Well, Everette Hatcher is back with more of the same. As everyone can see, his latest attempt to defend the 6th-century B. C. authorship of Daniel uses essentially the same approach as his other articles. He confuses the mere listing of authors and their reasons for agreeing with him as proof that he and these authors are right about when Daniel was written, and the really bad news is that the article above is only a third of Hatcher's latest attempt to defend the 6th-century B. C. position. There will be even more of the same–twice as much–in the next two issues.
The following section from the article above is an example of Hatcher's quote-and-run approach to proving his position.
The critic D. R. G. Beattie holds the view that the author of Daniel erred in Daniel 1:1. Nevertheless, Beattie admits that this problem has a possible solution (D. R. G. Beattie, First Steps in Biblical Criticism, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1988, pp. 59-60). Most of my points come from Beattie's book. First, there were two calendars used back then (Beattie, p. 59). Daniel went by the Judean system, and Jehoiakim's third year was from Tishri (September-October) 606 B. C. to Tishri 605 B. C. Jeremiah employed the Babylonian Nisan system (spring to spring) in Jeremiah 25:1, and both systems used the accession year dating method. Therefore, according to the Babylonian system, the late spring or summer of 605 B. C. would have been the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign (Jere. 25:1), but it would have fallen in the 3rd year according to the Judean system (Dan. 1:1). Nebuchadnezzar led Babylon to victory over Egypt in May/June 605 B. C., approximately a couple of months before he took over as king. It was during this period that Nebuchadnezzar took Daniel captive.
We see then that Hatcher has given us nothing but more of the same. He cited a critic and then gave a how-it-could-have-been solution without even a semblance of data that would support the “possible” solution, which in this case was a solution that even Hatcher's critic didn't accept. Beattie had cited it apparently as just a possible way to reconcile the chronology of Daniel 1:1 with Jeremiah 25:1, but if, as Hatcher said, Beattie “holds the view that the author of Daniel erred in Daniel 1:1,” Hatcher's own source must have found this “possible” solution unconvincing. Why then should we accept it if the critic who suggested it didn't find it convincing enough to change his belief that the writer of Daniel had erred chronologically in 1:1?
This question underscores the major weakness in Hatcher's apologetic methods. He quotes and cites critics and authors who agree with his position, but he makes no attempt at all to show that the conclusions they reached were justified by the information they based them on. He presents “possible” solutions to discrepancies but makes no effort even to show that the possible solutions were at all likely. He seems to think that just pointing out that critic so-and-so thinks this-and-that should be sufficient to settle the matter, and, like almost all biblical inerrantists, he seems to think that the mere postulation of a possible solution makes it a correct solution. Apparently, it just doesn't occur to Hatcher that for every critic he can cite who thinks x, there are critics who think not-x, so obviously the mere citation of what critics think doesn't prove anything. Hatcher needs to present reasonable evidence that the positions taken by his critics in the dating of Daniel are correct, but he isn't doing that. He is just listing what his critics have said without even attempting to show the soundness of their claims.
Beattie's possible solution to the chronological discrepancy in Daniel 1:1, which solution he himself didn't accept, is dubious on the surface. It postulated that Daniel, a captive in Babylon who rose to prominence in the Babylonian government, used the Judean calendric system, but Jeremiah, a prophet who remained in Judea and did not go to Babylon with the captives, used the Babylonian calendric system. How likely was that? When inerrantists have to resort to this type of far-fetched speculation to make the Bible inerrant, is it any wonder that scholars like Beattie are not biblical inerrantists. Beattie, in fact, subscribes to the 2nd-century B. C. view of authorship.
Hatcher urged us to read Edwin Thiele's “excellent book,” The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. I already had some familiar with Thiele's dating theories, but in deference to Hatcher's request, I read again the parts where Thiele tried to resolve biblical dating contradictions and in particular his effort to resolve the dating problem in Daniel 1:1. In just one short article, I couldn't possibly review this entire book or even Thiele's theory in this matter. Hatcher needs to learn that he doesn't prove his case by just saying, “Read Thiele's excellent book.” If he thinks that Thiele made impressive arguments, he should state what they are and then give his own reasons for considering them conclusive in the matter at hand.
Basically, what Thiele did in the matter of dating inconsistencies was to postulate that writer X, who seemed to disagree with writer Y in a dating matter, was using the Judean system, whereas the other writer was using the Babylonian system or vice versa. Usually, this was done arbitrarily without giving data to support the claim, and so in the matter of Daniel 1:1, Thiele postulated Beattie's “possible” solution by declaring that Daniel, the Babylonian official allegedly living in Babylon, used the Judean system, whereas Jeremiah, the Judean prophet still living in Judea, used the Babylonian system. I find such speculations to be unimpressive, because any inerrantists can always postulate a how-it-could-have-been scenario. Real evidence would be much more impressive, but in the matter of the claim that Daniel was written in the 6th century B. C., proponents are always long on speculation and short on real evidence, because they really don't have any real evidence to offer in support of their position.
Biblicists speculate, for example, that Nebuchadnezzar could have taken Daniel and other Jews captive in 605 B. C., because Babylonian records indicate that he was in the Palestinian region that year. Nobody that I know disputes the records that indicate that he fought Egypt, and Syria, and invaded Philistia at this time, but there is no record that he attacked Jerusalem during these engagements Hatcher, however, needs such records to make his case. Daniel 1:1 does not say that Nebuchadnezzar was in the general region of Judea in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim; it says that he besieged Jerusalem that year, and the very Babylonian records that Thiele relied on to make his case dated Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem at a time now known to have been 597 B. C., which would have been the 11th and final year of Jehoiakim's reign and not the 3rd year as claimed in Daniel 1:1. Daniel 1:2-3 says that “the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into [Nebuchadnezzar's] hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God” and that “these [were] carried off to the temple of [Nebuchadnezzar's] god in Babylonia and put in the treasure house of his god.” All of this presumably happened in the “third year” of Jehoiakim, but 2 Chronicles 36:5-10 claims that when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, he took Jehoiakim captive to Jerusalem and made Jehoiachin a vassal king, who reigned for just three months and 10 days (v:10), after which he was taken captive to Babylon and replaced by his brother Zedekiah. The account of all this as recorded in 2 Kings 24 states that it happened in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar (v:12). If Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in 605 B. C. and if he besieged Jerusalem in his 8th year, that would date the siege of Jerusalem in 597 B. C., a date that is corroborated by the Babylonian Chronicle. Jehoiakim reigned for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36; 2 Chron. 36:5) from 608-597 B. C., so if Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem in 597 B. C. ended Jehoiakim's reign, it could hardly have been true that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim's reign as claimed in Daniel 1:1.
Hatcher. like other inerrantists, may try to quibble that the siege of Daniel 1:1 was a different siege from the one recorded in 2 Kings 24 and 2 Chronicles 36, but that will be hard to reconcile with Daniel 1:2-4, which states that Nebuchadnezzar took vessels from “the house of God” (temple) and that the captives taken to Babylon after that siege were “Israelites from the royal family and the nobility.” The account of the siege that occurred in Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year states that this was when treasures and vessels from the house of Yahweh were “carried away from Jerusalem” (2 Kings 24:13-14) and that this was also when the royal family and princes of Judea were taken captive to Babylon (2 Kings 24:12-16). In a word, both biblical and Babylonian history point to the siege of 597 B. C., the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar and the last year of Jehoiakim, as the time when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem and took its religious treasures and royalty and princes to Babylon.
There are no records to corroborate Thiele's theory that all of this happened in 605 B. C., in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar and the third year of Jehoiakim, so Hatcher can't just arbitrarily declare that because Nebuchadnezzar was fighting in the general region of Judea in 605 B. C., "it was during this period that Nebuchadnezzar took Daniel captive." If this was when Nebuchadnezzar took Daniel captive, where is the evidence to support that claim? Mere speculation just won't do, and that appears to be all that Hatcher has.
Hatcher can resolve dating conflicts between Daniel and other biblical accounts only by speculating that Daniel, an important government official in Babylon, had used the Judean calendar, whereas Jeremiah, a Judean prophet living in Jerusalem had used the Babylonian calendar. Is it really necessary to say anything else about this point? Hatcher is just another inerrantist who has to resort to constant speculative scenarios in order to defend his belief in biblical inerrancy. He often sends me photocopies of pages from books that argue the 6th-century B. C. view and sometimes copies of letters he has received from authors he has written to. His latest submission of such materials included a letter from Anson F. Rainey, the critic he mentioned above who “roundly rebuked scholars” for not accepting Thiele's chronology. A curious thing about this letter is a comment that Rainey made close to the end: “As for the book of Daniel, I was the wrong person to ask. Certainly there is nothing in archaeology to support the early date or the historicity of Daniel himself.” I don't quite understand why Hatcher expects us to be swayed by the theories of scholars who are at least honest enough to admit that archaeological support is not on their side. After all, in the matter at hand, records needed to support Hatcher's view would have to come from archaeological sources, and one of Hatcher's own scholars says that they don't have that support.
Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Great the same person: As I continue through Hatcher's latest defense of his 6th-century view of authorship, I hope readers will notice that speculative scenarios are his stock in trade. This was most evident in his attempt to breathe life into the far-fetched theory that Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Great were just different names for the same person. Hatcher said that Daniel 6:28 “indicates that ‘Darius the Mede’ and Cyrus reigned at the same time,” but this verse says only that “Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” I fail to see why this verse would indicate that the writer meant for his readers to understand that Darius and Cyrus reigned at the same time and were therefore the same person. If I should say that John Doe prospered during the administrations of George Bush and Bill Clinton, would this “indicate” that Bush and Clinton were president at the same time and were the same person? Anyone hearing this would understand me to mean that Doe enjoyed prosperity during the presidency of Bush and then during the presidency of Clinton, which followed Bush's. The most reasonable interpretation of what the writer meant in Daniel 6:28 is that two different kings reigned during Daniel's period of prosperity, and Hatcher sees in this verse an indication that the writer wanted readers to understand that Darius the Mede and Cyrus reigned “at the same time” only because Hatcher desperately needs to make these two the same person so that he can find “Darius the Mede,” whose absence from 6th-century B. C. records is an embarrassment to the biblical inerrancy position .
Hatcher presented two arguments for his theory (borrowed from Dr. Brian Colless) that Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Great were the same person: (1) The book of Daniel has many cases of “double identify.” (2) The Hebrew prefix waw that usually meant “and” could have meant “even” in Daniel 6:28. Textual evidence will show that these supporting arguments are tenuous at best.
Double Identity: It is true that some characters in Daniel had two different names, but, unfortunately for Hatcher's quibble, the writer was always clear in communicating these cases of double identity. Daniel's three friends were first mentioned in the book by their Jewish names: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. They were each given a Babylonian name, and the text made very clear who was who when the names were changed.
Among them[those chosen from the royal seed of Israel to be specially educated] were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, from the tribe of Judah. The palace master gave them other names: Daniel he called Belteshazzar, Hananiah he called Shadrach, Mishael he called Meshach, and Azariah he called Abednego (Daniel 1:6-7).
This simple direct statement at the beginning of the book enables readers to know that when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were afterwards mentioned, the writer was referring to Daniel's three friends, and likewise subsequent references to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah would be understood to mean Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
Notice also that the passage quoted above clearly stated that Daniel's Jewish name was also changed, to Belteshazzar. Thereafter, when Belteshazzar was used in reference to Daniel, the writer went out of his way to specify that Belteshazzar was the same person as Daniel.
Daniel 2:26 The king [Nebuchadnezzar] said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, “Are you able to tell me the dream that I have seen and its interpretation?”
