Problems in Daniel...
There are a few points in my encyclopaedia about the book of Daniel that I did not see in TSR, although I may have missed those parts.
“The statement at the very beginning of the book, that ‘in the 3rd year of the reign of Jehoiakim’ Nebuchadrezzar besieged and captured Jerusalem, and carried the Jewish king and the vessels of the temple to Babylonia, finds no support in the history known to us, but seems to be the work of a writer who combined 2 Chron. 36:6 f. with 2 Kings 24:1. The use of Kasdim, ‘Chaldeans,’as the name of a class of magicians is a striking anachronism (the word ‘Chaldeans’ used to be a nation, but were only much later seen as magicians Callahan).
“The four kingdoms of chap. 2. introduce a still greater difficulty. The first kingdom is the Babylonian (vs. 38), the fourth is the Greek empire (cf. chap. 8), the third, immediately preceding the Greek (8:20, f, 10:20) is the Persian. The identity of the second kingdom is then made certain by numerous passages; it is the kingdom of the Medes, whose reigning king, called ‘Darius the Mede,’ took possession of Babylonia upon the death of Belshazzar, and at the close of his reign was succeeded by Cyrus. (5:30, 6:1, 6:28; cf. 10:1, 11:1). There was, however, in fact no Median power which came ‘after’ the Babylonian (2:39) and in turn yielded the throne of Babylonia to the Persians (11:1). The name Darius is not Median, and we have certain knowledge that the immediate successor of Nabonidus and Belshazzar as ruler of Babylon was Cyrus. Comparison with the list of Persian kings in the book of Ezra seems to show that in the last centuries BC the Jewish learned tradition transposed the reign of Cyrus with that of Darius 1 Hystaspis, the latter being regarded as king of the Medes. The reign of Cyrus was believed to have been immediately followed by those of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, Ezra 4:5 [Where the reference is to Darius 2 Nothus]” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1962, vol. 7).
According to Tim Callahan in Bible Prophecy, pp. 151-153, “There is ample evidence that the book was written well after the Exile. First of all, much of the book was written in Aramaic. If Daniel had really been written by a Jew in the Captivity, we would expect it to be written in Hebrew. Aramaic did not supplant Hebrew as the language commonly spoken by the Jews until well after the exile. While Daniel starts out in Hebrew, it switches to Aramaic part way through chapter 2 and continues in Aramaic through chapter 7. Then it returns to Hebrew for the final five chapters. A fundamentalist could argue that the whole thing was originally written in Hebrew and only later partially translated to Aramaic. David Jeremiah says that since the sections written in Aramaic dealt with Gentiles while those in Hebrew dealt with Jews, Daniel wrote them in Aramaic because it was the lingua franca of both the Chaldean and Persian Empires. This is simply not true. Chapter 8 deals with the struggles between Alexander the Great and the Persian Empire. Yet, though it relates to the Gentiles, it is written in Hebrew. Regardless of what the prophecies deal with, the book was written for the Jews. There is no indication that the book was distributed to the Gentiles of either empire. As to whether the book was originally in Hebrew or Aramaic, there are a number of reasons to believe that it was deliberately translated from Aramaic into Hebrew, since much of the Hebrew text follows the grammar of Aramaic rather than that of Hebrew. Further, there are a number of Greek and Persian words salted through much of the Hebrew text that would not have been used until after the time of Hellenistic influence following Alexander the Great. Had the work been written in the Aramaic of the Chaldean course, it would have contained no Persian, and the Aramaic of both the Chaldean and Persian courts would have contained no Greek.... Also, the Hebrew that is used is a late form of the language.”
(Gavin Steingo, 33 Gainsborough Road, Room 201B, Boston, MA 02115; e-mail, gavin220@hotmail.com)
Editor's Note: This letter was sent to me in July 2000, but lack of space prevented its publication until now. Some of the problems in Daniel identified by Mr. Steingo's sources have been discussed by now, and before all the verbal dust of this debate has settled, some of the others will have been addressed too. The importance of Steingo’s letter is that it serves to remind us that there are “scholars” on both sides of this issue, so one settles nothingcontrary to what Hatcher seems to thinkby just bombarding readers with a long list of what this and that “scholar” have said. What the scholars have said must be defended, but Hatcher doesn't seem to realize that.
The next letter presents some information relevant to Hatcher's attempt to make “father” mean only “ancestor” or “predecessor” and “son” mean “descendant” or “successor.” The writer shows that Hatcher's Assyrian inscription is far from conclusive proof that the writer of Daniel meant that Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar's son only in the sense that he was a successor.
Tidbits about Daniel...
I have some tidbits about your article “What Daniel Didn't Know.” In it, you said the following about Hatcher's argument: “In reply to the reference to Belshazzar as the ‘son’ of Nebuchadnezzar, Hatcher said that Daniel was just following an ‘ancient custom of the time which was to recognize the king of Babylon as the “son”(or successor) of Nebuchadnezzar.’ His support for this quibble was to cite a couple of archaeological records in which ‘son’ seems to have been used in the sense of a royal successor. One of these was an inscription on the Assyrian Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, where Jehu was referred to as the ‘son of Omri,’ even though they were not related” (March/April 1999, p. 5).
We see, then, that Hatcher argues by assuming the inerrancy of not just the Bible but also other ancient records. We have no way of knowing whether the writer of this inscription was aware that Jehu was not a descendant of Omri, so as far as we actually know, this reference could hardly constitute evidence that it was an “ancient custom” to refer to successors of kings as “sons” even though they weren't really related. This could have been just a mistaken impression that the writer of the inscription had. If Omri had been a well known predecessor king of Jehu in a time when thrones were passed down from father to son, a writer in another country, who was unaware of how Jehu had gained the throne, could have easily thought that he was a descendant of Omri.
You may be interested in knowing that Jehu accepted the invitation of Elisha to lead a coup against the king of Israel. By doing so, Jehu overthrew the last of the dynasty of Omri, having been at war with that house. He extinguished the entire line of Omri, including Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Ahab's wife, Jezebel (2 Kings 9-10). So in no sense was Jehu a “son of Omri”not in the normal procreative sense, nor in the more figurative/allegorical sense not unless revolutionaries who kill off a royal household can be considered the figurative “son” of that same household.
So having said all that, we can reasonably conclude either that [1] whoever carved the black obelisk of Shalmaneser either simply made an error in assuming that Jehu and Omri were related (when in fact they were not), or [2] for convenience or cultural sake, the Assyrians referred to any king from Israel as a “son of Omri.” Omri was the king who established the dynasty that produced Ahab and other prominent kings of Israel. Omri expanded the kingdom into Samaria, a geographical neighbor of Assyria, so from an Assyrian viewpoint, any successive kings in Israel could have been considered “sons of Omri.” This, however, isn't the kind of mistake that anyone back in Israel would have made. No average person back in the capital of Samaria would have dared to call Jehu the son of Omrithe king whose dynasty Jehu had massacred.
(Bob Sarver, 15127 NE 24th Street, Suite 388, Redmond, WA 98052-5547; e-mail, bobsarv@microsoft. com)
Another Satisfied Skeptic...
Enclosed please find my check for a two-year renewal. Thank you for the first-year subscription. I've looked forward to receiving each issue since I read through the first.
I don't recall how it was that I stumbled onto your Skeptical Review web site nearly a year ago, but I am certainly glad that I did. When I began investigating the accuracy of the Bible, I felt somewhat guilty. “Who was I,” I thought, “to question God?” I finally asked myself if I would want to know if the Bible were false. I decided that I would and thus began what I'd call an adventure. I undoubtedly have learned more about the Bible in the last year than I did in eight years of Christian grade school and four years of Christian college.
Leaving the Christian mindset is almost like pulling the plug. Once it's done, it's hard to understand the old way of thinking. In my discussions with Christian friends, it is obvious that they have built an illogical wall around their brains. Everything proves God to them. Sunsets prove God's power, while venomous snakes prove the damaging effects of sin. When they pray for something, and it seems to come to pass, they're certain that God was the cause. However, when they pray for something and it doesn't occur, they see it as further proof that God's ways are higher than ours.
I say all of this because I often detect frustration in your words, frustration that is undoubtedly understandable. The internal realization is a gradual one, while the outward change seems to be sudden. Though your words may not seem to be producing the effect that they should, rest assured that your time and effort is indeed putting continual dings in the faulty mental armor of your Christian readers.
Thanks again for the time that you spend defending reason. I truly appreciate both The Skeptical Review and the errancy mailing list. The education that I've received as a result of each is certainly worth the tuition.
(Robert W. Smith, Jr., P. O. Box 265, Linwood, NJ 08221-0265; e-mail, skeptic@digital-design-group.com)
Editor's Note: I'm sometimes criticized for publishing letters like this one, because some think that they present skeptics as just the counterparts of Christians giving their testimony for Jesus. However, I know from the personal mail I receive that many who are struggling to make a decision about whether to make a break with their biblical-based beliefs have concerns about how such a break would affect their personal happiness. Some think that depression will be the consequence of becoming skeptics, but my own experience and the mail I receive tell me differently. Although there may be emotional problems initially, these almost always pass. Those who have this stage of their lives behind them invariably say the same thing that Mr. Smith did. Guilt is experienced at first, but this goes away. The last state is better than the first. So many say this that it must be a common experience for those who pass from religious superstition to a more rational way of looking at life.
To Renew or Not to Renew?
I received my July/August Skeptical Review and noted that my subscription expires 6-00. To resubscribe or not to resubscribe?
I have discovered that about half the clutter in my house is information, i. e., books, letters, cards, notes, lists, printed e-mails, just a mess of written stuff. Add to that the fact that I subscribe to about 10 magazines and the data pile up. I hate to throw away information, on the chance I might need it “someday.” When I get an opportunity to reduce the incoming landslide of data overload, I give it serious consideration.
I think to myself that I've seen enough issues of TSR to be fully convinced that biblical inerrancy is a joke, albeit a sad one perpetrated on ignorant people, but when it comes to not receiving your next issue, I realize how much I enjoy your intelligent and literate way of poking holes in the pompous fundamentalists who write such incredible letters and articles to you.
So enclosed please find a check for another two years worth of TSR. Gotta have it!
(Carl Nye, P. O. Box 175, Cottonwood, AZ 86326-0175; e-mail, c_nye99@yahooo.com)
Editor's Note: Mr. Nye's letter struck a responsive chord, because I have to have the most cluttered office in the world. I don't like to throw anything away, because I think that I may need it "someday." I have discovered a way to test whether something will be needed that Mr. Nye may be interested in hearing. Just throw it away, and the next day you will find out that you did need it.
I actually had another reason for publishing Mr. Nye's letter. It was sent in July 2000, so he apparently understood the 6-00 on his address label to mean that his subscription had expired in June. Many still confuse the meaning of these numbers. The last two are easy to remember, because they represent the year of expiration. Hence, 00 meant that the subscription expired in the year 2000; 01 means that the subscription will expire in the year 2001. The first number, however, does not refer to the months in the year but to the number of the issue. Six issues are published each year, so the first number in the expiration “date” will always range from 1 to 6. The current issue is Number 1 in Volume 12, being published in the year 2001, so if your subscription expires with this issue, 1-01 will be on your address label. If your subscription expires with the next issue (Number 2 in Volume 12), 2-01 will be on your address label.
If renewals are sent ahead of time because of misinterpreting the expiration date, the subscription will be extended one issue for each dollar in the renewal check.
Are We Close-Minded Too?
