In my last post (http://www.progressiveu.org/115341-daniel-is-a-forgery-chapter-1-daniel-and-friends-in-nebuchadrezzars-court) I began the evidence based portion of this series of blogs on the book of Daniel being a forgery. In that post I looked at the first chapter and noted the historical inaccuracies in it. I will continue that theme in this post in which we examine the 2nd chapter and the first of the supposed prophecies in Daniel.
2.1 Summary of Chapter 2
Daniel’s first amazing feat comes when Nebuchadrezzar has a dream that disturbs him. Nebuchadrezzar calls all the magicians, astrologers, sorcerers, and Chaldeans to interpret the dream. He makes the task even more difficult by refusing to tell them what the dream was. To ensure they are telling the truth, they must tell him what his dream was as well as its meaning, and if they don’t they will be killed. They protest saying that it is impossible. Daniel prays to God and is shown the dream and its meaning.
Daniel tells Nebuchadrezzar that he saw in his dream a “great image”. The head of the image was gold, the breast and the arms were silver, the belly and thighs were brass, and the legs and the feet were part iron and part clay. Then, a stone that came not from human hands, hits the image on the legs and feet causing it to be broken up and blown away as dust. The rock then grows in size, eventually filling the whole earth.
The interpretation of the dream is as follows:
(1) Nebuchadrezzar is the head of gold.
(2) The breast and arms of silver are a lesser kingdom that is to come after Nebuchadrezzar.
(3) The belly and thighs of brass are a kingdom that will succeed that one and rule over the whole world.
(4) The legs and feet made partly of iron and partly of clay would be a very strong kingdom that would become split.
(5) The stone represents God coming to break up all the kingdoms that came before and establishing His kingdom which will be everlasting.
Nebuchadrezzar is impressed and makes Daniel “chief of the governors over all wise men”.
2.2 Analysis
2.2.1 Minor problems
Again there are some minor mistakes here that make us skeptical of the story. First, the story takes place in the second year of Nebuchadrezzar’s reign. Daniel should not have been out of his training period by then. The book of Daniel uses the term “Chaldeans” to mean a priestly class. Originally, “Chaldeans” referred to a sect within
Babylonia. That sect produced Nabopolassar (the father of Nebuchadrezzar) and became dominant. At the time of Nebuchadrezzar, the term “Chaldean” was synonymous to the term “Babylonian” and meant anyone of the Babylonian empire. It was not until well into the Persian rule that “Chaldean” came to mean a Babylonian priest.
A more serious problem is that according to this story Daniel became a high ranking official of
Babylon. The Babylonians kept good records and we still have them. These records mention many officials, both major and minor. There is no mention of a Daniel (or Belteshazzar, his supposed Babylonian name) in any of them. In fact, there is no mention of a Daniel (or Belteshazzar) who was an official in the Babylonian court in ANY writing before the second century BCE.
Bible-believers are quick to point out that Daniel is mentioned in Ezekiel (Ezekiel 14:14,20 and 28:3). Ezekiel was a contemporary of Daniel (actually a decade or two older than Daniel) and, thus, provides important evidence of the historicity of Daniel … or so they say. However, Ezekiel only mentions the name and no details that link that Daniel to the Daniel from the book of Daniel. In fact, there is good reason to believe that Ezekiel is actually referring to someone else.
The Hebrew spelling of the Daniel in Ezekiel is different from that of Daniel in the book of Daniel. The one in Ezekiel is more properly rendered Dan’el. Furthermore, this Dan’el is mentioned alongside of the legendary Jewish heroes of Noah and Job. The actual phraseology is “… Noah, Dan’el, and Job …” Placing a contemporary between two legends is awkward phraseology. It would be like referring to three strong people as “… Achilles, Schwarzenegger, and Hercules …” It would be much more natural to place them in chronological order instead: “… Achilles, Hercules, and Schwarzenegger …”
There is another candidate for the Dan’el that Ezekiel refers to. The Ras Shamrah tablets from Ugarit in
North Syria tell of the story of Dan’el (spelled exactly like that in Ezekiel). He was a divine Canaanite hero who sat at the gate of the city and judged the causes of widows and established rights for orphans. He was known for his wisdom (Ezekiel 28:3). The dating of the tablets suggests this is a story Ezekiel would likely be familiar with. In fact the consensus among scholars who are not extreme bible-believers is that this is the Dan’el Ezekiel was referring to.
