A problem with the book of Daniel

by wozza 21 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • kepler
    kepler

    Wozza,

    Daniel is filled with anachronisms. Hence, if it can't keep its "present" or "past" straight, it can't be predicting anything about the future. Wrote a lot about it on this forum.

    In a nutshell, Darius the Mede is the same king that Thucydides reports the Athenians defeated at the battle of Marathon. He called him a Mede too. Trouble was, the year was 480 BC.

    Nebuchadnezzar didn't have satraps - Persians did. Etc. A semi Hellenized Jew in the time of the Maccabees wrote most of this stuff talking about an occupation as severe as Nebuchadnezzar's or worse.

    In the Hebrew TaNaKh, Daniel is in the Writings, not the Prophets.

    That's all the time I've got right now.

    Kepler

  • wozza
    wozza
    Thats interesting Kepler thank you
  • sir82
    sir82

    The official JW answer from the 8/1/2001 Watchtower:

    Where was Daniel when the three Hebrews were tested before the huge image that Nebuchadnezzar had erected on the plain of Dura?

    The Bible does not say, so no man today can establish Daniel’s whereabouts during that test.

    Some have suggested that Daniel’s official rank or his standing in Nebuchadnezzar’s favor was higher than that of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and that Daniel therefore was not obliged to go to the plain of Dura. Daniel 2:49 does indicate that for a time he had a position higher than that of his three companions. But we cannot prove that this exempted him from assembling with the others before the image.

    Attempting to explain Daniel’s absence, others have said that he might have been away on an official assignment or that he was sick and thus unable to attend. However, the Bible does not say that. In any case, Daniel’s course must not have been open to criticism, for if it had been, jealous Babylonian officials would undoubtedly have used it to bring accusations against him. (Daniel 3:8) Both before and after this episode, Daniel proved himself to be an integrity keeper, loyal to God no matter what challenge he faced. (Daniel 1:8; 5:17; 6:4, 10, 11) So even though the Bible does not say why Daniel was not present on the plain of Dura, we can be confident that he was uncompromisingly faithful to Jehovah God.—Ezekiel 14:14; Hebrews 11:33.

  • Crazyguy
    Crazyguy
    Great insight Kepler, you should give us more. I was told the books of Maccabees helps to put the book of Daniel in to a format we can understand better. But yes so many details the jws ignore.
  • Dissonant15
    Dissonant15

    I'm glad you brought this up wowwza, I had noticed these same points before.

    There is a lot more wrong with Daniel. During that study I used to think I was the only one having a hard time with it, now I see everyone else just had their head buried in the sand.

  • Dunedain
    Dunedain

    What about the fact that if Shadrach, Meschach, and Abendnigo, were "God fearing Jews", then why were they even going to the plain of Dura in the first place? Especially since the purpose of going there was because Neb wanted it to be a ceremony of INAUGURATION OF A GOLDEN IDOL! The 3 in question, who were there, would have surely known what this ceremony was about, especially considering their "high positions".

    That would have been like a JW today, going to a ceremony in the city, of an unveiling of a statue of Jesus on the cross, or an unveiling of a new giant American flag in the towns square. Can you imagine a JW being caught going to an event like that, and NOT getting DF'd.

  • kepler
    kepler

    Sorry. Did I say 480 BC? Top of my head and on my way out the door. It was 490 BC.

    But here's the thing, in Belshazzar's feast Daniel is summoned to interpret the dream of the supposed son of Nebuchadnezzar on the eve of the fall of Babylon to the Persians and Medes. Nebuchadnezzar's son was not reigning or acting as regent at the time. Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus the king who was off in Arabia most of the time doing cultural anthropology. And should Daniel have been doing any prophesying to Belshazzar - whatever his genealogy, he should have been quoting Isaiah, right? According to the fundamentalists Isaiah predicted Cyrus the Persian would take the city.

    Cyrus is identified in Daniel - but in chapter 14, the Bel and the Dragon episode included in the Septuagint. It's a polemic against idolatry and introduces Daniel as a mystery solver in the court of Cyrus, figuring out how an idol consumes its offerings in the middle of the night. But it's no longer included in many Protestant Bible editions - too embarrassing, I guess.

    14:1 "When King Astyages joined his ancestors, Cyrus of Persia succeeded him. Daniel was very close to the king who respected him more than any of his other friends."

    But then in chapter 9 we start with, "It was the first year of Darius son of Artaxerxes, a Mede by race who assumed the throne of Chaldea..." Artaxerxes is the father of Darius II. Darius III got slain by Alexander the Great. None of them were Medes - except in the eyes of 5th century Greek historians.

    It would appear that Daniel was supposed to have been captured in the late 7th century, judging by the text of chapter one - and then sent to Babylonian priest school. Surprisingly we learn little about what Babylonian priests do - which is record the positions of planets and stars. But we sure get word that they are supposed to interpret dreams of kings. Are we sure? When did formal astrology get underway - and what evidence is there?

    But for some reason we are supposed to believe that Daniel had the same gifts in that regard as did Joseph in Genesis. Coincidence? Awful lot of chapter one is about resistance to Gentile eating habits - but evidently NOT to Gentile priestly training. Go figure. What's more, Daniel is so good at what he does, Nebuchadnezzar promotes him and compliments the God whom he serves - and turns around and destroys the First Temple anyway.

    And that would make Daniel one of his first ministers during the occupation and captivity.

    When the ceremony of the idol proceeds in chapter 3, Nebuchadnezzar calls out for "satraps, magistrates, governors, counsellors, treasurers, judges..." He starts the list with satraps, a Persian convention, set up by Cyrus. Though Chapter 6 of Daniel gives credit to Darius ( the Mede) to appoint 120. This chapter seems to begin in mid sentence with Chapter 5 trailing off about Darius the Mede receiving the kingdom at age of 62...

    I encountered these stories as a child and was very confused. But once someone alerted to me that they were probably composed during the time of the Maccabees, a lot of things began to fall into place. I noted that some claim that Darius the Mede is unknown to history. Well, I discovered for myself when reading Thucydides that this is not true. Thucydides calls the invading Persians "Medes" about 50 times in his account of the later Peloponnesian Wars between Sparta and Athens.

    It also strikes me that not just the JW translation team likes to obscure this matter. I would say that were it not for Daniel, most of the tele-evangelizers that clog US airwaves would have little or nothing to say.

  • Zoos
    Zoos

    I went back and read the area in the DANIEL book where it covered this section and no mention of Daniel being referred to as "chief of the magic practicing priests" is made.


    Peculiaresting!

  • wozza
    wozza

    Thanks again Kepler interesting stuff ,it's almost like it all written down by future scribes putting together some oral history, does'nt build confidence in the bible for me.

    And Zoos ......Dan ch4 vs 9 NWT

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    There are so many problems with Daniel.

    It is historically inaccurate, including the dating of Daniel's exile, Nebuchadnezzar's madness (confused with Nabonidus), wrong name of Babylon's last ruler and Persia's first ruler, etc., etc., etc.

    The LXX is so different to the MT. (The Christians preferred Theodotian's translation to the LXX. Theodotian's is closer to the MT.)

    The "furnace" and "lions' den" stories are so far fetched that one wonders if the ancients thought they were literal histories or whether they were parables teaching that God's people would survive despite their current problems (under Antiochus Epiphanes). (The stories of chapters 2 to 4 form an overall pattern, thus showing the moral being taught is that Yahweh is supreme, giving power to whoever it pleases. This was good news to the 2nd century readers.)

    The writings can only be understood in the context of the Maccabeans.

    When Jeremiah's prediction of Jewish restoration was obviously not coming to pass, the 2nd century writers changed the "70 years" to "7 times 70 years" to bring it down to their own times.

    Doug

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit