Hysteria X: Magic if You Can Here's a newer one courtesy of one we call Skeptic X. Daniel 2:20 reads, "And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm." X notes that this is at the end of a three-year training period (1:5), first complaining that there was no way to measure how they were "ten times" better, though he admits that this may be a hyperbolic way of speaking (and he is right: see Gen. 31:7, 41; Num. 14:22 -- it means "a lot of times"), but the big complaint has to do with chronology, and that 2:1 states that Nebbie had dreams in his second year that Dan came to interpret. X wants to know how, in 2:13, Dan and friends could be among the "wise men" to be slain when they weren't certified wise guys until year 3. X can't read well: First of all, 1:18-20 doesn't say that this is when Dan and Co. were recognized as "wise men"; it says this was when they were found better than other wise men. Second, this is a matter of how an oral society grouped its stories: Ch. 1 brings a conclusion to the matter of Dan and Co.'s education; Dan. 2 starts a new oral unit, which actually is alluded to in 1:17, which hints at Dan's talents in dream interpretation. X is bothered by the chronology, and complains that the promotion in 2:49 must have been "anticlimactic", which may be true from his limited perspective, but how does that equate with an error? Moreover, note that only Daniel gave Nebbie any exceptional service prior to the end of the three years; note as well that Daniel's service is not exactly an expression of "wisdom and understanding". X is mixing categories as usual.
Hysteria XI: Who Watches the Watchers? Skeptic X also adds this blurb: The word "watchers" in Dan. 4:13, 23, which is used in 2nd century BC Jewish lit but nowhere else in the OT, is taken as suggestive (but not conlusive) evidence of a late date. It is indeed inconclusive, as Strong's takes this to be a word of Chaldean origin. We would not expect it to be found in the rest of the OT. It is just as arguable that 1 Enoch is copying Daniel, an earlier work. |
Lingua [Linguistic Data] [Persian and Greek Words] [Aramaic and Hebrew Usage]
Our next set of arguments revolve around language evidence in the Book of Daniel. First to language arguments. Driver [Driv.IOT, 508] wrote:The verdict of the language of Daniel is thus clear. The Persian words presuppose a period after the Persian empire had been well established: the Greek words demand, the Hebrew supports, and the Aramaic permits, a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (B.C. 332). The Aramaic is also of the type that was spoken near Palestine. With our present knowledge, this is as much as the language authorizes us definitely to affirm; through SUMPOYAHN, as the name of an instrument (considering the history of the term in Greek), would seem to point to a date somewhat advanced in the Greek period. At this point, I'd like to issue a statement about this particular argument: It seems to be a place where some liberal critics, and skeptics especially, like to fudge the evidence! We are solemnly told about the presence of "Greek and Persian words" in Daniel that require us to late-date it - but you would never know that: a) the Persian words are only 15 in number, and are largely government and administrative terms; b) the Greek words are only THREE in number - and all refer to musical instruments (Kitharos, Psanterin, and Sumphonyah)! This tactic is utilized by Katz [Kat.McD] and by Callahan [Call.BPFF, 151], who writes solemnly of "a number of Greek and Persian words" that are "salted" throughout the text - never once telling his readers what they are, or how many there are! Is this an honest way to present one's case? [see also Town.Dan, 46; Porte.Dan, 20, 58] |
Pass the Persian/Beware of Greek Words Bearing Gifts So now to specifics. Regarding the Persian words, Driver [Driv.BD, ivii] wrote:Some of them describe offices or institutions, and are not found elsewhere in the O.T., or occur only in Ezra, Esther, and other late parts of the O.T., written after the establishment of the Persian rule: the mention of 'satraps' under Nebuchadnezzar (iii. 2,3,27) is alone a remarkable anachronism...That words such as these should be found in books written after the Persian Empire was organised, and when Persian influences prevailed, is not more than would be expected; Persian words (both some of those noted here, and also others) occur in Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Chronicles, and many were permanently naturalized in Aramaic (both Syriac and Aramaic of the Targums); but that they should be used as a matter of course by Daniel under the Babylonian supremacy, or in the description of Babylonian institutions before the conquest of Cyrus, is in the last degree improbable. Regarding the Persian and the Greek words, Hamner [Hamn.Dan, 5] had this to say:The Hebrew style resembles that of Chronicles, Esther, and Ecclesiastes (all late books), and there is a higher number of Persian and Greek loan-words than in other books of the Old Testament. For example, the word raz comes from Persian, and is used to express the idea of a 'secret' or 'mystery' (Dan. 2:18; 4:9), whilst the word sumphonyah is translated as 'music' in the N.E.B. (Dan. 3:5,10,15) is Greek in origin and appears to have been used of a musical instrument only from the second century B.C. And regarding the Greek words specifically, Driver [Driv.BD, Lviii-Lix] wrote: Anyone who has studied Greek history knows what condition the Greek world was in the sixth century B.C., and is aware that the arts and inventions of civilised life streamed then into Greece from the East, not from Greece eastwards... These words, it may confidently affirmed, could not have been used in the Book of Daniel unless it had been written after the dissemination of Greek influences in Asia through the conquests of Alexander the Great. The matter of the Persian and Greek words is answered rather easily. Archer [Arch.SOT, 395] points out regarding the Persian words:...Conservative scholars do not maintain that the book of Daniel was composed, in the final form at least, until the establishment of the Persian authority over Babylonia. Since the text indicates that Daniel himself lived to serve, for several years at least, under Persian rule, there is no particular reason why he should not have employed in his language those Persian terms (largely referring to government and administration) which had found currency in the Aramaic spoken in Babylon by 530 B.C. Also indicative here is that of these Persian words, six are NOT found later than 330 BC, and ALL of them are what are called "Old Persian" words - which accords better with an early date. [Bald.Dan, 33]The Greek words have a more interesting history. Archer [Arch.SOT, 396] wrote:The last of these three (symphonia) does not occur in extant Greek literature until the time of Plato (ca. 370 B.C.) at least in the sense of a musical instrument. From this it has been argued that the word itself must be as late as the fourth century in Greek usage. But since we possess less than one-tenth of the significant Greek literature of the classical period, we lack sufficient data for timing the precise origin of any particular word or usage in the development of the Greek vocabulary. It should carefully be observed that these three words are names of musical instruments and that such names have always circulated beyond national boundaries as the instruments themselves have become available to the foreign market. These three were undoubtedly of Greek origin and circulated with their Greek names in Near Eastern markets, just as foreign musical terms have made their way into our own language, like the Italian piano and viola. we know that as early as the reign of Sargon (722-705 B.C.) there were according to the Assyrian records, Greek captives who were sold into slavery from Cyprus, Ionia, Lydia, and Cilicia. The Greek poet Alcaeus of Lesbos (600 B.C.) mentions that his brother Antimenidas served in the Babylonian army. It is therefore evident that Greek mercenaries, Greek slaves, and Greek musical instruments were current in the Semitic Near East long before the time of Daniel. It is also significant to note that in the Neo-Babylonian ration tablets published by E. F. Weidner, Ionian carpenters and shipbuilders are mentioned among the recipients of rations from Nebuchadnezzar's commissary---along with musicians from Ashkelon and elsewhere. (cf. "Jojachin Konig von Juda" inelanges Syriens, vol. 2, 1939, pp. 923-35 The exchange of trade alluded to is supported by the work of Yamauchi [Yama.DCon, 38-45], who points out that:- Several Semitic words have ended up as loanwords into Greek and are attested prior to the time of Alexander (for example, gold, tunic, sesame, cinnamon, camel - and quite significantly, several musical words: harp, lute, tambourine);
- Greek pottery is attested in the Babylonian region c. 530 BC;
- The throne room of Nebuchadnezzar shows some signs of Greek influence in design.