2.2.2 Problems in the interpretation of the prophecy
The bible-believer’s interpretation of this prophecy is that the head of gold refers to the Babylonian empire (indeed the prophecy explicitly states this), the breast and arms of silver refer to a Medo-Persian empire, the belly and thighs of brass refer to Alexander the Great, and the legs and feet made partly of iron and partly of clay refer to the Roman Empire. However, this scenario does not hold up under scrutiny. The biggest problem is that THERE WAS NO MEDO-PERSIAN EMPIRE. There was a Median empire that was conquered by the Persians. Thus, a much more likely scenario is that the head of gold refers to Babylon, the breasts and arms of silver refer to the Median empire, the belly and thighs of brass refer to the
Persian empire, and the legs and feet made partly of iron and partly of clay refers to Alexander. This is the argument I will set forth here.
If one reads the book of Daniel, there is a clear picture that is presented. Daniel comes to the court of Nebuchadrezzar, serves under his son, Belshazzar who is violently deposed by Darius the Mede (son of Ahasuerus [also known as Xerxes]) whom Daniel also serves, and is alive into the reign of Cyrus the Persian. The clear implication is that Babylon falls to the Median Empire which is replaced by a
Persian Empire. This is not what really happened (as we will see later) but it is the clear picture presented by the author of Daniel. Thus, the simplest conclusion to draw from this is that the author of Daniel THOUGHT that is what happened.
With that in mind, let’s examine the prophecy. The controversy lies on the interpretation of the second empire (the breast and arms of silver). Is it a combined Medo-Persian empire or is it just the Median empire? The pertinent history of the time was that
Babylon and Media were the two biggest empires in the region.
Persia was a vassal state of Media. Cyrus the Great came to power in
Persia and rebelled against the Medes five years later in 550 BCE. He defeated the Median king Astyages. In doing this Cyrus acquired all the Median territory. Thereafter he referred to his kingdom simply as the Persian kingdom.
Another problem with relating the second kingdom to a combined “Medo-Persian” kingdom is that the prophecy clearly states that the kingdom will be inferior to that of Nebuchadrezzar’s. The
Persian empire lasted twice as long as the Babylonian empire and at its height controlled three times the land area. That sounds more like ruling over the whole world (the third empire) rather than being inferior (like the second empire). The Median empire, on the other hand, was indeed inferior to Babylonian empire. It did not last as long nor did it control the area of the Babylonians.
The question, then is, “does the fourth kingdom fit that of Alexander?” The answer is a resounding “YES”. Alexander was the strongest king in history up to his time. He conquered all of Egypt, Persia, and extended his kingdom into
India. This was pretty much all the known world at his time. In fact, legend has it that Alexander wept because he had no more land to conquer. However, at the height of his power and at a very young age, he unexpectedly died leaving no heir. His kingdom was split 4 ways and given to his top generals: Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Antigonus.
2.2.3 Problems with the bible-believer version of the prophecy
As we have seen, the bible-believer version of the prophecy in which the fourth kingdom is associated with
Rome instead of Alexander, is most likely not the one intended by the author. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume the extreme bible-believers are correct and it is. Then they still have the problem of the arrival of God’s everlasting kingdom. Rome has fallen (in either 485 CE with the Visigoth sacking of Rome, or in 1465 CE with the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman empire depending on how you want to define it). The question is, “why does the prophecy stop here?” Why doesn’t it mention the other great kingdoms that dominated the area, the
Ottoman empire? The Ottoman empire held onto as much territory as the Roman Empire did. So why leave it out? Even if we were to accept the extreme bible-believer version of the prophecy, if we looked at the results since then we would be forced to conclude that Daniel was still a false prophet.
In the next installment we will examine Chapter 3 of Daniel. This one contains the story of Shadrach, Meschach and Abednigo in the fiery furnace.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
I believe in the Bible. I also believe that it's possible that a book could have been a forgery put in there... but why? What would be the point of somebody making up the book? I mean, it's not even a very important one. I learned about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednigo in Sunday school, but most people don't mention it otherwise. So if it were, in fact, proved that the whole book of Daniel were a forgery, would that affect my belief in the Bible. No, and why should it? I believe that I wouldn't exist without a god, and I'm willing to bet that if there's a god who is powerful enough to create the entire universe, he's powerful enough to have saved a man from lions or from a fiery furnace if he really wanted to. Ah, we "bible believers"... You just can't tell us anything, can you?
