Runboard.com
Слава Україні!
Community logo


runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2 

 
Pastor Rick Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 07-2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 10
Karma: 2 (+2/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Nineveh: Even when they get it right, they get it wrong.


quote:

Tim Callahan wrote:

Rick:

In your last post you said, "There is a fascinating History of Assurbanipal written by George Smith in 1871 (I linked to page 353 which discusses both the identity of Sardanapalus and Assurbanipal."

When I went to the site to check out Smith's History and went to page 353, what I found was that Smith believed that the two men called "Sardanapalus" were none other than Nabopolassar and his son Nebuchadrezzar! These aren't even Assyrians. They're Chaldeans. They weren't thones who lost Nineveh. They're the ones who took it. This isn't helping your case any.

On the contrary Tim, we have now moved the discussion from your original position that Sardanapalus was merely a legendary figure who did not exist to the concept that he is a real person of history and the difference between those positions is huge! emoticon The question now becomes just who was this Sardanapalus? What person best fits the evidence we have discovered? George Smith goes on in his book to identify Sardanapalus as Nabopalassar (pg 354):

Image
quote:

Tim Callahan wrote:
I also pointed out in my last posting that Marcus Junianus Justinus doesn't really equate Sardanapalus with Ashurbanipul. He doesn't even mention Ashurbanipul as far as I can tell. If I have missed something here, tell me where Marcus mentions the last great king of Assyria by his true name.

But of course he does Tim because the Greek form of the Assyrian name Ashurbanipul is Sardanapalus and the Romans relied on the Greek histories as a valid source which leads of course to the usage of the Greek form of the name in Marcus Junianus Justinus' own history. A Smaller Ancient History of the East has a footnote on page 156 which confirms this and also indicates that there were at least two rulers with this name form.

out of play time, more later




---

Advertise Boards On TRDConceptsDE
2/7/2009, 4:37 pm Link to this post Send Email to Pastor Rick   Send PM to Pastor Rick Blog
 
Tim Callahan Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 09-2008
Posts: 387
Karma: 15 (+16/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: Nineveh: Even when they get it right, they get it wrong.


I'm afraid we fundamentally disagree. The Greek and Roman histories are considerably less reliable with respect to the history fo the Assyrians than are the preserved documents from the ancient Near East; and none of the latter mention anyone who could be construed to be Sardanapalus.

Further, I don't see that you have demonstrated that "Sardanapalus" was the Greek version of the name "Ashurbanipul." In any case, this assertion directly contradicts the assertion that Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar were the two kings upon whom Sardanapalus was based.

I also find nothing in the ancient records to support the idea that Nebuchadrezzar's father, Nabolpolassar was effeminate. Rather, he, along with Cyaxares, king of the Medes, seems to have initiated the revolt against Assyria.

Even if there were to be any support for Sardanapalus being either Ashurbanipul or a combination of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar, the story of the fall of Nineveh caused by the Tigris washing away a section of the city wall, while the indolent and effete king has his wives, concubines and horses killed as he mounts his funeral pyre, is simply a fable.

The use of this popuar legend, plus late and probably erroneous Greek and Roman histories by evangelical apologists trying to make the poetic Book of Nahum into an explicitly fulfilled prophecy, fails utterly.

When you come back, perhaps you can answer my question in a separate post about how important prophecy is to you.

Tim

Last edited by Tim Callahan, 2/7/2009, 5:36 pm
2/7/2009, 5:33 pm Link to this post Send Email to Tim Callahan   Send PM to Tim Callahan
 
Tim Callahan Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 09-2008
Posts: 387
Karma: 15 (+16/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: Nineveh: Even when they get it right, they get it wrong.


Having read in modern histories that the main assault, the breakthrough into the city that ended the seige of Nineveh, was at the Hatamti gate on the northeast corner of Nineveh, I thought I'd see if any of the ancient preserved texts from either the Medes or Chaldeans gave that detail. From what I could find, the Medes didn't leave any documents to speak of. The Chaldean chronicle, refering to Nabu-apul-user (Nabopolasser, father of Nabu-kidurri-user or Nebuchadrezzar) taking Nineveh wasn't specific about how the city was taken.

However, recent archaeological excavations have led me to reconsider placing the breakthrough at the Hatamti gate. It turns out that skeletons showing evidence of violent death, still with vestiges of armor and weapons in hand, have been unearthed at the Halzi Gate, on the southeastern corner of the city, indicating that it was the site of the breakthrough, not the Hatamti Gate as previously thought.

This has little impact on the validity of the specifics of Nahum's prophecy, however. Like the Hatamti Gate, the Halzi Gate was on dry land.

Tim

2/26/2009, 2:33 pm Link to this post Send Email to Tim Callahan   Send PM to Tim Callahan
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2 





You are not logged in (login)