More recently, Baldwin [Bald.Dan, 33] wrote:Greek wares were being traded all over the Ancient Near East from the eighth century onwards; Greeks were apparently employed in Babylon in the time of Nebuchadrezzar, and there is nothing surprising about there being instruments of Greek origin and bearing Greek names in the Babylon of the sixth century B.C. What is significant is that there are so few Greek loan words in the Aramaic of Daniel. The latter point is stressed by Whitcomb [Whit.BD, 56]:Perhaps the most important point to consider in this controversy is that the book of Daniel would have been saturated with Greek terms if it were written as late as 167 B.C. in Palestine, where Greek-speaking (Hellenistic) governments had controlled the entire region for more than 160 years. Instead of this, we find just two or three technical terms referring to obviously foreign cultural objects. Finally, there are these points:- One of the three words, kitharos, is now attested in Homer's works, in the 8th century BC. [Dyer.Dan3, 430; MillS.Dan, 29] That leaves just 2 Greek words for the critics to yell about!
- One possibility the critics never think about: Those "Greek" words may be words that the Greeks borrowed from someone else - maybe the Babylonians!
- There is some textual indication that there was uncertainty over what exactly these words meant when Daniel was translated. [Meadw.ADGD, 138] Would this be the case had Daniel been written in Hellenistic times?
The "Greek words" and "Persian words" arguments are therefore mountains made out of molehills. Cognizant critics [DilHart.BDan, 159] are no longer relying on them.
|
Aramaic Antsiness and Hebrew Happenings A third and fourth argument focuses not on any unusual language in Daniel, but upon its primary languages, Aramaic and Hebrew. It is said that, being that the Aramaic was written in the Western Dialect (indeed, the mere fact of Aramaic in the text) indicates a late date. The mere fact of Aramaic being the language of the text means little; Aramaic was the lingua franca of a territory ranging from India to Egypt, and from Arabia to Assyria and Persia. It is the language we would expect an exile to use in the court of a foreign king [Lacq.Dan, 14]. But the specific type of Aramaic is another matter. Porteous [Porte.Dan, 13] writes:Another feature of the book is that ch. 2.4-ch.7 is in a late(not earlier than third century B.C., perhaps second century) dialect of Aramaic, while the rest of the book is in late Hebrew. And Driver [Driv.BD, Lix] asserted:The Aramaic of Daniel (which is all but identical with that of Ezra) is a Western Aramaic dialect, of the type spoken in and about Palestine. Finally, it is said that the Hebrew is more like 2nd century B.C. Hebrew than 6th century B.C. Hebrew. Again, Driver [ibid.]:The Hebrew of Daniel is also that of a much later age than the sixth century B.C. The type of Hebrew which it mostly resembles is not that of Ezekiel, or of Isaiah xL.-Lxvi., or even of Haggai and Zechariah, but that of Esther, Ecclesiastes (to a certain extent), and especially the Chronicles (c. B.C. 300)." S.R. Driver bases this on new words in the Hebrew and the lack of fluency in style and syntax (much like Ezra-Nehemiah). Regarding the Aramaic, however, Archer [Arch.SOT, 397] asserts:It was formally asserted that the Aramaic of Daniel is of the Western dialect and hence could not have been composed in Babylon, as would have been the case if the sixth-century Daniel was its real author. Recent discoveries of fifth-century Aramaic documents, however, have shown quite conclusively that Daniel was, like Ezra, written in a form of Imperial Aramaic, an official or literary dialect which had currency in all parts of the Near East. Thus the relationship to the Aramaic of the Elephantine Papyri from southern Egypt is a very close one, inasmuch as they too were written in the Imperial Aramaic. Archer goes on to explain that eastern Aramaic there was the uniform tendency to put the verb late in the clause, exactly what Daniel does. It is more free in word or and structure than the western Aramaic. In his commentary on Daniel he writes that the Maccabeean date hypotheses was given long before the discover of the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran Cave 1. Before this publication there was no Aramaic document known from the third or second century B.C. So, theoretically it was easy to date Daniel in the second century B.C. However, with the publication of the Genesis Apocryphon (which is a midrash for Genesis), it became apparent that Daniel was composed in a type of centuries-earlier Aramaic. (The Genesis Apocryphon is supposed to have been written in the third century B.C; .the manuscript dates from the first century B.C.). Linguistic analysis shows that the morphology, vocabulary, and syntax in the Apocryphon shows a considerably later stage of Aramaic language than the Aramaic chapters of Daniel. Further [Arch.DEx, 23]: As for the characteristic word order, the Apocryphon tends to follow the normal sequence of Northwest Semitic --- verb first, followed by subject, then object---in the characteristic structure of the clause. Beyond question this was the normal practice of Western Aramaic used in Palestine during the Maccabeean period. But the Aramaic of Daniel shows a marked tendency for the verb to be referred till a later position in the clause, often even after the noun object---somewhat like the word order of Akkadian (Babylonian and Assyrian) as used in Babylonian from the time of Sargon, twenty-fourth cent. B.C.) onward. On the basis of the word order alone, it is safe to conclude that Daniel could not have been composed in Palestine (as the Maccabeean hypothesis It has been conceded by many scholars that the Aramaic of Daniel is much closer to the Elephantine Papyri (which date 5th and 4th centuries B.C.) and is similar to the Aramaic of Nabatean and Palmyrene Inscriptions. Meadowcroft, for example, particularly acknowledges the force of Archer's argument. (A sign of its force is also found in the fact that one of the latest trends is to admit that the Aramaic is early, but that it could have been around in that archaic form as late as the Maccabeean hypothesis requires! [Meadw.ADGD, 278n; or another Skeptic, who resorts to suggestings a "knowledgeable forger"! - fish sticks, anyone?) Conclusion: Daniel was written in Imperial Aramaic, NOT a later Western Aramaic. Even Driver eventually withdrew his conclusions on this point and admitted that the Aramaic belonged to an earlier period (too bad the skeptics don't quote THAT in their rebuttals!).The matter of the Hebrew is a little more ambiguous. Archer says that a comparison can be done between second century Hebrew Prose of 1QS and 1QM (the two foremost documents of the Essenes of Qumran) with Daniel. The conclusion is that there are a very large number of examples of later Hebrew morphology, syntax, and vocabulary in 1QS and 1QM as contrasted with Daniel. (He shows this in an article "The Hebrew of Daniel" in The Law and the Prophets, edited by Skilton). At any rate, it is very hard for anyone to show that Hebrew is earlier or later. Thousands of years can go by in Hebrew and nothing really changes, so it is difficult for one side to say the Hebrew dates at such and such century. Some say, however, that this argument is irrelevant anyway, since there is evidence that the whole book was originally in Aramaic, and that the Hebrew is a later translation [Gold.Dan, xxv]. Why was this done? This may find an answer in our final question: Why does the book use two languages in the first place? Whitcomb [Whit.BD, 38] suggests:The question as to why not only the recorded words of the Chaldeans (ch. 2:4) but also the rest of the book of Daniel through Chapter 7 is also in Aramaic has not been fully resolved. The best suggestion seems to be that these chapters deal more with the Gentile world in relation to Israel and therefore would have a wider interest than Daniel 1 and 8-12, which deal more strictly with Jewish affairs. This theory does not explain everything but seems to have the fewest difficulties. Archer [Arch.SOT, 399] concurs:Those portions of Daniel's prophecy which deal generally with Gentile affairs (the four kingdoms of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, the humiliation of the king of in the episode of the fiery furnace and by his seven years of insanity, and also the experiences of Belshazzar and Darius the Mede) were put into a linguistic medium which all the public could appreciate whether Jew or Gentile. But those portions which were of particularly Jewish interest (chap. 1,8-12) were put into Hebrew in order that they might be understood by the Jews alone. This was peculiarly appropriate because of the command in chapter 12 to keep these later predictions more or less secret and seal them up until the time of fulfillment (12:9). That parts of Daniel were translated from Aramaic into Hebrew is supported by the linguistic evidence [Lacq.Dan, 13] - perhaps in order to keep the predictions under wraps, as Archer suggests. It should be noted that the fragments of Daniel found as Qumran have the portion that shows the transition from Hebrew to Aramaic in 2:4. Fragment IQDn-a. It should also be noted that one particular fragment was dated from Qumran a half century earlier than the purported date of the Maccabeean hypothesis. It has been modified to 100 to 50 B.C. [see Verm.JosDan, 149]An objection is offered by Callahan [Call.BPFF, 151], who observes that Ch. 8 (in his own opinion) is not of Jewish interest and thus would not meet the criteria set above. However, he is just plain wrong here: As Lacocque observes, in Chapter 8, "for the first time really, Israel moves into the foreground and therefore the use of the Hebrew is legitimate." [Lacq.Dan, 13] A simple analysis shows that over half of Ch. 8 deals directly with events related to Israel; one-quarter deals with Greece, one-eighth deals with Persia, and the rest is general transitional and narrative material. Moreover, Ch. 8 consists of very specific prophecies of the sort that Archer alludes to, that would need to be "sealed up" in case they fell into the wrong hands. Callahan simply fails to read clearly what is right in front of him.Finally, it may be added that Daniel uses a number of Assyro-Bablyonian words (about 20 of them). We would not expect to find these in a document written at the time of the Maccabees. [Bout., IABD, 265] All one is left to do is take the screed of Skeptic X that maybe Daniel's author "faked" early Aramaic! |
Early Birdies: Pre-Maccabean Indicators [The Personality of Nebuchadnezzar] [The Golden Image] [The Genre of Daniel 4] [Babylon's History] [Medo-Persian Law] [Punishment Forms/Josephus] [Writing on the Wall/List Genre] [Bureacracy/"Lord of Heaven"/Daniel's Friends/General Setting]
We now turn to some positive indications that the Book of Daniel was written early. Some critics, in an attempt to "save the theory" of a late date, admit these indicators but then attempt to divide Daniel into pieces and suggest those pieces of it with accurate historical material (generally Chs. 1-6) can be dated earlier than 167 BC. Many of the points they make end up arguing for the authenticity of Daniel. We will not deal with the issue of the unity of the book; that the book was a unity was generally accepted before, and now that the critics want to change their minds, charges of division have rather the smell of fish! However, we will look at a few of indications that the author of Daniel lived in the sixth century BC - for there are many things that it is unlikely a later author would have known.1A) Nebuchadnezzar's Threat (Dan. 2:5) Driver [Driv.BD, 20] says, "The violence and peremptoriness of the threatened punishment is in accordance with what might be expected at the hand of an Eastern despot; the Assyrians and Persians, especially, were notorious for the barbarity of their punishments." If the wise man were able to respond to their request, they were promised "gifts and rewards and great honor." The monarch would lavish them with expensive gifts and great honor.1B) Nebuchadnezzar's Building Activities. It is commonly agreed that Daniel correctly represents correctly Nebbie's building prowess - and his corresponding braggadocio. The East India House inscriptions in London has six columns of Babylonian writing bragging about building operations which Nebbie carried on in enlarging the beautifying Babylon. [see Bout.IABD, 65-77, 92-104; Lacq.Dan, 86]1C) Nebuchadnezzar's "tree dream" and humble origin. Nebbie was known to have been fascinated by the tall cedars of Lebanon; the dream recorded would have been appropriate to him in that respect (although it also bears resemblance to conceptions of a "world tree" in currency - Porte.Dan, 67). His reference to himself as the "lowest of men" accords with what we know of his humble background; inscriptions by his father Nabopolassar refer to himself as the "son of a nobody." [Bout.IABD, 89-90]The above are personal quirks of Nebbie that we would hardly expect any later writer to be so familiar with.2) The Golden Image. (Dan 3) Montgomery [Mont.Dan, 193-5] writes: "The Persians did not worship wood and stone with the Greeks, nor the ibis and ichneumon with the Egyptians. But after some ages they introduced human images."He also writes, "The Archaeological background of a colossal golden image is found in the classical authorities. Herodotus reports for the Babylon of his day (i. 183), 'a great golden statue of Zeus' in a temple. (Note that this does not indicate solid gold, but gold overlay. There is no basis for Skeptic X's complaint of impoverishing the temple with the gold statue of Daniel, no more so then for Herodotus' Zeus statue; if Daniel had wished to indicate a solid gold statue, he would have used kol, as in Zech. 4:2; note that the "bronze altar" is not solid bronze, but overlaid with bronze -- Ex. 27:2.)The statue incident itself may be connected with a revolt suffered by Nebbie between December 595 and January 594, put together as a means of testing the loyalty of his subjects, although this date would not correspond with the dates in Daniel. [Dyer.Dan3, 426n, 427; MillS.Dan, 112n] However, Shea [Shea.D3] connects the revolt with a Babylonian inscription a list of Nebbie's officials and vassals who were all installed at once -- Shea deduces, because they are names of close officials and vassal kings, that this fits hand in glove with the Daniel 3 account of an oath of loyalty being taken to Nebbie and his image by so many officials at once. The incident is therefore found in the Babylonian archives, though it is not recorded with the same perspective, that of a Jew most offended by an image, which would be nothing special to a pagan archivist.)3) The Literary Genre of Chapter 4. It is Epistle of a King to his People. The placing of the sender's name before that of the recipient is standard practice in neo- and late Babylonian letters, but also in Persian administrative correspondense. Other stylistic indications fit an earlier period: 1:2, 3:31, and 5:8. [Lacq.Dan, 70]4) The capture of Babylon without resistance. Herodotus (Hist. 1.191), Xenophon (Cyr. 7.5), and Cyrus' own account support Daniel in this, including the fact that the city was engaged in a riotous festival at the time of the capture. The Nabodinus Chronicle [Fewe.CSov, 145], as we have noted, records that Nabodinus brought all of the gods from the other cities into Babylon to reinforce the city's defenses - hence, the appropriateness of Belzy and Co. sitting around and praising the various gods! (Hartman and DiLella [DilHart.BDan, 191], as well as Porteous [Porte.Dan, 76] are critics who want to have their cake and eat it too: They dismiss the record of the festival in Dan, Herodotus, and Xeno as a legendary fabrication! It is their opinion that the records of the Nabodinus Chronicle and Cyrus Cylinder, which merely says that the city was taken without battle, contradicts these accounts! One is constrained to ask how this is so; it seems that some critics will go to ANY length before giving Daniel credibility!!!)5) The inviolability of the laws of the Medes and the Persians. This restriction on Darius the Mede is confirmed by data from Diodorus Siculus, who recounts a story of Darius III (335-31) - a Persian king who sentenced a man to death, but later (and before the execution) discovered that he was innocent. Nevertheless, the execution proceeded, because he could not undo what had been done by royal authority - even his OWN royal authority! (It is worth noting that Darius III's reaction was much like that of Darius the Mede's - distress and hand-wringing!) [contra Town.Dan, 82, who does not consider this evidence worthwhile, though for no given reason; and in agreement with Lacocque, who begrudgingly admits that such a restriction is "not impossible" in light of the story of Diodorus - Lacq.Dan, 113. It also finds support in the Book of Esther, 1:19 and 8:8.] In response Skeptic X notes an example cited by Collins from the report of Herodotus that a royal judge said of a case involving Cambyses marrying his sister, "the king of the Persians might do whatever he wishes," but it is far from clear that Cambyses is wanting to violate a law as opposed to a social taboo.6) The modes of punishment. The Persians would not have used the Babylonian furnace, because it would have been an offense to the Persian fire-god Atar. [Whit.DMede, 61; Gold.Dan, 70] Darius the Mede's rush to check on Daniel reflects well a Babylonian practice (which he might sensibly carry on for the sake of unity) that torture victims who survived to the next day would receive a full pardon. The Persians were known to capture lions and keep them in cages, and did indeed punish the wives and children of male offenders along with the offenders. [Lacq.Dan., 118]It is worth adding here an objection by Skeptic X:Nebuchadnezzar then "came near to the mouth of the burning, fiery furnace" (v:26) and called to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego: "You servants of the Most High God, come forth" (v:26). Never mind that the heat of the furnace