In my introduction (http://www.progressiveu.org/144926-skeptical-bible-study-daniel-is-a-forgery-introduction), I introduced and defined the terms "extreme bible doubter" and "extreme bible believer". I viewed these terms as being the extremes of a continuum. There are quite a few people who claim that the entire bible is the word of God and therefore perfect. There are people (like me) who believe the bible is just a work of a relatively primitive group of people and has absolutely no supernatural input whatsoever. I said that I suspect most people fall in the middle, believing that some of the bible is supernaturally inspired and some of it may very well contain mistakes. I guess that you are in that group. Fine with me. But there are a few logical consequences of that belief that I think you should consider.
(1) You say that Daniel is not a very important book. This is not so. It is second only to Revelation in end-time prophecies. Jesus makes allusions to it in the gospel of Matthew. One prominent Christian apologist, Josh McDowell said "Now if Christ were mistaken about the Book of Daniel, then He must also have been mistaken about his own identity. And if this be so, it follows that the Christian faith may be called into question. At stake is the very trustworthiness of Christ’s statements concerning our own faith and salvation through Him". It was included in the sacred writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, and by every one of the Anti-Nicean Church Fathers.
(2) If it is a forgery, then you cannot trust it. If you cannot trust it, then what part of the bible can you trust? What criterion do you use to determine that? Why do you pick some things to believe and not others?
(3) Why would God allow his word to be corrupted so without making any apparent attempt to correct it? Why would Jesus quote from it? Did Jesus not know better? Or did Matthew lie with respect to Jesus? If Matthew lied then how do you know that any of it is true?
Those are just some things to consider. There is still a lot of evidence to be presented that Daniel is a forgery. In upcoming post the answer to your question of why a person would forge a book of the bible will be presented. But since you ask now, I will let the cat somewhat out of the bag.
The reason the book was forged is because in 167 BCE the date that Daniel was actually written, the Jews were undergoing extreme persecution at the hands of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. He was the ruler of the area at the time. He was the last of a long line of Selucid rulers. He wanted to Hellenize the land (make the countries adopt Greek customs). He upset the pious Jews in the area by doing things like outlawing circumcision (He supposedly killed the parents AND the children if the children were found to be circumcised), instituting a gymnasium (where boys exercised and wrestled naked [that is how they found out if they were circumcized]), setting up an altar to Zeus in the second Temple, disallowing the populace to make sacrifices to Yahweh, and a bunch of other things. It was not a healthy thing to be a devout practicing Jew during that time. The book was written so as to inspire the faithful to hold onto their faith. EVERY prophecy is appropriate for that time.
I personally think that reason is the best way to live. I can give you a lots of reasons to help you to come to the conclusion that the bible is unreliable for much of anything. So in that regard I can tell you bible believers something. You are quite right that I cannot necessarily get you to believe it. I am always amazed when reason seems to have no affect on people, but perhaps it will for some people. Even if it affects no one, the exercise of compiling the data, organizing it into a coherent presentation, and opening it up to potential criticism helps personally. It gives me confidence that my beliefs are based on reason and not just wishful thinking. It is a very good feeling and bestows confidence to have your world-view validated by true critical analysis.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
I apologize for the last post. I was tired when I wrote it, and now I don't think I did a very good job of sounding even somewhat intelligent.
That being said, let me put this forward. First, most denominations in the Christian religion do not, in fact, focus on end time prophecies. Mostly the Seventh Day Adventist church, which is rigidly legalistic and has it's own "prophetess", puts its focus on Revelations and Daniel. The rest of the denominations like to focus on what is happening today, around us, and how we can make the world a better place.
Second, I loved your story of why the book of Daniel would be written, and to my own surprise, I'm willing to accept it. In truth, I've always been one of those people who believes that everything in the Bible really happened, because if I'm going to call myself a Christian, I may as well go all the way. But I don't see anything particualarly wrong in saying that it was, instead, a story meant to inspire the people of another time.
Now, you bring up that Jesus mentioned the Book of Daniel in Matthew. Let's say that it was just a story and let's say, for my benefit, that Jesus knew that it was. There are a lot of stories out there, fables, myths, and movies with a message. We know that they are not true, but in trying to make a point may bring them up. I may bring up to someone with a large ego the story of Achilles' Heel, and in doing so would probably not say, "In Achilles' Heel, which by the way is just a myth which has a good point and none of the people in it ever existed..." because it's already known and there's no point in doing so. Jesus may very well have mentioned it solely because the people he was talking to knew the stories of Daniel, and therefore it made it simple to get the point across.
I know that Christianity doesn't make a lot of sense to people who don't believe in a god. Here we are talking about a religion that's thousands of years old, holding on to outdated ideals, waiting for some dead man to show up in the sky, and it seems pretty crazy. But to me, it's no more crazy than believing that all of this just happened, that we all evolved from goo, that fish became dogs and birds and lizards. And on top of that, it gives me hope. If I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, I am without that hope, and all of this, every argument that you put together and every way that I try to refute it, it completely and utterly pointless.
As always you are free to believe as you like. The points I would like to make are:
(1) I do realize that within Christianity there is a great diversity. That is a problem for people like me who want to make a logical argument against it. No matter what particular aspect of religion one argues against there will be some Christian out there who will say it doesn't matter because that is not what he believes. The impression is that the argument is therefore a poor argument against Christianity. Then the volumous Christians who DO believe just what the argument argues against do not feel like since it has been acknowledged as a poor argument, they don't have to address it either. So to prevent that misconception, here is point of the argument: THE BIBLE IS NOT THE INNERRANT WORD OF GOD. There are obvious mistakes in it. And perhaps I may continue this series of posts to include the numerous problems outside of Daniel. To my way of thinking once you truly understand exactly what the authors meant, it becomes obvious that the bible is just an ancient text ... nothing more.
(2) It has been my experience that the book of Daniel is very important to evangelical Christians in particular. This is a very large group. It is also a group that tends to push religion into politics and into public schools. I do not think their goals good. I think that if they are successful we will lose much of what we gained in the Enlightenment. I think if the problem becomes world-wide, the result will be a new Dark Age. So I view evangelical fundamentalists as more of the problem than the more mainstream sects. But I think Sam Harris has a valid point that mainstream Christianity provides a cover that allows fundamentalism to prosper. Point number 1 above shows one way you guys seem to do it.
(3) I am glad that you seem to accept that Daniel may be a forgery. It doesn't bother me in the least that you rationalize it into a moralistic story. Fine. At least you now seem to be willing to question what the bible says, and you seem to be moving away from a biblical literalist. That is much better than I expected. I applaud your steps in that direction. May reason rule!
(4) Jesus's references to the book of Daniel was to refer to himself as the "Son of man". During Jesus's time this was erroneously interpreted to mean that Daniel was predicting a Messiah would arrive in the distant future. Actually the prediction was that a Messiah would arrive in the immediate future from 167 BCE. That didn't happen. So Jesus was claiming to be the fulfillment of an already failed prophecy. There was no MORAL LESSON that Jesus was making here.
Furthermore, Jesus DID use made up stories to convey moral messages. They are called PARABLES. When Jesus tells a parable, there is no question that the story is intentionally made up to convey a moral message. His references to Daniel are not like that at all.
(5) I would argue that Christianity does not make a lot of sense period. I would not add the phrase ... "to people who don't believe in God". Evolutionary theory and naturalism is strongly supported by verifiable evidence. I have presented some of that evidence in previous posts. See:
http://www.progressiveu.org/165114-so-tell-me-my-friend-how-did-the-universe-begin
http://www.progressiveu.org/190000-modern-evolutionary-theory-versus-intelligent-design-part-1
http://www.progressiveu.org/190000-modern-evolutionary-theory-versus-intelligent-design-part-2
http://www.progressiveu.org/151101-modern-evolutionary-theory-versus-intelligent-design-part-3
(6) I do not know exactly what you mean when you say that your belief in Jesus gives you hope. Hope of what? A continued existence after you die? That strikes me as truly sad. You are wasting the time you do have for pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die. If there is an afterlife then this life is a cruel joke. It reduces to a pitiful entrance exam to get into heaven and nothing more. There is absolutely no reason for us to be here. We should be in heaven doing whatever it is that we would do for eternity that at some point can't help but make our 100 years of life on this earth meaningless.
Hope that your life has some meaning to it? This sounds even worse. I have friends and family that I love. I have goals that I think are worthy and I want to acheive. The universe is a vastly huge place and filled with all sorts of unexplored possiblities. How can ANYBODY not see that somewhere within it you can find something that is meaningful to you and to people you want to have. You do not need a God for that.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
Even if there was no God, what then would the point of being here be? To have fun? To do...stuff? Seems to me like the goal of getting somewhere is a little better than a goal to just live it up.
Here is my answer.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle