I have no training in any of the languages used in Daniel. However, I do have the ability to read and reason. Also I have taken the advice given to me by some of my opponents, and they have advised me to examine the linguistic arguments from various scholars. In 1995 when I debated the skeptic Bruce Wildish, he suggested I read works by the critics Philip R. Davies and John J. Collins. I read and studied the complete book on Daniel by Davies (133 pages) and the entire introduction of Collins’ commentary (123 pages). (By the way, I regard Collins’ commentary on Daniel as the standard to judge all other critical commentaries by.) Later I read and studied the complete commentaries by critics such as Louis Hartman, Alexander DiLella, and Arthur Jeffery. I have also taken the time to read the linguistic arguments from some of the other top critical scholars. Here are a few of their names: Robert Pfeiffer, John Goldingay, John J. Owens, Raymond Hammer, Norman Porteous, Otto Eissfeldt, Paul Redditt, and Andre Lacocque.
All these linguistic arguments have been answered to my satisfaction by the conservative scholars that I have studied. For instance, it was very easy for me to refute your assertion that the linguistic style of the Aramaic section of Daniel is "evidence that the book was written at the extreme end of the Old Testament period (no sooner than the second century)" (The Skeptical Review, Vol. 4.3, p.13). I did this by giving you linguistic evidence that I read in both conservative and critical commentaries. In the March/April 1999 issue of The Skeptical Review, I noted, "I am not an archaeologist or a linguist, but that doesn't stop me from discussing archaeology or linguistics" (p. 6). In that same issue, you said that you "have no views of the Aramaic in Daniel. I have never studied Aramaic, so how could I have a view that the Aramaic in Daniel dated from the Maccabean period? I have absolutely no qualifications at all to make such a statement, and so I have never made any such claim" (p. 9).
I disagree with your logic. You have discussed archaeology a lot in your past articles, but you are not an archaeologist. Why can't you read the works of other scholars and come to a reasonable conclusion yourself on this subject of the Aramaic?
Dr. Stephen Miller is a friend of mine, and he is a scholar that has written on these issues. He has proofed my papers and given me some valuable suggestions. Recently he pointed out to me that the credentials of the scholars I quote should be noted. You have asked me about my credentials concerning Hebrew and Aramaic, but the scholars (Gleason Archer and William Shea) I used to refute your claim concerning the Aramaic of Daniel have very impressive credentials in these areas.
The linguistic evidence in Daniel does not back up the assertions made by you and other critics in The Skeptical Review concerning the date of the Book of Daniel. I think your best defense is to retreat to one of your earlier arguments: The author of Daniel sat down in 164 BC and copied the writing style of 6th-century Babylon. Stranger things have happened before.
Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I have learned much from it, and I hope your readers have found it helpful too.
(Everette Hatcher III, P. O. Box 23416, Little Rock, AR 72221; e-mail everetteiii@aristotle.net)
Editor's Note: Because Hatcher referred to a previous debate with Bruce Wildish on the "linguistic evidence" in Daniel, I sent his letter to Wildish and asked for his comments. His letter is below.
Wildish's Reply to Hatcher...
It is interesting that Everette says: "I read and studied the complete book on Daniel by Davies (133 pages) and the entire introduction of Collins’ commentary (123 pages). (By the way, I regard Collins' commentary on Daniel as the standard to judge all other critical commentaries by.)"
It is strange that Hatcher should acknowledge Collins’ commentary as the standard by which all others should be judged (he is right on that point; it is easily the best and most comprehensive work on the subject, and Collins is arguably the leading scholar in the field), then at the same time completely disregard what Collins wrote in that work on this very topic, and defer instead to the position of conservative writers whose views are not shared by critical scholars.