was so intense that it had killed the men who threw Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego into the furnace. If the Bible says that Nebuchadnezzar went to the mouth of this intensely hot furnace, without being hurt, and told the men strolling about inside to come forth, we are supposed to believe that it happened. It's too bad X doesn't know more about ancient furnaces. A typical furnace had two openings: one at the top to throw the people in (and where heat and flames would shoot out), the other at the side and bottom where they threw in the wood. The top was dangerous like this, but the side door wasn't so bad, since heat rises. Nebbie could quite easily get to the door without a lot of trouble. X also adds a funny comment about how Nebbie "declared Yahweh to be the national god of the Babylonian empire," but does not explain how this works out. What Nebbie decreed does make sense if he is trying to appease the God of Israel, and feared divine retaliation, but it hardly accounts as a sincere conversion.7) The testimony of Josephus. The Jewish historian records that Alex T. Great was shown a copy of Daniel when he passed through the Jewish realm. [see Meadw.ADGD, 189; Luck.Dan, 10] He was mightily impressed by the prophecy which referred to him, and treated the Jews kindly - as evidenced both by Josephus and otherwise known histories of the period. Josephus also affirms the content of the book of Daniel as historical and authentic[Verm.JosDan]. (Of course, we realize that critics will do as Porteous [Porte.Dan, 47] does - dismiss Josephus' account as biased or inaccurate!)8) The appropriateness of the medium of "writing on the wall." This is in perfect accord with the Babylonian belief that "the decrees of the gods were written on the tablets of fate up in heaven." [Bout.IABD, 138] This was an ideal way to get a Babylonian monarch's attention - but how would a later writer know this?9) The origin of the "list" genre. The extensive use of lists in Chapter 3 reflects a genre used by the Babylonians. Relevant to Daniel, we find in Babylonian texts listings of government officials and musical instruments used in a literary fashion.[Coxo.LGN, 95-6]10) Portrayal of Persian bureaucracy. Aside from the "120 satraps" problem, it is admitted that Daniel admirably reflects the political workings of the Persian bureaucracy.[DilHart.BDan, 198]11) The use of the phrase, "Lord of heaven." This phrase used in reference to God (Dan. 2:18) would not have been considered appropriate during the Maccabeean era because of its associations with Zeus. [Gold.Dan, 47] There would have been no quicker way for Daniel to be trashed than to use this title in the middle of the Maccabeean revolt!12) Daniel's friends: FOUND! Miller [MillS.Dan, 108] reports that the names of Daniel's three friends seem to have been discovered in a contemporary listing of 50 Babylonian officials. The clearest reference is to Hananiah (Babylonian name: Shadrach), who is listed as Hananu, "chief of the royal merchants." Nearly equally clear is a reference to Abednego (Hebrew name: Azariah), who is listed as Ardi-Nabu, "secretary of the crown prince." The most tentative identification is with Mescach (Hebrew name: Mishel), who may be identified as Mushallim-Marduk, "overseer of the slave girls."A full report is found in Shea [Shea.D3, 46ff]. "Hananu" is the same as "Hananiah" other than that it does not contain the Yahwistic element, as we would expect Babylonian scribes to do. Shea adds that "Hanani" is a by-form of "Hananiah" in other Biblical and extra-biblical texts. "Abednego" to Ardi-Nabu is a corruption in the opposite direction of "Abed-Nebo/Abed-Nabu," servant of Nabu; it is a Babylonian name with the divine element corrupted, as we would expect from a Jewish writer! "Abed" in Hebrew and Aramaic means "servant" and corrsponds to the Babylonoian "ardu." Finally we expect the removal also of "Marduk" from Meschach's name; "Meschach" is derived from "Mushallim" by regarding the "-ach" as a shortening of Marduk, and realizing that "musallim" is a participial form of Mishel.13) The General Setting and Atmosphere. The tales did not correspond with a late date ot the reign of Antiochus. There is no hostility towards a foreign culture or a persecuting king. The learning of foreign languages, and joining the kings court, were unlikely to have been written in Palestine at the time of Antiochus.Pfeiffer admits in summary: "We shall presumably never know how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar (4:30), as the excavations have proved (see R. Koldewey, Excavations at Babylon 1915), and that Belshazzar mentioned only in Babylonian records, in Daniel, and in Bar. 1:11, which is based on Daniel, was functioning as king when Cyrus took Babylon in 538 (ch. 5)." |
Critical Dyspepsia Compounded: The Four Kingdoms As part of the late-date hypothesis, it is almost required that critics argue that the four kingdoms in Daniel represent a certain order. According to the Maccabeean theory, the four kingdoms are:- Kingdom #1= Babylonian
- Kingdom #2=Median
- Kingdom #3=Persian
- Kingdom #4=Greece
The key here is that the Medes and Persians are considered separate kingdoms. Historically, they were not separate. They were, in fact, unified. The Maccabeean theory holds that the writer of Daniel screwed up here and that he thought there were separate kingdoms. Most proponents of this view, like Callahan [Call.BPFF, 167] get their impetus from the Darius the Mede problem: It is said that Darius is represented as a king of an intermediate and independent Median empire. This view is also supported by certain OT scholars [Town.Dan, 36; Lacq.Dan, 51].However, is this what the writer of Daniel had in mind? Did the writer of Daniel think the Medes and Persians were separate empires? There's good reason to say no:- One must assume that the writer of Maccabeean writer of Daniel committed a historical error - one that would have been pretty obvious and extremely bad-smelling to his contemporaries! (viz. our "Darius the Mede" problem above.)
