Talk:Babylon
|
|
| Contents |
Babylon in 1 Peter
What's the backing for the "Babylon" in 1 Peter not being Rome? I realize that this is often claimed in anti-papal polemics, and that of course the Mesopotamian Babylon still had a large Jewish settlement, but the statement still strikes me as:
- controversial
- not supported, and
- largely irrelevant to an article on the Mesopotamian city.
-Ben
- I don't get you. We don't mention Rome in this article, do we? This topic should indeed be treated on Babylon (New Testament)
Babylon in I Peter 4:13 is in the dative. There is a question about the presense of the preposition εν, but all the variants listed by Nestle/Aland have Babylon in the dative. Even without the preposition, this would be locative and would still be translated "in Babylon", so definitely an individual person, not a city. To translate "She who is Babylon" would require the nominative. In any event, it is not related to the content of this node, which is controversial enough without bringing irrelevant passages to into it.
Regarding the fall of Nineveh: I don't know if we know exactly. The date of the later fall of Babylon to Cyrus can be nailed down very precisely, but the exact date for the fall of Nineveh may involve some interpolation, working backward through the generations of Babylonian kings and/or forward from earlier events. Unless someone knows differently, I'd say call it the seventh century BCE and let it go at that.
--Jonadab
Date of Nineveh's fall
The article on Nineveh says it fell about 625 BC. Which is it? -- Zoe
Google seems to say it fell once in 612 BCE. There's some pages that give 606 BCE, yet others give 633.
I always meet one date of Nineveh fall - 612 BC and 610 BC as the last Assyrian king death. Silthor 07:50 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Other Babylons
There's also a Town of Babylon on Long Island -- not to mention nearby Jericho to the north. How shall we name these?
Meaning of Babylon
In the Assyrian tablets it means "The city of the dispersion of the tribes." Wouldn't that be nice if it were true? Then the name would coincide with the moral of the story of the "Tower of Babel," wouldn't it? Sunday school! This kind of fakery makes it impossible to write authentic history of anything touched on the the Bible. Would someone check this and remove it please if the "Assyrian tablets" say no such thing? Wetman 22:36, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- If it's fair to presume that "the Assyrian tablets" are written in Assyrian, then the statement is pure nonsense. Assyrian is another Akkadian dialect, closely related to Babylonian. In both langauges, bab-ilu would mean "gate of god"/"gods" (have to look up what the difference between genitive plural and genitive singular is). If this does turn into an edit war, I've got the docs to back this up, after taking a year of Akkadian in college. --Benwbrum
bab-ili(m) is "gate of the god", while bab-ili, with a macron over the final i is "gate of the gods". This meaning is an ancient folk etymology for the name of the city, and is NOT an Akkadian rendering of the Sumerian KA2.DINGIR.RA -- rather, the Sumerian is a learned back-translation from the Akkadian, by Akkadian scholars who liked to show that they still knew their Sumerian until it caught on and became a common logographic writing. 612 is the traditional date for the sacking of Nineveh. The Assyrian empire under Assur-uballit III shifted its seat to the city of Harran in the west and continued to survive until the Babylonians under Nabopolassar sacked it 609. The Assyrians' Egyptian allies arrived at about that time (appropriately late?), and a struggle between Egypt and Babylonia ensued to see who would inherit the fragments of the Assyrian empire. Babylonia, under crown prince Nebuchadnezzar (II), was victorious and chased the Egyptians out of Syria. --128.135.245.253
Actually, this reflects the somewhat confusing situation as different assyriological schools use different chronologies. Mesopotamian chronology is actually worthy of an article on its own. I've tried to find if there is something on it, but have not found much. If someone would start it, I could lend a hand, but sadly I'm not that good in astronomy to do it myself. Or is there anything I've missed? --Oop 21:46, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
Babylonia after 538bc
I am searching for information on what existed in Babylon in the first century AD - any palaces - anything documented. Can anyone help? Beth
This article could use some more organization and I've made some steps to that end. I added and expanded sections on Babylonian history.
There's alot of semiotic discussion in "Archeology" and I don't understand what the heading "Archeology" is supposed to encompass to that end. It's a total mess. But there's some good facts in there that simply need to be organized properly.
- I it indeed a mess (I suppose, a lot of 1911 stuff interspersed with random additions). You are welcome to improve it! I suppose between 539 and 331, Babylon was just another town in the Persian Empire. dab 17:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Etymology
why is the etymology section a subsection of Archaeology? What about the (correct) etymology given in the intro (from Babilu, meaning "The Gate of God". This Semitic word is a translation of the Sumerian Kadmirra.)? dab 20:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Really, it's an afterthought because I'm trying to preserve as much content as possible from the original mash under Archeology (a mix of history, semiotics, and some archeological facts smushed together), but I'm not sure where to stuff it all. It should probably go, since the existing definition leading into the article is far more elegant.
page move
I think the Babylon (city) page should remain at Babylon (because of the many links pointing to it), and the disambiguation page should be at Babylon (disambiguation). dab (ᛏ) 13:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- wait a minute, there is Babylon (disambiguation) already. What is going on? You know what, I'll just move things back. dab (ᛏ) 13:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- ok, so I can't. putting it on WP:RM. dab (ᛏ) 13:17, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Damage from Occupation
The section on the damage to the site by Allied forces is, I believe, not fully documented yet and rather unconfirmed (the two references are just not enough). I don't feel it belongs in the article, as of yet. Norg 17:06, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I was careful to attribute the statements. As such, they definitely belong here. We just have to make sure that it is clear that they are still rather unconfirmed. If there are any dementi about the damage from the pentagon, or from other sources, by all means, they should be included. But as far as I can see, some experts were outraged at damage done by the occupation forces, which have reacted with rather suspicious silence. dab (ᛏ) 19:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- these reports are terrible. If this is what happened, that's outright barbarian. You can argue that to bomb and torture people is useful because it demoralizes opposition (also very mistaken, if you know anything about history, but at least that's a rationale), but to pointlessly rape a unique archaeological site, when you could just have put your camp half a mile further down the road, that's just orcish. I do hope the reports are exaggerated. dab (ᛏ) 09:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Babylon in rasta terminology
I know there is a disambiguation for Babylon and rastafari that does not lead anywhere. Given the common usage of Babylon as meant by the rasta I think it deserves to be put on the Babylon article rather than becoming a stub of it's own. Squiquifox 18:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- why? the rastafari term has not the remotest connection with the site. If anywhere, it belongs on Babel (i.e. Babylon in the Old Testament). But why not create a separate article about it? We'll obviously link it from this article's 'see also'. dab (ᛏ) 19:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I just saw that such a section already exists on Babylon (New Testament) -- I suggest you expand that. dab (ᛏ) 19:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)