Regarding the Aramaic of Daniel, Collins provides a thorough summary of the history of thinking on this issue and points out that the state of evidence now rules out any date prior to the fourth century BCE. For a long time, it was thought that the Aramaic of Daniel was simply one example of what was called "Official Aramaic"; this kind of Aramaic was originally thought to date to the Babylonian period, but later studies showed that it wasn't so time specific and in fact was common in both administrative and nonadminstrative contexts from, give or take, about 700 BCE to 200 BCE. Therefore, the Aramaic of Daniel could fall anywhere into that range. But with the publication of 1) The Arsames Correspondence, 2) the Hermopolis Letters (5th century BCE Egypt), and 3) the Samaria Papyri (4th century BCE Samaria), it became obvious that these represented an earlier form of Aramaic than that found in Daniel. Collins sums up the situation by saying that the Aramaic of Daniel postdates the Samaria papyri but does not yet show some of the advancements seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and as such the balance of probability favors a date in the early Hellenistic period for the Aramaic of Daniel (Collins, Daniel, Hermennia Commentary, p. 17). This is the view of most scholars today.
The situation is even more conclusive with regard to the Hebrew of Daniel. Collins states that the Hebrew of Daniel has very little in common with the Hebrew of the exilic period (as seen in Ezekiel, for example), and instead is an example of Second Temple Hebrew, as exemplified in Chronicles and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Chronicles is late Persian or early Hellenistic, and the DSS are second century BCE for the most part). Collins also notes that the evidence from Qumran supports the very late date of the Hebrew in Daniel. Again, almost all contemporary scholars agree with this.
In discussing these issues, Collins lists all of the major arguments and counterarguments that have been offered by different scholars, and explains where scholarship stands on the matter now and why. So Everette, having read Collins and considering it the "standard by which all other commentaries are to be judged," should be aware that the linguistic arguments he presents have little or no merit in the view of the majority of mainstream scholars, and that the conclusion he holds regarding the date of the languages is simply not shared by the majority of specialists. His comment, "All these linguistic arguments [by mainstream scholars for a late date] have been answered to my satisfaction by the conservative scholars that I have studied," is astonishing, to say the least. Perhaps they have been answered to his satisfaction, but they have not been so to the majority of people in the fielda fact he should know if he has done the research he claims. If he is not qualified to make a determination as to the date of the languages in Daniel, as he admits, then why has he chosen to ignore the conclusions of the majority of scholars who are advocates of a late date (including the one whose work he calls "the standard by which all others should be judged"), and side with the minority whose views enjoy very little support and, according to most experts, are refuted by the evidence? Clearly all Everette has done is take the position of conservative scholars (like Archer and Shea) over that of everyone else because that is what he wants to do. Evidence and reason have nothing to do with it. If he made a decision based solely on a dispassionate consideration of the evidence, he would side with the majority on this issue and not with those whose views convince no one who is not already a believer.
(Bruce Wildish, 2500 Harman Court, Mississauga, ON, Canada L5J 1T8; e-mail, wildish@interlog. com)
Editor's Note: In my reply to Hatcher on pages 4-11 of this issue, I have commented at length on these letters of Hatcher and Wildish, so no further comment is necessary here. I will add only what I said in my reply to Hatcher. I have obtained a copy of Collins’ commentary and found Wildish's summation of Collins’ linguistic position to be accurate. Hence, the biblical scholar who Hatcher thinks has set the standard for all other commentators is in sharp disagreement with Hatcher's position on the dating of Daniel.
Pretender to the Pulpit?
After forcing myself to read Roger Hutchinson's latest article (September/October 2000), I am left wondering if it really even deserved to be published. It didn't seem to even really be an article this time; but more like the petty bickering and random insults that come from a sore loser. Hutchinson would make his life and your life easier if he would just finally admit that he had lost this argument a year ago. I wonder what he hopes to win back with new articles, each one poorer in quality and more derogatory than the one before. Now he has gone back to name calling, calling you a "pretender to the pulpit." Well, I did not know of you then either, but my guess is that if you were a pretender to the pulpit, then that is just what you'd still be doing. Pretenders, within Christianity, have a track record of marching right on with their pretending even when they have been exposed and discredited beyond reasonable doubt (Robert Tilton, Jimmy Swaggart, Bob Larson, and Peter Popoff are all still at it!). Pretenders don't have the same nagging conscience that ordinary people do, which tells them that their career in life reflects on their integrity, and therefore must be legitimate and honest. They go wherever the money is, and live a lie if they need to in order to get it. So, if you were a pretender, you must have had it made since no one even suspected you! The fact that you had to resign is all the evidence that you need to prove that you weren't one. That proves that you were honest with yourself. I think that if Roger Hutchinson could be equally honest with himself, then this debate he's trying to win could finally be brought to a close.
(Chad Kelly, P. O. Box 183, Greenwell Springs, LA 70739- 0183; e-mail, Catholicon1@aol. com)
Editor's Note: I know from experience that it's hard for an inerrantist to admit that he is wrong, so I would never expect Hutchinson to admit defeat. What I don't understand is his persistence in submitting articles that he should know by now will only keep readers reminded of his complete failure to defend biblical inerrancy. Maybe he is a masochist.
The Present Generation...
In TSR (January/February), a debate was engaged as to why some versions of the Bible say "the present generation" at Matthew 24:34, whereas most versions say "this generation." The participants centered their disagreements on the Greek word genea, translated as "generation." However, the discussion properly should address the accompanying word haute, usually translated as "this." Haute is the singular, feminine, nominative form of the root word outos. In more than one language, the article has several cases and gender forms, i.e., masculine, feminine, or neuter. Cases include dative, declarative, accusative and nominative. To use the word as "the one to which I refer" would be the accusative case and would have to be preceded by another reference or strong implication to a different but specific generation. The nominative form would nominate a specific generation and would mean in English "this one, visibly present here." As to the gender association, that is an arbitrary assignation in accord with local custom. I hope that this explanation helps in the debate.
To say that some other, future generation would be the one to see Jesus return, that is, that generation, would have simply required the author to use some form of the word ekeinos, meaning "that." If he had done so, we wouldn't be arguing this subject today.
Other arguments commonly center around the word genea, as if it could mean a "race," "tribe," etc. Unfortunately for apologists, there are several other words that could've been used to mean "race," "tribe," etc., while genea is the only Greek word that can be translated as "generation." Even as strong a scholar of Koine Greek as Thayer, in his lexicon said that specifically for Matthew 24:34, as used, the word genea is best described in English as "the whole multitude of men living at the same time." Put that together with haute, and you have a pretty specific statement about something that didn't happen as predicted.
Here I must confess that my knowledge of Greek is limited to what I get from spending some time looking at Greek New Testaments, grammar books, and lexicons. Perhaps someone else more knowledgeable has more to say.
On another topic, Till says, "I have repeatedly asked Hatcher to cite just one example of another extended biblical passage where the words father and son were repeatedly used in the secondary senses of either ancestor or predecessor or descendant or successor," and (on the same page), "Hatcher hasn't cited any extended biblical passage in which father and son were used in obvious secondary senses, because there just isn't any to quote."
Here we need to be ready for someone to point out that there is a conflict regarding the number of generations that lived through the Israelites' captivity in Egypt. Joshua, as the successor to Moses, was listed in 1 Chronicles 7:20-27 as the eleventh generation after Jacob. Jacob's grandson Ephraim was born to Jacob's son Joseph in Egypt, before the Israelites came to the new land (Gen. 46:20, 26-27). To get the alleged 430 years (Ex. 12:41), there are nine remaining generations listed in 1 Chronicles 7.
While I have argued that it is likely that a "sojourn" of 230 years was to be inferred from biblical and extrabiblical records, we have to be mindful that astute scholars can point to the conflict in the number of generations as "proof" of an extended lineage, while typically showing only Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses in father to son relationships, time after time.
(Neil Slater, 17910 W. Spring Lake Drive, Renton, WA 98058, e-mail, agnostical@msn.com)
Reading the Same Bible?
I must say that I enjoyed Roger Hutchinson's last guided tour through the magical land of Christendom. I would usually leave Hutchinson's fantasies alone and let the editor have his way with him; but Hutchinson's last article "Matthew 24:34: What the Scholars Really Say" contained some criticisms of me, so I felt obliged to respond.
The words genea haute used by themselves simply mean "this generation," and genea means a 30- to 40-year period of time, which is confirmed by even a conservative Greek lexicon like Vine's. In Matthew 24:34, the words genea haute stand by themselves. Matthew 24:34 is a point blank statement made by "Matthew's" Jesus: "by no means shall this generation pass away until all these things happen...." There is no specific textual connection made between genea and the apocalyptic events "Matthew's" Jesus describes in any wayand a textual connection is necessary. Because there is no specific textual link between the words genea haute and the apocalyptic events, its default meaning, which is simply "this generation" must be invoked. Hutchinson concocted an imaginary link between genea and the apocalyptic events because he cannot accept that the Bible contains errors.
What is also important from a grammatical perspective is that the word haute ("this"), because it is what is called the "near demonstrative," must refer to something that is near in time or location. If "Matthew's" Jesus had meant to convey a nonspecific generation as Hutchinson suggests, he would have worded his statement differently. Hutchinson's interpretation doesn't even have the semblance of being logical.
Finally, Jesus’ discourse in Matthew 24:34 is in the second person plural, and in the other passages (like Matthew 12:38-42) in which Jesus uses the words this generation in a direct address, it refers to the generation of those that he is addressing. But Hutchinson would have us believe that all of a sudden "this generation," which is used in a direct address in Matthew 24:34, magically changes meanings. Sorry, Hutchinson, I was born in the morning, just not this morning. (Or maybe this morning can refer to some morning in the distant future.)
Fundamentalists often complain that we skeptics have closed minds and that if we just looked at the errancy/inerrancy issue "objectively," we would see the merits of their case. Well, I'm sorry, but when fundamentalist interpretations force one to have a complete and utter contempt for language and the text, I am forced to conclude that this is a libelous charge.
(Brian Rainey, Box 2622, Providence, RI 02912, e-mail, Brian_ Rainey@brown.edu)
Editor's Note: Having replied to all of Hatcher's latest article on the dating of Daniel, I will be able to turn to wrapping up Hutchinson's attempts to prove that "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 didn't mean the generation Jesus was speaking to but some generation that would live in the remote future. Mark Smith has sent a short reply to Hutchinson's article that was in the January/February issue. I will publish it and my own reply to quibbles that Smith didn't address. My mail tells me that Hutchinson has failed completely to impress TSR readers, but, of course, that will hardly deter him from his crusade to tell the world that the Bible many times didn't mean what it clearly said.
Speaking Metaphorically?
I appreciate your continued excellent work in exposing the foolishness of the inerrantist position. When you say that the Bible is filled with internal contradictions, bad history, bad science, and statements that are ridiculous on their face, you get absolutely no argument out of me. However, in the July/August issue you made a couple of arguments that I personally don't find persuasive and I wanted to comment on them.
First, you have again repeated the oft-used argument that a particular point made by a Biblicist would apply equally as well to the Koran, the book of Mormon, or the scriptures of any other religion. I think this is a weak argument because any evidence must stand on its own two feet. We look to whether the writer was in a position to know what he was talking about; whether the writer was biased or had any other reason to lie; whether the evidence conforms to other evidence, whether the evidence is internally consistent, and so forth. Trial lawyers refer to this as "laying a foundation." It is therefore possible in theory (though, I admit, not likely in practice) that the scriptures of one religion could pass the foundation test while the scriptures of another religion could not. So, rather than muddy the issue by making the comparison argument, I think the better argument is to focus on why the Bible doesn't pass the foundation test.
Liberal Christians who don't believe the inerrancy of the Bible but who do believe that the Bible contains good moral instruction have sometimes been told in your pages that the same argument also applies to the Scriptures of other religions. In that context, my response is: So what? I happen to believe that no religion is literally true in the sense that the stories actually happened, but that all religions are valid to the extent that they teach their adherents to lead moral, upright lives. If somebody leads a life of honesty and good treatment of his fellow man, I personally don't care if he got it from the Sermon on the Mount, the Talmud, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, or the writings of Ayn Rand. And I think we only get into trouble if we confuse mythology with reality, which is what the fundamentalists do, or if we assume that agreeing with Biblical statements about dealing honestly with our neighbors somehow requires us to also adhere to Biblical statements that teach racial prejudice. Just because I sometimes ignore the speed limit doesn't mean I don't accept any governmental authority; I know how to pick and choose.
Secondly, in his otherwise excellent article on the inconsistency of round-earth inerrantists, Dr. Harwood cites Psalm 103:12 ("as far as the east is from the west") and Matthew 4:8 (Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world from the top of a high mountain) as evidence that the Bible teaches the earth is flat. I have no doubt that the writers of the Bible did believe the earth was flat (and the story about Joshua commanding the sun to stand still is in my opinion the clearest evidence of this), but I don't see it in those two particular passages for one simple reason:
Metaphor and intentional hyperbole to make a point are not inconsistent with inerrancy. While there are a few fundamentalists (including the church in which I was raised) who do believe that every last word in the Bible is literally true, they are the extremist fringe even for the fundamentalists. Most fundamentalists would say that these passages were intended to be understood metaphorically and not literally, since even a flat earth would be too large to see all the kingdoms even from the highest mountain. It's like when I ask my spouse if he wants to see a particular movie and he responds that he would rather stick pins in his eyes. I know that he does not intend to be taken literally, and if put to a choice, he would elect seeing the movie rather than stick pins in his eyes. What he wished to convey is that he doesn't want to see that particular movie. Likewise, when the psalmist says that as far as the east is from the west, that far has God removed our transgressions from us, he isn't intending to convey literal scientific truth about east and west. Rather, he is speaking metaphorically about how our sins are gone forever.
Here, I think the better argument is that an all-wise and all- knowing God would have known (1) that the earth is spherical and (2) that this verse could cause confusion centuries later when it was discovered that the earth is round. One would therefore expect a competent God, as he supervised the writing of the Bible, to write this verse in a way that would not have caused confusion. Harwood in his article suggested simple language that would have done the trick.
(Mel Dahl, 87 Hortonville Road, Swansea, MA 02777; e-mail, mel.dahl@mindspring.com)
Editor's Note: Space limitations will require me to be brief in my comments. First, I think that Ms. Dahl probably doesn't understand the what-proves-too-much-proves-nothing-at-all rule of evidence. Certainly, the factors she mentioned should be used in evaluating the reliability of documents. The bias or prejudice of a writer, his position to know what he was reporting, etc., are valid textual considerations, but when biblicists assign arbitrary definitions to words and postulate possible but unlikely scenarios, without giving any evidence at all that these scenarios actually happened, they are using a defense of the Bible that Mormons or Muslims or Zoroastrians could apply to their holy books and prove that they too are inerrant. If inerrantists are going to argue that biblical writers knew by inspiration information that they couldn't have otherwise known, a Mormon must be accorded the right to argue the same thing about Joseph Smith. If not, why not? Obviously, Ms. Dahl disagrees, but I can see no value in a line of argumentation that would prove any book is inerrant.
As for her comments about Harwood's flat-earth article,
I'd
be interested to know in what hyperbolic sense all the kingdoms of the
earth could be seen from a mountaintop or in what sense a tree could be
tall enough to be seen all over the earth. These are statements that
would make sense to people who thought the earth was flat but not to
those who know that it's a sphere. I wonder too if Ms. Dahl is aware of
a trend among Bible believers to explain all discrepancies
"metaphorically." I suspect that Mormons, Muslims, Zoroastrians, etc.
could also explain metaphorically any problems in their holy books.