Daniel 4:8-9 At last Daniel came in before me–he who was named Belteshazzar after the name of my god, and who is endowed with a spirit of the holy gods–and I told him the dream: “O Belteshazzar, chief of the magicians, I [Nebuchadnezzar] know that you are endowed with a spirit of the holy gods and that no mystery is too difficult for you. Hear the dream that I saw; tell me its interpretation.” Daniel 4:19 Then Daniel, who was called Belteshazzar, was severely distressed for a while. His thoughts terrified him. The king said, “Belteshazzar, do not let the dream or the interpretation terrify you.” Belteshazzar answered, “My lord, may the dream be for those who hate you, and its interpretation for your enemies!”
Daniel 5:11-12 “There is a man in your [Belshazzar's] kingdom who is endowed with a spirit of the holy gods. In the days of your father he was found to have enlightenment, understanding, and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods. Your father, King Nebuchadnezzar, made him chief of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and diviners, because an excellent spirit, knowledge, and understanding to interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve problems were found in this Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now let Daniel be called, and he will give the interpretation.”
Daniel 10:1 In the third year of King Cyrus of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshazzar. The word was true, and it concerned a great conflict. He understood the word, having received understanding in the vision.
I have quoted from every passage in Daniel where the name Belteshazzar was used, and the contexts of all of these passages are clear in identifying Daniel and Belteshazzar as the same person. Needless to say, as we will later notice once again, this was not the case with Darius the Mede and Cyrus. Not once did the writer ever refer to Darius the Mede as he who was also called Cyrus or to Cyrus as he who was also called Darius the Mede. That always seems to be the plight that Hatcher finds himself in, i. e., long on possibilities and could-have-beens but short on hard evidence to support them.
Hatcher cited as examples of “double identity” the different symbols that were used in Daniel's visions in reference to Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Alexander the Great, but this is hardly parallel to straight narrative passages where the writer consistently took the time to identify Daniel and his three friends by both their Jewish and their Babylonian names. Biblical apocalyptic prophecies were highly symbolic, undoubtedly for the purpose of sometimes concealing identities, but there was nothing at all symbolic about the narrative passages that I quoted above where the name Belteshazzar was consistently identified as a reference to Daniel. The fact that the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel sometimes referred to Antiochus and Alexander with different symbols can hardly be equated with the use of both Jewish and Babylonian names in reference to Daniel and his friends, and certainly it doesn't show that the writer meant for his readers to understand that Darius the Mede and Cyrus were the same person. I have every right to ask Hatcher to explain to us why the writer of Daniel was so vague about this if they were indeed the same person. Why didn't he just state plainly that Darius the Mede was Cyrus, as he did in the case of the double names for Daniel and friends? As I said above, Hatcher needs to find a passage in Daniel that says something like, “Darius the Mede, who was Cyrus the Persian, received the kingdom,” but he can't find any such statement, because it simply doesn't exist.
The “Explicative And”: In the absence of any clear textual evidence to support the rather bizarre claim that Darius the Mede and Cyrus were the same person, Hatcher and cohorts have had to resort to the usual inerrantist ploy–speculation. They have speculated that the writer used an “explicative and,” when he said that Daniel “prospered during the reign of Cyrus the Persian” (6:28). Hatcher made no attempt to explain what Colless meant by “explicative and,” but this theory supposes that the Hebrew letter waw, which was prefixed to words in a conjunctive sense to convey the idea of “and” didn't always introduce another person or item in a list or series but was used in an “explicative” sense, or, in other words, to explain or clarify a word or term that had been used before the conjunctive waw. Hence, they see Daniel 6:28 as meaning that Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even (or namely or that is) Cyrus the Persian, so just like that they make Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian different names for the same person. This ploy is reminiscent of their claim that Daniel didn't state directly that Babylon was conquered by a “Medo-Persian” empire, but he implied such by a pun in 5:25 where he used the word peres to interpret the handwriting on the wall. Their argument is that although the word peres meant “divided,” it was actually a pun that suggested the name Persian and thereby revealed that Daniel knew the “division of Babylon would be done by the Persian armies ” (TSR, March/April 1999, p. 5). Why biblicists would want to find in this passage an Aramaic pun that suggested Persia when a pun that suggested Media would have better served their purpose is beyond me; nevertheless, this is the type of argumentation that we have repeatedly seen them resort to. To believe their “evidence,” one would have to think that an omniscient, omnipotent deity was incapable of inspiring writers to communicate directly but instead had guided them to pun and write vaguely when conveying important information. This inspiring deity didn't guide Daniel to be clear and direct in identifying Darius and Cyrus as one and the same person–as he was in communicating his own double identity–but instead had him reveal Cyrus's two names by a dubious “explicative and.” Strange indeed! It is true that the explicative device that Colless spoke about was common in Hebrew, but the device made use of (1) a different word, ’êth rather than waw, or (2) a technique parallel to the appositive in English. The use of ’êth as an explicative device occurred too often in the Old Testament to list them all, but Judges 3:9 will illustrate how it worked: “Yahweh raised up a deliverer to the children of Israel, who delivered them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother.” In other words, the “deliverer” and Othniel were one and the same person. Here are just a few other passages where explicative ’êth occurred.
