The Bible and Archaeology (3/5)

I have been amazed at the prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled in history, and also many of the historical details in the Bible have been confirmed by archaeology too. ( I have put a list below of several posts I have made in the past about this.) One of the most amazing is the prediction that the Jews would be brought back and settle in Jerusalem again. Another prophecy in Psalms 22 describes messiah dying on a cross  almost 1000 years before the Romans came up with this type of punishment.  One of the top 10 posts on this concerns the city of Tyre.  John MacArthur went through every detail of the prophecy concerning Tyre and how history shows the Bible prophecy was correct.

Evidences Relating to the Date of the Book of Danielby David Conklin© (3/13/2004)

Table of ContentsIntroduction

Historical Issues

Antiochus IV Epiphanes

Belshazzar

Nebuchadnezzar

Babylonian Detail

Maccabean Context

Summary

Language Difficulties

Hebrew

Greek

Aramaic

Qumran

Persian (Aryan)

General Comments

Summary

Acceptance into the Canon

Daniel: Is it in the Prophets or the Writings?

Is Daniel a Pseudonym?

Are Daniel’s Prophecies ex eventu?

Is the Book of Daniel a Unified Whole?

Theological Issues

“Problems”

Daniel’s Spelling of Nebuchadnezzar

Daniel And Jeremiah

Daniel and the book Wisdom of Sirach

Daniel and Darius the Mede

Daniel and the Prayer of Nabonidus

Daniel of Ugarit

Daniel’s Prophecies of the Kingdoms

Other Factors

CONCLUSION

Bibliography

INTRODUCTION      Since certain prophecies in the book of Daniel seem to have their fulfillment in Antiochus IV Epiphanes and since some people have a presuppositional bias against predictive prophecy [Eissfeldt, 520] they believe that the book of Daniel must have been written at the time of the Antiochus, roughly 164 B.C. to 169/7 B.C.. [DiLella, 134; for the last date see Meyers and Rogerson, 278–they say that the tribulations that caused the Book of Daniel to be written [was] Antiochus’ assault on the temple and Jerusalem. However, Collins (1984): 36 puts the date “between the profanation of the temple in 167 and the end of 164 BC.”] That, in short, is the Maccabean thesis; for more of a description see Ferch (1986): 6-11. Anthony Collins, in 1727, expressed the modern critical arguments for the 2^nd century dating of Daniel when he revived Porphyry’s arguments. Anthony Collins noted the following features: “the historical problems, the Greek words, the prophecies relating to the second century …, the book’s location among the Writings, [and] the late Aramaic.” [Goldingay, xxxvi] We will examine each of these features in this study. To use a suggestion made by Goldingay we will determine the truth “from actual study of the text of Scripture”. We will also note where Goldingay and others have failed to do the same. We will not deal with the claims made by “some radical critics [who] have overreached themselves in finding ‘absurdities’ throughout the [book].” [Montgomery, 72 note 17]

We will find that there are a more than a few problems with the view of a Maccabean date for Daniel. Simply put, there is no evidence whatsoever that the book was written in 164/5 B. C.. It is only a theory and it needs to be called into question for the reasons I will show below. The usual claims in regards to the date of the book of Daniel are “examples of how much has been built on so little yet constantly reiterated by commentators till their weaknesses were exposed”. [Robinson, 342] Yet one should take note of how old some of the sources are (in some cases from the late 1800’s to early 1900’s; and in one case from 1771!) which refute the commonly made claims.

As you will see it seems apparent that what has happened is that most writers have typically superimposed an a priori pattern upon the book and have then attempted to force the pieces to fit that pattern–and they have done this mostly by ignoring the evidence. In a review of Baldwin’s commentary on Daniel the writer noted that she “gently chides advocates of the second-century date of the book [have] failed to change significantly their standard presentation since Driver [S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel. (Cambridge, 1900)] — and this despite recent discoveries.” [Gammie (1980): 453]

Daniel J. Boorstin has said: “The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance–it is the illusion of knowledge.”  It is hoped that this study will lead the reader to re-consider and re-evaluate what they have read and heard in the past. My personal experience is that I was not aware of the level of, kinds of, and the sheer amount of detail in regards to the date of Daniel until I undertook this study.  I really have to thank Farrel Till for publishing in his Skeptical Review an article by William Sierichs, Jr. about the book of Daniel (“Daniel in the Historians’ Den”).  This gave me the impetus to conduct this research; for I would not have had even the desire to study this topic without Sierichs comments against the book in general and specifically about the date.

Readily available sources (i.e., through inter-library loan), that I have examined are given in the bibliography at the end; more sources (in most cases these are more specialized or in a foreign language) are given in the text itself. If you engage in the method of compare/contrast (for instance, in terms of sources: the quantity and quality of these sources) you will note the sheer number and wide diversity of sources that I am providing as compared to that given by the critics, especially those of critics of the more “popular” variety.

One of the interesting lessons I learned in conducting this study was to see which objections and rationales used to be used against the book but have subsequently ceased to be used. See Farrar, 47-54 for some examples.

The points made in this paper are numbered sequentially so we can see how many points of evidence there really are about the date of the book of Daniel. There are 84 factors to consider as of May 19, 2000.

CONCLUSION      The combined effect of the above evidence points us very strongly away from the Maccabean thesis–“the arguments for the Maccabean dating of Daniel can hardly be said to be convincing.” [Harrison (1969): 1126] From the above we have learned that Daniel records details about 6^th century Babylon that were subsequently lost shortly after its fall. We have seen that the language of the book requires a very early date–with the best fit being during the times it describes in detail. As Baldwin put it: “When all the relevant factors are taken into account … a late sixth- or early fifth-century date of writing for the whole best suits the evidence.” [Baldwin (1978a): 46] This also means that there is no evidence for the claim that Daniel was a forgery as Sierichs and Till have claimed.

“It can only be concluded that the critical case against the historicity of Daniel has survived to the present because its adherents have failed to take a second and more critical look at the arguments that have been propounded so unimaginatively and with such tedious repetition in recent times.” [Harrison (1969): 1122] He further argued that: “Objections to the historicity of Daniel were copied uncritically from book to book, and by the second decade of the twentieth century no scholar of general liberal background who wished to preserve his academic reputation either dared or desired to challenge the [then] current critical trend.” [Harrison (1969): 1111; quoted by Waltke (1976): 320] “When new information becomes available, it is Daniel, not the critics, who proves to be correct.” [Richards, 210]

In the words of Rowley: the continued presence of the Maccabean hypothesis is an example of “ruthless propaganda for a theory, rather than a scientific study of the evidence.” [Rowley (1952): 267] Harrison noted that: “Traditional Jewish and early Christian views were opposed by the Neoplatonist Porphyry (third century A.D.), who denied the possibility of predictive elements in prophecy and [who] assigned the work to the Maccabean period, maintaining that its purpose had been to sustain persecuted Jews in their adversities. This general position was [then] adopted by European rationalists, and became “one of the assured results” of the literary-critical movement, even though it was consistently challenged by conservative scholars and was entirely lacking in objective proof.” [Harrison (1979): 246; see also Waltke (1976): 319-20.]

One must also note that the conservative position is typically given a very cursory notice (note that the critics typically cover very few of the above points) with no interaction with them if they are acknowledged at all. For a stunning contrast look at the treatment that men like Hasel, Shea, Ferch, Harrison, and McDowell give to the liberal/critical views. This bias against the conservative view can be seen especially in the absence of any conservative sources in the bibliographies given in the dictionaries and encyclopedia articles that the masses would typically be exposed to.

We can see by the quote above from Harrison that the reason for the continued claim for a late date for the book of Daniel is that by doing so its credibility can be destroyed and thus eliminates any idea of a genuine prophecy coming true. Which is why Pusey has pointed out: “The book of Daniel is especially fitted to be a battle-ground between faith and unbelief. It admits of no halfway measures. It is either Divine or an imposture.” Miller has pointed out that “although the miraculous handwriting and Daniel’s interpretation of it are matters of faith, the historical circumstances surrounding those events are established by objective data” as the above study has shown. [page 150] Bringing up the miraculous elements of the book is another favorite, and diversionary, tactic of the critics. This is especially true when they have been presented with concrete evidence that their “facts” about the book are wrong.

