I left the "Daniel" debate because of other demands on my time, but now I’ll try to answer some of Everette Hatcher questions about my articles.
My comment on Nebuchadnezzar/Nebuchadrezzar was solely to explain why I used the latter spelling, which scholars employ, rather than the more-familiar biblical version. The Oxford Companion to the Bible says Nebuchadrezzar is closer to the original Babylonian, Nabu-kudurri-usur. I have never read any argument that "Nebuchadnezzar" is a proof that "Daniel" is unhistorical.
His comments about the skepticism of historians toward the Bible up into the 19th century need clarification. Prior to the 19th- century development of archaeology and the translation of contemporary texts from ancient civilizations, scholars had only an assortment of ancient histories to understand the past. Numerous problems -- such as internal contradictions or obvious distortions -- caused scholars to doubt not only the Bible but the writings of Homer, Herodotus, Xenophon, Josephus, Livy, etc. Many scholars even came to doubt the very existence of the Bronze Age Greek civilization described by Homer and other ancient writers because of problems with The Iliad, The Odyssey, etc. Contrary to what Hatcher seems to think, the Bible was not the only target of scholarly doubts.
Archaeology wrought a major change in that scholars could develop more accurate histories of ancient times, based on contemporary sources, and thus double- check the ancient historians’ works. Many specific details in The Iliad, Herodotus’ History, etc. have been verified. Not only does the city of Troy match Homer’s description, but 13th-century B.C.E. Hittite archives document wars involving the Achaean Greeks in the region of Troy. Even a leading Trojan character -- Paris, the lover of Helen -- is a party to a Hittite treaty under his alternate Iliad name, Alexander. In one 13th- century B.C.E. battle, the Egyptians fought against the Trojan allies the Dardanians, when they were Hittite allies.
So maybe Hector and Achilles battled before the walls while their gods fought in the sky above them. The evidence for The Iliad is at least as strong as the evidence for "Daniel" and other biblical stories. As Hatcher pointed out, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Scholars simply cannot prove the Trojan War did not occur as described in Greek sources.
Similarly, archaeology has verified details in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Even Gilgamesh himself has been found in a Sumerian king list. So maybe he and Enkidu really did kill a supernatural bull sent by the goddess Ishtar, and maybe Gilgamesh did cross the Sea of Death to meet Utnapishtim and his wife, who rode a great ark to safety when the Mesopotamian gods sent a worldwide flood to destroy humanity. Although archaeologists have not found contemporary documents recording the events of Gilgamesh, this absence of evidence is not evidence the story is fictional.
The same arguments could apply to many other ancient stories from around the world, yet scholars are skeptical of these accounts because archaeology has raised doubts on a number of points in each story. The accumulated weight of evidence is against the historicity of the Trojan War, Gilgamesh’s tales, Herakles’ labors, Romulus and Remus, and other stories. No one item disproves them, but each individual problem joins so many others that collectively they crush the subject.
Further, if evidence existed for these stories, it could reasonably be expected to appear in certain places. Every disappointment makes it less likely supporting material exists. Archaeologists may yet find King Priam’s diary, describing how Hermes guided him safely to Achilles’ tent, but they’re not holding their breaths.
"Daniel" has suffered the same fate as other ancient texts. Although archaeology confirms some details, it raised other problems that have been debated here ad nauseam. No one item may disprove "Daniel," but the accumulated weight makes scholars reject its historicity. The failure to find any contemporary text describing events in "Daniel," beyond the fact of Babylon’s rise and fall, is only one of the minor problems with it, and is what one would expect if it’s a 2nd-century B.C.E. forgery.
Thus, every scholar I have read who is not a biblical inerrantist puts the composition of "Daniel" in the 2nd century. Their consensus is based upon the 6th-century texts related to the period before, during, and immediately after the fall of Babylon. The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. IV, second edition, covering 525-479 B.C.E., discusses these sources in chapter 3a. "Daniel" is not one of them. The events unique to "Daniel" are not cited in the CAH account of Babylon’s fall. The CAH account follows the modern consensus that contradicts "Daniel."
Hatcher cannot simply declare my article "Daniel in the Historians’ Den" wrong because he does not like its conclusion. I presented what the mainstream scholars say, and the historical evidence is overwhelmingly on their side.
For those who have lost track of the general outline of scholarship: The author of "Daniel" began writing in 167 B.C.E., and he -- or a successor -- added the last material in 164 B.C.E. He used a collection of older stories centered around a heroic folk-figure and judge named Daniel, who first appears in Bronze Age literature.
• The source stories date from different periods -- some likely were adapted from Babylonian stories, accounting for the "renaming" of Daniel as Belteshazzar in Dan. 1.7 -- which explains why some of the language is archaic.
• This explains why other stories about Daniel -- "Susanna" and "Bel and the Dragon" -- still exist. The writer did not use all the available material.
• This explains why "Daniel" is not in the "Prophets" collection of Jewish literature but in the "Writings." The "Prophets" collection was closed in the 3rd century B.C.E. Later scriptural additions are "Writings."
• This explains the many similarities between "Daniel" and the pseudepigraphic literature developed in the 3rd century B.C.E., in which figures such as Enoch and Moses supposedly give prophecies in texts that were long "hidden" and suddenly revealed. The texts are obvious forgeries, written to deal with 3rd- and 2nd-century events. "Daniel" fits perfectly into this tradition.
• The "prophecies" of "Daniel" match known events of the Hellenistic era, which begins with Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Persian Empire, down to the early period of the Maccabean War. The "prophecies" fail only at the very end.
• "Daniel" contradicts much that is known of Babylonian history, as has been debated so often here. Its opening verses conflict with the known history of the start of Nebuchadrezzar’s reign, and are historically implausible on previously discussed grounds. It goes downhill from there.
• "Daniel" quite simply reads like propaganda. Even though the Babylonians conquered Judah and carried the leading Jews into captivity, it’s the Babylonians who repeatedly are humiliated by the Jewish god. Its point is that Jews who remain true to their religion despite persecution will be protected and rewarded. Such a message would be relatively pointless if written in the 6th century after the Persian conquest of Babylon, since the Persians did not persecute the Jews. At best, it would only encourage Jews in the vague future to remain faithful. In the mid-160s B.C.E., however, such a work would be immediately relevant.
In answer to a point Hatcher raised in a yet-unpublished article, it’s irrelevant that "Daniel" ignores the Hasmoneans, the family that held the throne of Judah after the war. Elements among the Jews were hostile to the Hasmoneans, a hostility reflected in the 2nd "Book of Maccabees." The author of "Daniel" may have been anti-Hasmonean. He also could have ignored them simply because they were not prominent enough in the mid-160s to justify a reference (unless Daniel 11:32-35 refers to them, which Hatcher suggested). We see them today with historical hindsight. "Daniel" was written in the middle of events whose end was unknown.
The author does not even foretell the "cleansing" of the temple in 164 B.C.E. of the "abomination that makes desolate" of Daniel 11:31. Unless you assume the author is a prophet, his statements can easily be explained as someone trying to encourage a desperate people, who released his work shortly before the first great success of orthodox Jews in their civil war with Hellenized Jews and their Seleucid allies. "Daniel" describes Jewish heroes who were rewarded for resisting attacks on their faiths, then says that despite his victories, the persecutor of the "prophecies" will be destroyed while the faithful will be rewarded in the end. Since we don’t know who the author is, all commentary on this point is speculation. It certainly can’t disprove a 2nd-century authorship, while other evidence rejects a 6th-century origin.
On the "Belshazzar as king"issue, "Daniel" has two related problems. Contemporary texts repeatedly named only Nabonidus as the king. The Persians vilified only him as the king. Legal documents only occasionally mentioned Belshazzar, and always in connection with Nabonidus (in Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization, Revised 1977 edition, University of Chicago Press). A. Leo Oppenheim puts this into a contemporary economic perspective, so the few references cannot be used to prove a joint reign (pages 84-86). The "Nabonidus Chronicle" repeatedly calls him the king and Belshazzar only "the son of the king" (from Daniel: A Commentary, John J. Collins, Fortress Press, 1993, p. 243). As Hatcher pointed out, one line has been translated as saying Nabonidus gave the kingship to Belshazzar. Even if the translation is accurate -- always a point of caution -- it does not prove Belshazzar was king, as I show below. Scholars repeatedly point to the 10-year suspension of the "Akitu," or New Year’s Festival, during Nabonidus’s absence as decisive proof that Belshazzar was never king. If he were, the festival could have been held and the Babylonians would not have been rebellious at its suspension. The festival was held only upon Nabonidus’s return, too late to save his reputation, as the Persians emphasized.
Just as damning is the failure of "Daniel" to mention Nabonidus and other key figures and events in Babylon’s history. If we had only "Daniel" for a source of Babylonian history, we would never know that Nebuchadrezzar was followed by three kings, for a combined reign of 7 years, or that Nabonidus was the king of Babylon for 16. We would not know of Nabonidus’s bizarre behavior or the decisive battle of Opis that guaranteed the Persian victory over Babylon. We would think that "Darius the Mede" conquered the city, not the Persian General Ugbaru, acting for Cyrus. Even if a "Darius the Mede" were involved somehow in the conquest, even if Belshazzar can somehow be called "king," the leading actors in Babylon’s last years were Nabonidus and Cyrus, with Ugbaru having the most prominent walk-on role. Yet "Daniel" displays no knowledge of them. Unless we assume the author is a complete blockhead, "Daniel" must have been written long after Babylon’s fall, when its history had been scrambled, as I pointed out my article "Lions 1; Daniel 0."
On the other hand, if "Daniel" did not exist, we still would know all the events of Babylon’s end. The only difference is that no one would call Belshazzar a king, and no one would try to argue that "Darius the Mede" was on the scene. The one mention of a kingship for Belshazzar might raise questions, but against all of the other evidence cited above, it would be understood -- if not actually translated -- as a reference to his non-royal governorship in his father’s absence.
The problems of "Daniel" virtually disappear once it’s put into a 2nd-century context. All that’s left are minor puzzles. Only when inerrantists try to shoehorn it into the 6th century does anyone have to go through countless, grotesque contortions to make it fit, in the process distorting history, language and common sense. A 2nd-century shoe fits nicely. A 6th-century shoe is torture.
Please, end the agony the inerrantists put this book through. The persecutors of Babylon were kinder than fundamentalist Christians.
(William Sierichs, Jr., 316 Apartment Court Drive, Apt. 44,
Baton Rouge, LA 70806)
