I have been receiving The Skeptical Review at no cost this year, and for this courtesy I thank you. In this note I would simply like to submit some comments to you for your personal consideration regarding the May/June 1999 issue.
Biblical Anachronisms: The Kings of Israel: Assuming Biblical chronology in the Pentateuch to be correct, it is reasonable to assume that Moses composed the book shortly prior to his death, i.e., after the majority of the dynamic events as recorded in the Pentateuch had transpired. The Israelites lived under the rule of Pharaoh in Egypt, and during the Exodus, either passed through or around numerous kingdoms on their way to the Promised Land. Thus, it is certainly no "political" jump for Moses to deduce that at one point in the future, Israel too might have a "king." Moses would not have to be divinely inspired (although he may have been) to make a logical deduction this simple.
The Priests: According to The New Strong's Concordance (Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1990), the primary word used for priest in the Old Testament is kthen, meaning one officiating, priest, or acting priest (Hebrew #3548). The first use of this word in the Pentateuch appears in Genesis 14:18, where the text mentions Melchizedek king of Salem, the priest of God Most High. So, according to Bible chronology, there was a priest of the God Most High approximately 600-700 years prior to the establishment of the Levitical priesthood under Aaron. Throughout that time interval, as recorded in the Bible, many descendants of Abraham continued to worship God. Considering the vast number of Jews that supposedly left during the Exodus, it again is a relatively simple deduction that there was some form of organized worship in their community. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that, since at least the time of Melchizedek, there were kthen among the people of Israel who facilitated organized worship of God.
These brief examples illustrate that simple examination of the Bible in context can frequently elucidate pseudoerrors, such as your proposed anachronisms.
Still Grasping for Straws: Among Bible "scholars" and "critics" there is an apparent bimodal distribution regarding assignment of a date of composition to the book of Daniel, i. e., either the 6th century or 2nd century B.C. Although the finding of fragments of the book of Daniel among the Dead Sea Scrolls illustrates the relative antiquity of the text, the finding does not necessarily validate the dating of the book of Daniel to either century B. C. However, I have found a reference which claims that the Hebrew canon was first translated into Greek during the Hellenization campaign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus prior to 270 B. C. Chuck Missler in "The Unexpected King" cites The Encyclopedia Brittanica, Volume 10, p. 642, for this piece of secular history. See (if interested) his article on this topic for minor details: www.direct.ca/trinity/king.html. I have not verified his reference and therefore cannot state with certainty that it is correct. However, if the book of Daniel was indeed translated into Greek for the Septuagint prior to 270 B. C., the "critical" claim that the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd or 1st century B.C. would be clearly erroneous. Therefore, this reference might be of interest for you to investigate.
(Michael Bradford, 75 Beaver Street, Waltham, MA 02543;
e-mail, cmnbradford@sprynet.com)