- In Daniel 5:28 the writer (regarding the "Writing on the Wall") records that "your kingdom has been divided and given over to the Medes and Persians." This directly indicates a dual monarchy. And Whitcomb [Whit.BD, 78] adds: "Even more important, the emphasis is clearly upon Persians rather than Medes, for the word PERES that appeared on the wall was identical to the word PARAS (the vowels did not appear), thus providing the double meaning of 'Persians' and 'divided.' " (It should be noted that the word for "divided" here does not imply that half goes to Media, half to Persia, as Skeptic X thinks; the word means "split up" and corresponds to the parsing out of the old Babylonian kingdom under Persian rule.) An interpretation adds to this argument. The indication of the entire wall message is similar to our saying, "a half dollar, a penny, and two bits." In light of the polemic against Belzy noted above, the references could be the same as saying, "Nebbie was worth a half dollar; you're just a penny, and an empire worth much more than you and having two components is up next"! [Town.Dan, 75] A side note worth adding here is the rather amusing comment from Skeptic X:
The historicity of this story is unlikely, because the inscription was written in Aramaic, the language that was spoken by Babylonians at this time. Belshazzar, being a Babylonian, would surely have been able to read the words, but according to the story he couldn't, because he sent for "the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and soothsayers" and said to them, "Whoever reads this writing and tells me its interpretation shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around his neck, and he shall be the third ruler in the kingdom" (v:7). His "wise men," however, could not "read the writing or make known to the king its interpretation" (v:8), so we are expected to believe that probably the best educated class of people in Babylon could not read a four-word inscription in their native language. That's a doubtful premise at best. We could accept the claim that they could not interpret the message intended by the words, but to say that they could not "read" the words is a bit too much to believe. The irony drips hard here! Belshazzar could read, but X can't. Belzy knew his Aramaic, but there's more to it. First, it was like putting on a wall now, STOP POTS HIT BLATHERSKEIT. You can "read" it, but what's it mean? But there's another consideration as well: Remember that we are still in an age before vowels in Aramaic and Hebrew! The inscription would read, without spaces and reading right to left, somewhat like this for our nonsense phrase above: TKSRHTLBTHSTPPTS. Can you read that? No, and likely neither could anyone else. Without vowels the ancients depended in part on contextual clues in order to read. Since MENE MENE TEKEL UPARSIN would have been a nonsense sentence even by itself, there were no contextual clues to follow and one could only guess at the vowels to try and make sense of the inscription. - In Daniel 6:8 the writer says "in accordance with the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed." This would not make any sense by saying the king would be bound by the laws of the Persians as well unless they were a composite empire. Remember, the Maccabeean theory asserts that the writer of Daniel says the Medes were conquered by the Persians. However, this would be quite strange for a Median King to say he was bound by the laws of not just the Medes, but the laws of the Persians. The conclusion is the writer of Daniel thought they were a united kingdom.
- Finally, note that references to the Medes and the Persians as joint rulers come BEFORE and AFTER reference to Darius the Mede. This being so, it is clear that Daniel has no illusions about an independent Median conquest, and the Maccabeean theory regarding the four kingdoms cannot be reconciled with the internal evidence of the book. This is contra Lacocque [Lacq.Dan, 51n], who dismisses all of this and insists that the "Darius the Mede" references are stronger than the multitude of references indicating a shared kingdom! But the references to Darius as "the Mede" are no indication of a Median kingdom. Medes were often placed in high offices in the Medo-Persian empire, and the reference to Darius as merely "the Mede" is within known practice: "Foreigners spoke regularly of the Medes and Persians; when they used the single term, it was 'the Mede.' " [Whit.DMede, 29] Well has Whitcomb remarked that, "The only place where such a (Median) kingdom has ever existed is in the mind of the critic." [ibid., 56] The following is a more accurate scheme representing the four kingdoms of Chapter 2, one that is supported not only the context of Daniel, but also certain historical clues:
- Kingdom #1=Babylonian Kingdom (gold head) - All parties agree on this identification; they could hardly do otherwise, since Daniel is quite explicit about it! Note that the Babylonian kingdom was closely associated with gold. Herodotus reported an abundance of gold in Babylon, including a great golden statue of Zeus. [Bout.IABD, 25-6; Town.Dan, 49]
- Kingdom #2=Medo-Persian Kingdom (silver chest and arms) - Here is where the disagreements begin, as we have noted. Again, Herodotus tells us some interesting information. We know that the Medo-Persian empire collected tribute in silver as a rule; even the one vassal state that paid gold (India) had its tribute reckoned in terms of the value of silver! [ibid., 27]
- Kingdom #3=Greece (brass thighs) - This is where the "metal corollaries" become interesting: The Persian kingdom, which late-daters must insist was what was intended here, had no connection whatsoever with bronze. The Greeks, however, were widely connected with that metal in the ancient world: They wore bronze armor, used bronze weapons, were known for the export of bronze (cf. Ezekiel's condemnation of Tyre, where "Javan" [Ionia, or Greece] is noted as an exporter of such) - their use of bronze was so well-known that the Greeks were referred to in a pagan prophetic oracle as "brazen men." (The Persians wore soft hats, tunics, and trousers in battle! OUCH!!!!) [ibid., 29; Ford.Dan, 98]
- Kingdom #4=Rome (iron and clay) - The Romans were the ones who slowly changed over from brazen weapons and armor to those made of iron. The iron sword and breastplate was standard for the Roman soldier. [ibid., 31]
So the "metal corollaries" completely dispel the idea that Greece could be the fourth kingdom. In addition, consider the symbolism in Chapter 7 dealing with the four empires.- #1 Lion = Babylon (All scholars agree with this)
- #2 The Bear devouring three ribs = The three major conquests of Medo-Persian empire: Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt. Note that the bear is favored on one side.
- #3 Leopard with four wings and four heads = Alexander's kingdom divided into four parts: Macedon, Asia Minor, the Seleucid empire, and Egypt. The symbolism does not support the Persian Empire. It did not divide into four parts. (Although Hartman and DiLella [DilHart.BDan, 213; see also Porte.Dan, 105] naively suggest that it represents that only four Persian kings listed in Ezra and Nehemiah! A 2nd-century Jew would KNOW that there had been more than four Persian kings!!)
- #4 The ten horned Beast = This equals Rome or a series of empires based on Rome (this would depend on various eschatological viewpoints which we will not got into here). There were certainly not 10 Greek empires or kings.
