This is part 4 of a series of posts laying out the evidence that The biblical book of Daniel is a forgery. It covers the the third chapter of Daniel. The evidence of forgery concerning chapters 1 and 2 can be found here:
http://www.progressiveu.org/115341-daniel-is-a-forgery-chapter-1-daniel-and-friends-in-nebuchadrezzars-court
and
http://www.progressiveu.org/131001-skeptical-bible-study-daniel-and-nebuchadrezzars-first-vision
respectively.
The introductory post can be found here:
http://www.progressiveu.org/144926-skeptical-bible-study-daniel-is-a-forgery-introduction
3 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednigo in the Fiery Furnace
3.1 Summary of Chapter 3
Nebuchadrezzar made a 90-foot tall gold statue and decreed that whenever music was heard everyone was to bow down to it and worship it. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, remaining true to their Jewish heritage did not do this. People jealous of their success reported them to Nebuchadrezzar, who was upset at this report. He had them brought before him and gave them one last chance to reconsider. They tell him … No thanks. He gets angrier, has a furnace made seven times hotter than normal and has some of his strongest guards tie them up, take them to the furnace and throw the three in. The furnace is so hot, in fact, that the large, strong guards who tie up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and take them to be thrown into it are instantly killed by the heat. Nebuchadrezzar is surprised when he sees FOUR people walking around in the furnace apparently unharmed, “the fourth is like the Son of God”.
Nebuchadrezzar takes them out of the furnace and, indeed, they are not harmed. Their hair is not singed, their clothes are not burned and they don’t even smell of fire. Nebuchadrezzar declares on the spot that they can worship their God and not others. He further proclaims that anybody who says a bad thing about their God will be destroyed.
3.2 Analysis
The whole tenor of this story sounds like an unbelievable myth designed to inspire people to maintain their faith in the face of overwhelming persecution. The detail about the furnaces being made seven times hotter than normal makes no sense. Why seven times hotter and not five or ten? The part about the soldiers who drag Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednigo to the furnace being killed by the heat bears the mark of unbelievable myth as well.
A 90-foot tall gold statue would be a memorable work of art, not to mention that if it were solid gold it would go a long way to bankrupting the coffers of Babylon. There is no mention in any other writings of such a structure.
There are some anachronisms in the story as well. Nebuchadrezzar has his herald tell the people to bow down and pray to the statue when they heard “… horn, flute, harp, lyre …” The Hebrew words for these instruments are derived from the Greek and would most likely have entered the language during the Hellenic period (332–164 BCE). Furthermore, there is considerable doubt those musical instruments were invented during the 6th Century BCE.
Another thing is that the fourth figure is likened to the “Son of God” and has been associated with Jesus Christ by extreme bible-believers. However, this portrayal is in contradiction with other prophecies in Daniel in which the putative Jesus Christ figure is referred to as the “Son of Man”. What the author is more likely referring to when he says "Son of God" is an angel, and when he says "Son of Man" he is referring to a mortal human.
As far as I am concerned these are minor quibbles. Since there are no prophecies to be verified one way or another, nor is there any significant historical information, this story taken by itself does not really constitute compelling evidence that Daniel is a forgery. However, as part of the overall picture of the entire book, it reinforces the conclusion that Daniel was written significantly later than the extreme bible-believers propose.
The next installment in this series will look at Chapter 4 of Daniel in which Nebuchadrezzar has a vision of going insane.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
Paul Meyer- It seems some of your skepticism may be unwarranted towards Daniel. In reference to the list of leaders in the chapter the Greek version of Daniel from about 100 BCE has ambiquous translations. This seems to imply that by 100 BCE (to about 75 AD) the meaning of these officers was completely lost to history. That being the case Daniel 3 must have been written much earlier, probably during Persian domination rather than Greek. This is no proof, but certainly supports the idea that Daniel 3 is not a late forgery.
Your post makes little sense as written. However, after some thought I think I understand your argument. Here is my rephrasing of it:
You are referring to the mention of "... satraps, prefects, governors, advisers, treasurers, judges, magistrates and all the other provincial officials ..." mentioned in Daniel 3:2 and again in Daniel 3:3.
You claim that the Greek translation from 100 BCE to about 75 CE translated those positions ambiguously so therefore the positions were unknown to antiquity. Therefore Daniel must have been written when antiquity knew the proper meaning of those words. And you think that the Persian time as claimed by the book is the most likely.
Your argument is FULL of holes
(1) There are 8 Hebrew/Aramaic copies of Daniel found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, all of them have the proper term to the best of my knowledge and they date to circa 125 BCE. The apocryphal books of Enoch date to that time as well and use the same terms.
(2) Daniel was written circa 165 BCE which doesn't fall in your time period anyway.
(3) Darius the Great was the one who divided Babylon into Satrapies, and that did not occur until 522 BCE, long after Nebuchadrezzar. So Daniel's use of the term is an anachronism in the first place.
Furthermore, he divided it into 23 satrapies, not 120 as claimed elsewhere in the book of Daniel, which is another error on the part of Daniel
(4) What Greek manuscripts are you talking about? The earliest Greek manuscripts containing the Hebrew bible I personally know of are found in the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus all of which date to the 4th century CE, well after your time frame.
(5) Even if you were correct on that point, which it doesn't seem you are, you have TONS AND TONS of other problems to deal with in claiming Persian dating of Daniel. See the rest of my posts on this subject for an idea.
The overall evidence shows about as strongly as can be shown that Daniel was not written in the Exilic Period as claimed, but instead was written in 165 BCE during the time Antiochus IV Epiphanes. About the only people who continue to push the Exilic dating are evangelicals who no amount of evidence will sway their opinion.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Paul Meyer- My apologies for not being clear in the presentation of my argument. I was intrigued by your argument, but found that your argument had significant problems and made significant presuppositions. You are basically correct in your assessment of my argument. The Greek text I refer to is specifically the LXX which was written at about 200 BCE. The LXX uses ambiguous terms to translate the satraps etc referred to in Daniel 3. The LXX ambiquity argues for an earlier date for the writing of Daniel.
I am not sure how your argument concerning (under the section the ‘holes’ in my view) the DSS scrolls copies of Daniel represents a hole in my argument due to the fact that these scrolls are written in Hebrew or Aramaic as far as I know.
Your (2) is presupposition, and not an argument in favor of your view.
Your (3) presents the reality that the Persians did only divide their empire into about 20 satrapies. However, if Daniel lived up to the Persian era (which one can presuppose with equal legitimacy), then he would have been aware of the satrapy divisions. Daniel does not state that there were 120 satrapies, rather that there were 120 satraps (and satraps is a term that is used quite broadly, in one MSS [Xenophon] it is used of the leader of about 30 people). All I note is that the number of satraps and satrapies does not need to be justified. Further, Daniel may have later edited his own work to use the better understood term (satrap) referring back to one of the specific leader groups under Nebuchadnezzar.
I know one of the arguments put forward that place Daniel in the 2nd century BCE has to do with the number of Greek terms used by Daniel. One should not find a problem with the use of some Greek terms in a 5th century Hebrew/Aramaic document when Greek mercenaries were known to be in the Babylonian army. The surprise is that if Daniel was written in the 2nd century that there are so many Hebrew/Aramaic terms and so few Greek terms.
I sort of doubt I would be welcome in the evangelical camp (but I also suppose that is your attempt to discredit my view), and I do wonder if evidence would convince you to discard your presuppositions and your view. Perhaps you could supply me with a half dozen or so of the most clear and obvious discrepancies/problems that place Daniel in the 2nd century BCE (amidst the tons and tons of evidence to which you refer. I have always been skeptical of “the tons and tons” of evidence argument).
Thanks.
(1) A brief history of the Septuagint.
The Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) was a Greek translation of the Hebrew bible. By the latter part of the 3rd Century BCE there were quite a number of Jews who had been away from their homelands and no longer spoke Hebrew. Greek was the language spoken by the vast majority of people around the Mediterrainian, and the language spoken by these Jews. To serve their needs the Torah (the first 5 books of the present Hebrew bible) were translated into Greek.