Given the sum of all the evidence presented here we can only conclude that the prophecies in the book of Daniel were written about 530 B.C. which is long before the actual events unfolded. Thus, there is no case of these prophecies being written after the event (vaticinia ex eventu).

“But the question naturally arises, If the evidence for a sixth century date of composition is so certain, why do scholars reject it in favor of an
unsupportable Maccabean hypothesis? The reason is that most scholars embrace a liberal, naturalistic, and rationalistic philosophy. Naturalism
and rationalism are ultimately based on faith rather than upon evidence; therefore this faith will not allow them to accept the supernatural predictions.”

Archer states this point well: “The committed antisupernaturalist, who can only explain the successful predictions of Daniel as prophecies after the
fulfillment, … is not likely to be swayed by any amount of objective evidence whatever.” [Waltke (1976): 329; Archer quote is from: “Old Testament
History and Recent Archaeology from the Exile to Malachi,” Bibliotheca Sacra 127 (October-December 1970): 297; see also Hill and Walton, 350]

One can only hope that Waltke and Archer are unduly pessimistic. However, pessimistic one may be about skeptics changing their minds there are some grounds for hope. For instance, the “extremely skeptical” German OT scholar Martin Noth changed his mind over time as a result of the archaeological evidence. [Yamauchi (1974): 70] But, we shouldn’t get our hopes too high.

Mounce points out that “the excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural.” [Robert H. Mounce, “Is the New Testament Historically Accurate?” in Can I Trust the Bible? ed. Howard F. Vos, p. 176, emphasis mine; quote found in Both/And: A Balanced Apologetic. by Ronald B. Mayers (Moody, 1984); for another example see Allis, 248] This perception of the nature of the bias against the Bible is reinforced by noting that previous opinions in regards to secular history have been overturned when archaeology had proven them to be in error. [Yamauchi (1974): 54-70] And yet when it comes to the Bible the “old” views which can now be known to be wrong continue to be broadcast to an overly-trusting and unsuspecting audience.

BibliographyAbbreviations used:

ANE = Ancient Near East
ANET = Ancient Near Eastern Texts
AUSS = Andrews University Seminary Studies
BAR = Biblical Archaeological Review
BASOR = Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
CBQ = Catholic Biblical Quarterly
EBD = Eerdmans Bible Dictionary
HUCA = Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC = International Critical Commentary
IDB = Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible
ISBE = International Standard Bible Encyclopedia ITQ = Irish Theological Quarterly
JAOS = Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL = Journal of Biblical Literature
JETS = Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JSOT = Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JTS = Journal of Theological Studies
JTS NS = Journal of Theological Studies (New Series)
NEB = New English Bible
NIV = New International Version
RSV = Revised Standard Version
VT = Vetus Testamentum
ZAW = Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentaliche Wissenschaft

1. Acquistapace, Fred Miracles That Never Were: Natural Explanations of the Bible’s Supernatural Stories. (Eye-Opener Books, 1991)
2. Albright, W. F. “The Nebuchadnezzar and Neriglissar Chronicles,” BASOR 143 (October 1956): 28-33.
3. Allis, Oswald T. The Old Testament: Its Claims and Its Critics. (Baker, 1972)
4. Allison, Lodowick The Bible. Arranged and Edited by Ernest Sutherland Bates. With Updated Scholarship & a New Introduction by Lodowick Allison. (Simon and Schuster, 1993)
5. Archer, Gleason L. “Daniel,” Expositor’s. Vol. 7 (Zondervan, 1985)
6. _______ “Modern Rationalism and the Book of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 136 (April-June 1979): 129-47.
7. _______ “The Hebrew of Daniel Compared with the Qumran Sectarian Documents,” The Law and the Prophets. Edited by J. Skilton (1974): 470-486.
8. Audet, Jean Paul “A Hebrew-Aramaic List of Books of the Old Testament in Greek Transcription,” JTS NS 1 (1950): 135-54.
9. Barnes, Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Old Testament. (Baker Book reprint, 1953)
10. Barry, Phillips “Daniel 3:5, sumponyah,” JBL 27 (1908): 99-127.
11. Barton, George A. “The Composition of the Book of Daniel,” JBL 17 (1898): 62-86.
12. Baldwin, Joyce G. “Daniel, Book of,” New Bible Dictionary. 3^rd edition (IVP, 1996): 255-7.
13. _______ “Some Literary Affinities of the Book of Daniel,” Tyndale Bulletin 30 (1979): 77-99.
14. _______ Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, D. J. Wiseman, General Editor (IVP, 1978a)
15. _______ “Is there Pseudonymity in the Old Testament?” Themelios 8 (1978b): 6-12.
16. Bewer, Julius A. The Literature of the Old Testament. (Columbia, 1938)
17. Boutflower, Charles In and Around the Book of Daniel. (Society for Promoting Religious Knowledge, 1923)
18. _______ “The Historical Value of Daniel V and VI,” JTS 17 (1915-6): 43-60.
19. Brock, S. P. “Ancient Languages,” Oxford Companion to the Bible. (Oxford, 1993): 752-4.
20. Burtchaell, James T. “Daniel, Book of,” Encyclopedia Americana. Vol. 8 (Grolier, 1997; the article appears to have been recycled in full from the 1993 issue): 482. (In private correspondence, in 1998, he stated that he wrote the original article 30 years before, based on what he had been told by people he trusted.)
21. Casey, [P.] Maurice “Porphyry and the Origin of the Book of Daniel,” Journal of Theological Studies 27 (1976): 15-33.
22. Clifford, Richard J. “History and Myth in Daniel 10-12,” BASOR 220 (1975): 23-6.
23. Clines, David J. A. “Belshazzar,” ISBE. Vol. 1, G. W. Bromiley, General Editor (Eerdmans, 1979): 455-6.
24. Collins, John J. Daniel. Hermenia series (Fortress, 1993)
25. _______ “Daniel, book of,” Anchor Bible Dictionary. David Noel Freedman, Editor-in-Chief. Vol. 2 (Doubleday, 1992): 29-37.
26. _______ Daniel, with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature, Vol. 20. Rolf Knierman & Gene M. Tucker, editors (Eerdmans, 1984)
27. _______ The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel. Harvard Semitic Monographs, Edited by Frank Moore Cross, Jr., # 16 (Scholars Press, 1977)
28. _______ “The Court Tales in Daniel and the Development of Apocalyptic,” Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975): 218-234.
29. Coogan, Michael D. “Septuagint,” Oxford Companion to the Bible. (Oxford, 1993): 686-7.
30. Coxon, P. W. “A Philological Note on [‘stew, “to drink”] Dan. 5:3f,” ZAW 89:2 (1977): 295-6.
31. _______ “The Syntax of the Aramaic of Daniel: A Dialectal Study,” HUCA 48 (1977): 107-22.
32. Crafer, T. W. “The Work of Porphyry Against the Christians and its Reconstruction,” JTS15 (1913-4): 360-95; 481-512.
33. Craven, Toni “Daniel,” Collegeville Bible Commentary. (Liturgical Press, 1989)
34. Davies, P. R. Daniel. Old Testament Guides, R. N. Whybray, General Editor (JSOT, 1988)
35. _______ “Eschatology in the Book of Daniel,” JSOT 17 (1980): 33-53.
36. _______ “Daniel Chapter Two,” JTS NS 27:2 (October 1976): 392-401.
37. Day, John “The Daniel of Ugarit and Ezekiel and the Hero of the Book of Daniel,” VT 30:2 (1980): 174-84.
38. Di Lella, Alexander A. The New Jerome Bible Handbook. Based on The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Edited by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy (Liturgical Press, 1992)
39. _______ The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Anchor Bible, Vol. 39 (Doubleday, 1987)
40. Dressler, Harold H. P. “The Identification of the Ugaritic DNIL with the Daniel of Ezekial,” VT 29 (1979): 152-61.
41. Dummelow, J. R. A Commentary on the Holy Bible. (Macmillan, 1908)
42. Eissfeldt, Otto The Old Testament. Translated by Peter R. Ackroyd. (Harper & Row, 1965)
43. Emery, D. L. Daniel: Who Wrote the Book? (Stockwell, 1978)
44. Farrar, F. W. The Book of Daniel. (George H. Doran, 1895)
45. Ferch, Arthur J. “Authorship, Theology, and Purpose of Daniel,” Symposium on Daniel. Edited by Frank B. Holbrook (Biblical Research Institute, 1986)
46. _______ book review of Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature, Vol. 20 (Eerdmans, 1984) AUSS 24:1 (Spr. 1986): 56-62.
47. _______ “The Book of Daniel and the “Maccabean Thesis”,” AUSS 21:2 (Summer 1983): 129-141.
48. _______ “Daniel 7 and Ugarit: A Reconsideration,” JBL 99:1 (1980): 75-86.
49. Ferguson, Sinclair B. “Daniel,” New Bible Commentary. 21^st Century Edition, Edited by D.A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, and G. J. Wenham, 4^th Edition (IVP, 1994)
50. _______ “Daniel,” The Communicator’s Commentary. Lloyd J. Ogilvie, General Editor. (Word, 1988)
51. Fish, T. “Texts Relating to Nabonidus,” Documents from Old Testament Times. Edited by D. Winton Thomas (Harper Torchbooks, 1958)
52. Fishbane, Michael “Daniel,” Encyclopedia of Religion. Vol. 4 (Macmillan, 1987): 237-8.
53. Fox, Douglas E. “Ben Sira on OT Canon Again: The Date of Daniel,” Westminster Theological Journal 49 (1987): 335-350.
54. Free, Joseph P. “Archaeology and Higher Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 114 (Jan. 1957): 23-39.
55. Freedman, David Noel “The Prayer of Nabonidus,” BASOR 145 (Feb. 1957): 31-2.
56. Gammie, John G. book review of Daniel: Introduction and Commentary by Joyce G. Baldwin, Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980): 453.
57. _______ “The Classification, Stages of Growth, and Changing Intentions in the Book of Daniel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 191-204.
58. Ginsberg, H. L. “The Composition of the Book of Daniel,” Vetus Testamentum 4 (1954): 246-75.
59. Goldingay, John E. “Daniel,” Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 30 (Word, 1989)
60. Gooding, D. W. “The Literary Structure of the Book of Daniel and Its Implications,” Tyndale Bulletin 32 (1981): 43-79.
61. Gordon, Cyrus H. “Higher Critics and Forbidden Fruit,” Christianity Today 4 (Nov. 23, 1959): 131-4.
62. Grabbe, Lester L. “The Belshazzar of Daniel and the Belshazzar of History,” AUSS 26:1 (Spring 1988): 59-66.
63. Grant, Michael The History of Ancient Israel. (Scribner’s, 1984)
64. Graubart, David “Daniel, The Book of,” Collier’s Encyclopedia. Vol. 6 (P. F. Collier & Son, 1957): 269.
65. Gruenthaner, Michael J. “The Four Empires of Daniel,” CBQ 8 (1946): 72-82, 201-212.
66. Gurney, Robert J. M. “The Four Kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7,” Themelios 2:2 (Jan. 1977): 39-45.
67. Hammer, Raymond Daniel. Cambridge Bible Commentary, General editors: P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney, and J. W. Packer (Cambridge University Press, 1976)
68. Harrison, R. K. “Historical and Literary Criticism of the Old Testament,” Expositor’s. Vol. 1 (Zondervan, 1979): 231-50.
69. _______ “Daniel, Book of,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Vol. 1, G. W. Bromiley, General editor (Eerdmans, 1979): 859-866.
70. _______ Introduction to the Old Testament. (Tyndale, 1969)
71. Hartman, Louis F. and Alexander A. DiLella “Daniel,” The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Edited by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Raymond E. Murphy (Prentice Hall, 1990)
72. Hasel, Gerhard “Establishing a Date for the Book of Daniel,” Symposium on Daniel. Edited by Frank B. Holbrook (Biblical Research Institute, 1986): 84-164.
73. _______ “The Book of Daniel and Matters of Language: Evidences Relating to Names, Words, and the Aramaic language,” AUSS 19:3 (Autumn 1981): 211-25.
74. _______ “The Book of Daniel: Evidences Relating to Persons and Chronology,” AUSS 19:1 (Spring 1981): 37-49.
75. _______ Understanding the Living Word of God. Vol. 1 (Pacific Press, 1980)
76. _______ “The First and Third Years of Belshazzar (Dan 7:1; 8:1),” AUSS 15 (1977): 153-68.
77. Heuvel, Curt van der “Revealing Daniel,” www.primenet.com/~heuvelc/bible/comment/Daniel.htm
78. Hill, Andrew E. and John H. Walton “Daniel,” article by John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament. (Zondervan, 1991)
79. Humphreys, W. Lee “A Life-Style for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel,” JBL 92 (1973): 211-23.
80. Keller, Werner The Bible as History. Translated by William Neil. 2^nd revised edition (William Morrow, 1980)
81. Kitchen, K. A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. (Tyndale (IVP), 1966)
82. _______ “The Aramaic of Daniel,” Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel. Edited by D. J. Wiseman, et al (Tyndale, 1965): 31-79.
83. Koch, Klaus “Is Daniel Also Among the Prophets?” Interpretation 39 (1985): 117-30.
84. Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel “Aramaic,” Current Trends in Linguistics. Vol. 6, T. A. Seboek, editor (The Hague, 1970): 347-412; see esp. 399-403.
85. Lacocque, Andre “The Liturgical Prayer in Daniel 9,” HUCA 47 (1976): 119-142.
86. _______ The Book of Daniel. Translated by David Pellauer (John Knox Press, 1979)
87. Larue, Gerald A. Old Testament Life and Literature. (Allyn and Bacon, 1968)
88. LaSor, W. S. “Nebuchadnezzar,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Vol. 3, G. W. Bromiley, General Editor (Eerdmans, 1979): 506-8.
89. McCabe, Joseph The Story of Religious Controversy. file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_07.html#4
90. McDowell, Josh Daniel in the Critics’ Den. (Campus Crusade, 1973)
91. McNamara, Martin “Nabonidus and the Book of Daniel,” ITQ 37 (1970): 131-49.
92. _______ “Daniel, Book of,” New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4 (McGraw-Hill, 1967): 633-6.
93. Metzger, Bruce M. “The Book of Daniel,” Christian Faith and Life 40:3 (July 1934): 218-220.
94. Meyers, Eric M. and John W. Rogerson “The Old Testament World,” The Cambridge Companion to the Bible. (Cambridge, 1997)
95. Millard, Alan R. “Daniel and Belshazzar in History,” BAR (May/June 1985): 72-78.
96. _______ “Daniel 1-6 and History,” Evangelical Quarterly 49:2 (Apr-June 1977): 69-73.
97. Miller, Stephen R. “Daniel,” New American Commentary. Vol. 18 (1994)
98. Miller, Madeleine S. and J. Lane Miller Harper’s Bible Dictionary. (Harper & Row, 1973)
99. Mitchell, T. C. and R. Joyce “The Musical Instruments in Nebuchadnezzar’s Orchestra,” Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel. Edited by D. J. Wiseman, et al (Tyndale, 1965): 19-27.
100. Montgomery, James A. The Book of Daniel. ICC (T. & T. Clark, 1927)
101. Moore, Carey, A. “Toward the Dating of the Book of Baruch,” CBQ 36 (1974): 312-20.
102. Muller, Bernard D. http://www.concentric.net/
103. Mueller [2] . www.concentric.net/~MullerB/Daniel.shtml
104. Myers, Allen C. Revision editor, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. From the Bijbelse Encyclopedie. Revised Edition 1975 (Eerdmans, 1987)
105. Oates, Joan Babylon. Revised Edition (Thames and Hudson, 1986)
106. Oppenheim, A. Leo Ancient Mesopotamia. (University of Chicago, 1964)
107. Peters, Melvin K. H. “Septuagint,” Anchor Bible Dictionary. David Noel Freedman, Editor-in-Chief. Vol. 15 (Doubleday, 1992): 1093-1104.
108. Porteus, Norman W. Daniel: A Commentary. Old Testament Library (Westminster, 1965)
109. Pusey, E. B. Daniel the Prophet. (Klock & Klock 1978 reprint, originally 1885)
110. Rennie, B. www.wlu.ca/~wwwaar/syllabi/renni/rel151/Daniel.html
111. Richards, Larry 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered. (Revell, 1993)
112. Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament. (SCM, 1969)
113. Roux, George Ancient Iraq. (World, 1964)
114. Rowley, H. H. “The Unity of the Book of Daniel,” The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament. (Lutterworth, 1952); previously published as a journal article in HUCA 23 (1950-1): 233-73.
115. _______ The Growth of the Old Testament. (Harper, 1950)
116. _______ “Some Problems in the Book of Daniel,” Expository Times 47 (1935/6): 216-20.
117. _______ “The Historicity of the Fifth Chapter of Daniel,” JTS Old Series, 32 (1931): 12-31.
118. Russell, D. S. Daniel. Daily Study Bible. John C. L. Gibson, General Editor. (Westminster, 1981)
119. Sack, Ronald H. “Belshazzar,” Anchor Bible Dictionary. David Noel Freedman, Editor-in-Chief. Vol. 1 (Doubleday, 1992): 661.
120. _______ “Nabonidus,” Anchor Bible Dictionary. David Noel Freedman, Editor-in-Chief. Vol. 4 (Doubleday, 1992): 973-6.
121. Shea, William H. “Darius the Mede,” AUSS 29:3 (Autumn 1991): 235-57.
122. _______ “Bel(te)shazzar Meets Belshazzar,” AUSS 26/1 (Spring 1988): 67-81.
123. _______ “The Neo-Babylonian Historical Setting for Daniel 7,” AUSS 24:1 (Spring 1986): 31-36.
124. _______ “Wrestling with the Prince of Persia: A Study on Daniel 10,” AUSS 21:3 (Autumn 1983): 225-50.
125. _______ “Nabonidus, Belshazzar, and the Book of Daniel: An Update,” AUSS 20:2 (Summer 1982): 133-149.
126. _______ “Daniel 3: Extra-Biblical Texts and the Convocation on the Plain of Dura,” AUSS 20:1 (Spr. 1982): 29-52.
127. _______ Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation. (College View, 1982)
128. _______ “An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period, IV” AUSS 10 (1972): 147-78.
129. _______ “An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period, III” AUSS 10 (1972): 88-117.
130. _______ “An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period, II” AUSS 9 (1971): 99-128.
131. _______ “An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period, I” AUSS 9 (1971): 51-7.
132. Sierichs, Jr., William “Daniel in the Historians’ Den,” The Skeptical Review 7:4 (July/August 1996): 8. Also found at: file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1996/4/4danie96.html
133. Smith-Christopher, Daniel T. “Daniel,” New Interpreter’s Bible. (Abingdon, 1996)
134. Soderlund, S. K. “Septuagint,” ISBE. Vol. 4, G. W. Bromiley, General editor (Eerdmans, 1979): 400-9.
135. Soggin, J. Alberto Introduction to the Old Testament. Translated from the Italian by John Bowden (Westminster, 1976)
136. Talbot, H. Fox “Illustrations of the Prophet Daniel from the Assyrian Writings,” Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 2:2 (Dec. 1873): 360-4;
137. Taylor, Larry A. “Dating Daniel,” http://www.infidels.org/; also found at humanities.net/~ltaylor/bible-notes/daniel-dating.html
138. Taylor, [2] “Daniel: An outline of the dating issues,” http://www.infidels.org/
139. Taylor, [3] “Daniel: Darius the Mede and Messing up World Empires,” http://www.infidels.org/
140. Taylor, [4] “Whitcomb’s Darius the Mede,” file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/www.infidels.org/~ltaylor/bible-notes/Whitcomb-darius.html
141. Taylor, [5] “Bruce Metzger and the Book of Daniel,” www.infidels.org/~ltaylor/bible-notes/Metzger-Daniel.html
142. Towner, W. Sibley Daniel. Interpretation (John Knox Press, 1984)
143. _______ “Daniel, The Book of,” Oxford Companion to the Bible. (Oxford, 1993): 149-52.
144. Tucker, Gene M. “Esther, The Book of,” Oxford Companion to the Bible. (Oxford, 1993): 198-201.
145. Trever, John C. “The Book of Daniel and the Origin of the Qumran Community,” Biblical Archaeologist 48 (1985): 89-102.
146. _______ “I Q Dan^a: The Latest of the Qumran Manuscripts,” Revue de Qumran 7 (1969-70): 277-86.
147. Vasholz, R. I. “Qumran and the Dating of Daniel,” JETS 21:4 (Dec 1978): 315-321.
148. Wallace, Ronald S. The Lord is King: The Message of Daniel. (IVP, 1979)
149. Waltke, Bruce K. “The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament,” Expositor’s. Vol. 1 (Zondervan, 1979): 211-228.
150. _______ “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 134 (1976): 319-29.
151. Wegner, Walter “The Book of Daniel and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Quartalschrift-Theological Quarterly 455 (1958): 103-16.
152. Wenham, Gordon J. “Daniel: The Basic Issues,” Themelios 2:2 (1977): 49-52.
153. Whitcomb, John C. Darius the Mede: A Study in Historical Identification. (Eerdmans, 1959)
154. Wilson, R. D. Studies in the Book of Daniel. (G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1917)
155. _______ “The Book of Daniel and the Canon,” Princeton Theological Review 13 (1915): 352-408.
156. Winckler, Hugo The History of Babylonia and Assyria. Translated and Edited by James Alexander Craig (Scribner’s, 1907)
157. Wiseman, Donald J. “Belshazzar,” Oxford Companion to the Bible. (Oxford, 1993): 77-8.
158. _______ “Nebuchadnezzar,” Oxford Companion to the Bible. (Oxford, 1993): 552-3.
159. Yamauchi, Edwin M. “The Archaeological Background of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 137 (1980): 3-16.
160. _______ “Hermeneutical Issues in the Book of Daniel,” JETS 23:1 (March 1980): 13-21.
161. _______ “The Archaeological Confirmation of Suspect Elements in the Classical and Biblical Traditions,” The Law and the Prophets. Edited by J. Skilton (1974): 54-70.
162. Young, Edward J. “The Canon of the Old Testament,” Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Edited by Carl F. H. Henry (Baker, 1969)
163. _______ An Introduction to the Old Testament. (Eerdmans, 1964)
164. Related posts:

     Robert Dick Wilson’s talk “Is the Higher Criticism Scholarly?” (part 3 of transcript) (Wilson looks at the Book of Daniel)

     February 12, 2013 – 1:28 am

     The Bible and Archaeology (4/5) For many more archaeological evidences in support of the Bible, see Archaeology and the Bible . (There are some great posts on this too at the bottom of this post.)   Robert Dick Wilson at the Grove City Bible Conference in 1909. IS THE HIGHER CRITICISM SCHOLARLY?Clearly attested facts showing that […]

     By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Edit | Comments (0)

     Hanukkah celebrates Maccabean Revolt: Was the Book of Daniel written then or when the Bible claims?

     December 23, 2011 – 3:08 pm

     Bible Prophecy vs. History (Daniel 11:1-19) _____________________________ Wikipedia notes: Hanukkah (Hebrew: חֲנֻכָּה‎, Tiberian: Ḥănukkāh, usually spelled חנוכה pronounced [χanuˈka] in Modern Hebrew, also romanized as Chanukah, Chanukkah, or Chanuka), also known as the Festival of Lights, is an eight-day Jewish holiday commemorating the rededication of the Holy Temple (the Second Temple) in Jerusalem at the time […]

     By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

     Was Daniel an Eyewitness of 6th-Century B.C. Events? (part 2) (Plus Six Pieces of Archaeological Evidence that Support the 6th Century View and video of John MacArthur on Daniel 4)

     March 7, 2013 – 1:05 am

     The Bible and Archaeology (3/5) For many more archaeological evidences in support of the Bible, see Archaeology and the Bible . (There are some great posts on this too at the bottom of this post.) I believe the evidence points to Daniel writing the Book of Daniel in the 6th century B.C. Below is a sermon […]

     By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Biblical Archaeology | Edit | Comments (0)

     Was Daniel an Eyewitness of 6th-Century B.C.Events? (part 1)

     March 5, 2013 – 1:01 am

     The Bible and Archaeology (2/5) There is evidence pointing to the accuracy of the Bible. Here is some below. For many more archaeological evidences in support of the Bible, see Archaeology and the Bible . (There are some great posts on this too at the bottom of this post.) Was Daniel an Eyewitness of 6th-Century B. […]

     By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Biblical Archaeology | Edit | Comments (0)

     The Critics’ Admissions Concerning Daniel

     February 28, 2013 – 1:50 am

     The Bible and Archaeology (1/5) I have been amazed at the prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled in history. John MacArthur went through every detail of the prophecy concerning Tyre and how history shows the Bible prophecy was correct.   I love the Book of Daniel and I am starting a series today […]

     By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Biblical Archaeology | Edit | Comments (0)

     Is the Bible historically accurate? Here are some of the posts I have done in the past on the subject:

     
     1. The Babylonian Chronicle
     of Nebuchadnezzars Siege of Jerusalem

     This clay tablet is a Babylonian chronicle recording events from 605-594BC. It was first translated in 1956 and is now in the British Museum. The cuneiform text on this clay tablet tells, among other things, 3 main events: 1. The Battle of Carchemish (famous battle for world supremacy where Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon defeated Pharoah Necho of Egypt, 605 BC.), 2. The accession to the throne of Nebuchadnezzar II, the Chaldean, and 3. The capture of Jerusalem on the 16th of March, 598 BC.

     2. Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel Inscription.

     King Hezekiah of Judah ruled from 721 to 686 BC. Fearing a siege by the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, Hezekiah preserved Jerusalem’s water supply by cutting a tunnel through 1,750 feet of solid rock from the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloam inside the city walls (2 Kings 20; 2 Chron. 32). At the Siloam end of the tunnel, an inscription, presently in the archaeological museum at Istanbul, Turkey, celebrates this remarkable accomplishment.

     3. Taylor Prism (Sennacherib Hexagonal Prism)

     It contains the victories of Sennacherib himself, the Assyrian king who had besieged Jerusalem in 701 BC during the reign of king Hezekiah, it never mentions any defeats. On the prism Sennacherib boasts that he shut up “Hezekiah the Judahite” within Jerusalem his own royal city “like a caged bird.” This prism is among the three accounts discovered so far which have been left by the Assyrian king Sennacherib of his campaign against Israel and Judah.

     4. Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically.

     In addition to Jericho, places such as Haran, Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Shechem, Samaria, Shiloh, Gezer, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean, Beersheba, Lachish, and many other urban sites have been excavated, quite apart from such larger and obvious locations as Jerusalem or Babylon. Such geographical markers are extremely significant in demonstrating that fact, not fantasy, is intended in the Old Testament historical narratives;

     5. The Discovery of the Hittites

     Most doubting scholars back then said that the Hittites were just a “mythical people that are only mentioned in the Bible.” Some skeptics pointed to the fact that the Bible pictures the Hittites as a very big nation that was worthy of being coalition partners with Egypt (II Kings 7:6), and these bible critics would assert that surely we would have found records of this great nation of Hittites.  The ironic thing is that when the Hittite nation was discovered, a vast amount of Hittite documents were found. Among those documents was the treaty between Ramesses II and the Hittite King.

     6.Shishak Smiting His Captives

     The Bible mentions that Shishak marched his troops into the land of Judah and plundered a host of cities including Jerusalem,  this has been confirmed by archaeologists. Shishak’s own record of his campaign is inscribed on the south wall of the Great Temple of Amon at Karnak in Egypt. In his campaign he presents 156 cities of Judea to his god Amon.

     7. Moabite Stone

     The Moabite Stone also known as the Mesha Stele is an interesting story. The Bible says in 2 Kings 3:5 that Mesha the king of Moab stopped paying tribute to Israel and rebelled and fought against Israel and later he recorded this event. This record from Mesha has been discovered.

     8. Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III

     The tribute of Jehu, son of Omri, silver, gold, bowls of gold, chalices of gold, cups of gold, vases of gold, lead, a sceptre for the king, and spear-shafts, I have received.”

     

     View from the dome of the Capitol!9A Verification of places in Gospel of John and Book of Acts.

     Sir William Ramsay, famed archaeologist, began a study of Asia Minor with little regard for the book of Acts. He later wrote:

     I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.

     9B Discovery of Ebla Tablets. When I think of discoveries like the Ebla Tablets that verify  names like Adam, Eve, Ishmael, David and Saul were in common usage when the Bible said they were, it makes me think of what amazing confirmation that is of the historical accuracy of the Bible.

     10. Cyrus Cylinder

     There is a well preserved cylinder seal in the Yale University Library from Cyrus which contains his commands to resettle the captive nations.

     11. Puru “The lot of Yahali” 9th Century B.C.E.

     This cube is inscribed with the name and titles of Yahali and a prayer: “In his year assigned to him by lot (puru) may the harvest of the land of Assyria prosper and thrive, in front of the gods Assur and Adad may his lot (puru) fall.”  It provides a prototype (the only one ever recovered) for the lots (purim) cast by Haman to fix a date for the destruction of the Jews of the Persian Empire, ostensibly in the fifth century B.C.E. (Esther 3:7; cf. 9:26).

     12. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription

     The Bible mentions Uzziah or Azariah as the king of the southern kingdom of Judah in 2 Kings 15. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription is a stone tablet (35 cm high x 34 cm wide x 6 cm deep) with letters inscribed in ancient Hebrew text with an Aramaic style of writing, which dates to around 30-70 AD. The text reveals the burial site of Uzziah of Judah, who died in 747 BC.

     13. The Pilate Inscription

     The Pilate Inscription is the only known occurrence of the name Pontius Pilate in any ancient inscription. Visitors to the Caesarea theater today see a replica, the original is in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. There have been a few bronze coins found that were struck form 29-32 AD by Pontius Pilate

     14. Caiaphas Ossuary

     This beautifully decorated ossuary found in the ruins of Jerusalem, contained the bones of Caiaphas, the first century AD. high priest during the time of Jesus.

     14 B Pontius Pilate Part 2      

     In June 1961 Italian archaeologists led by Dr. Frova were excavating an ancient Roman amphitheatre near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) and uncovered this interesting limestone block. On the face is a monumental inscription which is part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar which clearly says that it was from “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea.”

     14c. Three greatest American Archaeologists moved to accept Bible’s accuracy through archaeology.

     Despite their liberal training, it was archaeological research that bolstered their confidence in the biblical text:Albright said of himself, “I must admit that I tried to be rational and empirical in my approach [but] we all have presuppositions of a philosophical order.” The same statement could be applied as easily to Gleuck and Wright, for all three were deeply imbued with the theological perceptions which infused their work.

The Bible and Archaeology (1/5)

________

Here is a review of  a 1998 paper I wrote on the dating of the Book of Daniel. 

In 1998, Everette Hatcher presented a sterling defense of the book of Daniel using the best scholarship had to offer. We will attend to specific issues regarding Daniel in our article on Daniel, such as is needed. Here are a few accessory issues.

One of them stated that “(t)he discoveries of fragments of Daniel among the Dead Sea Scrolls shows [sic] that it was written earlier than 164 B. C.,” but that was all that he said on the subject. He gave no evidence at all to support this assertion. Furthermore, saying that these discoveries show that Daniel was written earlier than 164 B. C. is too imprecise to warrant comment, for if it were written in 165 B. C., that would be earlier than 164 B. C. Referring also to the copy of Daniel found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, another of Hatcher’s professors said in awkward syntax that “even the liberals say that this must have had several hundred years before the second century” and that “(i)n that case, it would put it back at least to the fourth or fifth century, if not the sixth.” The professor said nothing to explain why the discovery of a copy of Daniel at Qumran would have to mean that it was written “several hundred years before the second century.”

On part A, what “evidence” is wanted? Is this implying this person is lying about fragments of Daniel? Does the objector want a complete list of fragments and the dating methods? And if we get these, will that be sufficient, or will we then be told that more evidence is needed to satisfy?

The proper response to such an argument is not to demand more evidence, but to provide one’s own evidence in response. The objector is doing no more than buying time here because he does not have the competence or the familiarity with the scholarly literature that is needed to address the issue. How hard is it to get material on the DSS and confirm or refute this simple claim? It isn’t hard at all. In our own study we noted that liberal critics have had to shift into the gear of claiming the some of Daniel is early, and some of it is late — a supposition with no textual support, merely made to shore up their theory. The text and data as it stands offers no supporting evidence.

Further, the claim that it may therefore have been written in 165 B.C. is easily to refute: Simply put, the presence of Daniel at Qumran testifies to its composition much earlier because the Qumranites, by the evidence of their documents, were a strict society that would not readily recognize the validity of any book claiming prophetic authority. Someone showing up at the door of Qumran with a newly-minted Daniel scroll, claiming it was a genuine document, isn’t going to get a reaction from the Qumranites like this: “Wow, a prophetic document we’ve never seen before and no one else has ever heard of! Thanks, we’ll add it to the library!” More likely any person trying to foist such a document would be spat upon by the clannish Qumranites.

The ancients had every care and concern that we did. If it was not their own internal material, documents needed a pedigree to be accepted. The ancients respected antiquity. There is every indication that Daniel was recognized by the Qumranites as Scripture. Daniel is called a “prophet” (4Q174) and comments on his text are made with standard introductory formula for Scripture; there are seven copies of his book at Qumran, in other words, it was not an accident or a passing fancy for it to be there. In order to confound this argument, the critic needs to study Qumranite society, literature, and culture, and in the context of the larger socio-religious culture of Judaism, and provide a reason why Daniel managed to slip through these strictures.

…[Daniel] went directly from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to the reign of Belshazzar without mentioning any of the four kings who reigned between them. This within itself would indicate an ignorance of 6th-century Babylonian history, because it at least implies that the writer thought that Belshazzar’s reign followed Nebuchadnezzar’s.

Question: Why is this a problem? Daniel served Nebuchadnezzar for decades and highlights less than half a dozen episodes with him that took no more than a few weeks at most; why is it such an issue that he says nothing of the four kings with far shorter reigns than Nebuchadnezzar’s (one of them a child)?

Re the old Joshua stopping the sun not being recorded elsewhere argument, it is answered here. It is related to the idea that Ezekiel should have mentioned Daniel, and he did, but the connection with the pagan hero fails; see our article for response.

A further appeal is made to the idea that the refusal of Daniel and friends to eat from the king’s table corresponds to a Maccabbean-era issue in which Jews were threatened with their lives if they did not follow a decree to eat unclean foods. There is no indication that Daniel and friends would have been killed for their dietary choices; their overseer feared for himself, if they ended up looking bad, but the parallel drawn is superficial and non-existent. Moreover, such problems as this, and problems of idolatry as in Daniel 3, would have indeed been historically encountered by conscientious Jews in Exile. A Maccabbean parallel is superfluous.

Another erroneous Maccabbean parallel: Belshazzar defiled the temple vessels by using them at a party; Antiochus defiled them by taking them. Taking temple parephenalia, however, was the normal mode of operation in the ancient world for all invaders and attackers. The Romans did it to the Temple as well. This is again not a unique parallel but a universal in context.

Next the objector tries to refute a late date by noting that Daniel contains “good history” about Alexander the Great and beyond. But it’s not that simple — it also contains “accurate history” (i.e., prophecy) beyond the 160s BC. See here. See here on alleged inaccuracy about Antiochus.

Objection is also made about Daniel’s name not being in Babylonian records, but we hardly could claim to possess complete and full records from this period or from any ancient civilization. This is again no more than argument from silence. Remember again that this is what used to be said about Belshazzar — and also note in our article that the names of Daniel’s three friends have been found.

---

In the year 2000 there was more from Hatcher. Hatcher presented the critical scholarship of one who acknowledged that the Daniel 1:1 timing issue had a potential and plausible resolution in the variable calendar systems of the Babylonians and Jews — just as Archer argues. This came not from a fundamentalist press in Grand Rapids, but from a critic who admitted that there was no surety of error being found in Dan. 1:1.

The critic could offer no actual response to this, but could only seize upon the acknowledgement that the critic preferred to suppose error (never mind that in doing so, he did not act consistently with his admission that there was a plausible solution) and object that this was no more than “a how-it-could-have-been solution” — never mind that it works within established knowledge and it fully acceptable historical detective work that would be used by any writer concerning the works of a secular historian. Within such work, such solutions are sufficient justification and constitute reasonable evidence, and can only be responded to with evidence that the solution could not possibly apply (i.e., showing that the calendar system wasn’t that different, or that the years in Daniel were still too far apart for the calendar difference to be of use).

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?

The answer is that it isn’t unlikely at all, though Archer does prefer to suppose that Daniel used the Babylon method. Daniel’s final form was written for Jews who would leave their Exile; Jeremiah’s work was written to people currently in Exile in Babylon. Either writer could have used either system for acceptable reasons, and a critic living in a modern era with standard calendars and no threat of conquest has no cause to argue about such things. That the critic finds such hypotheses “unimpressive” is an interesting insight into his personal view, but does nothing to affect the reasonableness and plausibility of the scenario. Demands for “real evidence” could never be met in any historical study context.

Further matters we mostly address within the text of our article on Daniel. There is no controversy at all over whether Pul was a title or a name; it is known as a shortened name for Tiglath-Pileser III.

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.

What proof is needed that the author of Daniel was familiar with these works? None is needed — that the author of Daniel could read and write is evidence enough. In an age when 10% or less of the population could read or write, such capability indicated a trip through the ancient educational system. That meant that they would become familiar with, and use, the works of men like Herodotus, Xenophon, and Berossos, since these were the common texts used for study.

Of course the critic may speculatively suggest that Daniel’s 2nd century author was absent that day from class, but once again, he would do so in admission that the historical background data as it stands provides no support for his view. (The critic also errs in that he thinks that Hatcher is arguing that Daniel in the 6th century would have read these later authors.)

It is also a counsel of despair to claim that “the Jewish scriptures didn’t exist in bound volumes” (they did not have to exist in that condition; scrolls are just as usable) and that the author of Daniel may not have known the writings of Jeremiah or Ezra, etc. As a literate Jew, he was bound to know these things by definition.

-JPH

________

Related posts:

Robert Dick Wilson’s talk “Is the Higher Criticism Scholarly?” (part 3 of transcript) (Wilson looks at the Book of Daniel)

February 12, 2013 – 1:28 am

The Bible and Archaeology (4/5) For many more archaeological evidences in support of the Bible, see Archaeology and the Bible . (There are some great posts on this too at the bottom of this post.)   Robert Dick Wilson at the Grove City Bible Conference in 1909. IS THE HIGHER CRITICISM SCHOLARLY?Clearly attested facts showing that […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Edit | Comments (0)

Hanukkah celebrates Maccabean Revolt: Was the Book of Daniel written then or when the Bible claims?

December 23, 2011 – 3:08 pm

Bible Prophecy vs. History (Daniel 11:1-19) _____________________________ Wikipedia notes: Hanukkah (Hebrew: חֲנֻכָּה‎, Tiberian: Ḥănukkāh, usually spelled חנוכה pronounced [χanuˈka] in Modern Hebrew, also romanized as Chanukah, Chanukkah, or Chanuka), also known as the Festival of Lights, is an eight-day Jewish holiday commemorating the rededication of the Holy Temple (the Second Temple) in Jerusalem at the time […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Was Daniel an Eyewitness of 6th-Century B.C. Events? (part 2) (Plus Six Pieces of Archaeological Evidence that Support the 6th Century View and video of John MacArthur on Daniel 4)

March 7, 2013 – 1:05 am

The Bible and Archaeology (3/5) For many more archaeological evidences in support of the Bible, see Archaeology and the Bible . (There are some great posts on this too at the bottom of this post.) I believe the evidence points to Daniel writing the Book of Daniel in the 6th century B.C. Below is a sermon […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Biblical Archaeology | Edit | Comments (0)

Was Daniel an Eyewitness of 6th-Century B.C.Events? (part 1)

March 5, 2013 – 1:01 am

The Bible and Archaeology (2/5) There is evidence pointing to the accuracy of the Bible. Here is some below. For many more archaeological evidences in support of the Bible, see Archaeology and the Bible . (There are some great posts on this too at the bottom of this post.) Was Daniel an Eyewitness of 6th-Century B. […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Biblical Archaeology | Edit | Comments (0)

The Critics’ Admissions Concerning Daniel

February 28, 2013 – 1:50 am

The Bible and Archaeology (1/5) I have been amazed at the prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled in history. John MacArthur went through every detail of the prophecy concerning Tyre and how history shows the Bible prophecy was correct.   I love the Book of Daniel and I am starting a series today […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Biblical Archaeology | Edit | Comments (0)

Is the Bible historically accurate? Here are some of the posts I have done in the past on the subject:

1. The Babylonian Chronicle
of Nebuchadnezzars Siege of Jerusalem

This clay tablet is a Babylonian chronicle recording events from 605-594BC. It was first translated in 1956 and is now in the British Museum. The cuneiform text on this clay tablet tells, among other things, 3 main events: 1. The Battle of Carchemish (famous battle for world supremacy where Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon defeated Pharoah Necho of Egypt, 605 BC.), 2. The accession to the throne of Nebuchadnezzar II, the Chaldean, and 3. The capture of Jerusalem on the 16th of March, 598 BC.

2. Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel Inscription.

King Hezekiah of Judah ruled from 721 to 686 BC. Fearing a siege by the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, Hezekiah preserved Jerusalem’s water supply by cutting a tunnel through 1,750 feet of solid rock from the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloam inside the city walls (2 Kings 20; 2 Chron. 32). At the Siloam end of the tunnel, an inscription, presently in the archaeological museum at Istanbul, Turkey, celebrates this remarkable accomplishment.

3. Taylor Prism (Sennacherib Hexagonal Prism)

It contains the victories of Sennacherib himself, the Assyrian king who had besieged Jerusalem in 701 BC during the reign of king Hezekiah, it never mentions any defeats. On the prism Sennacherib boasts that he shut up “Hezekiah the Judahite” within Jerusalem his own royal city “like a caged bird.” This prism is among the three accounts discovered so far which have been left by the Assyrian king Sennacherib of his campaign against Israel and Judah.

4. Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically.

In addition to Jericho, places such as Haran, Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Shechem, Samaria, Shiloh, Gezer, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean, Beersheba, Lachish, and many other urban sites have been excavated, quite apart from such larger and obvious locations as Jerusalem or Babylon. Such geographical markers are extremely significant in demonstrating that fact, not fantasy, is intended in the Old Testament historical narratives;

5. The Discovery of the Hittites

Most doubting scholars back then said that the Hittites were just a “mythical people that are only mentioned in the Bible.” Some skeptics pointed to the fact that the Bible pictures the Hittites as a very big nation that was worthy of being coalition partners with Egypt (II Kings 7:6), and these bible critics would assert that surely we would have found records of this great nation of Hittites.  The ironic thing is that when the Hittite nation was discovered, a vast amount of Hittite documents were found. Among those documents was the treaty between Ramesses II and the Hittite King.

6.Shishak Smiting His Captives

The Bible mentions that Shishak marched his troops into the land of Judah and plundered a host of cities including Jerusalem,  this has been confirmed by archaeologists. Shishak’s own record of his campaign is inscribed on the south wall of the Great Temple of Amon at Karnak in Egypt. In his campaign he presents 156 cities of Judea to his god Amon. 

7. Moabite Stone

The Moabite Stone also known as the Mesha Stele is an interesting story. The Bible says in 2 Kings 3:5 that Mesha the king of Moab stopped paying tribute to Israel and rebelled and fought against Israel and later he recorded this event. This record from Mesha has been discovered.

8. Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III

The tribute of Jehu, son of Omri, silver, gold, bowls of gold, chalices of gold, cups of gold, vases of gold, lead, a sceptre for the king, and spear-shafts, I have received.”

View from the dome of the Capitol!9A Verification of places in Gospel of John and Book of Acts.

Sir William Ramsay, famed archaeologist, began a study of Asia Minor with little regard for the book of Acts. He later wrote:

I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.

9B Discovery of Ebla Tablets. When I think of discoveries like the Ebla Tablets that verify  names like Adam, Eve, Ishmael, David and Saul were in common usage when the Bible said they were, it makes me think of what amazing confirmation that is of the historical accuracy of the Bible.

10. Cyrus Cylinder

There is a well preserved cylinder seal in the Yale University Library from Cyrus which contains his commands to resettle the captive nations.

11. Puru “The lot of Yahali” 9th Century B.C.E.

This cube is inscribed with the name and titles of Yahali and a prayer: “In his year assigned to him by lot (puru) may the harvest of the land of Assyria prosper and thrive, in front of the gods Assur and Adad may his lot (puru) fall.”  It provides a prototype (the only one ever recovered) for the lots (purim) cast by Haman to fix a date for the destruction of the Jews of the Persian Empire, ostensibly in the fifth century B.C.E. (Esther 3:7; cf. 9:26).

12. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription

The Bible mentions Uzziah or Azariah as the king of the southern kingdom of Judah in 2 Kings 15. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription is a stone tablet (35 cm high x 34 cm wide x 6 cm deep) with letters inscribed in ancient Hebrew text with an Aramaic style of writing, which dates to around 30-70 AD. The text reveals the burial site of Uzziah of Judah, who died in 747 BC.

13. The Pilate Inscription

The Pilate Inscription is the only known occurrence of the name Pontius Pilate in any ancient inscription. Visitors to the Caesarea theater today see a replica, the original is in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. There have been a few bronze coins found that were struck form 29-32 AD by Pontius Pilate

14. Caiaphas Ossuary

This beautifully decorated ossuary found in the ruins of Jerusalem, contained the bones of Caiaphas, the first century AD. high priest during the time of Jesus.

14 B Pontius Pilate Part 2      

In June 1961 Italian archaeologists led by Dr. Frova were excavating an ancient Roman amphitheatre near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) and uncovered this interesting limestone block. On the face is a monumental inscription which is part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar which clearly says that it was from “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea.”

14c. Three greatest American Archaeologists moved to accept Bible’s accuracy through archaeology.

Despite their liberal training, it was archaeological research that bolstered their confidence in the biblical text:Albright said of himself, “I must admit that I tried to be rational and empirical in my approach [but] we all have presuppositions of a philosophical order.” The same statement could be applied as easily to Gleuck and Wright, for all three were deeply imbued with the theological perceptions which infused their work.

 

—-

_________________________-

Many people have questioned the accuracy of the Bible, but I have posted many videos and articles with evidence pointing out that the Bible has many pieces of evidence from archaeology supporting the view that the Bible is historically accurate. Take a look at the video above and below.

The Bible and Archaeology – Is the Bible from God? (Kyle Butt 42 min)

You want some evidence that indicates that the Bible is true? Here is a good place to start and that is taking a closer look at the archaeology of the Old Testament times. Is the Bible historically accurate? Here are some of the posts I have done in the past on the subject: 1. The Babylonian Chronicle, of Nebuchadnezzars Siege of Jerusalem, 2. Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel Inscription. 3. Taylor Prism (Sennacherib Hexagonal Prism), 4. Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. 5. The Discovery of the Hittites, 6.Shishak Smiting His Captives, 7. Moabite Stone, 8. Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, 9A Verification of places in Gospel of John and Book of Acts., 9B Discovery of Ebla Tablets. 10. Cyrus Cylinder, 11. Puru “The lot of Yahali” 9th Century B.C.E., 12. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription, 13. The Pilate Inscription, 14. Caiaphas Ossuary, 14 B Pontius Pilate Part 2, 14c. Three greatest American Archaeologists moved to accept Bible’s accuracy through archaeology., 

Here is some very convincing evidence that points to the view that the Bible is historically accurate.

Archaeological and External Evidence for the Bible

Archeology consistently confirms the Bible!

Archaeology and the Old Testament

• Ebla tablets—discovered in 1970s in Northern Syria. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. In use in Ebla was the name “Canaan,” a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The tablets refer to all five “cities of the plain” mentioned in Genesis 14, previously assumed to have been mere legends.
• Greater proportion of Egyptian words in the Pentateuch (first five books) than in rest of the Old Testament. Accurate Egyptian names: Potiphar (Gen.39), Zaphenath-Paneah (Joseph’s Egyptian name, Gen. 41:45), Asenath (Gen.41:45), On (Gen. 41:45), Rameses (Gen. 47:11), Oithom (Exodus 1:11).
• Finds in Egypt are consistent with the time, place, and other details of biblical accounts of the Israelites in Egypt. These include housing and tombs that could have been of the Israelites, as well as a villa and tomb that could have been Joseph’s.
• Confounding earlier skeptics, but confirming the Bible, an important discovery was made in Egypt in 1896. A tablet—the Merneptah Stela—was found that mentions Israel. (Merneptah was the pharaoh that ruled Egypt in 1212-1202 B.C.) The context of the stela indicates that Israel was a significant entity in the late 13th century B.C.
• The Hittites were once thought to be a biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered in Turkey.
• Crucial find in Nuzi (northeastern Iraq), an entire cache of Hittite legal documents from 1400 B.C. Confirms many details of Genesis, Deuteronomy, such as: (a) siring of legitimate children through handmaidens, (b) oral deathbed will as binding, (c) the power to sell one’s birthright for relatively trivial property (Jacob & Esau), (d) need for family idols, such as Rachel stole from Laban, to secure inheritance, (e) form of the covenant in Deuteronomy exactly matches the form of suzerainty treaties between Hittite emperors and vassal kings.
• Walls of Jericho—discovery in 1930s by John Garstang. The walls fell suddenly, and outwardly (unique), so Israelites could clamber over the ruins into the city (Joshua 6:20).
• In 1986, scholars identified an ancient seal belonging to Baruch, son of Neriah, a scribe who recorded the prophecies of Jeremiah (Jer. 45:11).
• In 1990, Harvard researchers unearthed a silver-plated bronze calf figurine reminiscent of the huge golden calf mentioned in the book of Exodus.
• In 1993, archaeologists uncovered a 9th century B.C. inscription at Tel Dan. The words carved into a chunk of basalt refer to the “House of David” and the “King of Israel.” And the Bible’s version of Israelite history after the reign of David’s son, Solomon, is believed to be based on historical fact because it is corroborated by independent account of Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions.
• It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon’s palace was discovered in Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded in the palace walls! Even more, fragments of a stela (a poetic eulogy) memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
• Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablet was found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus’ son.
• The ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah have been discovered southeast of the Dead Sea. Evidence at the site seems consistent with the biblical account: “Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens.” The destruction debris was about 3 feet thick and buildings were burned from fires that started on the rooftops. Geologist Frederick Clapp theorizes that that pressure from an earthquake could have spewed out sulfur-laden bitumen (similar to asphalt) known to be in the area through the fault line upon which the cities rest. The dense smoke reported by Abraham is consistent with a fire from such material, which could have ignited by a spark or ground fire.

Archaeology and the New Testament

• The New Testament mentions specific individuals, places, and various official titles of local authorities, confirmed by recent archeology. Luke sites exact titles of officials. (Titles varied from city to city so they are easily checked for accuracy.) Lysanias the Tetrarch in Abilene (Luke 3:1)—verified by inscription dated 14-29 A.D. Erastus, city treasurer of Corinth (Romans 16:23)—verified by pavement inscription. Gallio—proconsul of Achaia (Greece) in A.D. 51 (Acts 18:12). Politarchs (“city ruler”) in Thessalonica (Acts 17:6). Chief Man of the Island on Malta (Acts 28:7). Stone Pavement at Pilate’s headquarters (John 19:13)—discovered recently. Pool at Bethesda— discovered in 1888. Many examples of silver shrines to Artemis found (Acts 19:28). Inscription confirms the title of the city as “Temple Warden of Artemis”. Account of Paul’s sea voyage in Acts is “one of the most instructive documents for the knowledge of ancient seamanship.”
• Census of Luke 1. Census began under Augustus approximately every 14 years: 23-22 B.C., 9-8 B.C., 6 A.D. There is evidence of enrollment in 11-8 B.C. in Egyptian papyri.
  • Problem: Historian Josephus puts Quirinius as governor in Syria at 6 A.D. Solution: Recent inscription confirms that Quirinius served as governor in 7 B. C. (in extraordinary, military capacity).
  • Problem: Herod’s kingdom was not part of the Roman Empire at the time, so there would not have been a census. Solution: it was a client kingdom. Augustus treated Herod as subject (Josephus). Parallel—a census took place in the client kingdom of Antiochus in eastern Asia Minor under Tiberius.
  • Enrollment in hometown? Confirmed by edict of Vibius Maximus, Roman prefect of Egypt, in 104 A.D. “…it is necessary for all who are for any cause whatsoever way from their administrative divisions to return home to comply with the customary ordinance of enrollment.”
• Opinion of Sir William Ramsay, one of the outstanding Near Eastern archeologists: “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the evolution of history, and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident. He seizes the important and critical events and shows their true nature at greater length…In short, this author should be placed among the very greatest of historians.”
• Diggers recently uncovered an ossuary (repository for bones) with the inscription “Joseph Son of Caiaphas.” This marked the first archaeological evidence that the high priest Caiaphas was a real person. According to the gospels, Caiaphas presided at the Sanhedrin’s trial of Jesus.

External References to Jesus and the Christian Church.

• Josephus. Born to priestly family in A.D. 37. Commanded Jewish troops in Galilee during rebellion. Surrendered, and earned favor of Emperor Vespasian. Wrote 20 books of Antiquities of the Jews. Refers to John the Baptist (killed by Herod) and to James, the brother of Jesus (condemned to death by stoning by the Sanhedrin). He referred to Jesus in his Antiquities 18:63. The standard text of Josephus reads as follows:

“About this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.  For he was the achiever of extraordinary deeds and was a teacher of those who accept the truth gladly.  He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks.  He was the Messiah.  When he was indicted by the principal men among us and Pilate condemned him to be crucified, those who had come to love him originally did not cease to do so; for he appeared to them on the third day restored to life, as the prophets of the Deity had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him, and the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.”  (Josephus—The Essential Works, P. L. Maier ed./trans.).

Although this passage is so worded in the Josephus manuscripts as early as the third-century church historian Eusebius, scholars have long suspected a Christian interpolation, since Josephus could hardly have believed Jesus to be the Messiah or in his resurrection and have remained, as he did, a non-Christian Jew.  In 1972, however, Professor Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem announced his discovery of a different manuscript tradition of Josephus’s writings in the tenth-century Melkite historian Agapius, which reads as follows:

“At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous.  Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples.  Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.  But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship.  They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive.  Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders.  And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.”

Here, clearly, is language that a Jew could have written without conversion to Christianity.  (Schlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications [Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971.])

According to Dr. Paul Maier, professor of ancient history, “Scholars fall into three basic camps regarding Antiquities 18:63:  1) The original passage is entirely authentic—a minority position; 2) it is entirely a Christian forgery—a much smaller minority position; and 3) it contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus’s original, authentic material about Jesus—the large majority position today, particularly in view of the Agapian text (immediately above) which shows no signs of interpolation. Josephus must have mentioned Jesus in authentic core material at 18:63 since this passage is present in all Greek manuscripts of Josephus, and the Agapian version accords well with his grammar and vocabulary elsewhere.  Moreover, Jesus is portrayed as a ‘wise man’ [sophos aner], a phrase not used by Christians but employed by Josephus for such personalities as David and Solomon in the Hebrew Bible.  Furthermore, his claim that Jesus won over “many of the Greeks” is not substantiated in the New Testament, and thus hardly a Christian interpolation but rather something that Josephus would have noted in his own day.  Finally, the fact that the second reference to Jesus at Antiquities 20:200, which follows, merely calls him the Christos [Messiah] without further explanation suggests that a previous, fuller identification had already taken place.  Had Jesus appeared for the first time at the later point in Josephus’s record, he would most probably have introduced a phrase like “…brother of a certain Jesus, who was called the Christ.”

• Early Gentile writers, referred to by Christian apologists in 2nd century.
  • Thallus—wrote a history of Greece and Asia Minor in A.D. 52. Julius Africanus (221 AD), commenting on Thallus, said: “Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness [during the crucifixion] as an eclipse of the sun—unreasonably, as it seems to me [since the Passover took place during a full moon.]”
  • Official Roman records of the census, and Pontius Pilate’s official report to the Emperor. Justin Martyr wrote his “Defense of Christianity” to Emperor Antonius Pius, referred him to Pilate’s report, preserved in the archives. Tertullian, writing to Roman officials, writes with confidence that records of the Luke 1 census can still be found.
• Roman historians
  • Tacitus—Greatest Roman historian, born 52 A.D., wrote a history of the reign of Nero in 110 A.D. “…Christus, from whom they got their name, had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate when Tiberias was emperor; and the pernicious superstition was checked for a short time only to break out afresh, not only in Judea, the home of the plague, but in Rome itself, .. ” (Annals 15:44)
  • Suetonius—AD. 120. In his Life of Claudius: “As the Jews were making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.”
  • Pliny the Younger—Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote the emperor in A.D. 112 about the sect of Christians, who were in “the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day, before it was light, when they sang an anthem to Christ as God.”

Note: A good web site for biblical archaeology is www.christiananswers.net.

• Manuscript Evidence
• Archaeological Evidence
• Prophetic Evidence
• Statistical Evidence

• Introduction to Apologetics
• Summary for Memorization

__________

Related posts: