Talk:Belshazzar's feast

Sum of weights

The article says: 'a mənê, equivalent to a Jewish mina or sixty shekels (several ancient versions have only one mənê instead of two), a təqêl, equivalent to a shekel, and p̄arsîn, meaning "half-pieces". [...] the various weights — a mənê or sixty shekels, another shekel, and two half-shekels — add up to 62, which is noted in the last verse as the age of Darius the Mede.'

But "mənê (mənê) təqêl p̄arsîn" is 60 (+ 60) + 1 + 1/2 = 61 1/2 (or 121 1/2). That's not 62. If "p̄arsîn" is plural, as implied in the cited source's text, then it could refer to *two* half pieces. Or to any number of half pieces greater than 1, which could be any number, whole or halves. This point is the self-selecting backwards calculation of a believer, not of an analyst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocRuby (talk • contribs) 15:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The statement appears to be properly sourced (though a quotation from the source would help to verify that). In any case, 61.5 would be during a person's 62nd year anyway, so the point doesn't seem especially outlandish. Especially in view of the fact that the fictional narrative was almost certainly written with a deliberate intent to reference the king's purported age.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

We follow sources, not our own opinions.PiCo (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Historicity of the Feast

The historicity of Belshazzar's feast from the Bible is WP:FRINGE. There might have been a feast, anyway, Ancient authors did not write WP:RS for Wikipedia, only modern scholars do that. So, citing Xenophon in support of its historicity is WP:OR (original analysis of WP:PRIMARY sources). Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you cite something from the actual text of the policy of WP:FRINGE that would invalidate the cited paper? It is peer-reviewed and written by a professor of Old Testament. That's about as relevant and reliable for Wikipedia's purposes as sources come. WP:PRIMARY states "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". Xenophon is directly talking about the last night of Belshazzar's reign and saying there was feasting. Regardless of your views on the Biblcial account, that Belshazzar was having a feast at this time is plain from the sources. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You're answering AlphabeticThing9's assertion that Richard Patterson's article "Holding on to Daniel's Court Tales" is arguing for the historicity of the Belshazzar's Feast story. It isn't. Patterson agrees that it's a "court tale" (i.e., a fiction) and is simply arguing for an early date. And as you point out, using Xenophon is OR (because Xenophon is a primary source): nevertheless, I do find that an interesting observation. Do Collins or Seow have anything to say on this?PiCo (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Please read the sources before participating in the discussion. He directly states that "The first six chapters have often been ably defended as to their historicity". And WP:PRIMARY does not say that using primary sources is original research. That Belshazzar was feasting on this night is a fact of history. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You might want to read the WP:PRIMARY source: the name Belshazzar isn't there. So, not only it is WP:OR, it is even unverifiable in the source given. Xenophon isn't a modern scholar. We only follow WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP by modern scholars, we do not care about Ancient and Medieval scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

AlphabeticThing9: are we reading the same article? The phrase "The first six chapters have often been ably defended as to their historicity" doesn't appear in the article I'm looking at. Can you give a page number? That Belshazzar was feasting on the night Babylon fell is certainly not a fact - he isn't mentioned in the Babylonian records after Nabonidus's return from Teima in 543 and might well have been dead (see Briant, for example). The Belshazzar of the Book of Daniel is a fictional character, though based on a historical one.PiCo (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

It's at the bottom of page 452. Xenophon states that the king of Babylon died the night of this feast. I'm not aware of any evidence that Nabonidus did return to Babylon. He said that he had no thoughts of kingship in his heart: he preferred working on his projects elsewhere and letting his son rule. As far as Belshazzar of Daniel being fictional, bear in mind that Daniel was the only source that remembered Belshazzar's name or clearly attested to him, and that was ubiqutously held up as an error - right up until archaeological findings thoroughly vindicated it. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Minor issue, the wording also clearly assumed the Belshazzar of the fest was historical. Xenophon of course doesn't mention Belshazzar I believe. There's another source challenging the historicity of the feast, p. 95 "Laughlin, John C. (1990). "Belshazzar". In Mills, Watson E.; Bullard, Roger Aubrey. Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Mercer University Press. ISBN 9780865543737." Doug Weller talk 11:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: We should certainly cite Xenophon, since he is so often cited in connection to the biblical account. That is, we do not cite him by himself, but only as he is used by commentators. E.g. "Some would see the Xenophon account as referring to the death of Belshazzar and corroborating Daniel 5:30". StAnselm (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

But what actually IS the Xenophon account? Do you have a link? (Sorry for being lazy, but time is limited).PiCo (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Cyropaedia, Book VII, chapter 5, 15-30: "However by this time the trenches were dug. And Cyrus heard that it was a time of high festival in Babylon when the citizens drink and make merry the whole night long. As soon as the darkness fell, he set his men to work..." StAnselm (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Not quite a corroboration of Daniel - no mention of Belshazzar.PiCo (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Correct. It's corroboration to the extent of (a) the Persians attacking Babylon, (b) this occurring on the night of a special feast, and (c) the king of Babylon being killed that night. StAnselm (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the "historical background" section should be retitled "genre and meaning" and the first paragraph deleted. The article is about the tale, not about Belshazzar himself.PiCo (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, we can include the secondary sources which comment on this to assuage some editors' concerns of original research. Does that sound acceptable to everyone? AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Pharisees

Is pərês a cognate of Pharisee? If so, should it be mentioned? --Error (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Almost certainly not. The /s/ of Pharisee is ש and the /s/ of Peres is a ס. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)