In the July-August TSR Michael Bradford asked if you had ever conceded defeat on any issue to an inerrantist, and you were gracious enough to admit that on occasion you may have been wrong on specific points of errancy.
However, I think we need some more general advice from you as to how to meet the charge by inerrantists that we are as close-minded as we accuse them of being, and what it would take for us to ever admit that there is a God. We are asked, “Is there any possibility whatsoever that you would ever concede the existence of God?” Perhaps I made a mistake once when I blurted out in response, “Absolutely not, there simply is no god; it's all a fairy tale, and that's it!” Well, there I was, trapped into being as close-minded as they are.
Aren't we as close-minded as the inerrantist, or are we reduced to the plaintive plea, “Listen, I will concede when God appears before me in person on this sidewalk and starts to talk with me”? Is that about as good as we can do? Give us some debate pointers on this question, please.
(Theodore M. Utchen, P. O. Box 140, Wheaton IL 60189-0140; e-mail, TMUtchen@compuserve. com)
Editor's Note: Mr. Utchen referred to how we accuse biblical inerrantists of being close-minded, and certainly we do at times accuse them of this; however, my experience has been that they level this charge at us far more than we accuse them of close-mindedness. On the internet, “Your mind is made up and nothing will change it,” has almost become a theme song of inerrantists who post on the internet. I couldn't even estimate the number of times I have had an internet opponent say this about me.
My reply is that my personal life soundly refutes this charge, because I was once a fundamentalist preacher and foreign missionary, who believed and taught biblical inerrancy as fervently as anyone could , yet I changed when my personal studies led me to see that this is a belief that cannot be defended. That experience shows that I have a willingness to renounce deeply held beliefs when I see sufficient evidence to show that they are wrong. I remind my internet opponents of this dramatic change in my life and then ask them what they can point to in their lives that would show that they too are willing to reject deeply held beliefs if the evidence warrants it. That almost always silences them.
Many TSR subscribers could make the same point. Although they may not have been preachers, many of them were once biblical fundamentalists, who renounced this belief when they saw that it was untenable. I doubt that TSR readers will ever find themselves discussing the Bible with people who were once skeptics but became believers in biblical inerrancy after they had encountered evidence that the Bible is indeed the inspired, inerrant word of God. In all probability, a skeptic discussing the Bible with an inerrantist will be talking to someone who was born in a fundamentalist environment and reared to believe in biblical inerrancy, so the same response can be made to almost any biblicist who accuses the deconverted skeptic of being close-minded.
Mr. Utchen may have technically committed a faux pas in the example related above where he, in effect, told a theist that there was no chance that he would ever believe in "God," but his remark was certainly understandable. Unlike the born-and-bred biblicist or theist, he has looked at this matter from both sides, so he enjoys a vantage point from which to view the situation that his opponents don't have. He therefore understands that it is so unlikely that he would ever turn back to what he once was that it really isn't a possibility that deserves serious consideration. In some cases, depending on how well I personally know my opponents, I may say the same thing, but I go on to point out that I am speaking as one who has looked at the matter from both sides, something that my opponent has never done, so I know that returning to what I was is too unlikely even to consider. I usually top this off with this statement: The mind is like an elastic band; once it has been stretched to accept ideas that don't depend on superstitious religious fears, it can never go back and resume its former shape.
More on “Just” in Jeremiah 7...
Let me add to your critique of the NIV (May/June 2000, page 10). I believe I may have found the “source”of the added word “just” in the NIV version of Jeremiah 7:22-23: “For when I (Yahweh) brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not [just] give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but I gave them this command. Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people.”
As you stated, the word “just” is not in any other translation, nor in the Hebrew. Could the “source” of this inserted word be found in the preface (Rev. 1983) to the NIV translation, which includes the following statement: “The translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's word in written form....”
The NIV translators seem to have, in effect, pledged that their translation will not disprove infallibility, (i. e., prove errancy), regardless of what it takes. How else could their pledge be interpreted? Then, since the Jeremiah passage as given in any manuscript or other translation (without the “just”) contradicts other parts of the Bible, specifically the Torah, which gives laws, supposedly from God and before the time of Jeremiah, about sacrifices and burnt offerings, doesn't their infallibility pledge seem to require that they change the text of Jeremiah? An accurate translation would definitely show that the Bible is not infallible. Doesn't it appear that they may have rationalized that “accurate” means “infallible” because of their commitment to the infallibility of the Bible noted above? This approach seems intellectual nonsense, but I would like to know how else they could claim to keep their infallibility pledge? Is there any statement by the NIV rationalizing their pledge?
The NIV preface (mentioned above) notes that one of the initiators of the NIV was the National Association of Evangelicals. Although I am not an expert on evangelicals, this statement in the NIV preface brought to mind that Mark Noll of [evangelical] Wheaton College, in his 1994 book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, began with this statement: “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.... American evangelicals are not exemplary for their thinking, and they have not been so for several generations” (p. 3). Why would not any scholarly, thinking translator translate accurately from the source(s), independent of theology (infallibility) and not make changes or additions which appear to be for the sole purpose of “validating” their a priori dogma? In fact, why would any scholarly translator take such a pledge which seems to put dogma over accuracy of translation?
Any reader of The Skeptical Review or of any number of scholarly Bible commentaries can easily see that the Bible is not infallible....
The NIV approach to translating Jeremiah 7:22 is similar to that of the Authorized, or King James, Version of 1611 in which words were added by the translators to remove apparent contradictions. However, the approach of the King James translators seems more intellectually honest, in that the added words were included in square brackets [ ], or, by some publishers, are printed in italic or boldface type. This practice was described in the preface to the original edition of the KJV. However, with a brief search, I was not able to find a current copy of a King James Version which included the original translator's preface with a description of this practice, although there may be some. Most publishers of the KJV, most probably evangelically oriented, use italic or boldface instead of the brackets, which makes the additions hard to detect, and I have heard some people say that they thought the italic or boldface type was used for emphasis, thus getting a completely erroneous understanding of the text. Some current KJV Bibles even print these added words in regular type, thus giving readers the idea that they were part of the earliest extant manuscripts, which is not true.
The KJV does not include the “just” in Jeremiah 7:22, but if the translators had noticed this contradiction, they probably would have added it as [just] or just, to indicate that no manuscripts support the word. An example of added words in the KJV is 2 Samuel 21:19, which reads: “And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregin slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite.” This, as given in the Hebrew, without “[the brother of]” contradicts 1 Samuel 19, which has the well known story of David killing Goliath, and as far as I know, there is no story of Goliath's resurrection. Modern translators omit “[the brother of]” in 2 Samuel 21:19, as there is no manuscript evidence for including it in Samuel. A later writer of the story of Elhanan in Chronicles, which has been described as a very poor redaction, aimed mainly at cleaning up the story of David, apparently noticing the discrepancy, also added “the brother of ” in Chronicles 20.5.
Thus these fundamentalists or inerrantists, who say they believe that God inspired every word of the Bible but add their own words to change the meaning, seem to think that regarding these discrepancies, “They know exactly what God would have written if He [God] only understood the issue as well as they [the fundamentalists] do.” If these practices can occur in the scientific age of today, when accuracy is valued, and the older versions will be preserved in libraries, it raises questions as to what must have happened to Bible manuscripts in earlier times when earlier versions could be destroyed!
I believe that these conservatives actually harm, rather than help Christianity by changing the Bible rather than their inerrantist dogma. They fool only the uninformed and the unintelligent.
(Harold Curtis, P. O. Box 15626, Long Beach CA 90815; e-mail, hcurtis266@aol.com)
Editor's Note: Space won't allow discussion
of this letter, but of all the modern translations I am familiar with,
none that I know of has been as flagrant in trying to translate away
biblical discrepancies as the NIV. I would recommend that it be read
with care.
