Everette Hatcher seems determined to bombard us with endless lists of "scholars" who agree with his view that the book of Daniel was written by a 6th-century B. C. Judean captive, who had risen to a position of prominence in the Babylonian government and had personally experienced the events that he wrote about, but Hatcher seems not at all interested in showing us through logical argumentation that the opinions of these "scholars" are meritorious enough to accept. As I, and now Bruce Wildish in the foregoing article, have pointed out, Hatcher seems to have the mistaken impression that if he just quotes and cites enough fundamentalist writers and "apologists," he will have somehow made his case. Constant reminders that it takes much more than just citing authorities to prove one's position has had virtually no effect on Hatcher's apologetic style, because each article he submits consists of just more of the same appeals to what Colless thinks or Shea believes or what "some modern scholars have noted," etc., etc., etc. , but support for what Colless thinks or Shea believes or modern scholars have noted is almost always absent in Hatcher's articles.
Hatcher may have no interest in actually trying to support fundamentalist assertions on this issue, but I'm determined to reply in detail to them in order to show readers the weakness of Hatcher's position, which is actually just a fundamentalist view that he is recycling. By answering in detail the assertions of his "scholars," I will be showing that their view of authorship is indefensible. In the last issue, I had insufficient space to address all of the rehashed fundamentalist assertions that Hatcher made in just the first one third of his latest article, so I am delaying publication of the second third of the article in order to finish my reply to points in his first installment. Bruce Wildish has made my task easier by replying to several of the far-fetched "possibilities" that Hatcher keeps wagging into the debate, so when I publish the second third of Hatcher's article, all I will need to do on some points is just refer back to what Wildish said in his article. Readers of TSR may want to keep this issue at hand for reference when Hatcher's articles continue.
Throughout the debate, Hatcher has consistently evaded the textual and extrabiblical evidence I have presented to show that the writer of Daniel, for some reason, thought that Nebuchadnezzar was the actual father of Belshazzar, which would be a mistake that would be extremely difficult to reconcile with the claim that the writer of Daniel was a 6th-century B. C. Judean captive, who had served as a top official in the Babylonian court from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar down to the time of Belshazzar, who, according to the writer, was king at the time of Babylon's fall. Contemporary historical records clearly show that Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, and although some fundamentalists have tried to argue that Belshazzar was a distant relative of Nebuchadnezzar and therefore a "son" in that sense, there is no real evidence to support that position. Why, then, would a writer who had allegedly served in important official positions in the reigns of both Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar have made such an egregious error as was made in presenting them as father an son? This is a question that Hatcher has merely waved at in passing, but he has conspicuously avoided replying to the evidence that I have presented to show that the writer of Daniel did indeed think that these two Babylonians were literally father and son.
Twice I have quoted in its entirety the passage where Nebuchadnezzar was repeatedly referred to as the father of Belshazzar, and I am going to quote it again with the words father and son emphasized. If Hatcher just passes over this again, we can only conclude that he has recognized a problem that he cannot solve. In this scene, the king had prepared a feast for the high officials in his government, during which the writer said that Belshazzar "commanded that they bring in the vessels of gold and silver that his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem, so that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them" (5:2). Ostensibly because of the desecration of these sacred temple vessels, a mysterious hand appeared and wrote a message on the wall. Stricken with great fear, Belshazzar called for his wise men and enchanters to come before him and interpret what the hand had written. When they could not interpret the meaning of the message, the following scene ensued.
Then King Belshazzar became greatly terrified and his face turned pale, and his lords were perplexed. The queen, when she heard the discussion of the king and his lords, came into the banqueting hall. The queen said, "O king, live forever! Do not let your thoughts terrify you or your face grow pale. There is a man in your kingdom who is endowed with a spirit of the holy gods. In the days of your father he was found to have enlightenment, understanding, and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods. Your father, King Nebuchadnezzar, made him chief of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and diviners, because an excellent spirit, knowledge, and understanding to interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve problems were found in this Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now let Daniel be called, and he will give the interpretation."
Then Daniel was brought in before the king. The king said to Daniel, "So you are Daniel, one of the exiles of Judah, whom my father the king brought from Judah? I have heard of you that a spirit of the gods is in you, and that enlightenment, understanding, and excellent wisdom are found in you. Now the wise men, the enchanters, have been brought in before me to read this writing and tell me its interpretation, but they were not able to give the interpretation of the matter. But I have heard that you can give interpretations and solve problems. Now if you are able to read the writing and tell me its interpretation, you shall be clothed in purple, have a chain of gold around your neck, and rank third in the kingdom."
Then Daniel answered in the presence of the king, "Let your gifts be for yourself, or give your rewards to someone else! Nevertheless I will read the writing to the king and let him know the interpretation. O king, the Most High God gave your father Nebuchadnezzar kingship, greatness, glory, and majesty. And because of the greatness that he gave him, all peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him. He killed those he wanted to kill, kept alive those he wanted to keep alive, honored those he wanted to honor, and degraded those he wanted to degrade. But when his heart was lifted up and his spirit was hardened so that he acted proudly, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and his glory was stripped from him. He was driven from human society, and his mind was made like that of an animal. His dwelling was with the wild asses, he was fed grass like oxen, and his body was bathed with the dew of heaven, until he learned that the Most High God has sovereignty over the kingdom of mortals, and sets over it whomever he will. And you, Belshazzar his son, have not humbled your heart, even though you knew all this! You have exalted yourself against the Lord of heaven! The vessels of his temple have been brought in before you, and you and your lords, your wives and your concubines have been drinking wine from them. You have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see or hear or know; but the God in whose power is your very breath, and to whom belong all your ways, you have not honored (Daniel 5:10-23).
We have here an extended passage in which the narrator himself referred to Nebuchadnezzar once as the father of Belshazzar, after which purported dialogue followed in which the queen twice referred to Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar's father, and Belshazzar once referred to Nebuchadnezzar as his father. A speech by Daniel then followed in which he once referred to Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzar and once called Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar, so altogether there are six different references in this one passage to a father-son relationship between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar.
I emphasize again that this is an extended passage, which runs through almost an entire chapter, and not just a verse or two in which Jesus was called the "son of David" or Abraham was called the "father" of someone who had lived long after him. Such examples as these are biblical references in contexts that easily show that the words son and father were not intended to be understood in their strictest meanings, but the passage above is entirely different. Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar had been contemporaries, and the writer of this text referred to them as father and son not just once but six times. That is compelling evidence that the writer of Daniel, for some reason, thought that they were father and son.
All Hatcher has been able to do on this point is argue that son and father sometimes meant only descendant or ancestor in Semitic languages, but we all know this. We also know that whenever the words were so used the contexts almost always made these intended meanings obvious to the readers, but we don't have that situation in the passage quoted above. There is no reason at all to assign the sense of ancestor or predecessor to the word father or the sense of descendant or successor to son in this text except the desire of biblical fundamentalists to make the book of Daniel inerrant. That is never a linguistically sound reason to assign figurative or secondary meanings to words. The words of a text should be interpreted in their literal sense unless there is a compelling reason to assign figurative or secondary meaning. That is a primary rule of both hermeneutics and literary interpretation, and the desire to make a text inerrant is not a compelling reason to abandon this principle of literary interpretation.
I have repeatedly asked Hatcher to cite just one example of another extended biblical passage where the words father and son were repeatedly used in the secondary senses of either ancestor or predecessor or descendant or successor, which meanings Hatcher is trying to defend in Daniel 5, but he has failed to produce. In his latest evasion of this request, he said, "Now, it is true that Farrell Till would like me to come up with a longer passage in the Bible where 'father' is used in the sense of 'predecessor' and 'son' as 'successor,' but I don't see why the verses I have already cited are insufficient." Well, what are these verses that Hatcher considers "sufficient"? He cited 2 Kings 2:12, where Elisha referred to Elijah as "my father" and 1 Kings 20:35 where apprentice prophets were called "sons of the prophets," but these are both in passages where the contexts and other related passages clearly show that the words were not being used in their strictest senses, just as the contexts of references to Jesus as the "son of David" and Abraham as the "father" of people who lived long after him show that the words were not being used literally. Hatcher's argument is as silly as if someone should argue that since the English word club can mean a social organization, then a sentence that says, "John hit Joe with a club," could mean that John struck Joe with a social group.
The issue here is what the context of Daniel 5:1-23 indicates that the likely meanings of father and son were, and the context shows to any reasonable person that the writer of this text intended to convey that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were father and son in the strictest sense. Hatcher hasn't cited any extended biblical passage in which father and son were used in obvious secondary senses, because there just isn't any to quote.
Besides the context of Daniel 5 itself, I have supported my position in this matter with extrabiblical evidence that shows that other 2nd-century B. C. writers, for some reason, thought that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were father and son. The apocryphal book of Baruch, for example, is generally dated as late as the second or first century B. C. The first chapter claims that it was written in Babylon by Baruch, who was Jeremiah's scribe (Jer. 36:4). A collection was taken to send to the priests who had remained in Jerusalem, and with the contribution, the following letter was sent.
The money we are sending you is to be used to buy whole-offerings, sin-offerings, and frankincense, and to provide grain-offerings; you are to offer them on the altar of the Lord our God, with prayers for King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and for his son Belshazzar, that their life may last as long as the heavens are above the earth. So the Lord will strengthen us and bring light to our eyes, and we shall live under the protection of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and of Belshazzar his son; we shall give them service for many a day and find favour with them (Baruch 1:10-13).
Although this passage has been entered into evidence three times during this debate, Hatcher hasn't even mentioned it. It is time for him at least to address the evidence that indicates that there was a 2nd-century B. C. impression that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were father and son, and then tell us why this should not be seen as a justifiable reason to think that the writer of Daniel also thought this. Then, of course, he will have to explain why a 6th-century B. C. Babylonian official could have been so misinformed in this matter.
The sensible conclusion to reach from the passage in the book of Baruch is that, for whatever reasons may account for it, there was a wrong impression around the 2nd-century B. C. that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were father and son. This misimpression, along with the evidence in support of the 2nd-century B. C. view of authorship, would account for the repeated references in Daniel 5 to the father-son relationship of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, but the only way that Hatcher and his cohorts can account for it is to stretch the contextual meanings of common words beyond the limits of reasonable likelihood. There is no better way for me to describe the verbal gymnastics that Hatcher has resorted to in this matter than to quote what Wildish said in his article about Hatcher's repeated resort to far-fetched interpretations of rather clear textual language.
One of the gravest problems with several of Hatcher's arguments is that he is clearly trying very hard to give the author of Daniel as much latitude as required in order to prove him correct. That is, rather than simply read what the author says in the most direct and straightforward manner and understand his words in their plain, everyday sense, Everette seeks to blur and stretch the meaning and intent of these words so that they can be pressed to mean other things, thus making it possible to defend the author's historical credibility.
So when Hatcher can't find evidence to support his view, he simply resorts to verbal shenanigans to make the text of Daniel say what he wants it to say. Thus, he talks about puns, double entendres, multiple identities, far-fetched word meanings, and other linguistic maneuvers, which no one can see except those who want the book of Daniel to be inerrant. As Wildish also pointed out, Hatcher's linguistic gymnastics makes the book of Daniel an ambiguous verbal mess, which is not a good commentary on the language skills of the omniscient, omnipotent deity who Hatcher believes "inspired" it.
As for Hatcher's continual references to the Assyrian inscription that referred to Jehu as the "son of Omri," I have already addressed that quibble, and a letter from Bob Sarver on pages 12-13 of this issue gives it the coup de grace, so I don't need to comment any further on it. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that the writer of Daniel simply erred in thinking that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were father and son. Hatcher should cease denying the mistake and try to give a reasonable explanation for why it was made.
Only one other comment about Hatcher's first installment of
his latest article is necessary. He has said at least twice that I have
claimed that "all of Daniel was written in the 2nd century [B. C.],"
but that has never been my position. In "Convenient Coincidences in the
Book of Daniel" (September/October 1998), which he cited as a
reference, I said that textual evidence shows it is likely "that this
book was written in the 2nd century B. C. during the Maccabean era,"
but Hatcher is distorting my intention if he presses this to mean that
I think every last word of the book was written at that time. Those who
know my position about the authorship of the Old Testament understand
that I accept the view of multiple authorship of several of the books.
The Pentateuch, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, among others,
have been linguistically analyzed by numerous critics who see in them
evidence of having been edited and revised over extended periods of
time. When someone says that Ezekiel was "written" after the exile, he
doesn't mean that everything in it was written then but that the
structure of the book as it now exists dates from that time. The book
of Daniel is an organizational mess that has no chronological
continuity to it and was even written in two languages. These are signs
that the book is a "patchwork, " some of which was probably written
prior to the final editing in the 2nd century B. C. , which gave us the
essential structure of the book that Hatcher is defending as the work
of a 6th-century B. C. Babylonian official. The obvious intention of
the visionary part of the book was to leave the impression that Daniel
had foreseen the turmoil of the Maccabean period. Hatcher has yet to
reply to my articles about good and bad history in the book of Daniel (TSR,
Volume 9, Numbers 4 & 5), which show that the author knew his
history when he wrote about events in his recent past but wasn't so
well informed about events that were not close to his time period.
Hatcher should forget about attributing to me positions that I don't
have and concentrate instead on trying to find some real evidence to
support his 6th-century view of authorship.