The letter of Aristeas, dating from about 100 years later, details the myth that had grown up about its origins. According to the letter of Aristeas, Pharoaoh Ptolomy decided to have the Hebrew bible translated into Greek for the library in Alexandria. To do this he had 6 translators from each of the 12 tribes of Israel (or 72 people in all) come to Alexandria to translate. Each group was locked into a separate room and not allowed any contact with the outside world until they finished their translation. When each group finally came out 72 days later the versions were compared and each group had translated the Torah exactly alike, word for word. This was evidence that the LXX was as divinely inspired as was original.
In accord with that legend the Greek word "Septuagint" means "Seventy", and its abbreviation "LXX" is the Roman numeral for 70. It seems like they didn't much care about 2 of the translators :)X.
It is important to note that originally only the Torah was translated. Other books of the Hebrew bible (Christian Old Testament) were translated and added to the LXX over the next 3 centuries. While it is generally conceded that the translation of the Torah is pretty good, the quality of the translation of the other books varies greatly.
Another name for the Hebrew bible is the Tanakh. That is an acronym in Hebrew which stands for the 3 divisions of the bible, the Torah (or The Law), Neviim (The Prophets), Khetuviim (The Writings). One might expect Daniel to be included in the Neviim since Daniel was supposedly a prophet. However, Daniel is not. In agreement with its late dating Daniel was included into the Hebrew bible after Ezra had closed the canon of the Neviim (4th century BCE ... still 150 years AFTER Daniel claims to have been written).
Daniel is included with the Khetuviim, The Writings. While no one knows exactly when Daniel was translated and included into the LXX, it is likely rather late since it is generally thought that the books were translated in the order indicated by "Tanakh"; Torah, Neviim, and Khetuviim.
That means that Daniel was probably put in the LXX in the first century BCE or even in the first century CE. Thus its translation would be 5-6 hundred years after the traditional 6th century BCE dating of Daniel, and 1-2 hundred years after the more accepted (by critical bible scholars) late dating of 165 BCE.
(2) The earliest manuscripts we have of the LXX is as I suggested, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which are 4th century CE, or 4 to 5 hundred years after it was included into the LXX. Any "ambiguous" terms could have been due to a copyist error anytime during that period.
(3) It is not clear what "ambiguous" term you are talking about.
Here are the terms in question from a modern translation:
Here are the same terms from an English translation from the LXX:
The term "satrap" under normal use means "governor". While the LXX has both terms, so does the Hebrew/Aramaic version. If you are going to claim that the LXX has lost the meaning for the term, then if you are going to be consistent then you need to acknowledge that so has Daniel. That would put them in the same time period.
(4) Here or links to the other posts I have done in this series that documents the "tons and tons" of evidence
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapters 10-12
Conclusion
(5) What Xenophon MSS are you referring to? What is the context of the remark concerning satrap of 30 people. In normal usage a satrap is a Persian governor of a province. And there was only one governor at a time. Thus, in normal usage which is the natural assumption one would have reading Daniel's references to the 120 satraps, one would assume that there were 120 satrapies as well.
(6) The only "presuppositions" I have is that the bible does not get unjustified "benefit of the doubt". If the only way to get around an error is to suppose that something ridiculous COULD have been true then that is unjustified benefit fo the doubt. And I presuppose that something means what it says unless there is a VERY good reason to believe otherwise and avoiding an error is not a very good reason.
Your presupposition seems to be that any possible explanation will do no matter how unlikely and it makes no difference how many times you have to use the any possible explanation excuse.
(7) There are a number anachronistic Greek terms, but they pale in significance to the historical errors that Daniel has that shows that it is a problem. It also pales in significance to the King of the North/King of the South prophecy in which the historical details match the time of Antiochus IV (up until 165 BCE in which the "prophecies" go wrong again) that critical scholars feel confident in dating Daniel to a single year.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Paul Meyer- I find it odd that you claim it is an error in Daniel when he refers to Nebuchadnezzar as a king apparently at a time when he was a prince. First, the term ‘king’ was not narrowly used in the Ancient Near East according to the scholar RD Wilson (you may criticize Wilson but he is a professor at Princeton and master of 45 languages; I am guessing his credentials are better than yours). Second, even in America we call Bill Clinton president when he is no longer president.
You also criticize Daniel 4 in the fact that we have no records of Nebuchadnezzar’s losing his mind that have been found. First, most writers of history (even modern writers) avoid writing about incidents that are an embarrassment to the author (the kings of the Ancient Near East oversaw the writing of their history). Second, we have a paucity of actual materials from ancient Babylon, hence your argument is at best an argument from silence (a weak argument).
Finally, you state authoritatively that there was no Darius the Mede. There are at least 3 men who could be Daniel’s Darius (Ugbaru, Gubaru or Darius could be the throne name of Cyrus). Who knows what further archeology will discover.
I cannot doubt that the book of Daniel is quite bizarre in places, but your arguments seem weak at best. Perhaps you hold to your ‘extreme’ skepticism with the same tenacity as those you accuse of being ‘extreme bible believers’.
(1) You reference to RD Wilson is what is called as an argument from authority. It is a logical fallacy. You allude to RD Wilson saying that the term King was used loosely. But what context does he make that statement? Just saying that does not mean that Daniel is on firm ground when he refers to KING NEBUCHADREZZAR.
Daniel refers to the king's court and giving commands that would not normally be that of a Prince which is what Nebuchadrezzar was at that time. The context of Daniel is more in line with that in which he means KING when he says KING. Unless there is a very good reason to think that the text doesn't mean what it says (and avoiding an error is not a very good reason) then it is simply not justifiable to think otherwise.
(2) According to the book of Daniel, it is NEBUCHADREZZAR who wrote the chapter. So evidently he didn't mind people knowing about it. So that blows crap out of your assertion that "most writers of history (even modern writers) avoid writing about incidents that are an embarrassment to the author (the kings of the Ancient Near East oversaw the writing of their history)."
(3) Er ... actually we have a reasonable amount of information about Babylon, some of it from the bible itself ... 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles. These do not agree with Daniel's assessment.
(4) Ugbaru/Gubaru was most likely alternate names of Gobryas, possibly the person who led Cyrus' army into Babylon. As I said in my post, extreme bible believers sometimes claim that he was Darius the Mede. However, he was never referred to as Darius at anytime in any writings. Furthermore, if Darius were simply Cyrus' prefect/governor then he could have easily appealed to Cyrus to reverse the edict so that Daniel wouldn't have had to go into the Lion's den. It would have saved him a lot of worry. The only reason to even consider this as a possibility is that IF it were true then a SERIOUS ERROR would be filled. But that boils down to wishful thinking.
Suggesting that "Darius the Mede" could have been an alternate name for Cyrus is bizarre. First of all Cyrus was not a Mede. Second, ABSOLUTELY no place else (not even the bible) refers to Cyrus as Darius.
(5) You keep saying my arguments are weak. You claim that they are arguments from silence. You are in essence claiming that the only way my argument could be strong is if we found an uncontestable 6th century BCE manuscript that specifically says "There never was a Darius the Mede". That is ridiculous.
The argument that there was no Darius the Mede is that given the context of Daniel it plainly states that the Medes conquered Babylon; They didn't ... The Persians did. Under the context of Daniel, Darius the Mede is clearly the King of the Medes who supposedly conquered the Babylonians. Since the Babylonians were not conquered by the Medes, no such person could have existed. Given the very good history (see the Cyrus cylinder) about how Cyrus' army conquered Babylon, no Darius the Mede could have existed. And finally there is no historical candidate for a Darius the Mede that has ANY historical support.
Only the last part of that has anything to do with an argument from silence. And arguments from silence are not "weak arguments" especially when positive evidence has been actively looked for and not found.
Yours is an argument from wishful thinking. NOW we have gone full-fledged into weak arguments. Perhaps you are an extreme bible believer despite claims to the contrary.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Paul Meyer- First, I want to thank you for your response. It resulted in my doing more research than I would normally do. Let me lay out my argument concerning the author of Daniel’s use of the word ‘king’ in reference to Nebuchadnezzar (in reference to a time when Neb was only a prince). I noted that historically (as supported, but not proved by the authority, RD Wilson [hence I avoid the logical fallacy]) the term ‘king’ was used broadly rather than narrowly. I further added experientially that our culture uses the term ‘president’ with a broader definition (that is, we use the term president to refer to a person who has been, but is not currently president). I could also add that Daniel was probably writing memoirs as he composed the book of Daniel during Medo-Persian rule. In so doing he would have already lived through the era when Neb was king and therefore used the term ‘king’ to refer to Neb even at a time when in reality Neb was not king in the narrowest sense. It is interesting that in Daniel 5.29, Daniel himself is effectively called king. All I note is that the author of Daniel did not necessarily make any error in referring to Neb as king. There is no reason to assume he did.
