Skeptical Bible Study: Daniel — Introduction

117 thoughts on “Skeptical Bible Study: Daniel — Introduction”

1. I know the length of this thread is getting out of hand, but I also ran across this conversation about the Wikipedia page on Belshazzar that I found absolutely fascinating. The two main guys going back and forth obviously know quite a bit about the topic. Figured some of you might find it interesting as well:
   http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Talk:Belshazzar

   LikeLike

2. Tom,
   I appreciate that you’ve already documented so much in your article, but it’s really hard to respond to the big blocks of text that you are pasting. It would really help if you just identify specific lines of evidence that you think need to be addressed. Ask questions, don’t just dump a bunch of text.

   Regarding the Letter to Aristeas:
   1) Please directly show me the error in my prior comment.
   2) Please explain why the use of the plural “books” implies more than the five books of the Pentateuch.
   3) Please explain how “the translation of Deuteronomy 32:8 and Isaiah 30:4 in the LXX presupposes the existence of the book of Daniel”.

   When you say that “Demetrius . . . had already . . . drawn up . . . [a] chronology” of the seventy-weeks prophecy in Daniel 9 “in the late third century B. C.”, are you referring to the following quote from Clement’s Stromata Book 1?

   Demetrius, in his book, On the Kings in Judaea, says that the tribes of Juda, Benjamin, and Levi were not taken captive by Sennacherim; but that there were from this captivity to the last, which Nabuchodonosor made out of Jerusalem, a hundred and twenty-eight years and six months; and from the time that the ten tribes were carried captive from Samaria till Ptolemy the Fourth, were five hundred and seventy-three years, nine months; and from the time that the captivity from Jerusalem took place, three hundred and thirty-eight years and three months.

   If this is your source, please explain how this relates to Daniel 9. If it is not, please provide the correct source.

   When you say that “Ecclesiasticus clearly refers to Daniel and contains a prayer that the prophecies of Daniel would be fulfilled soon”, you referring to Sirach 36:6-7 and 14-15:

   [6] Rouse thy anger and pour out thy wrath; destroy the adversary and wipe out the enemy. [7] Hasten the day, and remember the appointed time, and let people recount thy mighty deeds. … [14] Bear witness to those whom thou didst create in the beginning, and fulfil the prophecies spoken in thy name. [15] Reward those who wait for thee, and let thy prophets be found trustworthy.

   Please explain why this is a “clear reference” to Daniel.

   Regarding Tobit, it does not say that the prophets of Israel predicted times and seasons – that is the language used by Tobit himself in his prophecy. The reference to the prophets is only with regard to the rebuilding of the temple, for which there is substantial precedent outside of Daniel. Even so, there is a linguistic similarity. Please explain why the direction of borrowing is from Daniel to Tobit and not from Tobit to Daniel.

   As an aside, it’s interesting that you believe Tobit to have not been written during the time it claims, which would predate Daniel. I guess you accept that there is precedent for Jews producing pseudoepigraphical works that are designed to appear as if a known event had been prophecied?

   Regarding 1 Maccabees, we have already acknowledged that there is very likely to have been a pre-Maccabean tradition regarding Daniel which is the source for the historical narratives. As I understand, this is the majority position of “anti-supernaturalist” scholars. Let’s stick to the prophecies. No need to beat a dead horse.

   Finally, we’re probably just going to have to agree to disagree on the discontinuity at the end of Chapter 11. When you say “Exegetical necessity requires that 11:36–45 be applied to someone other than Antiochus IV”, what I hear is “the Bible is inerrant and the end times haven’t occurred yet, so there’s no possible way that 11:36-45 was meant to refer to the Antiochus IV or even the Seleucid empire”. There’s no way to argue past that brick wall, so I’m not going to try.

   That’s all I can muster for now. This is consuming way too much time and I apologize if I can’t respond to everything or in a timely manner.

   LikeLike

3. The Daniel story highlights one of the problematic aspects of the Bible stories. In Daniel you find non Israelites like Nebuchadnezzar acknowledging YHWH as the ‘true God’. But if Nebuchadnezzar really did this why did they not decide to become Jews or at the very least change their religion?

   The idea that non Hebrews acknowledged the Hebrew god as the one true god comes up again and again in the bible but is hardly credible when one thinks about it.

   LikeLike

4. @Peter

   Or maybe, Polytheistic?

   LikeLike

5. Pingback: Family Ties: Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus, Belshazzar, and Nitocris – Finding Truth

6. Btw, for anyone who misses the “pingback,” I did manage to look through a copy of that book that I referenced on Nabonidus and Belshazzar a few comments back. Instead of writing about it here, I turned it into a new post, for anyone who’s interested:
   https://findingtruth.info/2016/03/08/family-ties-nebuchadnezzar-nabonidus-belshazzar-and-nitocris/

   LikeLike

7. Dear Nate, Peter, etc.,

   Thank you for taking the time to interact on the blog here. I appreciate your attempts to provide substantive comments, even if, at times, I must strongly dissent from them.

   A few general comments. I am sorry if I do not get to everything, which I simply am not going to do.

   1.) In relation to Ezekiel’s reference to Daniel, I had noted:

   Ezek. 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

   Ezek. 14:20 Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.