Consider also the symbolism in chapter 8 dealing specifically with the middle two empires.- Kingdom #2 = Two horned Ram (one horn is higher than the other). Persia overshadowed Media in Cyrus' empire. (Oddly, Towner [Town.Dan, 119] recognizes this, bit still doesn't "get it" - he still thinks that Daniel perceived an independent Median empire!) A golden rams' head diadem was held by the Persian king at the head of his troops, according to Ammianus Marcellinus [Lacq.Dan, 160], but this usage dates from the 4th century AD and may represent nothing conclusive [Luc.SDAI, 89]. The peculiar unevenness of the horns corresponds with the uneven stance of the bear in the previous vision. In this context, contrary to Skeptic X, it does not matter if the word "kings" refers back to the ram or to the horns -- there is no reason to emphasize the horns unless the dual nature of the kingdom is what is being stressed. It is also absurd to demand that Daniel should have referred to a "Medo-Persian" empire -- such linguistic constructions are a peculiarity of the modern English language and would not have been found in ancient works (nor would hybrid phrases like "Greco-Roman"). X's further quibble that Daniel does not state, as he does with the goat, that the ram represents a single entity is merely a pathetic attempt to preserve his arguments. The argument that the goat represents five kingdoms falls on the fact that the four horns sprout only after the original horn is broken. It is the burden of critics in this context to produce likelier interpretations, not merely lamely attempt to infuse doubt as does X's disciple Bruce Wildish, by claiming, without any justification, that the imagery is "not clear."
- Kingdom #3 = the He goat, who starts with one horn (Alexander the Great), but sprouts to four (the four parts), and then a little horn arises (Antiochus). The goat was an appropriate symbol for Greece; Macedonian coins used goat symbols from 500-146 BC, and Alex himself claimed descent from Jupiter Ammon, whose symbol was the goat [Ford.Dan, 185]. The speed of the goat in conquest corresponds with the leopard (an animal with speed) in the previous interpretation.
(Note: The little horn of chapter 8 cannot be the same as chapter 7. The little horn of chapter seven arises out of the ten horned kingdom. While the little horn of chapter 8 comes out of the four parted kingdom [Antiochus]. We will not discuss this in detail here.)In light of the above, the Maccabeean utterly interpretation fails - and we are left with the standard rumblings of Skeptic X, who first complains about the "vagueness" of the statue prophecy, classifying it as a "typically obscure biblical vision." However, had X done a little homework (or been less of a bigot!), he would have discovered that a four-kingdom metaphor, and a four-metal sequence, was in currency in both Persian and Greek sources, as early as the 8th century BC [Town.Dan, 36; Lacq.Dan, 48; Gold.Dan, 40], and from the 8th century onward, "the idea of four ages characterized by metals was current in the Eastern Mediterranean world." [Luc.O4E, 201] People of Nebbie's time would have been familiar with the motif and its general meaning - and we can be, too, if we just do a little studying! Nothing vague or obscure here, folks! (Of course, we now eagerly await X's NEXT theory, which is that Daniel was just stealing old pagan motifs! Sometimes you just can't win! In anticipation of that, let it be pointed out that Daniel's USAGE of the 4-metal motif as a symbol of four kingdoms was itself unique [ibid., 194-5; Bald.Dan, 97; Gold.Dan, 40].)Beyond that, X also asserts:Daniel's interpretation of the dream depicted the iron kingdom as one that would "crush and shatter all these [prior kingdoms]" but would itself become "a divided kingdom" (2:40-41) as symbolized by the feet that were part clay and part iron. In this sense, the Hellenistic Empire fits the description of the iron kingdom much more exactly than does the Roman Empire. Alexander the Great absorbed into his empire all of the territories in the Neo-Babylonian, Median, and Achaemenid (Persian) Empires, but the Roman Empire came nowhere close to doing so. The Hellenistic Empire reached as far east as China, but the Roman Empire, whose territory was more western, fell far short of crushing and shattering all sectors of its predecessor empires. Furthermore, the rapidity with which Alexander's empire fragmented into the kingdoms mentioned above fits the description of the brittle feet of iron and clay much better than the Roman Empire whose disintegration was much slower. X's attempt to make the iron/clay part of the statue equal Greece is fairly thin - almost as thin as Lacocque's attempt [Lacq.Dan, 52] to see in it allusions to Alexander's attempts at racial fusion or Jewish mixed marriages! Not only does X make no accounting of the material we have covered above, but even by itself his analysis fails because:- The ten toes of the statue are equitable with the ten horns in another vision later in Daniel - where clearly, Greece cannot be in mind, having already been alluded to.
- Geographic size of empire is not at issue; X has arbitrarily designated this as the criteria which makes the point. Likewise, he has imagined that the speed of the disintegration of Alex's empire is reflected in the iron and clay, but there is no indication that the iron and clay parts of the statue disintegrated any faster than the rest of the statue - the WHOLE statue got blasted at once! So what is the issue, if not geographic size? Ford has the best answer [Ford.Dan, 97]: Let us keep in mind that the recipient of the dream, Nebbie, is the person through whose eyes we should see the dream - and his Oriental, kingly mindset would see the upcoming kingdoms as inferior in terms of only one thing: Their degree of inner unity. As ruler of Babylon, Nebbie was an absolute despot - a situation he would call "golden." The Medo-Persian empire, with yes, a king, but also moderately independent satraps and sub-kings, would be inferior in his eyes - "silver." The Greeks had even more freedom, with their many kings and independent city-states; Nebbie would be even more disgusted, rating that system a "bronze." Finally, there was Rome with its republic - in Nebbie's eyes, the ultimate disgrace! What, power in the hands of the people??? Decision by means of election and popular votes??!!?? The concept of CITIZENSHIP????? The basest metal of all - iron. And thus do the four metals perfectly represent each empire - as well as their quality in the eyes of the recipient of the vision.
|
Conclusion The whole problem of the dating of Daniel really has nothing to do with evidence. The reason the Maccabeean theory was proposed was because of a prior philosophical belief that fulfilled prophecy can not happen. We are 100% certain no one would doubt the authenticity of Daniel if the prophetic aspects of Daniel were ignored - and if this were any OTHER book, without the prophecy, critics would date it early without any hesitation! (It is noted, for example, that other books found at Qumran have been dated earlier thanks to those finds - but not Daniel! - MillS.Dan, 38. That this is no more than a begged question and special pleading is exemplified by Maurice Casey's response [Son of Man, 11] that "There is nothing wrong with the suggestion that it was successful quickly" [!]. If a "fundamentalist" suggested this for the Gospels they would be hanged from a yardarm! There is also no parallel, as Skeptic X alleges, to Jeremiah and Isaiah being accepted in their own lifetimes; the Qumran people would not know a man named Daniel from the 600s BC as Jeremiah and Isaiah's contemporaries knew them! There is also no parallel, as Richard/Robert Packham thinks, with the Book of Mormon and other works -- the BoM was accepted as a "rebellion" to an established canon; unless similar evidence is shown for Daniel, Packham is merely blowing hot air and making an illicit comparison.)We can't ignore the prophecies, though: They are unified with the text as a whole and the text was written prior to the second century B.C. - by evidence, in the sixth. How was the writer of Daniel able to write down the future of some of the strongest empires the western world has known before they happened in such a precise manner? We leave this to the reader to decide. |
Sources - Arch.DEx - Archer, Gleason. "Daniel" The Expositors Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985.
- Arch.SOT - Archer, Gleason. A Survey of the Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.
- Bald.Dan - Baldwin, Joyce G. Daniel. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1978.
- Bout.IABD - Boutflower, Charles. In and Around the Book of Daniel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963.
- Call.BPFF - Callahan, Tim. Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment? Millennium Press, 1996.
- Coll.CPDMede - Colless, Brian E. "Cyrus the Persian as Darius the Mede in the Book of Daniel." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 56, 1992, pp. 113-26.
- Coxo.LGN - Coxon, Peter W. "The 'List' Genre and Narrative Style in the Court Tales of Daniel." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35, 1986, pp. 95-121.
- Driv.BD - Driver, S.R. The Book of Daniel. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1901.
- Driv.IOT - Driver, S. R. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: Charles Scribers Sons, 1956.
- Dyer.Dan3 - Dyer, Charles H. "The Musical Instruments in Daniel 3." Bibliotecha Sacra, Oct-Dec 1990, pp. 426-36.
- Fewe.CSov - Fewell, Dana Nolan. Circle of Soverignty: Plotting Politics in the Book of Daniel. Nashville: Abingdon, 1991.
- Ford.Dan - Ford, Desmond. Daniel. Nashville: Southern Publishing Association, 1978.
- Gold.Dan - Goldingay, John E. Daniel. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.
- Grab.DMede - Grabbe, Lester L. "Another Look at the Gestalt of 'Darius the Mede.' " Catholic Biblical Quarterly, April 1988, pp. 198-213.
- Hamn.Dan - Hamner, Raymond. The Book of Daniel. Cambridge Bible Commentary. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
- DilHart.BDan - Hartman, Louis and Alexander A. DiLella. The Book of Daniel. New York: Doubleday, 1978.
- Kat.McD - Katz, Bernard. "McDowell in the Critics' Den." The American Rationalist, July/August 1982.
- Koch.DanP - Koch, Klaus. "Is Daniel Among the Prophets?" Interpretation 39, 1985, pp. 117-30.
- Lacq.Dan - Lacocque, Andre. The Book of Daniel. Atlanta: John Knox, 1979.
- Luc.O4E - Lucas, Ernest. "The Origin of Daniel's Four Empires Scheme Re-examined." Tyndale Bulletin 40, 1989, pp. 185-202.
- Luc.SDAI - Lucas, Ernst. "The Source of Daniel's Animal Imagery." Tyndale Bulletin 41, November 1990, pp. 161-85.
- Luck.Dan - Luck, G. Coleman. Daniel. Chicago: Moody Press, 1958.
- Meadw.ADGD - Meadowcroft, T. J. Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison. Sheffield: JSOT, 1995.
- Mill.D16 - Millard, A. R. "Daniel 1-6 and History." Evangelical Quarterly 49, 1977, pp. 67-73.
- Mill.DBel - Millard, A. R. "Daniel and Belshazzar in History." Biblical Archaeological Review, May-June 1985, pp. 73-8.
- MillS.Dan - Miller, Stephen R. Daniel. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994.
- Mont.Dan - Montgomery, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, The International Critical Commentary. New York: Charles Scribers Sons, 1972.
- Porte.Dan - Porteous, Norman . Daniel: A Commentary. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965.
- Shea.DMedePB - Shea, William H. "Darius the Mede in his Persian-Babylonian Setting." Andrews University Seminary Studies 29, Autumn 1991, pp. 235-57.
- Shea.D3 - Shea, William H. "Daniel 3: Extra-Biblical Texts and th Convocation on the Plain of Dura." Andrews University Seminary Studies 20, Spring 1982, pp. 29-52.
- Town.Dan - Towner, W. Sibley. Daniel. Atlanta: John Knox, 1984.
- Verm.JosDan - Vermes, Geza. "Josephus' Treatment of the Book of Daniel." Journal of Jewish Studies, Autumn 1991, pp. 149-60.
- Walt.DDMede - Walton, John H. "The Decree of Darius the Mede in Daniel 6." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 31, September 1988, pp. 279-86.
- Whit.BD - Whitcomb, John C. Daniel. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.
- Whit.DMede - Whitcomb, John C. Darius the Mede: The Historical Chronology of Daniel. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1959.
- Will.JFK - Wills, Lawrence M. The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.
- Yama.DCon - Yamauchi, Edwin. "Daniel and Contacts between the Aegean and the Near East Before Alexander." Evangelical Quarterly, 1981, pp. 37-47.
|
|