In reference to the leadership terms used in Daniel 2. I can only repeat that the Greek words used in the LXX book of Daniel are much more generic and ambiguous than the words used in the Aramaic of Daniel 2. For instance, the last office referred to in the list in the Aramaic is ‘tiptaye’ translated ‘judges’. The last office in the Greek LXX is the much more ambiguous phrase ‘tous ep’ exousiv’ translated ‘those in authority’. If Daniel wrote in the 2nd century certainly the LXX translators could have used the common Greek word for ‘judges’ to more accurately translate the office. But, if ‘tiptaye’ was hundreds of years out of date (and it does occur in the Elephantine Papyrii which is dated in the 6th century BCE) it would have been difficult for the second century translators to translate it specifically and accurately.
I think the Darius the Mede issue may be the most difficult for the book of Daniel. However, placing the writing of Daniel in the 2nd century doesn’t solve the problem. Ugbaru, a Median military leader, died shortly after the fall of Babylon, he could have been Darius. Gubaru was assigned by Cyrus to govern Babylon and other regions and could be Darius. Perhaps new archeological finds will clear up (or make more difficult) the Darius the Mede issue. We do know that Cyrus was very open to placing Medes in places of authority in his empire (in fact, he conspired with a Mede to take control of the empire). It is also thought that the word ‘Darius’ is a throne name coming from the Persian word ‘dara’. Either Ugbaru or Gubaru are very plausibly the historical Darius the Mede. To deny this possibility is quite extreme.
I do need to note that Daniel 6 clearly states that the Medes and the Persians conquered Babylon, not just the Medes as you write. I am not sure which translation of Daniel you read, but you are reaching to claim that Daniel clearly says the Medes conquered Babylon. In fact, in Daniel 5.28 the emphasis of the handwriting on the wall is Persian (the word ‘Upharsin’ comes from the word ‘peres’ (‘divided’) a direct allusion to the Persians [the 'peres').
Your (5) seems beneath logical argumentation. We both know that an argument from silence is a weak argument. I don’t care what other argument you have, it is probably stronger than an argument from silence (well, [your (2)] except when you have to presume copyist errors in the 4th or 5th century LXX copies without a shred of evidence).
Your (7) notes anachronistic Greek terms. I have already answered this. There were Greek mercenaries in the armies of Babylon. It is not ridiculous to think that they may have spoken Greek or even brought the named Greek musical instruments with them to Babylon. The amazing thing is that there are not more Greek terms (are there just 7?) if in fact Palestine had been under Greek domination for about 150 years as your theory posits.
But, speaking of linguistics, how do you account for the approximately 20 Persian expressions in Daniel? Even some skeptics feel forced to place at least part of Daniel prior to 300 BCE.
In reference to Nebuchadnezzar not caring if his insanity was made public knowledge. I take it, he didn’t have much choice because he was dead when Daniel was written. Further, although Daniel 4 may have been an official decree of Neb it may have been an embarassment to his successor and therefore intentionally set aside. Daniel, however, had no cultural or other reason to leave out the chapter, in fact, the chapter fits right into Daniel’s theme that “God most high is in control and delegates authority to those He wishes.” Oddly, Babylon’s history has a large blank area which would account for Neb being mentally ill and not accomplishing anything during that time.
I cannot help but chuckle that your final word is that I may be an extreme Bible-believer (is that akin to a rapist or murderer in your mind?). I have presented reasonable evidence, sincere argument and basic logic. I have tried to do so without pejorative or emotive terms. You, on the other hand, are more than willing to be pejorative and emotive. This is quite long, but I will later take the time to go through at least some of your previous posts. Thanks.
(1) Concerning your apology on Nebuchadrezzar being king:
If your apology is correct then Daniel is being unclear. At no point in the text does Daniel even suggest that Neb is anything other than King. In fact he has him leading the army as though a king. He has the palace master bring Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah into see him during this time period. So Daniel surely suggests Neb is king. The only reason to believe he isn't is because we know he wasn't at that time. But CONSISTENT with other historical mistakes in the book of Daniel, it appears Daniel was wrong about that.
You are claiming that Daniel wasn't because he COULD have been using the term King loosely. Well Daniel COULD have been doing anything. What evidence do you have that he was? Absolutely none! Just the possibility. Well if one is going to be fair in analyzing texts, one doesn't give it the benefit of the doubt based on a possibility. One believes that the authors intent is what the obvious reading would indicate that it is unless one has evidence otherwise.
(2) Concerning Medo-Persian Rule
There was no Medo-Persian rule. There was only Persian rule. The reason for that is because Cyrus had already conquered the Medes before he conquered Babylon. There was no Median Empire anymore. It is true that the prophet Isaiah predicted the Medes would con\quer Babylon. He did that because at HIS time the Medes seemed like they might have the best shot. There was no Persia then. (Another biblical prophecy that seems to have gone awry). It seems likely that the author of Daniel got the idea that the Medes conquered Babylon because he simply couldn't believe that Isaiah screwed up a prophecy.
(3) Concerning Daniel 5:29 referring to Daniel as King
Sorry, but KING is #1.
(4) Concerning .leadership terms in Daniel 2
Er... what leadership terms in Daniel 2 are you talking about? We had been talking about Daniel 3. I"ll assume you made a typo.
The links I gave you have translations from both the Aramaic Daniel and the LXX Daniel. While you may claim that the "much more generic and ambiguous than the words used in the Aramaic of Daniel [3]" one look at the translations shows clearly that they are not.
You are wrong about the mistranslation of "tiphtay", the LXX translates it "sheriff" rather than "those in authority". This can be seen by looking at (1) the translation I gave you, and (2) a Strong's Concordance of the KJV which still claims the term means "sheriff".
Now if you are going to say that the LXX translator's mistake in thinking that tiphtay (Strong Number H 8614) means that despite all the other evidence that Daniel was written in the 6th Century BCE then it is YOU who are going to the extreme. First we have no idea when Daniel was translated into the LXX. Furthermore, LXX translations for the later books were notoriously bad anyway. I think it much more likely that LXX translator was simply incompetent.
I believe you are wrong about tiphtay occurring in the Elephantine Papyrus
Here is a translation of what that papyrus contains:
Nowhere in there do I see any reference to judge or magistrate.
(5) Concerning the problem of Darius the Mede;
Yes, it is a big problem, along with the fact that Daniel screws up by referring to Belshazzar as Nebuchadrezzar's son, and screws up with the Kings of Persia, and he screws up referring to the Chaldeans as Persian sorcerors, and he screws up the satrapies, and he screws up in implying that the takeover of Babylon was violent when it wasn't, and he screws up a number of other things that a high ranking official of Nebuchadrezzar's court would be hard pressed to screw up.
Putting the authorship in the 2nd Century BCE by a person who is NOT intimately familar with the actual history of 6th Century BCE certainly DOES solve the problem.
(6) Concerning Ugbaru and Gubaru
They are the same people another term used for this person is Gobryas. But the one thing that he was not referred to as was Darius the Mede. Especially not Darius the Mede, son of Ahasuerus (which is another name for Xerxes) which was a grandchild or great grandchild of Cyrus, the person Daniel SHOULD have been referring to if he were historically accurate.
There have certainly been attempts to link Ug/Gub/Gob with Darius the Mede. But the best that one can do is say that if you ignore the fact that there is absolutely nothing linking this person to Darius the Mede then it is possible that they were the same. But that boils down to wishful thinking, not a logical argument.
(6) Concerning the Daniel 6
I presume you refer to Daniel 6:8
Actually in Daniel Chapter 5, Daniel says that King Belshazzar's kingdom (Belshazzar was never king so he never had a kingdom) would be divided up by the Medes and the Persians. Daniel seems to think that the Medes conquered Babylon (since it was "Darius the Mede" who received the kingdom) Chapter 5. Although never stated my guess is that Daniel thought the Persians got the outlying parts of the kingdom and then gradually took it all over.
I find it more than ironic that you use this as some type of support for a claim of an early dating of Daniel. Notice what it implores Darius the Mede to do ... establish a decree that cannot be changed. Who but the actual KING could do that? And your whole presumption here has been that Darius was not an actual king only Cyrus' governor.
(7) Concerning "Upharsin"
Why wouldn't he use the Persian word? The Persian language was still a common language during the 2nd Century BCE. The Median language had all but disappeared. IF things had happened as Daniel claims that it did, wouldn't it have made more sense for God to have inscribed Median words to Belshazzar since it was a Mede who took over the city?
(8) Concerning the argument from silence
Lack many extreme bible believers you do not understand the argument from silence. While it is sometimes a poor argument, you cannot dismiss it willy-nilly. I am saying that there was no Median take over of Babylon. Daniel implies there was. The Cyrus Cylinder and the Babylonian Chronicles which discuss the PERSIAN take over Babylon state otherwise. You are claiming that I am using the argument from silence simply because the neither of them mentioning the Medes does not mean that there couldn't have been a combined Medo-Persian empire. The argument from silence is VERY persuasive in cases like this. If there were a combined Medo-Persian empire then those document SHOULD have mentioned something about it. They don't. That is the best evidence one could ever hope to get that there was no Medo-Persian empire ... (except maybe from other documents that tell us how Cyrus conquered the Median empire BEFORE he conquered Babylon). For there to be NOT an argument from silence on this then you would have to find some 6th century BCE document that specifically says that it was Persians, NOT any Medo-Persian empire that conquered Babylon.
To give you an example, suppose you claim that it was the Americans who defeated the British in the Revolutionary War, and I claim that it was actually the Canadio-Americans that did it. You will be unlikely to find any document from that time that specifically says that Candians were not involved in the Revolutionary War. You won't find any that refer to a Canadio-American country either while you will find a lot that refer only to America. To claim that argument from silence on that point is weak is foolish. It is no different for Daniel's claim considering the Medo-Persians. The fact is, IF there were a Medo-Persian empire, then the Cyrus Cylinder or the Babylonian Chronicles SHOULD have made reference to it. The fact that they don't is telling.
Let me complete this section by giving you an example where the argument from silence is NOT a good argument. Suppose I argue that the lack of convincing contemporary external references to Jesus suggest that Jesus was not an historical person. That would in my opinion be a poor argument.
(a) There are fairly contemporary references to Jesus, Paul's is the most contemporary. The Gospels fall further behind but I find it hard to argue with the contention that they are not transmitting traditions about a specific person.
(b) There are a few external references. Josephus is the best known. While it is true that the specific passages in Josephus appear to have been doctored by Christian copyists, I find it more likely than not that there was at least mention of Jesus.
(c) The only writing I know of that SHOULD have mentioned Jesus but didn't is that of Philo of Alexandria.
Thus, I think it MUCH more likely that an historical Jesus existed (but was probably much less important than the Gospels make out) than that he never existed at all.
Compare this with Daniel. Daniel is the ONLY source for a Medo-Persian empire. While it is true that Josephus mentions a Medo-Persian empire he is using the book of Daniel as his source, so that doesn't count as a separate attestation. Nobody else does, even Kings and Chronicles of the Hebrew bible don't mention it. No contemporary source mentions it. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OTHER THAN DANIEL suggest there was a Medo-Persian empire. With that as our basis then contrary to what you say, the argument from silence is VERY strong.
(7) Concerning anachronistic terms
You are loosing context of the remarks. You implied that anachronistic terms were a major source of the criticism. My response was that while they are valid they are not nearly so important indicators as are the historical faux pas Daniel makes.
But just to deal with your "having dealt with them". You claim that they could have come from Greek Mercenaries. The problem here of course is that IF Daniel were written as you claim it was, the 6th Century BCE, then these Babylonian references would have been the first to present these Greek terms. Why didn't the Greeks who were prolific writers mention them?
(8) Concerning Persian Expressions in Daniel
I don't see the problem with them being there. There is nothing anachronistic about it. Persia was certainly before 165 BCE. Up above I suggest that "Upharsin" was used because the author of Daniel had no clue what the Median word should be, but was aware of the Persian one.
Obviously, the writer of Daniel was writing about the Persian times. As stated in one of my blogs the book of Baruch offers independent evidence that the common knowledge of Babylonian times during the time of Antiochus IV was wrong about just those things that Daniel is also wrong about (specifically Belshazzar being the son of Neb.) But there is no reason to infer from that that at least some Persian expressions hadn't survived until that time. Hell, they survive today in some Farsi expressions.
(9) Concerning only 7 Greek terms
Why is it amazing that there were only 7. The author was attempting to write from a pre-Greek perspective. The fact that there are 7 is still 7 more than there should be.
(10) Concerning my presuming 4th or 5th century copyist errors in the LXX.
Er ... no. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are our earliest extant copies of the LXX, all that means (or was ever meant to imply) is that copyist errors could have occurred at any time up to that point. We know that there were a LOT of copyist errors.
But I think it much more likely that the original translation was simply flawed. We have no idea when these books were translated. It seems that the translation of the Torah was pretty good, but for the rest the translations were not so good. The translations were made for Diasporic Jews who were losing their ability to speak Hebrew. Some of the translations were probably made by Jews who didn't speak Hebrew very well in the first place.
(11) Concerning Neb's insanity bout
Not only did Neb not care about it becoming public, if you believe Daniel he wanted it to become so. Here is the first part of the first verse to Daniel 4.
That seems quite emphatic that he wanted it that way.
Now you say that it MAY have been suppressed by others that came after him. But you have no evidence that it was. That means the assertion is nothing more than wishful thinking again.
If it ws as indicated above, sent to "ALL PEOPLES, NATIONS" etc. is seems strange that none of it survived.
(12) Concerning my giving you a chucke.
Let me give you another. The phrase that you found so chuckle-worthy, my referring to you as an extreme bible believer , was nothing more than a response in kind.
Here, let me explain:
That's you
That's me.
Note the similarity.
(13) Concerning the following remark:
Your evidence is NOT reasonable. It boils down to if you look at it this way then PERHAPS it is not a mistake. But there is no evidence that we SHOULD look at it that way. The obvious evidence, the passages themselves, suggest we should look at it the way it appears to want us to look at it. And when we do it that way your arguments disappear.
Look again at the response in kind. My responses to you so far have been no more "emotive" than yours. .... And I have given you better reasoned arguments ... And I have even shown you enough respect to include links to most of my sources, which is more than you have done.
So I think your "holier than thou" attitude of those last few lines is not quite warrented.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Paul Meyer- Lxx Daniel 4 ff
I am glad you noted my use of ‘extreme’, I was parlaying your repetition of ‘extreme bible-believers’ in your various posts. I am not sure why you find it necessary to attempt to insult those with whom you disagree. It does not demonstrate objectivity in your argument. My view is simple. I think that one can honestly, sincerely and rationally hold to a 6th century writing of the book of Daniel (I take it you don’t, but I am not sure why). I also think that one can honestly, sincerely and rationally hold to a 2nd century writing of the book of Daniel. I just happen to think the evidence is more in favor of the 6th century writing. If you do not intend to insult, it would be helpful if you would define ‘extreme bible-believer.’
On another general note, when one looks back at the history in and around the book of Daniel one only has a very limited amount of artifacts and documents to deal with. The truth is with the centuries between us and the writing of the book of Daniel we only have a pin-hole view of that time period. This makes your absolute claims indicate a lack of tolerance and the presence of unwarranted prejudice (or maybe you just call this your faith).
Your second paragraph complains that Daniel could have been doing anything in response to my saying that historically, culturally and experientially people can use the term ‘king’ in less than a narrow sense. The point is you must demonstrate that he made a clear mistake rather than that he followed common literary and grammatical styles to confirm your view. I say he followed a very common broad use of the word king. Later king Belshazzar will be called king even though he is #2 to the #1 king.
Your third paragraph posits that Daniel wrote that the Medes conquered Babylon. That, of course, is ridiculous. I have already confirmed that although Cyrus may have appointed a Mede like Ugbaru or Gubaru to rule Babylon it does not mean that the Medes conquered Babylon. You can apologize and write that king is #1, but the facts of literary usage do show otherwise (what does Anatole say again?). Further, the extreme bible believer, Lacocque, admits that the cuneiform evidence "militate(s) in favor of a reign of Belshazzar." [Lacq. Daniel, p 92, emphasis in original]. Belshazzar was indeed a king, though not numero uno.
Let me try to explain more clearly the leadership terms of Daniel 3 (it was a typo to write 2 previously). Scholars generally place the translation of Daniel in the LXX between 100 BCE and 100CE (I think we are safe in that range). In both Daniel 3.2 and 3.3 there are the same list of leaders/officials under Nebuchadnezzar. The last two leaders mentioned are ‘tiptaye’ and ‘kol shiltonay midinata’ in the Aramaic (one can prove nothing by merely looking at various English translations). These two only occur here in the entire OT. The standard Hebrew lexicon (abbreviated BDB) states that the meaning of ‘tiptaye’ is unknown! The NASB translates the last two as ‘magistrates and all the rulers of the provinces…” (by the way, the Elephantine Papyri in The Mission of Ezra #25 uses the word ‘magistrates’, check it out). It is pretty clear that these same terms were also unknown to the LXX translators, who according to you translated at about the same time that Daniel wrote. The LXX translated those last two leaders as “tous ep’ exousiwn kai pantas tous arxontas xwrwn”. The LXX used very common and general Greek words (used often in the NT) to translate these obscure Aramaic titles. Why were the LXX translators completely unaware of the Aramaic titles if they were in use at about the same time they translated? The LXX may be imprecise (though certainly it is not incompetent as you write). The questions are why and where is it imprecise? One finds a very adequate LXX translation of Daniel as any reader can confirm who reads a common English translation of Daniel (primarily translated from the MT) and compares it to an English translation of the LXX of Daniel. In summary, the inability of the LXX translators to be precise when referring to the Babylonian officials indicates that they were unaware of the terms. Their lack of awareness can be logically ascribed to over 300 years of time.
I again find it humorous when you assume what you intend to prove by writing, “despite all the other evidence” So far, your evidence has been scarce and weak (I read your first (2nd?) post where you admitted that your arguments were of a minor nature).
Your (5) continues with weak argumentation. There are several examples in the Ancient Middle East where a successor calls his predecessor ‘father’. Elisha call Elijah “my father” yet you would argue he screwed up in so doing. Another ancient artifact notes that Jehu was the son of Omri, when there was not only no biological relationship, but rather Jehu destroyed the descendants of Omri. Your additional arguments in that paragraph are weak, or vague and more or less preachy.
A cursory glance at history will demonstrate that Ugbaru was the general who died shortly after the fall of Babylon and Gubaru was the governor (king???? heaven forbid!) appointed by Cyrus. And obviously, Darius the Mede is different from Darius Hystapes. The logic is simple, Daniel is a respected writer of the Ancient Middle East, he alone refers to Darius the Mede. It turns out that many kings/governors take an additional name upon assuming a new position, it is entirely possible that Darius is either Gubaru or Ugbaru. Nothing rules this out; not logic, not history.
In your (7) you have decided what would make more sense for God to write on a wall. I guess that means not only Daniel made a mistake but so did God. I am sure that has some sort of logic for you, but it adds nothing to your argument.
in (8) you rejoin your argument that Daniel claims the Medes took over Babylon. It is historically verifiable that Cyrus took over the empire of the Medes with the help of a Mede. He then was not adverse to placing Medes in high positions (the extreme bible believers at the Encyclopedia Britannica confirm this). With this being the history it is no surprise that Daniel uses the phrase ‘the law of the Medes and the Persians” and speaks of Belshazzar’s kingdom being turned over to the Medes and the Persians (a Mede, Ugbaru did become the ruler of Babylon until Cyrus the Persian returned, even you agree with that). Daniel need not meet any arbitrary standard in the naming of the kingdom within which he served as long as his wording is understandable, which it is. Even Daniel interpreted Neb’s dream to indicate that the single kingdom of Babylon was taken over by the single kingdom of the Medes and the Persians (to be followed by the Greek empire and the Roman empire).
In your (7) and (9) are you saying it is impossible that Greek mercenaries actually brought musical instruments with them and called them by Greek names?
In your (10) you refer to codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as having “a LOT of copyist errors”. Truth be known, there are very few copyist errors when one considers the fact that both of these were handwritten. Are you familiar with the number of “copyist errors” in the extant 900 CE Masoretic text and the 200 BCE Dead Sea Scroll text of the 66 chapters of Isaiah? I guess I need your definition of “a LOT”. Did the 900 CE Masoretic scribes also loose the ability to translate or copy into Hebrew?
In your (11) you miss my point. Neb may well have gloried in God disciplining him then restoring him. The truth is Neb had nothing to do with the inclusion of Daniel 4 in Daniel. He also undoubtedly had less to do with the preservation of his intentions through the reign of Belshazzar. The insanity of Neb would certainly seem to be an embarrassment to a proud man like Belshazzar. Again, I think it is only based upon unjustified prejudice that you would claim there is an error in Daniel 4.
I also have not seen where my evidence is less than reasonable. Obviously, you disagree with it passionately, but do show me where it is not reasonable. I think your absolute statements about Darius the Mede and your commitment to the most strict understanding of ‘king’ lack reasonableness.
(1) The reason I don't believe it is possible to rationally hold to a 6th century BCE dating of Daniel is given in these posts. The reason you don't see why is either because you have a SEVERE comprehension problem or you simply do not believe the argument.
So far the "evidence" that you have given to NOT believe the argument boils down to wishful thinking ... PERHAPS Daniel was using "King" loosely. PERHAPS anachronistic terms came from Greek mercenaries. PERHAPS Neb's descendants squelched Neb's confession to an extended bout ot craziness ... etc. PERHAPS Darius the Mede did exist as portrayed in Daniel.
Wishful thinking is by definition not rational
(2) I DID define "extreme bible believer". Look at the introductory post in this series.
(3) Here are a couple of quotes from you
Hypocrite.
(4) Concerning the information from the time of Daniel
So what you are saying is that unless we have access to the daily newspaper of Babylon that we cannot say that Daniel is wrong? We have the Babylonian Chronicles, the Cyrus Cylinder, and other Hebrew Bible manuscripts ... all of them are incompatible with Daniel.
(5) For an extreme bible believer, there is no way that one can "demonstrate that [the author of Daniel] made a clear mistake" simply because no evidence will be accepted. However, for any reasonable person the evidence is more than enough.
The is a principle in evaluating the reasonableness of theories, perhaps you have heard of it ... Occam's Razor. It is often a misunderstood principle especially by people who find it advantageous to misunderstand. What it means is that the theory that explains things the best is the one that has the least explanatory (and potentially falsifiable) elements to it.
There are a number of problems in Daniel:
(1) The King Neb problem
(2) The Anachronistic Terms problem
(3) The way certain stories sound like obvious myths.
(4) Darius the Mede problem
(5) Belshazzar, son of Neb problem
(6) The way the "prophecies" all point to Antiochus IV
(7) Why did the angels instruct Daniel to keep the book hidden until end-times? We have known about it for 2000+ years now and it is still not end-times.
My explanation for these problems is that Daniel was written by a pious Jew during the persecution by Antiochus IV, circa 400 years post Daniel. He didn't know the actual history of Neb's time very well, but he did know the history of Antiochus
Your explanations are:
(1) Daniel was just being sloppy
(2) Greeks brought those words there, they weren't used elsewhere because nobody decided to use them.
(3) Don't know what you explanation is but I would guess you would say that God could perform those miracles if he wanted.
(4) Again Daniel was being sloppy when he called Darius "King", and Darius is called Ugbaru or Gubaru or possibly somebody else in other texts.
(5) Daniel was again being sloppy calling Belshazzar "King". As for being Neb's son, my guess is your explanation is that even though there was no actual relationship it is OK to call him that because he too was in the kingly line
(6) My guess is you would say some of the prophecies point to Antiochus others point to now and they were real prophecies and God could have made them if he wanted.
(7) My guess is you would say that God works in mysterious ways.
For those 7 problems I mentioned, my theory has a single elegant solution. Yours has 7 ad hoc (and frankly silly) explanations. Occam's Razor says mine is reasonable, and yours isn't.
The rest of your post is not saying anything new of any significance except I do want to respond to these two statement of yours:
Sigh ... Daniel does no such a thing. No kingdom is named, one must infer the kingdoms from the best evidence. The best explanation for those kingdoms is the Medes followed by the Persians followed by the Greeks. Daniel describes the second kingdom as one that is inferior to Neb's, the third as one who rules the world, and the fourth as a super duper kingdom. If you claim that there was a combined Medo-Persian empire and that it was the second kingdom then how do you square that with it being inferior to Neb's? The Persian empire lasted at least twice as long as Babylonian empire and ruled an area 3 times its size.
The most parsimonious explanation is that the author of Daniel THOUGHT there was a Median empire that took over Babylon and if there had been then it would have indeed been inferior to Neb's. The size fo the Persian empire certainly is consistent with ruling the world from the perspective of a Judean jew. Alexander's empire would certainly qualify as super-duper empire.
Are you serious? Belshazzar was not a blood relative of Neb's in any way. He was the son of Nabonidus who wrested control of Babylon from the last remaining remnants of Neb's family. If anything Belshazzar would have been embarrassed by any reports of Nabonidus' craziness, and those still survive.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Paul Meyer- I will end the discussion with this. You claim that Daniel does not name a kingdom to follow Babylon, see Daniel 5.28 and 30.
You claim that the 'Persian' kingdom was 'greater' than the Babylonian kingdom based on size. It is obvious to even a casual observer that size is not the primary means to determine greatness. Greece and Rome were greater in size than either Babylon or Persia.
You claim that Belshazzar had no reason to hide his grandfather's insanity (except that the insanity of a king in general makes any kingdom/empire look bad).
It is quite apparent that prejudice more than evidence holds you to your view. It is almost amazing to me that you really don't answer the evidence I supply but rather assign silly answers to me (you claim I wrote that Daniel was being sloppy as an explanation, that is the logical fallacy of the straw man, and you knocked that man down quite definitively). My "perhaps'" are logical, and you cling to your "perhaps'" without acknowledging them.
As I guessed your 'extreme' accusation is offered as an insult, as with your name calling. Insults, straw men and name calling are the last resort of those with a weak argument.. Love is blind, you must love what you believe, so be it. Adieu.
(1) Persia WAS greater than Babylon by any measure you want to make. It was 3 times the size and lasted twice as long.
(2) Nobody denied that Greece and Rome was greater than the Persian Empire. But the Ottoman Empire even that of Rome. The British Empire exceeded that. There has been a plethora of great empires. The only question of interest is what was the author of Daniel trying to say. The evidence is clear that that Daniel was referring to Persia nad Greece (in that order) and not Greece and Rome.
(3) Belshazzar was NOT the grandson of Neb. He was no relation whatsoever to Neb. Neb died in 562 BCE. He was succeeded by his sone Amel Marduk. Amel Marduk ruled only a year before being assassinated by Nergal-Sharezer, his brother-in-law. Nergal ruled 7 years and was replaced by his son Labsi Marduk. If memory serves me correctly Labsi Marduk was Nerg's son but his mother was from the Neb family. So I don't think that even Labsi was of the Neb line. But no matter, because Labsi was overthrown by Nabonidus, a member of the priesthood and ABSOLUTELY no relation to the Neb line. Belshezzar, who was NEVER King of Babylon, was Nabonidus' son. Neb's family line would have been his enemy and he would not have cared the least if it was ridiculed. In fact, he probably would have liked it.
(4) What you claimed was that Daniel was using the term "king" loosely. That IS being sloppy. The fact of the matter is that the OBVIOUS meaning of the term "king" as it is used in Daniel conveys the meaning of just what we think a king is ... the #1 guy in the country. You are claiming that is not what he meant. If that were so then he needed to supply some context such that we would understand that. He didn't. I think he didn't because he meant exactly what he said ... he thought Neb was king when he was actually a prince at the time; he thought Belshazzar was Neb's son and king when actually Bel was no relation Neb and was never a king; and he thought that Darius the Mede was king when actually there was no Darius the Mede. You think he was using the term loosely. The BEST one can say for it if you happen to be correcxt is that Daniel was being sloppy in his communication techniques.
(5) Your "perhaps" are without a shred of evidence. And being without a shred of evidence makes them nothing more than wishful thinking, and not worth spending a great deal of time on. I have presented my evidence in a series of posts. AND I have given you links to them. I have given you links to a number of my sources so that you could check them out easily. You have made unsubstantiated assertion after unsubstantiated assertion. I have had to do internet search after internet search to check them out and I have found on numerous occasions listed above that what you have claimed is not supported by the facts.
The fact that you STILL don't have a clue as to Belshazzar's relationship to Nebuchadrezzar shows that you haven't even taken the time to read my posts. You will find the material I presented above in this post here. But I have given you that link before and you obviously didn't read it.
(6) You have persistently whined about my having presented straw-man arguments, and name called. You seem to think my reference to "extreme bible believers" is pejorative. I told you I defined the term and I told you that the definition was in my introductory post. Evidently again you didn't seem to take time to read what I said. So here it is:
Obviously I don't think that usage of the term "extreme" is pejorative in any way. I even use the term to refer to myself at the opposite end of the spectrum from the extreme bible-believers.
So let's summarize here, you don't know what you are talking about when you accuse me of using pejorative terms and you didn't even take the time to try to find out even when you were directed to the appropriate place to do so. You accused me of calling you names when I clearly was responding in kind to YOUR name calling. You have spent a great deal of time claiming that I haven't responded to your "evidence" when you don't even know what I have said ... you haven't read the series of posts. You have presented very little that my original posts have not addressed.
If love is blind then you must really love my posts ... you don't seem to be able to read them.
Cheers, I hope you have a good life when you grow up.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Paul Meyer-Although I had thought to end our debate on Daniel , the drama and hostility of your latest post demanded a rejoinder. I want to first demonstrate several examples of how your arguments are based on the ‘perhaps’ argument as much as, if not more so than mine. From your part 4 of your series claiming Daniel is a forgery. I note under your 3.2 Analysis that you write Daniel 3 “sounds like an unbelievable myth”, “perhaps it does. to you. You also argue that heating the furnace 7 times “bears the mark” of the same, “perhaps it does to you. No doubt if Daniel wrote that the order was given to heat the furnace five times hotter you would have written that perhaps that was unbelievable as well. You continue by stating that if the statue were pure gold that would bankrupt Babylon. Your “if” is pure conjecture ( on the extreme level of a ‘perhaps’) attempting to create an error where none exists. You, with your “tons and tons” of evidence find it necessary to make up errors in order to ridicule the text of Daniel. Such argumentation lacks honesty and reason.
In reference to the 90 ft tall statue, there is an ancient area of Dura about 6 miles outside of Babylon that has a platform that could accommodate such a statue. Perhaps that is nothing.
In your second to the last paragraph of the same post you incorrectly translate the phrase of Daniel 2 as ‘son of God’ in order to further ridicule those you call extreme bible-believers. The translation is ‘son of the gods’ which is a more likely phrase coming from the mouth of the king who believed in a plurality of deities. I take it you were just being sloppy in your translation. Perhaps you were letting your hostility erode your objectivity.
In your post of 1.31.8 under (1) concerning the DSS you correctly note that copies of the DSS of Daniel in Hebrew/Aramaic correctly translate the musical instruments mentioned in Daniel 3. Indeed. Perhaps it is easier to copy a word from Aramaic to Aramaic (one would not have to know the meaning!) and a bit tougher to translate it into a completely different language. The difficulty with your 2nd century BCE date for Daniel is the existence of the DSS copies of Daniel from 125 BCE. They were found in an out of the way rural Essene community. So 40 years after an idiot wrote a forgery he/she called Daniel other idiots did not recognize it as a forgery. Yet, you in your great wisdom know for a fact that it is a forgery 2400 years later (your view bears the mark of ethnocentrism). How in the world did a document forged in 165 BCE come to be accepted and stored with other sacred documents by a fringe Essene group? You not only suppose they were idiots, but that they were idiots with Xerox machines.
On 2.2.8 after your essay on the LXX, you note that a name for the Hebrew bible is the Tanakh. You write, “after Ezra had closed the canon of the Neviim (4th century BCE...” I find no evidence that the Neviim (prophets) canon was closed by Ezra. You also note that the translation of Daniel into the LXX “is likely rather late since it is generally thought that the books were translated in the order indicated by “Tanakh”; Your “likely rather late” is just another way of writing “perhaps it was translated late.” Indeed. But, perhaps not, especially since Job is considered patriarchal material and it is in the same group (kethubim) as Daniel. Your argument makes a huge implausible assumption.
Continuing your comments of 2.2.8 you never respond to RD Wilson’s scholarly thought that the term ‘king’ was not narrowly used in the ancient Middle East. You doggedly commit to a narrow usage of the term in spite of the evidence from Wilson and from artifacts of the ancient Middle East demonstrating the broad use of the word ‘king’. Your view that the narrow usage of the word is the only usage possible is held against the actual evidence. It is wishful thinking on your part. The point is simple, it would be the same as if you said that President Clinton was born in Arkansas, and my response was to declare that you have made some gross error because Clinton was certainly not president when he was born. The text does mean what it says in its literary and cultural context.
You make the amazing claim that an argument from silence is not weak “if we have actively looked” for evidence. So the USA has spent billions actively looking for life in outer space, they have not found any, will you concede there is no life in outer space? Active looking in the Middle East is a dangerous and government restricted venture. It is impossible to logically deny that we only have a pin hole view of history in the ancient Middle East, so it is irrational to make absolute statements concerning areas where the evidence is lacking. I doubt you find many other areas where absolutes are appropriate. Only prejudice leads you to the absolute that there was no Darius the Mede.
I understand the scholars disagree concerning the relationship between Neb and Belshazzar. There is a group of both conservative and liberal scholars who support to some degree Belshazzar being Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson. Oddly, extreme doubters like yourself have been forced to retreat from their original denial of Belshazzar’s existence. This might be a warning for you in reference to Darius the Mede. The Nabonidus Cylinder establishes Belshazzar’s existence from a non-biblical source. We also know that Xenophon writes that “the king died” at the time of the fall of Babylon. Yet, we know that his dad or step dad Nabonidus was already defeated at the time of the fall of Babylon. No matter how you slice it, history declares that Belshazzar was king of Babylon on the day it fell. Neither Herodotus nor Xenophon, two Greek historians who wrote in the 5th and 4th century B.C.E., mention Belshazzar, hence the previous denial of his existence. But doubters now must beware.
You conclude your latest post by claiming that I have “called you names”. I need the evidence of that. As for you, the name you called me is hypocrite. You did this responding to my stating that your absolute statements were unjustified. I wrote of your statements ( I even noted that your views in light of the evidence was prejudicial), you accused me (wrongly) of making absolute statements, and concluded with the name calling. You also concluded in a derogatory way that I should have a good life when I grow up. Such derogatory remarks are the last resort of one who has lost the argument.
Do take the very best of care...
(1) Concern our respective "perhaps"
There are "perhaps" and there are "perhaps". They may not be the same. One can be based on evidence and the other can be based on the slimest of possibilities. The difference between yours and mine is that you only have the hope that it may be the way you claim. THAT IS WHAT I MEANT BY WISHFUL THINKING. Let's use your own example to demonstrate:
You chide me for referring to Fiery Furnace as being like an "unbelievable myth"
Here is the evidence that I presented to support that:
- A 90 ft statue of gold is made of Neb. That would be a statue that if solid gold would use a significant portion of all the gold that exists in that whole of the area.
- Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednigo (SM&A) get thrown in a furnace that is 7 times hotter than normal. How would the writer know that? It is obviously a made up statistic.
- The furnace is so hot that the Babylonian guards who throw SM&A into the furnace are immediately killed by the heat.
- That same furnace that killed the guards doesn't hurt SM&A.
- Neb sees someone walking around in the furnace who is "like the son of God along with SM&A.
- Neb repents and admits that SM&A's God is the greatest thing since the wheel.
That has all the makings of the mythic story. Such supernatural events are seen in other early stories (Iliad, Oddessey, Egytian Book of the Dead, etc) that no one nowadays believes is anything other than myth.
What is your evidence that it isn't?
- Making the furnace 7 times hotter doesn't sound mythic to you.
- It is unreasonable to say that such a statue would bankrupt the empire.
Just as a note, if one were to get every whole earth's known (and suspected) supply of gold in one place it would form a cube about 30 yards on each side or 27,000 yd3. 30 yards is 90 feet. Let's estimate that Neb. was 6 ft tall (2 yards), 18 inches (1/2 yard) should to shoulder, and 12 inches (1/3 yard) back to front. If we maintain those proportions then we get an estimate of the volume of the statue of that is 30 yards by 15 yards by 10 yards. or 4,500 Yd3. That is 1/6th of the world's known supply of gold in that single statue. That would bankrupt US. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that it would bankrupt Babylon which I doubt had access to 1/6th of the world's supply of gold in the first place.
- There is a platform that could have held such a statue.
But is there any indication that it actually DID hold such a statue? There is no mention of such a statue ANYWHERE other that Daniel. Not in Jeremiah, not in Ezekiel, not in the Babylonian Chrionicles, not by any early historian. So again this boils down to wishful thinking on your part.
The difference here is that I have evidence, you have wishful thinking Yet you claim that I AM THE ONE TAKING EXTREME POSITIONS.
(2) Concerning my use of the KJV of Daniel 3:25:
You claim
This is at least the second time you have referred to Daniel 2 when you actually mean Daniel 3. I would not mention it except you accuse me of being sloppy. That is kinda ballsy considering that you have made response after response without showing any evidence that you have read my blogs.
Here are the translations of Daniel 3:25 from the more prominent versions:
Here is what I said concerning the verse:
The translation I used to come up with that phrase was the KJV and the reason I used it is because in my experience it is the version that extreme bible believers most often claim to be the most authoratitive English language version of the bible. And just as I said in my post extreme bible-believers DO liken this figure to Jesus.
Here are links to websites that confirm this:
http://biblestudies107.blogspot.com/2007/06/fiery-furnace.html
http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/2703.htm
http://www.888c.com/zDan03.htm
http://www.888c.com/zDan03.htm (this one, by the way, uses your interpretation of "son of the gods" and STILL claims it to be a reference to Jesus)
http://www.newstarthealthcare.com/article.php?id=170
The whole point I was trying to make is that there is no evidence that the author of Daniel was actually making a reference to Jesus Christ. Whether or not Neb. believing in the plurality of gods or not is simply not relevant to that point.
(3) Concerning DSS manuscripts
My use of that came after your first post. Your argument at that time was incomprehensible (go back and read it to see that is so), so I had to make a guess as to what it was. It seemed to me that you were claiming that the Aramaic terms were no longer in use. Use of the DSS scrolls was to give evidence that they were.
It turns out that was not exactly your argument, you are arguing that their MEANING was lost. OK, I'll accept that is your argument and the DSS manuscript do not directly address that claim. So I have not used that argument since. I find it a little laughable that you take me to task for making a bad argument because I was responding as best I could to your incoherent argument.
(4) Concerning as to why the Essenes would include Daniel as authorative:
Antiochus IV was an historical figure who came very close to distroying Judaism in Jerusalem. See Maccabees for confirmation of this. Inferring from all the "prophecies" that directly relate to that time, Daniel would naturally have been a very popular book among the pious Jews. From their point of view, with an obviously poor knowledge of the history of Neb's court (see the book of Baruch for independent confirmation of this) they would not have the knowledge available to them to recognize the problems, Considering that the "prophecies" predicted Antiochus' demise, and even though his demise was not quite like the King of the North/King of the South prophecy said it would be, it was good enough for them. Furthermore, they must have WANTED to believe it. So why wouldn't they pass over difficulties (which would have seemed very minor to them) and accept it as genuine. Of course, the Essenes at Qumran would have included it. Antiochus was within the living memory of some of them.
Given our times and the the change that Jews and Christians have been forced to make in the interpretation of the "prophecies" (such as that they actually referred to messiahs who would appear later -- not only Jesus of Nazareth, but others like Simon bar Kochbah as well) and a rediscovery of evidnce that gives us a clearer picture than they had we can reliably tell that Daniel is a forgery.
I have given that evidence. The fact that you keep replying to a post in which I conceed the following:
along with the fact that despite leaving you links to other posts in this series you continue to reply with things that I have already addressed, suggest to me that you are not really interested in addressing the evidence.
By the way, what evidence do you have that Qumran represented "an out of the way rural Essene community"? Considering the extensiveness of the caves, the copying rooms, the rooms, the eating facilities, the references to their own "Teacher of Righteousness", and the extensiveness of the scrolls found there suggests to me that this was very much a mainstream component of the Essenes.
(5) Concerning the placement of Daniel in the Kethuviim
It is Jewish Talmudic tradition that Ezra closed out the canon. But let's suppose that he didn't. Why is Daniel,a self-professed prophet, not included in the Neviium (the Prophets)? Why is it in the Kethuviim (the writings). I can tell you why Job would be there. Job never claims to prophesize anything. So just like Proverbs, Psalms, Song of Solaomn, etc which do not prophesize anything it is naturally included among the Writings.Yet Daniel, in which is almsot all about prophecies, is not in its natural place, the Prophets.
(6) Concerning my not responding to RD Wilson claim that the term king is used loosely
As of yet there is nothing to respond to. You have only told me that he makes this claim. You haave not given me any of the EVIDENCE he uses to make this claim. I, on the other hand, HAVE given you my evidence that I reject it.
To go over it again:
-- The book of Daniel has Darius the Mede make a decree that cannot be revoked, Only a real king could do this.
-- The book of Daniel not only calls Belshazzar "king", he calls his wife "queen". Belshazzar has a meal in which other rulers attend, very much like a king would do. He makes Daniel third in command of Babylon, something only a king could do.
-- While Neb is actually prince he is referred to as King. He apparently has a palace of his own, and is able to use the services of the "palace master".
-- Within the context of Daniel there is no suggestion that Daniel IS actually using the term loosely. In fact in every instance the obvious interpretation is that he is NOT.
You claim that it is OK for Daniel to have called Neb King when he was actually Prince. You use the analogy "it would be the same as if you said that President Clinton was born in Arkansas, and my response was to declare that you have made some gross error because Clinton was certainly not president when he was born. "
Your analogy is flawed. In the context of the above it is obvious that we are not referring to Clinton as President WHEN he was born. Within the context of Daniel Neb is being referred to as King with respect to the events that he is engaged in AT THAT TIME. The appropriate analogy would be to say, "On August 19, 1946, a newborn President Clinton entered into the world". That is problematic, and I don't know of any such reference is used. A more appropriate pharseology, and one of a type that I HAVE seen would be, "On August 19, 1946, a newborn FUTURE President Clinton entered into the world".
(7) Concerning my claim about the argument from silence;
Here is your description of my premise:
You left out an important part of my argument -- The argument from silence is the strongest argument that one can possibly make when weh have actively looked for evidence AND NOT FOUND IT IN PLACES WHERE WE SHOULD HAVE.
In the case of Daniel, and Darius the Mede. We KNOW who was the actual king at the time that Daniel claims Darius the Mede was written, and it was CYRUS.
Now you claim that PERHAPS Daniel was using the term King loosely (with no evidence what-so-ever that he was) and that Darius the Mede was just Cyrus' Governor. But we KNOW who Cyrus' governor was and it wasn't Darius, it was Gobryas (who is also referred to in some writings as Gubaru and in others as Ugbaru but NEVER as Darius). So the fact that we do not find ANY independent reference to him IS STRONG evidence that he never existed.
(8) You claim:
If there are modern sholars who make that claim, then they are poor scholars. In every place that the name Belshazzar actually appears in historical literature, he is referred to as the son of Nabonidus. And Nabonidus was not related to Neb in any way.
(9) I have never had to retreat from "original denial of Belshazzar’s existence" since I have never denied his historicity in the first place. Nor do I retreat from what extreme bible-doubters believed in the past concerning the Belshazzar of the book of Daniel. Extreme bible-believers like to point out that as we discovered more evidence and have found that there was an historical Belshazzar who existed at the time of the overthrow of Babylon somehow validates Daniel. But as far as I am concerned it is one of the many nails in the coffin of the claim of Daniel's reliability.
Of course we thought Belshazzar didn't exist. Daniel (and other apocryphal books) refer to him as Neb's son. So we looked for evidence that Neb had a son referred to as Belshazzar. And we didn't find it. But (and this goes to your claim that Belshazzar was Neb's grandchild) extreme bible-believers did.
They noted that there were writings that showed that Amal Marduk had an assistant named Belshazzar. So they then jumped to the conclusion that this assistant must be Amal Marduk's son, and that Belshazzar succeeded him. That way they could claim that Daniel was being loose with the term "son" and what he actually meant was "grandchild". (See how extreme bible-believers like to use that "loose terminology" excuse to get the bible to mean what it DOESN'T say).
Unfortunately, it was Nergal-Shazzar, a son-in-law of Neb who succeeded Amal Marduk, and it was his son, Labsi Maduk, no apparent relationship to Neb who succeeded him. So the rationalization was unsatisfactory.
So when 2 pieces of evidence turn up showing that Nabonidus (the priest and absolutely no relation to Neb who ousted Labsi Marduk) had a son named Belshazzar extreme bible-believers have crowed that it shows doubters to be wrong about Belshazzar's existence. Well, we WEREN'T. We were right. There was no Belshazzar that was son of Neb. as Daniel CLEARLY claims. It turns out there WAS a Belshazzar, but that Belshazzar doesn't fit with Daniel at all ... so to me that vindicates the doubter's doubts, and is not something that we should withdraw from. It is something that "See, we told you so" is a more appropriate response.
(9) This is the second time you quote Xenophon. You claim that Xenophon said "the king died" at the time of the fall of Babylon. I suspect you read that on some apologetic website, please give me the source of that remark so I can check it out. You have made claims before that do not check out. And you did not ever give me the reference for your first Xenophon attribution.
(10) Concerning "name calling"
Let's see, the only names I have called you are (A) extreme bible-believer, and (B) hypocrite. I believe you to be both.
(A) Concerning extreme bible-believer -- First, I have already gone into the origin of that term and I do not think it is an ad-hominem term at all. Second, you have parroted a large number of the extreme bible-believer arguments, many of which I have dealt with in my posts. So to me the evidence points strongly that you are.
(B) Concerning hypocrite -- That was in a section in which I was responding to your claims of my being insulting and that your claiming that you were being an all-around nice guy. One may (erroneously) conclude that was an ad-hominem against you. It wasn't.
To explain that we need to know exactly what ad-hominem means. Ad-hominem means an argument that is directed not toward the evidence but toward the person. An ad-hominem argument might be, "Only a fool would believe X". This does not address the argument.
The reason my reference to you as "hypocrite" was NOT ad-hominem was because I was in that section my argument was that you ARE a hypocrite. I used your two quotes in conjunction as evidence that you are.
However, I DO owe you an apology. I was wrong in this sentence:
"You accused me of calling you names when I clearly was responding in kind to YOUR name calling"
You have not called me any names. In my haste to finish up the post I used incorrect phraseology and I am sorry that I did it. You have my sincere apology for referring to "YOUR name calling". I shall try and be more precise in the future.
Here is what I should have said:
"You accused me of being insulting when I clearly was responding in kind to YOUR insults"
You have been just as insulting if not more so, as I have, That doesn't bother to me and the only times I have brought it up has been in response to your whining of me doing it to you.
As to the making of absolute statements, I don't think either of us have made any absolute statements. It is my contention that the weight of the evidence is so overwhelming that a reasonable person should find it undeniable that Daniel is a forgery. Now if the evidence changes then perhaps it might be reasonable to deny it. But as the evidence is now ... and it is more than strong enough to come up to the a conclusion that can be accepted without reasonable doubt ... Daniel appears to be a forgery.
I would characterize your argument as saying that it is reasonable to believe that Daniel is as claimed because each piece of evidence COULD conceivably be resolved by ad hoc arguments and making assumptions that what the bible says is not what is really meant. I find that wishful thinking and therefore not rational or reasonable.
As to whom wins or loses this debate, each person who reads it must decide on their own. But as to the strengths of ones arguments, when I go back over and read the exchange, I am very happy with how well mine stand up next to yours.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France