   Ezek. 28:3 Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee:

   Ezekiel refers to Daniel’s great wisdom (28:3), even as the Book of Daniel indicates that “God gave . . . Daniel . . .wisdom” (Daniel 1:17), and the book of Daniel clearly evidences Daniel’s righteousness (cf. 6:16, 20; 12:2-3, 13). The evidence is clear: Ezekiel, in the sixth century B. C., could hardly refer to Daniel as the real person described in the book of Daniel were he a fiction invented centuries later. The book of Ezekiel authenticates the legitimacy of Daniel and his Biblical book.

   The question was asked why Ezekiel would refer to a contemporary, Daniel, while Noah and Job lived a long time in the past. Ezekiel wanted the rebellious Jews to recognize that they had no hope as long as they continued in their sin. Listing a contemporary, Daniel, was very important, because the Jews doubtless received consolation from Daniel’s position in the Babylonian court. They could see this as (it was in fact) God’s mercy to them, and conclude (as they should not) that they would therefore be spared in Canaan. They knew Daniel did indeed intercede for his nation (as can be seen in the book of Daniel) and knew that Daniel had received remarkable answers to prayer, such as the vision of Daniel 2. Therefore, Ezekiel’s telling them that the righteous and wise Daniel’s intercession would not deliver them fits perfectly in the context.

   In contrast, the atheist/non-supernaturalist view simply cannot allow Ezekiel to refer to Daniel as a contemporary, and, therefore, concludes that, right in between Noah and Job, Ezekiel put a worshipper of Baal. This worshipper of Baal is never referred to as either righteous or wise in any extant MS of the Legend of Aqhat–on the contrary, Aqhat wanted a son so that when he was too drunk to get home his son could lead him by the hand. This drunken Baal worshipper was put by the zealous monotheist Jehovah-worshipper, Ezekiel, right in between Noah and Job as an example of righteousness and wisdom.

   I can think of few things more absurd than this non-supernaturalist view.

   2.) In relation to the other quotations that Nate asked about, unfortunately I don’t have time to review everything again right at this moment. I appreciate that Nate/ Travis care enough about the question to ask and to check things out–that is good. Based on comments above about the length of the thread, I trust they can understand that I have other projects right now that I have to work on first. Furthermore, if one is willing to say that the Jehovah-worshipping monotheist Ezekiel did not refer to Daniel but to a drunken Baal worshipper as an example of piety that would lead to deliverance from Jehovah, the fact that other writers quote the language of Daniel is not going to be convincing. For instance, Zechariah’s vision of the four horns assumes Daniel’s four empire vision to make any sense. If he is referring to Daniel, his vision makes perfect sense–otherwise, it does not. However, someone who will take the atheist view of Ezekiel’s quote will juts say, “Sure, Zechariah never intended to make any sense. He just put nonsense together” or something like that. This series of posts on Daniel was, sadly, willing to overlook the fact that the book of Daniel plainly and over and over again associates the Medes and Persians as one empire to ignore that fact and split them into two where it was convenient to make Greece, not Rome, the last empire and insert contradictions into Daniel. Someone who is willing to do this will not be convinced by later quotes and allusions to Daniel. If even Ezekiel’s quote is supposedly not clear, there is probably nothing that would be convincing in terms of literary analysis.

   3.) One thing that I did find interesting, though, was the concession (if I understood the comments above correctly) that parts of Daniel could predate the Maccabees. I appreciate this concession to the many facts that show an intimate knowledge of 6th century Babylon in Daniel, from knowledge of what the palace walls were made of, to an accurate record that people with names like Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego were actually high officials at the time, to knowlege of borders extant in the 6th century but not in the 2nd, to knowledge that Daniel could only be made “third ruler” of the kingdom because of the Nabonidus-Belshazzar co-regency, etc. It is also very difficult to get out of Matthias referring to “Daniel[,] [who] for his innocency was delivered from the mouth of lions” and Matthias challenging his sons to follow the example set by Daniel’s three Hebrew friends, who “because of their faith were saved from fire” when Matthias died before 165 B. C. Admitting that at least parts of Daniel predate 165 is more honest than coming up with a tortured and contrived explanation for the evidence in this paragraph.

   However, this concession gives away more than an atheist can give away, at least if he wants to claim that his position is not based on blind faith. There is exactly zero manuscript evidence that Daniel was ever in parts, and consistent testimony from all MSS, including the very, very earliest, of an uncorrupted Daniel composed as a unity. The question was asked above what evidence of parts of Daniel tacked on would look like. I will compare it to the traditional ending of Mark 16:9-20 (a whole book study on this topic is here: http://faithsaves.net/bibliology/). A small number of MSS of Mark omit 16:9-20 (IMO, probably because the last page of a codex fell off). This omission exists in MS evidence, is discussed by patristic writers, etc. After the creation of this significant variant, the evidence for it did not disappear. The whole-sale combination of fragments about Daniel that predate 165 B. C. with post-165 B. C. material should, if it had ever happened, have evidence in the MS tradition or at least in some actual tangible source somewhere. INstead, there is not a whisper from anybody that this ever happened and not one jot or tittle of MS evidence for it. As noted at http://faithsaves.net/daniel-proof-bible/:

   The text-type found in modern printed editions of the Hebrew Bible is present in even these most ancient witnesses, and was considered authoritative even at that time.[35] The ancient Jewish Targums, Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures, are based upon a text that had “almost complete identity” with the modern printed editions of the Old Testament.[36] There is no justification whatever for the idea that the Hebrew text was edited at a later period so that the type of wholesale corruption required to create the prophecies of Daniel could have taken place;[37] on the contrary, the text has been preserved intact from the time of its original composition. The very earliest manuscript evidence confirms that the type of Hebrew text found in modern editions of the Bible has always been present in the majority of textual witnesses, and even the “earliest Qumran finds dating from the third pre-Christian century bear evidence . . . of a tradition of the exact copying of texts belonging to the Masoretic family,”[38] rather than, say, sloppy copying or deliberate scribal corruption of the text to make allegedly fake prophecies work out correctly. As a result, even secular, anti-supernaturalist scholars admit: “[I]t is not easy to provide convincing proof of . . . errors in M [the Masoretic Hebrew text of the Bible].”[39] . . . As the Bible as a whole has not been corrupted, similarly, the book of Daniel in particular has not been corrupted or changed. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the extremely early textual witnesses found at Qumran, the only Biblical books found in greater number than Daniel were most of the Pentateuch, Isaiah, and the book of Psalms.[43] The “Qumran manuscripts of Daniel follow the Massoretic text . . . [and] provide testimony to the faithfulness with which the biblical text was handed down over the centuries.”[44] “The Hebrew and Aramaic text of Daniel has been well preserved . . . [t]he Qumran fragments demonstrate the faithfulness with which the biblical text was preserved over the centuries.”[45] “The published fragments . . . of Daniel which date to pre-Christian times have substantially the same text as the traditional one preserved in the Hebrew (Masoretic) text from which all of our Bibles are translated. . . . We may have high confidence in the essential accuracy of the preserved text, both Hebrew and Aramaic, of the canonical book of Daniel.”[46] The text of Daniel has not been changed or corrupted—its plain prophecies were present in the book from the very time of its composition. The manuscript evidence supplies no outlet for anti-supernaturalist attempts to avoid the plain implications of Daniel’s prophecies.

   In fact, the Qumran evidence itself problematizes the 165 B. C. date:

   [A] date for Daniel in the 2nd cent. B. C. is absolutely precluded by the evidence from Qumrân[.] . . . the dating of Daniel can now be settled at least negatively as a result of MS [manuscript] discoveries from the Dead Sea caves from 1947 onwards. Fragments from 1Q, along with some complete scrolls of Daniel from other caves, have testified to the popularity of the work at Qumrân. A florilegium recovered from 4Q spoke, like Mt. 24:15, of “Daniel the prophet,” furnishing eloquent second-century B. C. testimony to the way in which the book was revered and cited as Scripture. Since all the Qumrân fragments and scrolls are copies, the autograph of Daniel and other OT canonical works must of necessity be advanced well before the Maccabean period if the proper minimum of time is allowed for the book to be circulated and accepted as Scripture . . . the autograph of Daniel also must be several centuries in advance of the Maccabean period. . . . It is now clear from the Qumrân MSS that no part of the OT canonical literature was composed later than the 4th cent. B. C. This means that Daniel must of necessity be assigned to some point in the Neo-Babylonian era (626–539 B. C.), or a somewhat later period. If, following Near Eastern annalistic practices, the events and visions were recorded shortly after their occurrence, the book may well have been written progressively over a lengthy period of time, being finally collated by Daniel in the closing phases of his life[.] . . . There can no longer be any possible reason for considering the book as a Maccabean product.[74]

   Even if one dissented from the argument in the paragraph above, at the very least the actual MSS evidence strongly undermines the idea of a partially pre-165 B. C. Daniel that was combined with later material.

   The position that the parts of Daniel that evidence superb knowledge of the 6th century were combined with later material is simply not tenable. An atheist who takes this view is not following evidence, but blind faith in dogmatic anti-supernaturalist presuppositions.

   LikeLike

8. I also wanted to clarify something important concerning the concept of the burden of proof. Whoever is making a positive argument has the burden of proof. Thus, for example, when I argue that Ezekiel refers to Daniel, I have the burden of proof. A reasonable alternative explanation, if there is one, negates this as evidence for a 6th century Daniel. (An absurd alternative explanation does not, which the Aqhat argument is. I recognize you disagree.)

   In Daniel 11:36-45, the atheist has the burden of proof. A Christian does not need to prove anything in Daniel 11:36-45. He simply needs to show that there is a reasonable, non-contradictory explanation consistent with inerrancy. While I think the Christian can do more than this, he does not have to do anything more to defend his position. Those who wish to prove errancy must show that there is no possibility of any reasonable non-contradictory explanation. This cannot be done in this passage. Therefore, Dan 11:36-45 does not prove the errancy of Daniel.

   LikeLike

9. Finally, if any reader/writer on this blog or a similar skeptical website has a radio broadcast, college campus work, etc., and you live in southeastern Wisconsin so I can meet or reach you and your fellow skeptics without travelling too far, I would definitely strongly consider discussing this in a debate or question-answer format as long as the format does not stack the deck against me. You could send me an e-mail here:

   http://faithsaves.net/contact-us/

   if that is something you would want to do.

   Thanks again for the discussion. I trust that it has been profitable.

   LikeLike

10. By the way, this series of posts regularly refers to those who believe what the overwhelming majority of Christians have believed for the overwhelming majority of church history–namely, in inerrancy–as “extreme Bible believers.” They are never called “scholars”–that word is reserved for skeptics. Let me just include a few details about one of these “extreme Bible believers” who wrote on Daniel, Robert Dick Wilson. Dr. Wilson completed his undergraduate work at Princeton at the age of twenty. After studying at Western Theological Seminary and the University of Berlin, he proceeded to earn his Ph. D. from Princeton University. He then engaged in post-doctoral studies at the University of Berlin. He also received a D. D. from Lafayette College and an LL. D. from Wooster College. He became Professor of Semitic Philology and Old Testament at Western Theological Seminary before moving to Princeton Theological Seminary, where he taught for nearly three decades. He spent his final years teaching at Westminster Theological Seminary. He mastered Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Latin, French, German, Italian, Spanish, and many other languages—a total of 26 in all. At the age of 25, he undertook the following program of study:

    I decided that I would give my life . . . [to] the Old Testament. . . . I felt I might reasonably live till I was 70, so I divided my life into periods of 15 years. I gave myself the first 15 years to study languages . . . I would learn all the Semitic languages, every language which threw light on the vocabulary or the syntax of the Old Testament. Of course, I did already know Syriac, and Aramaic, and Hebrew, but there was Ethiopic and Phoenician and Babylonian, and Assyrian, and a number of others—about twelve different Aramaic dialects. Secondly, I would learn all languages that threw light on the history of the Old Testament, taking in Egyptian, Coptic, and others. Then, thirdly, I would learn all languages that threw light on the text of the Old Testament, down to the year 600 after Christ . . . that took me into Armenian and several other languages, Gothic, and Anglo-Saxon, etc. . . . The second part of my life I would devote to . . . studying the text of the Old Testament, the comparison of the Hebrew text with the Versions, Greek, Latin, Syriac, especially, and all the versions down to 600. . . . The last 15 years, after which I had acquianted myself with all the machinery, I would tackle the subject which is called the [anti-supernaturalist] Higher Criticism of the Old Testament, including all that the critics have said, and so be able by that time to defend the history, the veracity of the Old Testament.[173]

    After many years of the highest level of scholarly research, what was Dr. Wilson’s conclusion?

    “The evidence in our possession has convinced me that . . . the OT in Hebrew [is] . . . immediately inspired by God . . . [and] by his singular care and providence [has] been kept pure in all ages . . . no one . . . [can] show that the Old Testament . . . is not true.”[174] “I can tell you . . . with the fullest assurance that ‘Jesus loves me, this I know, For the Bible tells me so.’”[175]

    I trust that someone such as Dr. Wilson, whose two volume defense of Daniel is available for free at http://faithsaves.net/gods-word/, qualifies as a scholar and just perhaps deserves some credit for intellectual rigor, something that is never even once in this entire series ascribed to these terrible and ignorant “extreme Bible-believers.”

    Thanks again.

    LikeLike

11. Regarding the burden of proof and such, the bible makes big claims it cannot prove, instead relying on those “said so’s” and threats of eternal punishments if you dont believe those claims of men. I don’t necessarily fault it for that alone, but again, when there’s a supernatural claim that can also be explained with a natural explanation, which one really seems more plausible?

    Everything in life so far that has been confirmed has been shown to be natural and not super-natural – even reversing some old notions to the contrary (lightning, typhoons, earthquakes, etc)

    And then Daniel, as well as much of the rest of the bible, and certainly the vast majority of its prophecies, are anything but precise, specific or clear, which leads to a number of varied events being potential “fulfillments.” if several different events can all claim “fulfillment” and be on equal footing, was it really a great prophecy?

    UnkleE mentioned Ezekiel’s Tyre prophecy being 3/4 fulfilled. Even if we ignore the fact that that means 1/4 is just wrong, the parts that were fulfilled weren’t extremely precise. So Nebuchadnezzar could have taken Tyre, Alexander could have taken Tyre or anyone in between or yet to come, and all would have equal ability to claim, “fulfillment.”

    No specific dates. No specific means. No specific characters.

    God could have done that as well as written everything in stone, or found some other way of preserving the original documents, so that there would be no argument over whether there were copiest errors, alteration, or publish date. He didnt, so we look now at these events.

    And with Daniel, what do 70 weeks mean? Daniel lists The Babylonians, the Medes, the Persians, and the Greeks, yet Christians maintain that the unnamed “Rome” is the 4th kingdom because :it fits so well.” It doesnt. the only reason they say that is because Jesus was born during Roman Control, and none of the others.

    I am not even arguing over who’s right or wrong here, but just trying to point out that there are legitimate concerns with Daniel if we’re being honest. Maybe some can resolve them enough to go on with it, but they surely could see why others would have issue with it.

