]] at the first and then by himself until his eventual conquest of [[Babylon]]. In this narrative, it must be noted that all conquests are officially in the name of the alliance which was ultimately at the expense and direction of the king of the Medes. After which [[Cyrus the Great]] returns to the capital city of [[Ecbatana]] in Media and presents [[Cyaxares II]] with a palace in Babylon as a token of victory and receives [[Cyaxares II]]'s daughter as his wife with the kingdom of Media as her dowry. Xenophon's account then details Cyrus' trip home to Persia where he receives the title of King upon the death of his father [[Cambyses I]].<br /> <br /> This position when combined with Josephs' assertion that [[Darius the Mede]] was the son of [[Astyages]] but known to the Greeks by another name, it makes it only natural to conclude that:<br /> * Darius the Mede is Cyaxares II.<br /> * &quot;Darius the Mede received (Aramaic ''qabel'') the kingdom&quot; (Dan. 5:31) despite being actually conquered by Cyrus&quot; (Dan. 5:31) as <br /> * Cyrus at that point was simply heir of Persia and the greatly loved General of the Coalition Army.<br /> <br /> As discussed at the start, while the character of [[Cyaxares II]] is not generally accepted amidst the classical histories such as [[Herodotus]], [[Ctesias]], the Cannon of Ptolemy&lt;ref&gt;Ptolemy's ''Canon''[https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]&lt;/ref&gt; or even on a currently available clay tablet (other than two possible references in the [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]]), [[Cyaxares II]] presents the most natural solution to the problem and is the summary position of several Bible commentaries such as: ''Benson Commentary''&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 9:1 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 6:1[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 5:30-31 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/5.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; ''Barnes Notes''&lt;ref&gt;Barnes Notes, Daniel 9:1[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; &amp; the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentaries.<br /> <br /> Finally even Saint Jerome asserts that Darius the Mede is [[Cyaxares II]], son of [[Astyages]],&lt;ref&gt;Jerome, ''Commentariorum in Danielem libri III&lt;IV&gt;'', 820-21.&lt;/ref&gt; leaving Benson to conclude &quot;so that it appears to have been the generally received opinion in [Jerome's] time, as it probably was also in the time of Josephus, which was not more than five or six hundred years after [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]].&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Benson's Commentaries, Daniel 6:1 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; Alexander's love of the [[Cyropaedia]] and thereby [[Aristotle|Aristotle's]] recommendation show acceptance of the identity of [[Cyaxares II]] by heads of state not 100-200 years from the events they record.<br /> ==How Did Darius the Mede Disappear from History? Or Did He?==<br /> Typical of the skepticism that much of critical scholarship expresses towards Daniel’s “Darius the Mede” is the claim from John J. Collins: “No such person as Darius the Mede is known to have existed apart from the narration of Daniel . . . No such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history.”&lt;ref&gt;John J. Collins, ''Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 30, 33.&lt;/ref&gt; The latter statement is particularly interesting, because it implicitly denies that the Bible is a source of history. Similarly, Carol Newsom writes of “the wholly fictitious character of Darius the Mede,”&lt;ref&gt;Carol A. Newsom with Brennan W. Breed, ''Daniel: A Commentary'', Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 192.&lt;/ref&gt; and George Buchanan confidently declares, “Darius the Mede never existed.”&lt;ref&gt;George Wesley Buchanan, ''The Book of Daniel'', Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 30.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> Such dogmatic statements lose their force when it is realized that for over 1700 years, historians and biblical scholars found no problem in accepting that the name “Darius” used by Daniel was an alternate name or “throne name” for the [[Cyaxares II]] who plays a major role in Xenophon’s ''Cyropaedia''. It is well known that Near Eastern monarchs, when they took the throne, adopted a throne name in addition to their given name. Rüdiger Schmitt provides the given names of Achaemenid rulers who succeeded Cyrus II whose better-known throne names were Artaxerxes I, Darius II, Artaxerxes II, Artaxerxes III, and Darius III.&lt;ref&gt;Rüdiger Schmitt, “Achaemenid Throne-Names,” ''Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli'' 42 (1982): 83–86, 90.&lt;/ref&gt; It should be expected, then, that Cyaxares II would have another name besides the one name that is given to him by Xenophon. That this was the case is indicated by Josephus. When referring to the Darius of Daniel, Josephus wrote that this Darius (“Darius the Mede”) “was called by another name among the Greeks” (''Antiquities'' 10.248). In the same passage, Josephus says that Darius was a son of Astyages and a kinsman of Cyrus. Both of these statements show that Josephus was in agreement with Xenophon’s portraits of Astyages and Cyaxares II in the ''Cyropaedia'', where Cyaxares is presented as the son of Astyages and the maternal uncle of Cyrus. <br /> ===First refutation of idea that “Darius the Mede is not known to history”===<br /> This historical identification, that Daniel’s Darius was identical to Xenophon’s Cyaxares II, continued for many centuries after Josephus and was espoused by eminent Jewish and Christian scholars. Steven Anderson lists the following writers who accepted this identification: Jerome (3rd century AD), John Calvin (16th century), James Ussher (17th century), Charles Rollin and William Lowth (18th century), and in the 19th century Thomas Hartwell Horne, Wilhelm Gesenius, Humphrey Prideaux, E. W. Hengstenberg, C. F. Keil in the Keil and Delitzsch commentary, and Otto Zöckler in Lange’s Commentary.&lt;ref&gt;Anderson, ''Darius the Mede'', 3–5.&lt;/ref&gt; For these authors, the resemblance of Daniel’s Darius with Xenophon’s Cyaxares was so compelling that Keil wrote, “The account given by Xenophon regarding Cyaxares so fully agrees with the narrative of Daniel regarding Darius the Mede, that, as Hitzig confesses, “the identity of the two is beyond a doubt.””&lt;ref&gt;C. F. Keil, ''Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel'', in ''Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament'' (trans. M. G. Easton; Edinburgh: T. &amp; T. Clark, 1872; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 198.&lt;/ref&gt; A discussion of why this position, held for many centuries by such a distinguished list of authors, fell into disfavor beginning in the late 19th century is presented on the [[Cyaxares II]] page. For now, the relevant point is that, contrary to the statement of Collins, once the traditional view is taken that Daniel’s Darius = Xenophon’s Cyaxares, it is by no means true that “No such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history.” <br /> ===Second refutation of the idea that “Darius the Mede is not known to history.”===<br /> Three of the great conservative commentators of the 19th century, Hengstenberg, Keil (''Keil and Delitzsch commentary''), and Zöckler (''Lange’s Commentary''), cited references to a king Darius who was who preceded Darius I Hystapses (522–486 BC).&lt;ref&gt;[https://archive.org/stream/dissertationsongendan00heng]E. W. Hengstenberg, ''Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel and the Integrity of Zechariah'' (tr. B. P. Pratten; Edingburgh: T &amp; T Clark, 1848), 41–42.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Keil, ''Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel'', 199–200.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Otto Zöckler, ''The Book of the Prophet Daniel: Theologically and Homiletically Expounded'' (tr. &amp; ed. James Strong; vol. 13 of ''Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical'', ed. John Peter Lange and Philip Schaff (New York: Scribner, Armstrong &amp; Co., 1876), 36.&lt;/ref&gt; These authors cite references in two early authors, Berossus (3rd century BC) and Harpocration (2nd century AD) for evidence of this King Darius who was earlier than Darius I. The Berossus passage is preserved in Josephus (''Against Apion'' 1.153) and in the ''Chronicle'' of Eusebius, a work that survives only in an Armenian translation. Josephus/Berossus relates the defeat of Nabonidus by Cyrus, after which Nabonidus “was humanely treated by Cyrus, who dismissed him from Babylonia, but gave him Carmania for his residence.” The extract from Eusebius agrees with Josephus’s citation, but adds to it: “(But) Darius the king took away some of his province for himself.”&lt;ref&gt; Josef Karst, ed., ''Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Commentar'', vol. 5 of ''Eusebius Werke'' (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911), 246.&lt;/ref&gt; This is referring to the time of the defeat of Nabonidus (539 BC), not the time of the later Darius I Hystapses. If this earlier Darius was able to override the disposition of Cyrus for Nabonidus, it means that he had a higher authority than Cyrus, which is compatible with Xenophon’s portrayal of Cyrus being under the suzerainty of Cyaxares until the death of the latter. It is also compatible with the “Darius the Mede” of Daniel, who had authority to issue an edict that no one could pray to any other god or king but to him for thirty days, an edict that could not have been issued if there was an authority higher than him in the realm (Daniel 6:7-9). Notice that the events of Daniel 6 take place after the forces under Cyrus captured Babylon; Cyrus was still alive, but at this point he was not yet the supreme authority in the empire.<br /> <br /> Harpocration was associated with the great library in Alexandria, and so he had access to many ancient works that were lost when the library was burned. In his work ''The Lexicon of the Ten Orators'', under the entry “Daric,” Harpocration wrote, “But darics are not named, as most suppose, after Darius the father of Xerxes [Darius I Hystapses], 522-486 BC), but after a certain other more ancient king.” This is thus a second historical reference to the existence of an earlier Darius, who must have been the supreme authority in his time, since he had authority to issue coinage in his name. These two references from ancient authors of this earlier king Darius can be taken as independent of the remembrance of Cyaxares II in Xenophon, although the force of evidence implies that Xenophon’s Cyaxares was the same person as this “earlier” Darius, and both were the personage identified as “Darius the Mede” in the book of Daniel. <br /> ==In Daniel 5==<br /> Herein [[Darius the Mede]] seizes the kingdom and rules as king at the fall of Babylon. This narrative has historically presented problems for Biblical scholars as it is an undisputed historical fact that Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon. While many positions exist on the subject, we shall examine each below in separate sections.<br /> ==In Daniel 10 through 11==<br /> ==External Links==<br /> https://www.bitchute.com/video/r9npZoqtD4HA/<br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.academia.edu/22476645/Darius_the_Mede_A_Reappraisal]Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014). <br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder. <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.<br /> ==References==</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Darius_the_Mede&diff=1720643 2021-01-11T19:43:18Z

<p>Latent: Added discussion of historical references to Darius</p> <hr /> <div>'''Darius the Mede''' is a character appearing thrice in the biblical [[Book of Daniel]]. The exact identity of &quot;Darius the Mede&quot; remains the subject of heated debate representing &quot;the last great hurdle to the contextually historical authenticity of book&quot; with skeptics claiming him to be fictional and &quot;historical harmonizers&quot; suggesting that this is simply another name for a real historical individual.<br /> <br /> This subject is further complicated by [[Josephus]] simply stating that [[Darius the Mede]] was the son of [[Astyages]] king of the Medes and that he was known to the Greeks by another name, without qualifying what that was. Meanwhile the broadly used &quot;[[Herodotus|Father of History]]&quot; also oft called &quot;the Father of Lies&quot; in his ''Histories'' dramatic recount, does not record [[Astyages]] having a son at all, but rather tells how the kingdom passed directly to [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] by force of arms. Yet [[Herodotus|Herodotus']] account stands in direct opposition to [[Xenophon|Xenophon's]] far more extensive and detailed book on the subject (written about 150 years later and constantly studied by [[Alexander the Great]]) is known as the [[Cyropaedia]] (which does actually provide a natural solution to the subject). But with the only extant clay tablets and Ptolemy's Canon ''seeming'' to support the direct passage of power to [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus II]] and the [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]] references to Cyaxares being questionable if they are [[Astyages]] father or [[Xenophon|Xenophon's]] claim of a [[Cyaxares II]], the academic community remains divided.<br /> <br /> Below in separate sections we shall examine each of the three instances with the finer details. But immediately we shall examine the cases for each suggested individual.<br /> <br /> ''PLEASE NOTE THIS PAGE IS STILL UNDER INITIAL CONSTRUCTION!''<br /> <br /> ==Arguments for Fictional==<br /> It is sufficient to say on this subject that without a clear clay tablet on the subject, skeptics hold the character of [[Darius the Mede]] to be purely fictional and therefore the entire chapter as fiction. This as Barnes notes&lt;ref&gt;Barnes Commentary, ''Daniel 6:1, Section 2'' - &quot;Considerable importance is to be attached to the question who was Darius the Mede, as it has been made a ground of objection to the Scripture narrative, that no person by that name is mentioned in the Greek writers.&quot;<br /> [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; is generally presented as evidence that the entire book is not considered to be of any historical value and to be disqualified entirely.<br /> <br /> ==Arguments for Cyaxares II==<br /> In Xenophon's historical narrative, some time after the natural death of his grandfather [[Astyages]], [[Cyrus the Great]], while still a youth and not yet king of Persia, entered into the employ of his uncle [[Cyaxares II]] as general of the army in a mutual defence pact against Assyria (Babylon). In this capacity [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]] campaigns with [[Cyaxares II]] at the first and then by himself until his eventual conquest of [[Babylon]] itself. In this narrative, it must be noted that all conquests are officiall in the name of the alliance which was ultimately at the expense and direction of the king of the Medes. After which [[Cyrus the Great]] returns to the capital city of [[Ecbatana]] in Media and presents [[Cyaxares II]] with a palace in Babylon as a token of victory and receives [[Cyaxares II]]'s daughter as his wife with the kingdom of Media as her dowry. Xenophon's account then details Cyrus' trip home to Persia where he receives the title of King upon the death of his father [[Cambyses I]].<br /> <br /> This position when combined with Josephs' assertion that [[Darius the Mede]] was the son of [[Astyages]] but known to the Greeks by another name, it makes it only natural to conclude that:<br /> * Darius the Mede is Cyaxares II.<br /> * &quot;Darius the Mede received (Aramaic ''qabel'') the kingdom&quot; (Dan. 5:31) despite being actually conquered by Cyrus as <br /> * Cyrus at that point was simply heir of Persia and the greatly loved General of the Coalition Army.<br /> <br /> As discussed at the start, while the character of [[Cyaxares II]] is not generally accepted amidst the classical histories such as [[Herodotus]], [[Ctesias]], the Cannon of Ptolemy&lt;ref&gt;Ptolemy's ''Canon''[https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/ptolemys-canon/]&lt;/ref&gt; or even on a currently available clay tablet (other than two possible references in the [[Behistun (inscription)|Behistun Inscription]]), [[Cyaxares II]] presents the most natural solution to the problem and is the summary position of several Bible commentaries such as: ''Benson Commentary''&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 9:1 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 6:1[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/6.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Benson Commentary, Daniel 5:30-31 [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/5.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; ''Barnes Notes''&lt;ref&gt;Barnes Notes, Daniel 9:1[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/9.htm]&lt;/ref&gt; &amp; the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentaries.<br /> <br /> Finally even Saint Jerome asserts that Darius the Mede is [[Cyaxares II]], son of [[Astyages]],&lt;ref&gt;Jerome, ''Commentariorum in Danielem libri III&lt;IV&gt;'', 820-21.&lt;/ref&gt; leaving Benson to conclude &quot;so that it appears to have been the generally received opinion in [Jerome's] time, as it probably was also in the time of Josephus, which was not more than five or six hundred years after [[Cyrus the Great|Cyrus]].&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Benson's Commentaries, Daniel 6:1; https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/daniel/6.htm&lt;/ref&gt; Alexander's love of the [[Cyropaedia]] and thereby [[Aristotle|Aristotle's]] recommendation show acceptance of the identity of [[Cyaxares II]] by heads of state not 100-200 years from the events they record.<br /> ==How Did Darius the Mede Disappear from History? Or Did He?==<br /> Typical of the skepticism that much of critical scholarship expresses towards Daniel’s “Darius the Mede” is the claim from John J. Collins: “No such person as Darius the Mede is known to have existed apart from the narration of Daniel . . . No such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history.”&lt;ref&gt;John J. Collins, ''Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 30, 33.&lt;/ref&gt; The latter statement is particularly interesting, because it implicitly denies that the Bible is a source of history. Similarly, Carol Newsom writes of “the wholly fictitious character of Darius the Mede,”&lt;ref&gt;Carol A. Newsom with Brennan W. Breed, ''Daniel: A Commentary'', Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 192.&lt;/ref&gt; and George Buchanan confidently declared, “Darius the Mede never existed.”&lt;ref&gt;George Wesley Buchanan, ''The Book of Daniel'', Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 30.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> Such dogmatic statements lose their force when it is realized that for over 1700 years, historians and biblical scholars found no problem in accepting that the name “Darius” used by Daniel was an alternate name or “throne name” for the [[Cyaxares II]] who plays a major role in Xenophon’s ''Cyropaedia''. It is well known that Near Eastern monarchs, when they took the throne, adopted a throne name in addition to their given name. Rüdiger Schmitt provides the given names of Achaemenid rulers who succeeded Cyrus II whose better-known throne names were Artaxerxes I, Darius II, Artaxerxes II, Artaxerxes III, and Darius III.&lt;ref&gt;Rüdiger Schmitt, “Achaemenid Throne-Names,” ''Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli'' 42 (1982): 83–86, 90.&lt;/ref&gt; It should be expected, then, that Cyaxares II would have another name besides the one name that is given to him by Xenophon. That this was the case is indicated by Josephus. When referring to the Darius of Daniel, Josephus wrote that this Darius (“Darius the Mede”) “was called by another name among the Greeks” (''Antiquities'' 10.248). In the same passage, Josephus says that Darius was a son of Astyages and a kinsman of Cyrus. Both of these statements show that Josephus was in agreement with Xenophon’s portraits of Astyages and Cyaxares II in the ''Cyropaedia'', where Cyaxares is presented as the son of Astyages and the maternal uncle of Cyrus. <br /> ===First refutation of idea that “Darius the Mede is not known to history”===<br /> This historical identification, that Daniel’s Darius was identical to Xenophon’s Cyaxares II, continued for many centuries after Josephus and was espoused by eminent Jewish and Christian scholars. Steven Anderson lists the following writers who accepted this identification: Jerome (3rd century AD), John Calvin (16th century), James Ussher (17th century), Charles Rollin and William Lowth (18th century), and in the 19th century Thomas Hartwell Horne, Wilhelm Gesenius, Humphrey Prideaux, E. W. Hengstenberg, C. F. Keil in the Keil and Delitzsch commentary, and Otto Zöckler in Lange’s Commentary.&lt;ref&gt;Anderson, ''Darius the Mede'', 3–5.&lt;/ref&gt; For these authors, the resemblance of Daniel’s Darius with Xenophon’s Cyaxares was so compelling that Keil wrote, “The account given by Xenophon regarding Cyaxares so fully agrees with the narrative of Daniel regarding Darius the Mede, that, as Hitzig confesses, “the identity of the two is beyond a doubt.”” &lt;ref&gt;C. F. Keil, ''Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel'', in ''Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament'' (trans. M. G. Easton; Edinburgh: T. &amp; T. Clark, 1872; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 198.&lt;/ref&gt; A discussion of why this position, held for many centuries by such a distinguished list of authors, fell into disfavor beginning in the late 19th century is presented on the [[Cyaxares II]] page. For now, the relevant point is that, contrary to the statement of Collins, once the traditional view is taken that Daniel’s Darius = Xenophon’s Cyaxares, it is by no means true that “No such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history.” <br /> ===Second refutation that “Darius the Mede is not known to history.”===<br /> Three of the great conservative commentators of the 19th century, Hengstenberg, Keil (''Keil and Delitzsch commentary''), and Zöckler (''Lange’s Commentary''), cited references to a king Darius who was who preceded Darius I (522–486 BC).&lt;ref&gt;[https://archive.org/stream/dissertationsongendan00heng]E. W. Hengstenberg, ''Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel and the Integrity of Zechariah'' (tr. B. P. Pratten; Edingburgh: T &amp; T Clark, 1848), 41–42.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Keil, ''Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel'', 199–200.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Otto Zöckler, ''The Book of the Prophet Daniel: Theologically and Homiletically Expounded'' (tr. &amp; ed. James Strong; vol. 13 of ''Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical'', ed. John Peter Lange and Philip Schaff (New York: Scribner, Armstrong &amp; Co., 1876), 36.&lt;/ref&gt; These authors cite references in two early authors, Berossus (3rd century BC) and Harpocration (2nd century AD) for evidence of this King Darius who was earlier than Darius I. The Berossus passage is preserved in Josephus (''Against Apion'' 1.153) and in the ''Chronicle'' of Eusebius, a work that survives only in an Armenian translation. Josephus/Berossus relates the defeat of Nabonidus by Cyrus, after which Nabonidus “was humanely treated by Cyrus, who dismissed him from Babylonia, but gave him Carmania for his residence.” The extract from Eusebius agrees with Josephus’s citation, but adds to it: “(But) Darius the king took away some of his province for himself.”&lt;ref&gt; Josef Karst, ed., ''Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Commentar'', vol. 5 of ''Eusebius Werke'' (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911), 246.&lt;/ref&gt; This is referring to the time of the defeat of Nabonidus (539 BC), not the time of the later Darius I Hystapses. If this earlier Darius was able to override the disposition of Cyrus for Nabonidus, it means that he had a higher authority than Cyrus, which is compatible with Xenophon’s portrayal of Cyrus being under the suzerainty of Cyaxares until the death of the latter. It is also compatible with the “Darius the Mede” of Daniel, who had authority to issue an edict that no one could pray to any other god or king but to him for thirty days, an edict that could not have been issued if there was an authority higher than him in the realm (Daniel 6:7-9). <br /> <br /> Harpocration was associated with the great library in Alexandria, and so he had access to many ancient works that were lost when the library was burned. In his work ''The Lexicon of the Ten Orators'', under the entry “Daric,” Harpocration wrote, “But darics are not named, as most suppose, after Darius the father of Xerxes [Darius I Hystapses], 522-486 BC), but after a certain other more ancient king.” This is thus a second historical reference to the existence of an earlier Darius, who must have been the supreme authority in his time, since he had authority to issue coinage in his name. These two references from ancient authors of this earlier king Darius can be taken as independent of the remembrance of Cyaxares II in Xenophon, although the force of evidence implies that Xenophon’s Cyaxares was the same person as this “earlier” Darius, and both were the personage identified as “Darius the Mede” in the book of Daniel. <br /> ==In Daniel 5==<br /> Herein [[Darius the Mede]] seizes the kingdom and rules as king at the fall of Babylon. This narrative has historically presented problems for Biblical scholars as it is an undisputed historical fact that Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon. While many positions exist on the subject, we shall examine each below in separate sections.<br /> ==In Daniel 10 through 11==<br /> ==External Links==<br /> https://www.bitchute.com/video/r9npZoqtD4HA/<br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.academia.edu/22476645/Darius_the_Mede_A_Reappraisal]Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014). <br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder. <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.<br /> ==References==</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Cyrus_II_the_Great&diff=1720139 2021-01-10T19:27:23Z

<p>Latent: Added a lot. Enlarged the fine genealogical chart so it is legible.</p> <hr /> <div>[[image:Cyrus portrait.jpg | right | thumb |'''Cyrus the Great''', King of Persia<br /> &lt;br&gt;'''predecessor''' = Cambyses I (Persia), &lt;br&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Cyaxares II (Medo-Persia)<br /> &lt;br&gt;'''successor''' = Cambyses II<br /> &lt;br&gt;'''birth''' = ca. 576 BC<br /> &lt;br&gt;'''death''' = 530 BC<br /> &lt;br&gt;'''spouse''' = 1. Cassandane (died Feb/Mar 539 BC)<br /> &lt;br&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;2. Unnamed daughter of Cyaxares II (some time after Feb/Mar 539 BC)<br /> &lt;br&gt;'''father''' = Cambyses I, king of Persia<br /> &lt;br&gt;'''mother''' = Mandane, princess of Media<br /> ]]<br /> '''Cyrus II''' (also called '''Cyrus the Great''') (576–530 BC) was the Emperor of the [[Persian Empire]]. He is famous for conquering [[Babylon]] and letting the [[Jew]]s go back to [[Israel]].&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> At its greatest extent, the Achaemenid Persian Empire was the largest ancient empire, spanning three continents: [[Europe]], [[Asia]], and [[Africa]]. The empire included modern-day [[Iran]], [[Iraq]], [[Jordan]], [[Israel]], [[Syria]], [[Lebanon]], [[Turkey]], [[Egypt]] [[Afghanistan]], [[Pakistan]], [[Libya]], and northern [[Saudi Arabia]].<br /> <br /> ==Conflicting Histories of Cyrus in Herodotus, Xenophon, and the Cuneiform Texts==<br /> ===Background and Career of Cyrus according to Herodotus===<br /> Herodotus’s relates that Cyrus’s grandfather Astyages, king of Media, was warned in dreams that his daughter Mandane would give birth to a child who would eventually usurp his throne. In order to prevent this, Astyages had Mandane marry a Persian commoner named Cambyses so the child would not be part of his royal house. Then, when his daughter was about to bear her son, Astyages commissioned one of his servants to go to Mandane in Persia and slay the child. The servant was unwilling to kill the child himself, and so committed the task to a certain herdsman. The herdsman’s wife was about to give birth, and when she did so the child was stillborn. The couple buried the stillborn child and pretended they had carried out their commission, thereafter raising Cyrus themselves.&lt;ref&gt;''Histories'' 1.107.1 –1.113.3.&lt;/ref&gt; When Cyrus reached manhood and his true identity was revealed, Cyrus and the Persians became inveterate enemies of Astyages, eventually defeating him in battle (559 BC)&lt;ref&gt;''Histories'' 1.214.3.&lt;/ref&gt; and confining him to his palace. (This is unlikely in itself and casts doubt on Herodotus’s whole scenario about Astyages; would a conqueror leave a conquered king in his capital while the conqueror was involved in foreign campaigns?) After that the domination of the Persians over the Medes continued for several years before, and then after, the capture of Babylon. According to Herodotus, when Cyrus conquered Astyages he made the Medes “slaves instead of masters and the Persians, who were the slaves, are now the masters of the Medes.” &lt;ref&gt;''Histories'' 1.129.4.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> According to Herodotus, then, Cyrus became overlord of the Medes, so that both Medes and Persians were subject to him well before the fall of Babylon to their forces and the forces of their allies (539 BC). Cyrus’s died, according to Herodotus, after the Persians were defeated by the forces of Tomyris, queen of the Massagetae. When the queen came upon Cyrus’s corpse she dipped his head in a skein of blood. &lt;ref&gt;''Histories''1.212.1 –2.114.5.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ===Background and Career of Cyrus according to Xenophon===<br /> In his ''Cyropaedia'' (Education of Cyrus) Xenophon agrees with Herodotus that Cyrus’s mother was Mandane, daughter of Astyages king of Media, but Xenophon makes it clear that the Cambyses she married was king of Persia, not a commoner. Xenophon relates that when Cyrus was twelve or slightly older, Mandane took him from Persia to Ecbatana, the Median capital, at the request of Astyages. The boy and his grandfather immediately developed a liking for each other, and when Mandane wanted to return, Astyages requested that the boy remain with him in order to complete his education. Cyrus agreed, saying he especially wanted to learn to ride a horse, a skill at which the Medes excelled but which the Persians did not practice at the time. The cordial relations between Astyages and his grandson continued during the years while Cyrus grew to manhood, and in no instance does Xenophon portray anything but affection between grandfather and grandson as long as Astyages was alive.<br /> When Astyages died, the kingdom passed, not to Cyrus, but to the son of Astyages, [[Cyaxares II]] (''Cyropaedia'' 1.5.2). Cyaxares II, the brother of Mandane, was therefore the uncle of Cyrus. Cyrus became king of the Persians (only) on the death of his father Cambyses I, but he and the Persians remained, according to Xenophon, under the suzerainty of Cyaxares and the Medes until the death of Cyaxares, which happened about two years after the capture of Babylon in 539 BC. After Babylon was captured, Cyaxares had given his daughter in marriage to Cyrus, whose first wife apparently died a few weeks after the capture of Babylon,&lt;ref&gt;[[Nabonidus Chronicle]], as cited in Jean-Jacques Glassner, ''Mesopotamian Chronicles'' (ed. Benjamin R. Forster; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 239. The translation of Glassner that has the mourning period for the queen (and hence her death) occurring in the month Adar (February/March) is to be preferred to the earlier translation found in James Pritchard, ed., ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament'' (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969), 306b, that has the mourning start in Arahshamnu (=Heshvan, October/November).&lt;/ref&gt; with her dowry being the combined rule of the Medes and the Persians. This meant that after the death of Cyaxares the Persians instead of the Medes therefore became dominant in the empire that now included Babylonia and many other subject peoples. After a seven-year rule of the combined empire (537–530 BC),&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' (8.7.1)&lt;/ref&gt; Cyrus died a peaceful death and was succeeded by his son Cambyses II.&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' (8.7.11)&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ===Deciding between the two contradictory accounts of the life of Cyrus (Herodotus and Xenophon)===<br /> The account given by Herodotus regarding the birth and early upbringing of Cyrus is plainly fabulous, with precedents in other fables of the ancient Near East. Herodotus himself casts doubts on its authenticity when he writes at the end of the tale that “there are no less than three other accounts of Cyrus which I could give” (1.195.1). The cuneiform records from the time of Cyrus also contradict Herodotus’s statement that Cyrus’s father was a commoner. In the [[Cyrus Cylinder]] Cyrus states that his father Cambyses, grandfather Cyrus I, and great-grandfather Teispes were all kings of Persia before him, thus contradicting Herodotus but supporting Xenophon on Cyrus’s background.&lt;ref&gt; Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 316a.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> Regarding the death of Cyrus (peaceful in Xenophon, bloody in Herodotus), Shahrokh Razmjou wrote, “The story in Herodotus . . . seems to be fictitious.”&lt;ref&gt;Shahrokh Razmjou, ”The Cyrus Cylinder: A Persian Perspective,” in ''The Cyrus Cylinder: The King of Persia’s Proclamation from Ancient Babylon'', ed. Irving Finkel (London: I. B. Tauris, 2013), 125, n. 8.&lt;/ref&gt; Steven Anderson comments: “Aside from the way in which such an account [of Herodotus] seems too sensational to be true, one may also note that Cyrus had carefully prepared a tomb for himself in Pasargadae which remains to this day. If statements by other classical writers are to be believed, this tomb actually housed Cyrus’ corpse in antiquity, and was not merely a centopath.”&lt;ref&gt;Steven D. Anderson, ''Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal'' (revision of the author’s PhD dissertation at Dallas Theological Seminary) (Grand Rapids, 2014), 30.[https://www.amazon.com/Darius-Mede-Reappraisal-Steven-Anderson/dp/1502390388/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=Darius+the+Mede%3A+A+Reappraisal&amp;qid=1610231403&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1]&lt;/ref&gt; The existence of the tomb in Persia argues for a peaceful burial, not his death in the far-off land of the Massagetae as Herodotus relates. Herodotus himself once again casts doubt on his own account of the death of Cyrus when he relates “Many stories are told of Cyrus' death; this, that I have told, is the most credible” (2.114.5).<br /> ===Testimony of the cuneiform evidence related to the history of Cyrus===<br /> In the late 1800s several cuneiform texts dealing with the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire were found and translated. None of these texts named Cyaxares II, and, more than that, most of them had Cyrus taking over the kingship of Media and Persia directly from Astyages, with no room for an intervening Median king. The conclusion seemed obvious: Herodotus was correct in maintaining that Astyages had no male heir, and hence Xenophon, who had a great deal to say about Cyaxares II as the son of Astyages and uncle of Darius, must be rejected. It was now understood that Cyrus became king of both Media and Persia by defeating the Medes, including his grandfather Astyages, several years before the fall of Babylon in 539 BC, just as Herodotus said.<br /> Later scholarship, however, began pointing out some problems with the cuneiform texts. If the supposed coup of Cyrus was such a definite act, why could not these texts agree on when it happened, and the circumstances of the coup? The Dream Text of Nabonidus said that Cyrus and the Persians defeated the Medes in the third year of Nabonidus (553/552 BC); &lt;ref&gt;Paul-Alain Beaulieu, ''The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C.'' (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 108.&lt;/ref&gt;the Nabonidus Chronicle seems to place it in Nabonidus’s sixth year (550/549);&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 305b.&lt;/ref&gt; and Herodotus, by giving Cyrus 29 years of reign, would place it in 559 BC (Histories 1.214.3). The Cyrus Cylinder, which is apparently the earliest of these documents, does not say that Cyrus defeated the Medes in war, claiming only that Marduk “made the Guti country and all the Mandan hordes [Median troops] bow in submission to his (i.e. Cyrus’) feet.”&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 315b.&lt;/ref&gt; According to the Cyropaedia (4.6.1–11) the Gutians were not conquered militarily by Cyrus. Their governor Gobryas/Ugbaru submitted voluntarily because of the wrongs done to him by Belshazzar. The submission of the Medes to Cyrus could be similar, which would be more in keeping with Xenophon’s account that has the Median soldiery willingly serving Cyrus even while they were still under the ''de jure'' rule of their king, [[Cyaxares II]]. <br /> ==Cyrus the Great in the Bible==<br /> In the Bible, Cyrus is mentioned in 2 Chronicles (36:22, 23) as the monarch who issued a decree allowing the Jews to return to their homeland from Babylon. His name appears repeatedly in the book of Ezra that relates details regarding those who returned from exile. The book of Daniel has three references (Daniel 1:21, 6:28, 10:1) that name him as reigning some time after the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, but apparently (according to the usual reading of the texts) with a Median king named [[Darius the Mede|Darius]] intervening between the Babylonian [[Belshazzar]] and the Persian Cyrus.<br /> Cyrus is mentioned in Isaiah in the following passages:&lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, who frustrates the signs of liars . . . who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfill all my purpose’; saying of Jerusalem, “She shall be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘your foundation shall be laid’” (Isaiah 44:24, 25, 28, ESV). Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed: “I will go before you and level the exalted places, I will break in pieces the doors of bronze and cut through the bars of Iron. I will give you the treasures of darkness and the hoards in secret places, that you may know that it is I, the LORD, the God of Israel, who call you by your name. For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name. I name you, though you do not know me. I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other (45:1–6). I have stirred him up in righteousness, and I will make all his ways level; he shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for price or reward,” says the LORD of hosts (45:13). . . calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country (46:11). “Assemble all of you, and listen! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD loves him; he shall perform his purpose on Babylon, and his arm shall be against the Chaldreans. I, even I, have spoken and called him; I have brought him, and he will prosper in his way” (48:14, 15).&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> The problem with these passages are that they are prophetic, which means that those who do not believe that God exists have to explain them away by saying they are ''vaticinia ex eventu'' (prophecies after the event), that is, writings that look back on a historical event but which pretend they were written before the event as prophecy of the future. Thus in much of the “critical” literature on Isaiah, it is presented as a foregone conclusion that these portions of Isaiah were written after Cyrus’s decree, but ultimately that conclusion, no matter how confidently asserted, is based on the critics ''a priori'' assumption that there is no God, or, if there is a God, he either does not know the future or, if he knows it, he is incapable of, or unwilling to, impart this knowledge to his prophets or anyone else. For those who believe that God not only exists, but that he desires to make his will and his foresight known, there is no reason to take as their starting place the presupposition of the skeptics that prophecy is impossible, the presupposition that controls much of the modern criticism of the book of Isaiah and the Bible in general. The prophetic references to Cyrus in Isaiah are therefore something of a watershed between these two opposing ways of approaching and interpreting the Bible.<br /> <br /> Josephus (''Antiquities'' 11:1–3) relates that the Jews read these prophecies of Isaiah to Cyrus, and this reading of the prophecies caused Cyrus to assemble the leaders of the Jews and announce to them his decision that they could go back to their country and rebuild the city and the Temple. As might be expected, skeptics with ''a priori'' presuppositions about the impossibility of predictive prophecy confidently label this passage in Josephus as unhistorical, but a reading of the passage shows that, if the prophecy really was written over a century and a half earlier by the historical Isaiah, what the Jews did in approaching Cyrus about the prophecy was entirely reasonable and to be expected.<br /> [[File:Medo-Persia - Achaemid Family Tree - inc Otanes &amp; Cyaxares II.PNG | 700px | thumb | center | The Achaemid Family Tree showing the merging or the royal houses of the Medes and the Persians to create the Medo-Persian Empire.]]<br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://www.iranchamber.com/history/achaemenids/achaemenids.php History of Iran: Achaemenid Empire]<br /> *[http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/persianempir1/a/persiaintro_2.htm The Achaemenid Empire, 550-330 B.C.] <br /> *[http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/acha/hd_acha.htm The Achaemenid Persian Empire (550–330 B.C.)] <br /> * The Nabonidus Chronicle [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/] <br /> *''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell [http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, <br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:International Political Figures]]<br /> [[Category:Ancient History]]</div>

Latent https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Belshazzar&diff=1718771 2021-01-05T17:28:22Z

<p>Latent: Expanded sentence about importance of Belshazzar to historicity of book of Daniel</p> <hr /> <div>'''Belshazzar''', (Greek: Βαλτασάρ, Baltasár, Aramaic בֵּלְשַׁאצַּר, from Akkadian: 𒂗𒈗𒋀, Bēl-šar-uṣur, meaning &quot;[[Bel]] protect the king&quot;), oldest son of [[Nabonidus]], was named as co-regent by his father Nabonidus (556-539 BC) in Nabonidus's third year, 553 BC.&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 313b.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;''Verse Account'' ii.5.&lt;/ref&gt; He reigned in Babylon while his father spent his time in the Arabian desert worshipping the moon-god Sin, and/or possibly subjugating the Arab tribes. Belshazzar's reign, and his life, came to an end when he was killed on the night that Babylon fell to the combined armies of the Medes and Persians and their allies under the command of [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus]].&lt;ref&gt;Daniel 5:30&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia'' 7.5.30.&lt;/ref&gt; The [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] dates the end of the [[Neo-Bablyonian Empire]], and thus the death of Belshazzar, to the 16th of Tashritu/Tishri, i.e. October 12, 539 BC.&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard,''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', p. 306b.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;''Nabonidus Chronicle'' iii.5.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> According to the ''Verse Account of Nabonidus'', [[Nabonidus]] allocated the government of the city of Babylon to Belshazzar for 10 years, giving him the kingship over the city, while he dwelt at the Arabian oasis of Tema (possibly in an effort to control lucrative Arabian trade routes).&lt;ref&gt;Verse Account, ii.5; Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 313b.&lt;/ref&gt; This means that the people, government and army officials saw Belshazzar more than Nabonidus. Likewise the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]] states that [[Nabonidus]] fled from the area of Babylon before the city fell to [[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus's]] forces.<br /> <br /> Some note as evidence of Belshazzar's subordinate role in his co-regency, that Belshazzar offered the prophet Daniel to be third ruler in the kingdom&lt;ref&gt;Daniel 5:7&lt;/ref&gt; because he didn't have authority to promote Daniel any higher.<br /> <br /> === Historical Identification ===<br /> For centuries the identity of Belshazzar lay lost to history, preserved only in the [[Book of Daniel]], consequentially used by many as a challenge to the historical accuracy of said volume.&lt;ref&gt; [https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Hd9BDQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT198&amp;dq=%22there+was+a+further+secular+controversy+for+many+centuries+over+the+existence+of+Belshazzar%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwik5oLZ6oLpAhW87XMBHeL0AuQQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22there%20was%20a%20further%20secular%20controversy%20for%20many%20centuries%20over%20the%20existence%20of%20Belshazzar%22&amp;f=false] Becher, Dave, ''The Tripartite Helmet of Hope and Salvation''.&lt;/ref&gt; Andrew Steinmann writes: &lt;blockquote&gt;Until the 1860s no historical source except the book of Daniel and works dependent on Daniel (e.g., Baruch 1:11) could provide independent confirmation of the existence of Belshazzar. Since he is not mentioned in any of the Greek historians, many nineteenth-century critical scholars viewed Daniel 5 as a purely fictional account about a fictional king . . . However, beginning in the 1860s, Babylonian sources came to light that named Belshazzar as the son of Nabonidus. They also stated that Belshazzar was made coregent over Babylon. These texts vindicated the historical nature of Daniel’s account. Furthermore, since these texts had been buried and forgotten and all memory of Belshazzar had been lost to history outside of the Bible and works dependent on it, they furnished proof positive that the writer of Daniel 5 must have been a contemporary who lived during the events recorded in the chapter. Since writers in later centuries, including writers during the Maccabean era, would have had no knowledge of Belshazzar based on the forgotten Babylonian texts, Daniel 5 could not have been composed in later centuries, disproving the long-held critical view that Daniel was written during the Maccabean era.&lt;ref&gt;{{cite book| first = Andrew E. | last = Steinmann | title =Daniel | publisher = Concordia | location = St. Louis, MO| date = 2008 | page = 260}}&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> The multiple challenges that the historical records relevant to Belshazzar present to the “critical” or anti-supernatural view of the composition of the book of Daniel may be enumerated as follows:<br /> # The naming of Belshazzar in the Book of Daniel is, by itself, evidence of the sixth century BC composition of the book. In the Persian rewrite of history that occurred in the time of Cyrus the Great and later,&lt;ref&gt;“The real Cyrus was a master of propaganda, as can be seen from the Cyrus Cylinder, the Babylonian verse chronicle of Nabonidus’ fall, and the stories of Cyrus’ merciful treatment of conquered kings, all no doubt propagated with Cyrus’ encouragement or active participation” (Steven W. Hirsch, ''The Friendship of the Barbarians: Xenophon and the Persian Empire'' [Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 1985], 177, n. 69).&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;“Cyrus was very successful in his propaganda and modern historiography is still influenced by it” (R. J. van der Spek, “Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations” in ''Extraction &amp; Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper'' [eds. Michael Kozuh et al.; SAOC 68; Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 2014], 260).&lt;/ref&gt; the name of Belshazzar was erased from official records. In what is probably the earliest cuneiform text related to the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians, the [[Cyrus Cylinder]], Belshazzar is not mentioned at all (and certainly not by name), unless he, and not Nabonidus, is the “incompetent person” mentioned in the opening lines (A3) of the Cylinder. In the following portion of the Cylinder where the fall of Babylon to the armies under Cyrus is described, Nabonidus is mentioned, but not Belshazzar, who was actually reigning in Babylon at the time. This process of expunging Belshazzar from history continued in later Persian cuneiform texts, so that Xenophon, writing about 170 years after the Medo-Persian capture of Babylon, apparently does not even know the name of the king who was ruling in Babylon at the time of its fall, referring to him only as “this young fellow who has just come to the throne” (''Cyropaedia'' 5.2.27). This presents a difficulty to critics of the Bible who maintain that the Book of Daniel, or at least major parts of it, were written in the second century BC. It is, however, consistent with the traditional Jewish and Christian view that the book reflects accurately events of the sixth century BC because the book was written not long after the events it describes. <br /> # Further evidence of the early composition of the Book of Daniel is found in its designation of Belshazzar as king. Liberal scholarship on this matter is represented by the oft-cited author John Collins, who wrote, “The fact remains that there is no evidence to corroborate the claim of Daniel 5 that Belshazzar was king in any sense at the time of the fall of Babylon.”&lt;ref&gt;John J. Collins, ''Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 32, 33.&lt;/ref&gt; Collins apparently has not read the ''Verse Account'', where Nabonidus states that, when he retreated to the Arabian Desert, “He entrusted the “Camp” to his oldest (son), the first-born . . . He let (everything) go, entrusted the kingship to him.”&lt;ref&gt;Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 313b.&lt;/ref&gt; Nor does he show any knowledge of the ''Cyropaedia'', where “this young fellow who has just come to the throne” is repeatedly given the title of king&lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' 4.6.3; 5.2.27; 5.4.12, 24, 26, 33; 7.5.29.&lt;/ref&gt; If the mistaken “absence” of texts referring to Belshazzar as king can be cited as evidence of a second-century writing of Daniel by a pious fraud who did not know the true circumstances of the time, then intellectual honesty should require that this documented evidence to the contrary should be accepted as evidence for the book’s sixth-century authorship. <br /> # Further evidence showing the early authorship of Daniel’s account of Belshazzar is found in Daniel chapter 5, where the capture of Babylon and the end of the Neo-Bablyonian Empire is said to occur when the king and his court were involved in a great drinking party/festival (Daniel ch. 5). Both Xenophon &lt;ref&gt;''Cyropaedia'' 7.5.21, 25.&lt;/ref&gt; and Herodotus&lt;ref&gt;''Histories'' 1.191.6.&lt;/ref&gt; affirm that the Babylonians were carelessly involved in a festival when the city was taken. Once again, this is a historical detail that lends weight to the early authorship of the book of Daniel.<br /> # Daniel 5:31 relates that Belshazzar was slain on the night of the banquet. This is confirmed by Xenophon in a passage that should be included in every commentary on the Book of Daniel (''Cyropaedia'' 7:25–30).<br /> # As mentioned below, the fact that Belshazzar was only able to offer Daniel the third position in the kingdom because he, Belshazzar, was still under the suzerainty of his father Nabonidus, is another indication of the sixth-century authorship of the Book of Daniel. By the second century BC, all knowledge of this relationship between Nabonidus and Belshazzar kingship seems to have been lost. Even Belshazzar’s name was seemingly forgotten as early as when Herodotus wrote his ''Histories'' in about 430 BC and when Xenophon wrote the ''Cyropaedia'' in about 370 BC. <br /> All of these references to the activities, position, and fate of Belshazzar in early sources outside of the Book of Daniel testify to the historical accuracy of the author of Daniel, an accuracy that is difficult to explain if Daniel chapter 5 is merely “historical fiction,” as confidently asserted by liberal scholarship and as relentlessly maintained by all blogs and encyclopedia sites controlled by atheists and others who deny the historical accuracy of the Bible. <br /> <br /> === Debated Points ===<br /> Some suggest that scenes recorded in the [[Book of Daniel]]'s lavish party as a coronation festival as Belshazzar seized the throne.&lt;ref&gt;[https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Hd9BDQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT199&amp;dq=%22there+is+scholarly+speculation+that+after+Cyrus+had+defeated+Nabonidas%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiroYWB74LpAhXkjeYKHbLRDgoQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22there%20is%20scholarly%20speculation%20that%20after%20Cyrus%20had%20defeated%20Nabonidas%22&amp;f=false] Beacher, Dave, ''The Tripartite Helmet of Hope and Salvation''.&lt;/ref&gt; This point is negated by some claiming that the festival was the annual drunken and debauched fertility festival celebrating the union of Nimrod &amp; Semarimis. Meanwhile others{{citation needed}} working from the ancient custom of 'apprentice kings' (thus creating a clear line of succession), note that Belshazzar offers the Prophet Daniel to be third in the kingdom: as [[Nabonidus]] was the first, ''Belshazzar'' was the second and Daniel was made the third ruler in the kingdom.&lt;ref&gt;Daniel 5:7&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Resources==<br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder<br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/]The Nabonidus Chronicle <br /> *[http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekSept18&amp;getid=1&amp;query=Xen.%20Cyr.%201]Xenophon, ''Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus'', translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell<br /> *[https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/verse-account-of-nabonidus/] The Verse Account of Nabonidus <br /> *J. B. Pritchard, ed., ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament'' (3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969).<br /> <br /> == References ==</div>

Latent