Ezekiel 4:1 Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and portray upon it the city, even Jerusalem.
Jeremiah 7:15 And I will cast you out of my sight, as I have cast out all your brethren, even the whole seed of Ephraim.
Ezekiel 36:12 Yea, I will cause men to walk upon you, even my people Israel....
Zechariah 12:6 Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.
There are many other examples that I could have quoted, but these are sufficient to show how the explicative ’êth functioned in Hebrew. In the first example, ’êth identified “the city” and Jerusalem as one and the same. In the second, "brethren" and “the whole seed of Ephraim” were also the same, and so on.
I quoted these passages from the KJV, because most modern versions leave the word ’êth untranslated and use the equivalent of the English appositive to express the meaning. An appositive occurs in English when a word or phrase renames something that has already been mentioned in the sentence. If I should say, “I have discussed this problem with Sam Jones, the chief of police,” I would be identifying Jones as the chief of police; thus, the phrase “chief of police” is an appositive that renamed someone who had already been mentioned.
Modern translations that leave ’êth untranslated retain the meaning of the original, because Hebrew itself used a device parallel to the English appositive. In the KJV, for example, Exodus 3:1 says, “(H)e [Moses] led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb, ” but the explicative ’êth is not in the Hebrew text. The NRSV and other modern translations render it as a simple appositive statement: “(H)e led his flock beyond the wilderness, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.” Either translation captures the meaning of the original, because the writer's intention was obviously to convey that Horeb and “the mountain of God” were the same place.
There are many other examples I could quote to show that Hebrew made use of the appositive to rename something previously mentioned, but I assume that Hatcher will not deny that this was a frequently used clarification device in Hebrew.
If the author of Daniel had indeed wanted to convey that Darius the Mede was Cyrus the Persian without directly stating it, there were two linguistic devices he could have used, either one of which would have communicated that Darius and Cyrus were the same person. He could have written, “Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, even [’êth] the reign of Cyrus the Persian,” or he could have written, “Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” In fact, he did neither. He wrote instead, “Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius waw the reign of Cyrus the Persian,” so the only question remaining is whether it is reasonable to translate waw as “even” or “namely” or “that is” rather than just a simple conjunctive “and.”
This is one of the few points that Hatcher actually tried to defend in his articles. We will see that his defense was at times almost comical, but first I must point out that the one biblical example (1 Chronicles 5:26) on which Hatcher has based most of his case for the “explicative waw” in Daniel 6:28 has been an exercise somewhat like comparing apples to oranges, because Daniel 6:28 is in that part of the book of Daniel that was written in Aramaic, whereas 1 Chronicles was written in Hebrew.
I have never studied Aramaic, but reference books say that it was a Semitic language that was similar to, although different from, Hebrew. How different is a matter that would seem relevant to Hatcher's effort to make Darius and Cyrus the same person on the grounds of what was said in a text that was originally written in Aramaic. Even if Hatcher can find a case in Hebrew, as he claims he has found in 1 Chronicles 5:26, where waw was used as an “explicative and,” I fail to see how this would prove that the Aramaic word for and in Daniel 6:28 was also used explicatively. Hatcher cited no such Aramaic example. The best he could do was wag in another critic, who thinks that a Ugaritic text–which would be yet a different Semitic language–contained an example where the expression “athirat and ilat” was used explicatively to meant that “athirat” was “ilat” and vice versa. Such argumentation as this would be somewhat like arguing that because a grammatical oddity occurs in Catalan, the same must also occur in Italian, since they are both Romance languages derived from Latin. Linguistics, however, just doesn't work that way. What is grammatically true in one language may not be true in another language, even though they may both have a common origin. It may be true that Tiglath-Pileser and Pul were two names used by the same person and that in this one case waw was used explicatively in 1 Chronicles 5:26, but that is certainly flimsy evidence on which to base the argument that the writer of Daniel meant in 6:28 that Darius and Cyrus were the same person. To make a case, Hatcher needs to find examples in Aramaic that show this was an explicative device used commonly enough to support his case, and he hasn't done that. Furthermore, he seems unable even to find in Hebrew any example beyond the questionable one in 1 Chronicles 5:26.
His failure to produce sufficient examples even in Hebrew to support his case was where his line of reasoning became downright comical. This is what he said when challenged to find English translations that would support his position.
I doubt seriously that there are any translations that don't at least once translate the waw conjunction as “even” somewhere in the Bible. Before archaeological studies confirmed that Tiglathpileser and Pul were the same individuals, the KJV translated waw as “and” in 1 Chronicles 5:26. However, the discovery was made and translations began to change. (Check out these translations: New Jerusalem, New Revised Standard Version, New International and New Living Translation. In fact, the New Living translates waw into “also known as.”) The same will happen to Daniel 6:28 if archaeology uncovers evidence that links Cyrus to the nickname “Darius the Mede.” Until then, all we have is a good, working hypothesis, and some modern scholars have noted this as a possibility....
Hatcher can't just “doubt seriously that there are any translations that don't at least once translate the waw conjunction as ‘even’ somewhere in the Bible.” To make even a halfway credible case, he will have to show us that waw was so translated often enough in English versions to justify his claim that it probably meant “even” in Daniel 6:28. One controversial example in 1 Chronicles hardly constitutes compelling evidence, especially when it is clear (as I showed earlier) that the writer of Daniel was always careful to identify characters in this book who were known by two different names.
In the matter of 1 Chronicles 5:26, there is controversy over whether “Pul” was a name or a title like pharaoh. If the latter, then “Pul king of Assyria” in the verse Hatcher is so excited about would have been parallel to the times when the writer of Exodus referred to “Pharaoh king of Egypt” (Ex. 6:11, 13, 27, 29), which was somewhat like saying “king king of Egypt.” If this was what the chronicler meant to say about “Pul,” then such biblical redundancy would not have been without precedent. In this case, the chronicler apparently knew what the name of “Pul [king] king of Assyria” was, so he would have simply been stating a title and then identifying the title with a specific name (Tiglath-pileser), which he attached to the title with a “conjunctive waw.” I am not at all claiming that this was the Chronicler's intention, but if Hatcher wants to talk about “working hypotheses,” here is one that he should at least consider before he declares definitively that the waw in Daniel 6:28 meant that Darius and Cyrus were names of the same person. He just doesn't have anything close to enough evidence to make a credible case for that position.
It was at this point that Hatcher resorted to the ludicrous. He said that when evidence was discovered that Tiglath-pileser and Pul were different names of the same person, English translations began to reflect this by rendering waw as “even” or “that is” or “also known as,” so he concluded that “(t)he same will happen to Daniel 6:28 if archaeology uncovers evidence that links Cyrus to the nickname ‘Darius the Mede.’” Well, that would go without saying, wouldn't it? Certainly, if archaeology discovers proof that Darius and Cyrus were different names of the same person, we would expect to see changes in the English translation of Daniel 6:28, but Hatcher needs to wait until such evidence is found and then talk about it. As it is, he is simply engaging in a type of question-begging that assumes that what he wants to be true is true. He is arguing like a Mormon, who admits that there is no archaeological evidence to support the existence of the pre-Columbian nations described in the Book of Mormon but believes that one day such evidence will be found.
Hatcher said that the writer of Daniel “must have known that Cyrus was the conquerer of Babylon,” because this was mentioned by Isaiah and recorded by Herodotus, Xenophon, and Berossos. What was Hatcher's proof that the author of Daniel had any familiarity with Herodotus, Xenophon, and Berossos? He cited none. He just listed Colless as his source of this claim, but if Colless knows of any reasons why we should think that the author of Daniel was familiar with the writings of these historians, Hatcher should have stated what they are. The point itself is ludicrous, because Hatcher is arguing that Daniel was written by a 6th-century B. C. Babylonian official, but Herodotus was a 5th-century B. C. Greek historian, and the other two came even later. Xenophon wrote in the 4th century B. C., and Berossos was a 3rd-century B. C. priest of Bel in Babylon, who wrote three books in Greek on the history and culture of Babylonia, so it is nonsensical to argue that a 6th-century B. C. author had to know that Cyrus captured Babylon because historians who lived and wrote 100 to 300 years later knew who had conquered Babylon. If the author of Daniel was familiar with the works of these authors, then he couldn't have been a person who lived in the 6th century B. C. That's so obvious that even Hatcher should be able to see it.
All that Hatcher has done by his references to what 5th-, 4th-, and 3rd-century B. C. historians knew about the conquest of Babylon is create more problems for himself, because now he needs to explain why basic historical events about 6th-century Babylon were known to writers in succeeding centuries but for some reason were not known to an author living at the actual time and place where those events happened. Herodotus did indeed state that Cyrus conquered Babylon, so if the author of Daniel was in Babylon at the time of this event, why did he say that “Darius the Mede received the kingdom” (Dan. 5:31)? This is a problem that Hatcher has so far failed to resolve. He has offered a lot of speculation but no solid evidence.
As for Isaiah's awareness that Cyrus was the conquerer of Babylon, the book of Isaiah doesn't say that Cyrus conquered Babylon. The reference that Hatcher probably had in mind was Isaiah 44:24 to 45:1.
Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am Yahweh, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who by myself spread out the earth; who frustrates the omens of liars, and makes fools of diviners; who turns back the wise, and makes their knowledge foolish; who confirms the word of his servant, and fulfills the prediction of his messengers; who says of Jerusalem, “It shall be inhabited,” and of the cities of Judah, “They shall be rebuilt, and I will raise up their ruins”; who says to the deep, “Be dry–I will dry up your rivers”; who says of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd, and he shall carry out all my purpose”; and who says of Jerusalem, “It shall be rebuilt,” and of the temple, “Your foundation shall be laid.” Thus says Yahweh to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him and strip kings of their robes, to open doors before him– and the gates shall not be closed.
Nothing at all is said in this passage or anywhere else in the book of Isaiah about Cyrus's conquest of Babylon, but that isn't the only problem with Hatcher's theory, borrowed from Colless, that the writer of Daniel must have known that Cyrus conquered Babylon because Isaiah mentioned this. Isaiah was an 8th-century B. C. prophet, who began his prophetic ministry in the year that king Uzziah died (6:1), which would have been about 740 B. C., and extended it into the reign of king Hezekiah (1:1), who died about 687 B. C., so how could Isaiah have known anything at all about Cyrus, a Persian king who conquered Babylon over a hundred years later? Hatcher may be one of those inerrantists who will say, “Well, he knew it by divine inspiration,” but this very passage is one of the reasons why most higher critics see the book of Isaiah as a “committee work,” which was written by more than one writer over a period that spanned centuries. The part that referred to Cyrus was undoubtedly written after the conquest of Babylon. To cite this anachronistic reference to Cyrus as evidence that the writer of Daniel had to know that Cyrus conquered Babylon is just another act of desperation on Hatcher's part.
The same is true for all of his other attempts to prove that the writer of Daniel had to know certain things because of what was said in Ezra or Nehemiah or 1 Chronicles or any other Old Testament book. The Jewish scriptures in bound volumes just didn't exist in either the 6th or the 2nd century B. C., so we have no way of knowing what the writer of Daniel may have known about these scriptures beyond the fact that he claimed to be familiar with the writings of Jeremiah (9:2). Some critics have dated the Chronicles as late as 160 B. C. The genealogy of David in 1 Chronicles 3:10-24 listed Zerubbabel (v:19), who was among the captives who returned to Jerusalem after Cyrus's decree (Ezra 2:2), and then continued to list 10 generations in Zerubbabel's genealogy. Obviously, most of these generations were births that occurred well after the captivity and could not have been known to a person living in the 6th century B. C., so for Hatcher to argue anything about what his 6th-century B. C. Jewish captive may have known on the grounds of what the Chronicle writer may have known centuries later is another grasping for just any straw to twist into evidence to support his view of early authorship.
The desperation continued when he, in effect, argued that Darius the Mede and Cyrus were the same person because the writer clearly presented Darius as a king. Under his subtitle “Did ‘Darius the Mede’ Actually Exist?” Hatcher made this remarkable point.
Daniel's “Darius the Mede” has apparently stolen many of the imperial roles that belong to Cyrus. Darius took over Babylon when he was 62 years old in 539 B.C. (Dan. 5:31), and he organized the new empires (Dan. 6:1). He issued decrees that applied to the whole kingdom (Dan. 6:9, 26) and administered “the laws of the Medes and Persians” (Dan. 6:8, 12). However, Cyrus was only mentioned in passing (Dan. 1:21; 6:28; 10:1; Colless, pp., 115-116).
I'm tempted to answer this the way my granddaughter would and just say, “Well, duh!” Of course, Darius the Mede “stole” many of the roles that belonged to Cyrus, because the clear intention of the writer was to convey that Babylon was conquered by “Darius the Mede,” who then reigned as king before Cyrus. What we want Hatcher to do is explain why an important Babylonian official, living right in the thick of all of these events, could have been so uninformed about contemporary events, but so far Hatcher hasn't been able to resolve this problem with any solid evidence. He has offered a lot of speculation and could-have-beens but no real evidence.
Did the writer of Daniel “picture” an intermediate Median Empire? In my past responses to Hatcher, which he has largely ignored, I have cited and discussed reasons why a correct interpretation of Daniel will lead to the conclusion that the writer saw Media and Persia as separate empires. The most compelling evidence is in Daniel's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream about the great image that was made of different metals. Daniel clearly stated that each metal represented a different kingdom. The head of gold was the Babylonian empire (4:38), and the fourth empire (the legs of iron) is so universally recognized to be Alexander's empire that it is pointless to discuss it here, especially since my earlier replies to Hatcher have stressed this point. This left two other kingdoms, which were represented in the great image by the silver and bronze parts of the statue. In his interpretation, Daniel made it clear that these metals represented a second and a third empire, which would follow Nebuchadnezzar's.
After you [Nebuchadnezzar] shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over the whole earth (2:39).
That is about as clear as Hatcher could want. The statue represented four kingdoms, Nebuchadnezzar was the first, and after him there would arise another kingdom and then a third one, so if Alexander's kingdom was the fourth kingdom of iron and if either the silver or the bronze represented a combined “Medo-Persian” empire, just what was the other kingdom in this dream? I've presented this problem to Hatcher, and he hasn't yet addressed it.
In the next issue, I will be publishing a reply to Hatcher
that Bruce Wildish has submitted. Since he addressed the “Medo-Persian”
point and several others quite convincingly, I am not going to say
anything else about this now. For one thing, I'm out of space. I have
yet to reply to Hatcher's latest evasion of the obvious fact that the
writer of Daniel thought that Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar's father. I
will address this matter again in the next issue and then in
March/April continue Hatcher's latest defense and my replies to it.