    I mean, you make a fair argument fore Ezekiel mentioning Daniel of the Book Daniel, but keep in mind Ezekiel uses a questionable spelling which so happens to match a character of another time which more closely aligns with the other blokes mentioned, and then also considering the questionable things in the Book Daniel too, and suddenly the skepticism doesn’t seem so off.

    And there are a lot of writings and a lot of claims about your god and all the others. I am certain you would agree that most everything, especially outside of the Bible, is not actually inspired by deity. So this would mean that it is not only possible, but also prominent, that mistakes, delusions, lies and misunderstandings about the divine are peddled and well rooted in circulation. So just considering that alone, one should at least understand why others are skeptical of the bible. And then when looking at the bible, and seeing claims written by men, which have no proof, and say stuff like, “miracles happened back then but not now,” it should be no surprise than many dont find it convincing.

    anyhow, just some thoughts.

    LikeLike

12. Tom,

    just one more thought, and that’s all it is, but Robert Dick Wilson seemingly planed out his entire life to Validate the OT.

    The man was bright, driven, and ended up very educated. I am genuinely impressed.

    But the thought is, if he dove so in-depth to the OT to reach his final expert opinion, what’s he comparing it to? Did he delve that deeply into the other religions with the intention of also proving them right?

    It’s not exactly the same, but say an aspiring chef grew up thinking that omelets were the best food there was. So he studied all aspects of the egg, and cheese and all other additives, as well a temperature and so on. He might taste another food once in awhile, but primarily, he was convinced that omelets were superior and spent most of his time eating that and entirely all of his study time researching and perfecting the omelet. after 30 years of omelet devotion, he concluded in his expert opinion that the omelet was indeed the best food ever, just as he had set out to prove.

    At his press release, a journalist asked, “So, you think omelets are better than steak and fully loaded mashed potatoes?”

    The omelet chef replied, “since I have never tasted steak and mashed potatoes, and have an expert knowledge on omelets, I can say will all assurance, that indeed, omelets are better.”

    again, I realize it’s not a perfect comparison, but just another thought.

    I’ve opened the link you provided and will read it over,

    LikeLike

13. Dear William,

    Thanks for the comment.

    Obviously Dr. Wilson had only one life to spend, and he spent it on the OT. I’m sure he knew a lot more about it than about, say, American Indian tribal religions.

    The point, though, is did he try to cover up and did he avoid dealing with objections to the OT, or did he examine them squarely and face them head on? The latter is the case. In his book, Is the Higher Criticism Scholarly? he wrote, “I have seen the day when I set out on some Bible research with fear and trembling – wondering what I should discover – but now all that fear has passed.” The objections failed to disprove the OT–at least to his very, very well-informed mind. (quote from: http://web.ccbce.com/recordings/correspondence-and-reused-classes/reused/intern-study/documents/the-incomparable-wilson)

    LikeLike

14. Tom,

    very true. and I certainly don’t intend to criticize the man. I truly am impressed with him and have only now begun to read his book.

    But there is still a difference in proving that objections fail to prove, and in proving that the OT is actually inspired by God.

    But Dr Wilson certain knows more about it all than me, but even so, there are things I still cannot get around. This isn’t at all absurd or even uncommon, as there are other scholars with differing views and we also even doubt a doctor’s advise or diagnosis from time to time, even though they’re the ones who went through medical school.

    I guess my point basically went without saying as it was a pretty obvious point. So it wasnt a critique, just a thought.

    That said, was thought stupid or did it make any sense?

    LikeLike

15. Dear William,

    Yes, you are, of course, correct that simply showing the OT is non-contradictory does not of itself prove it is true. The phone book can also be non-contradictory, but it is not the Word of God. Dr. Wilson and many others also thought that there was positive evidence for his faith (such as, to stick to the point of this thread, the prophecies in Daniel).

    In relation to your statement that Christians only believe that Rome is the 4th empire because it makes things work out, that simply is not the case. There is no evidence of any pre-A D. 70 interpretation of Daniel that did NOT make Rome the 4th empire, and while inadequate chronological information prevented precise dating of the start of the prophecy, people also were expecting the coming of the Messiah in the 1st century based on the prophecy of Daniel 9. This was what pre-Christian Jews thought because it is the natural interpretation of the text–making Greece the last empire requires serious distortion of Daniel, which clearly teaches that the Medes and Persians are one empire, not two. From pgs. 61ff. of http://faithsaves.net/daniel-proof-bible/:

    Furthermore, every system of interpretation of Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy prior to A. D. 70—Hellenistic, Essene, Pharisaic, and all others—viewed the weeks as a literal period of 490 years.[161] What is more, those living in the first century expected the fulfillment of the prediction of Daniel nine in their time.[162] The Talmud continued the earlier Jewish view that the Messiah would come during the time of Daniel’s fourth empire, Rome: “The son of David will come . . . when the evil kingdom of Rome will overspread the entire world. . . . [and the] son of David will come . . . when the monarchy [of Rome] will spread over Israel.”[163] It recognizes that Daniel “contains the time of the Messiah”[164] in his prediction in chapter nine. Every ancient interpretation of Daniel 9’s prophecy, whether Zealot, “Essene, Hellenistic, Pharisaic, and early Christian . . . aim[ed] at precision . . . trying to achieve exactness,” with “many Jewish and Christian interpretations” believing that the prophecy would be fulfilled around the time that the Lord Jesus actually fulfilled it, even if “inadequate chronological information” prevented them from determining every detail perfectly. What is more, the Jews living in the Maccabean period “did not regard [Daniel 9] as a fulfilled prophecy” pertaining to their own time “but as one yet to be fulfilled . . . relate[d] to . . . the Davidic Messiah.”[165] Thus:

    There is strong evidence to show that the Essenes, the Pharisees, and the Zealots all thought that they could date . . . the time when the Son of David would come, and that in each case their calculations were based upon Daniel’s prophecy of the 70 weeks (Dan. 9:24-27), understood as 70 weeks of yaers. The later attempts of the Christian Fathers to show that this prophecy was fulfiled by the coming of Christ, and accord with the time at which He came, had therefore a considerable tradition behind them.[166]

    Many first century Jews likewise recognized the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans, the people of the fourth world empire of Daniel, was a fulfillment of Daniel 9:26: “the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” As the Romans surrounded Jerusalem before its fall in A. D. 70, the bitter lament arose: “[W]ho is there that does not know what the writings of the ancient prophets contain in them,—and particularly that oracle which is just now going to be fulfilled upon this miserable city[?] . . . It is God therefore, it is God himself who is bringing on this fire, to purge that city and temple by means of the Romans, and is going to pluck up this city, which is full of your pollutions.”[167] Jerusalem and its temple was only “destroyed”[168] twice in its history—at the time of the original exile in 586 B. C. and in A. D. 70. Nothing like this happened in the Maccabean era. Thus, one has two options when approaching the prophecy of Daniel 9. Out of an unshakeable and blind faith in absolute naturalism and the impossibility of miracles, one can allegorize the passage, conclude that the prophecy has no clear starting date, no clear ending date, no clear reference to any particular person, and, indeed, no significant meaning at all. Alternatively, one can take the passage literally, in which case its timeline begins at an actual decree issued in 444 B. C. and continues to the actual year and even the actual day that the Lord Jesus presented Himself as the Messiah in Jerusalem in A. D. 33, as well as the Messiah’s substitutionary death shortly afterwards, followed by the predicted destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A. D. 70. That the latter is the correct option is obvious. Daniel 9 constitutes a clear and astonishingly specific instance of genuine predictive prophecy that even the anti-supernaturalist Maccabean dating system for the book cannot explain away.

    LikeLike

16. Also, Nate (I think)! please see:

    E. W. Hengstenberg, Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1848], 234-235 & E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford, with Copious Notes [Oxford: John Henry and James Parker, 1864], 362, both of which are here: http://faithsaves.net/gods-word/ for why Deut 32:8, LXX, requires the existence of Daniel.

    LikeLike

17. Well Tom,

    that surprises me in one way and doesn’t in another.

    Daniel is a fun book, but it’s not clear. And there are problems with any interpretation.

    I mean, Antiochus Epiphanes certainly set up abominations and gave the jews his best go. and I have a hard time seeing how anything lines well with Daniel 2 or 7 perfectly.

    and seven sevens and sixty-two sevens? it could mean lots of things and none seem to line up perfectly with Jesus, do they? You have to cut here, trim there and look at it just right before it’s close enough.

    Rome isn’t mentioned while Daniel spends a good bit of time talking about Alexander and the kings that split from him, while still not mentioning Rome.

    So, I guess right now we just disagree?

    and I’m still in the introduction of the book you linked.

    LikeLike

18. Hi Tom,

    I haven’t made it through everything yet, so I’m just going to focus this comment on one thing: Ezekiel’s reference to Daniel.

    I ran across an article that I think you should check out, because it covers the argument you’re making in much greater detail than I could do justice to here. The article’s called ”
    The Daniel of Ugarit and Ezekiel and the Hero of the Book of Daniel,” by John Day. It ran in the magazine Vetus Testamentum back in 1980. Here’s a link (you’ll need a JSTOR login to read it all — should be free):
    http://www.jstor.org/stable/1517522?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    In a nutshell, one of his points that stood out the most to me concerns the claim that the Ugaritic Danel worshipped Ba’al. He pointed out that the Ugaritic text makes a distinction between Ba’al and El — and while the text certainly talks about Ba’al, it actually says Danel worshipped El. That’s extremely significant, since, as you probably know, El is the same god that was worshiped by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc (p. 176-178). This illustrates how easily someone in Ezekiel’s time could have viewed Danel as just another patriarch.

    Day also stresses that the text represents Danel as a just judge, which fits in with the OT notions of wisdom (p. 176).

    Day also refers to Ezekiel 14:13-20, where God supposedly tells Ezekiel that when he delivers judgment upon a land, even men as righteous as Noah, Danel, and Job wouldn’t be righteous enough to deliver their families out of the judgment — only themselves. Day says that if we think back to the stories of Noah and Job, we can see an obvious parallel to what Ezekiel is saying. Both stories have each man’s children playing an important part. Noah’s family is saved through the ark because of Noah’s righteousness. Job’s children aren’t saved, despite his righteousness, though he’s later “rewarded” with replacements. The biblical Daniel has no parallel in that he apparently never had children. Ugaritic Danel did, however. El blessed him with a son because of his righteousness. And while that son later dies, the implication is that the story would go on to bring him back in some way (we don’t have the ending). But even if it didn’t bring him back, the parallel remains.

    Incidentally, Day thinks that by the time Ezekiel wrote all this, he probably wasn’t familiar with this specific Ugaritic text anyway. They’re separated from each other by 800 years, and he thinks it very likely that Ezekiel knew of Danel through tradition. What exact elements of the story he may or may not have known and how much of it may have changed over time is impossible to say.

    I think what this brings us down to is this:

    — You aren’t going to be convinced that Ezekiel’s reference refers to the Ugaritic Danel.

    — We aren’t going to be convinced that it refers to the biblical Daniel.

    The fact is, there are other reasons that lead each of us to our conclusions about when and by whom Daniel was written. Do you agree that this particular argument is one we can put behind us?

    LikeLike

19. Dear Nate,

    Thanks for the links. I have ILLed:

    Dresller, “The Identification of the Ugaritic Dnil with the Daniel of Ezekiel,” Vetus Testamentum 29 (1979) 159ff.

    J. Day, “The Daniel of Ugarit and Ezekiel,” VT 1980 174-184

    Reading and Interpreting the Aqht Text: A Rejoinder to Drs. J. Day and B. Margalit,” Vetus Testamentum 34 (1984) 22ff.

    and intend to read them when they arrive, Lord willing. Dressler is anti and Day is pro.

    I would suggest that the main reason I believe Ezekiel refers to Daniel is that it is the obvious reference. Certainly if we have “other reasons” such as presuppositions that do not allow for such an identification we must come up with something else.

    In Pusey’s Daniel the Prophet (http://faithsaves.net/pusey-daniel/), written before the discovery of the Legend of Aqhat, he deals with the skeptics of his day who said that the Daniel between Noah and Job was not Daniel, although there was no evidence for this view at all in his day. Evidence or no, Ezekiel must not be allowed to refer to Daniel.

    Thanks for the article.

    You are incorrect that Abraham, etc. worshipped the Canaanite god El. One of the words for the God of the Bible in Hebrew is the Hebrew word El, as is Eloheim, El Shaddai, etc. It is simply (one of the) words for “God.” The Canaanites had a deity that they called “god/El” at times, just like the Greeks sometimes called Zeus “god/Theos (Gk.).” That does not prove at all that the New Testament is referring to Zeus when it employs the word Theos/God for the Biblical God.

    LikeLike

20. Here is the New American Commentary on the question. I’m fine after this with not continuing on this line of argument, though.

    DANIEL AND THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL. Ezekiel, the sixth-century prophet, alluded to Daniel three times in his book (14:14, 20; 28:3), and these references would appear to be conclusive evidence for the traditional view. Since the discoveries at Ras Shamra, however, scholars who accept the late date have attempted to explain these passages by declaring that Ezekiel was referring to a mythological figure named Danel who appears in the Ugaritic epic “The Tale of Aqhat.”101
    A devastating argument against the theory that Ezekiel’s Daniel is the Ugaritic hero Danel is the context of the Ezekiel prophecy (and indeed the whole Book of Ezekiel). Idolatry was rampant in Judah in Ezekiel’s day, and this sin was bringing Yahweh’s judgment upon the nation. Ezekiel condemned this evil throughout his book and issued a particularly stinging rebuke against idolatry in 14:1–13. In this passage he contrasted the faithfulness of Noah, Daniel, and Job with the unfaithfulness of his audience. What is astounding is that the Danel of Ugaritic mythology was an idolater! Danel’s god was not Yahweh but the gods Baal, El, and the murderous Anath. To suggest that Ezekiel would select an idolater as an example to Jewish idolaters to forsake idolatry seems incomprehensible. H. Dressler asks: “Is it conceivable that the same prophet would choose a Phoenician-Canaanite devotee of Baal as his outstanding example of righteousness? Within the context of Ezekiel this seems to be a preposterous suggestion.”102 In a subsequent article Dressler adds: “We must choose between an idolatrous Baal-devotee and a wise and righteous contemporary as candidates for Ezekiel’s man of exemplary righteousness.… I still find the hero of the book of Daniel not only more attractive but also decidedly more convincing.”103 If the sixth-century prophet Ezekiel was alluding to the hero of the Book of Daniel, the historicity at least of the events of the Book of Daniel would seem to be established. Such seems to be the case.
    Some scholars argue that the Daniels of the two books (Ezekiel and Daniel) are different individuals because of a slight variation in the spelling of the names.104 In Ezekiel the name is spelled Dāniʾēl and in Daniel Dānîyēʾl. Yet variations in spelling are rampant in the Old Testament. J. Barr relates that variable spellings occur throughout “the entire Hebrew Bible” and declares that “there are many thousands of cases in the biblical text.”105 J. Day holds that the references in Ezekiel are to the Ugaritic Danel but acknowledges that “there are no linguistic objections to the equation of the Daniel of Ezekiel 14:14, 20 and the hero of the book of Daniel. Ezekiel simply spells the name without the vowel yodh.”106
    Attempts have also been made to equate Ezekiel’s Daniel with the Ugaritic Danel on the basis of the spelling of the name in the Book of Ezekiel and the Aqhat tale.107 Yet J. Day (citing E. Lipinski’s data108) acknowledges “that the masoretic pointing and the Greek transcription Δανιηλ [Daniēl] show that the West Semitic name was vocalized Daniel, not Danel, and that the name Da-ni-el is already attested at Mari in the 18th century B.C. (Contrast Babylonian Da-ni-li).”109 This means that the name in Ezekiel was pronounced “Daniel,” not “Danel,” and therefore agrees with the pronunciation in the Book of Daniel.
    Pfeiffer contends that it would be remarkable for Ezekiel to have mentioned a young contemporary along with the ancient worthies Noah and Job.110 Yet Ezekiel’s ministry did not begin until about 593 B.C. (cf. Ezek 1:2), over twelve years after Daniel’s deportation. According to the Book of Daniel, the prophet became an official in the Babylonian court and interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream with the subsequent promotion to the office of chief counselor to the king very early in his career (cf. Dan 1–2). Daniel had ample time to build his reputation, especially considering the spectacular things he did. It also would seem natural for Ezekiel to cite an outstanding contemporary like Daniel (in addition to the ancient heroes Noah and Job) as an inspiration to faithfulness for his fellow Jews.
    Ezekiel’s references to Daniel must be considered one of the strongest arguments for a sixth-century date. No satisfactory explanation exists for the use of the name Daniel by the prophet Ezekiel other than that he and Daniel were contemporaries and that Daniel had already gained notoriety throughout the Babylonian Empire by the time of Ezekiel’s ministry.

    101 Cf. B. Margalit, “Interpreting the Story of Aqht: A Reply to H. H. P. Dressler,” VT 30 (1980): 361. For an English translation see H. L. Ginsberg, “The Tale of Aqhat,” ANET, 149–55.
    102 H. H. P. Dressler, “The Identification of the Ugaritic Dnil with the Daniel of Ezekiel,” VT 29 (1979): 159. A Contrary view is taken in J. Day, “The Daniel of Ugarit and Ezekiel and the Hero of the Book of Daniel,” VT 30 (1980): 174–84.
    103 Dressler, “Reading and Interpreting the Aqht Text: A Rejoinder to Drs. J. Day and B. Margalit,” VT 34 (1984): 82.
    104 E.g., J. J. Owens, “Daniel,” BBC (Nashville: Broadman, 1971), 374.
    105 Barr, Variable Spellings, 2; cf. also 19, 20, 23–25, 161, 167.
    106 Day, “The Daniel,” 181, n. 18.
    107 Cf. Owens, “Daniel,” 374.
    108 Lipinski, VT 28 (1978): 233. Lipinski’s data, presented in a review of A. Lacocque’s French edition of his commentary on Daniel, led Lacocque to change his view in the later English edition of his commentary (cf. Lacocque, Daniel, 3, n. 7).
    109 Day, “The Daniel,” 181–82, n. 18. See also Dressler’s discussion, “Identification of the Ugaritic Dnil,” 155–56.
    110 Pfeiffer, Introduction, 754.
    Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 41–43.

    LikeLike

21. very true, but the use of El does prove that he wasnt known as a Ba’al worshiper…

    which then could discredit the objection about Ezekiel referring to Danel since Danel was Ba’al worshiper, right?

    LikeLike

22. I have to go back and review the Legend and will read the sources Nate mentioned above. I have seen highly credible sources saying that he was a Baal worshipper, and nothing to the contrary stood out when I read the Legend before, but I will double check.

    I hope, Nate, that you have actually read the Legend, not just works about it. It isn’t that long if you haven’t.

    LikeLike

23. “To suggest that Ezekiel would select an idolater as an example to Jewish idolaters to forsake idolatry seems incomprehensible.”

    maybe. and it’s a fair point.

    But to suggest that a God inspired Prophet was pen a misspelled name of a contemporary he places in between two well known and long dead Heroes also seems incomprehensible.

    and then Ezekiel didnt have google, so it’s hard to say what he had knowledge of or what he could verify. Did he have copies of the works on Danel, and did he think Danel worshiped El only or other gods too? Why would Ezekiel misspell Daniel and place him oddly in a list of legends?

    We just dont know for sure.

    What we do know and can prove has led to lots of disagreement, to the point where there are not only believers and non-believers, but where the believers do not even agree on what to believe regarding Daniel, his prophecies and the bible as whole.

    “70 week years, of course, so now we know Jesus.”

    it’s just not as clear as many would like to believe. It requires a lot of interpretation.

    I’ve almost given up on caring entirely. It seems sort of like arguing over the specifics of the Iliad and digging up scholarly works on Zues and Homer and Troy and Sparta etc – I just dont care enough or find it plausible enough to still dive into so deeply. Yet, my interest on the subject of the bible is there a bit higher still because of my clear recollections of being a devoted and undoubting believer for so long.

    LikeLike

24. Dear William,

    Please read the comment from the New American Commentary above. It isn’t a misspelling, as is granted even by a variety of scholars of the skeptical variety.

    LikeLike

25. I thought your copied text said that the names were pronounced the same while spelled differently.

    If I was mistaken, sorry. I’ll reread it.

    LikeLike