Basic
Worldview:
104
Why Christianity?
Scholarly
Objections and
Historicity of the Book of Daniel (Part 1)
Judaism
and Christianity Introduction and History
History
of Judaism Continued
Scholarly
Objections and Historicity of Daniel (P. 1)
Historicity
of Daniel (P. 2) & Judeo-Christian Syncretism
A
Few Words on Gnosticism
Christianity
- A Sect of Judaism (P. 1)
Christianity
- A Sect of Judaism (P. 2) & Prophecy in Judaism
Is
Jesus the Jewish Messiah? (P. 1)
Is
Jesus the Jewish Messiah? (P. 2)
List
of Messianic Qualifications & the Resurrection of Jesus
(P. 1)
The
Resurrection of Jesus (Part 2)
Study
Conclusions and Overall Comparisons
Additional
Material
The
Sufferings of Eyewitnesses
Comparison
of Mystical Religions to Judeo-Christianity
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 1)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 2)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 3)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 4)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 5)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 6)
Introduction | Section 1
| Section 2 | Section
3
Scholarly Objections
Despite the fact that the Judeo-Christian scriptures not only
meet, but far exceed the requirements for historical documentation
that are considered necessary to establish historicity and
authorship, some scholars, nevertheless, still object to the
reliability of the Bible. The reason for this objection is
based upon the Bible's inclusion of the miraculous within
its record of historical events. Because the Judeo-Christian
scriptures attest to the occurrence of both natural and supernatural
phenomenon with the same level of certainty, scholars claim
that the Bible is unreliable as a historical witness.
To be clear, we are not arguing here that the historical documentation
of the Bible requires us to accept either its claims about
God or the occurrence of the miraculous in human history.
We will discuss this topic later in our study as we examine
whether or not the evidence offered by the Judeo-Christian
tradition can be verified to substantiate its claims. If it
does not then we do not have to accept its claims about God
or the miraculous. What we are arguing, however, is that it
is absolutely inappropriate to question the reliability of
the Bible simply because it claims miraculous events and supernatural
involvement within human history.
The scholarly criticism of Biblical reliability is first of
all founded on the Atheist view that God does not exist. And
because (according to that view) God does not exist the supernatural
is simply not possible. With this premise, then scholars object
to the reliability and historicity of the Judeo-Christian
scriptures simply because the Bible does attest to the occurrence
of the supernatural. For these scholars, the impossibility
of the supernatural means that the reliability and historicity
of the Biblical record must by definition be rejected because
of its inclusion of the supernatural.
However, this objection is completely groundless and must
not be permitted. In our series of articles entitled "Atheism
vs. Theism" we disproved the Atheist view of the universe
and proved the necessity of the conclusion that a supernatural
God exists, who transcends the universe, which He created.
Since a supernatural God exists who is responsible for the
existence of the universe within which human history occurs
then the supernatural is possible even within the course of
human history. With the Atheist protest against the existence
of the supernatural disproved, scholars have no grounds for
rejecting the claims of the Judeo-Christian scriptures as
unreliable or non-historical simply because these scriptures
describe supernatural events.
Human history is human history. Without an Atheistic presupposition
there is nothing in the study of human history, the science
by which that study is conducted, or the definition of history
itself, that would rule out the occurrence of the supernatural
or miraculous. Since we are part of the creation of a supernatural
God there is nothing that would prohibit us from considering
the occurrence of supernatural events within our history.
Therefore, given the fact that we live in a universe that
was created by a supernatural Being, there is no reason whatsoever
to discriminate in any way against historical documents which
record the occurrence of supernatural events as well as natural
events.
As such we must consider that it is possible that supernatural
events have occurred over the course of human development.
We are not forced to accept the legitimacy of each and every
miraculous claim, but instead we must attempt to verify them
on their own merits. We cannot simply reject a claim of supernatural
quality on the basis of the disproved and invalid Atheist
notion that the miraculous is not possible.
The same can be said concerning any objection to the reliability
or historicity of the Bible, which is based upon Agnostic,
Deistic, or any form of Naturalistic concepts of the nature
of the universe. As we showed earlier these views of God can
only be proposed AFTER an examination of the evidence has
been conducted and only when that examination has conclusively
revealed that no evidence for the supernatural involvement
of God can be found. As such it is inappropriate to use Agnostic,
Deistic, or Naturalistic conclusions as a criteria by which
we discard and reject possible evidence for the existence
of God or by which we discard and reject the occurrence of
the supernatural. For this reason, any objection to the reliability
or historicity of the Biblical record that is founded upon
an Agnostic, Deistic, or Naturalistic conclusion must be dismissed
as pure circular reasoning.
We must let history speak for itself and then evaluate its
claims based upon their own merits and based upon uniform
standards. And there is nothing in the simple claim of the
supernatural or miraculous that would, by face value or by
historical criticism, disqualify it from being considered
historical, especially in a universe created by a supernatural
Being. So, with these scholarly objections addressed and dismissed
the reliability and historicity of the Bible remains intact
at least until an examination of the evidence it offers can
be performed.
Additionally, it would not be fair to dismiss the historical
value of the Judeo-Christian scriptures simply because they
were written by Jews and Christians as if that would so bias
their writings that, at face value, they cannot be considered
reliable. Such a standard would contradict the normal historical
standards and thereby, if employed, require us to also forfeit
a great deal of important historical conclusions. The simple
fact is that history is recorded by the victors and is seldom
if ever written by those with no interest in the subject matter.
If we cannot rely upon any historical documentation that is
written by someone with a stake in or a tie to the subject
matter then a modern understanding of history becomes rather
impossible. Instead, since historians accept that people with
a personal interest can be relied upon to provide an accurate
and fair description of historical events, we must also permit
Judeo-Christian scriptures to at least be considered reliable,
accurate, and fair with regard to historical material and
accounts.
One last comment should be added. In our previous section
on Propositional religions we noted that the evidence of the
supernatural offered by religions of this type tended to be
subjective in nature and was defined, by these religions themselves,
as unknowable through normal reasonable processes. History,
by basic definition, is interested in events that can be objectively
verified through a reasonable assessment of evidence. Since,
Propositional religions are not concerned with claims of this
type their evidence is not available to and does not involve
historical analysis. For this reason some historians may be
content to permit this kind of supernatural claim simply because
it falls outside of the domain of historical interest and
qualifications.
And yet it is the very claim made by Evidentiary religions
that knowable, verifiable supernatural events have occurred
that leads some historians and scholars to dismiss them, not
through an assessment of the evidence, but without one, simply
because some historians and scholars hold to the presupposition
that the supernatural cannot occur. It is a blatant contradiction
and prejudice to permit subjective claims of the supernatural
which, by definition, cannot offer objective evidence of their
validity, while at the same time dismissing out of hand, claims
of the supernatural, which offer objective evidence of their
validity, without first conducting an examination of that
evidence.
And while this criticism applies to those scholars who would
apply an atheistic bias to the evidence, a similar comment
can be made regarding Theists. Given the existence of God,
which we have demonstrated in our previous article series
on Atheism, there is a need for us to investigate what view
of God is accurate and should be adopted. The world's religions
comprise the available options. As we examine which of the
world's religions offer an accurate view of God, it would
be completely contradictory for us to reject the testimony
of those who claim to have experienced objectively verifiable
events, such as miracles, while at the same time accepting
the testimony of those who claim to have experienced an internal,
subjective realization of truth. It is completely irrational
to dismiss without examination the testable evidence offered
by one party in order to favor an alternate explanation given
by another party, which offers absolutely no evidence and
cannot be verified.
If the goal is to determine the most reasonable assessment
of God based upon the available objective evidence, then we
cannot dismiss testimony regarding physical events while at
the same time believing testimony regarding mere mental realizations.
Rational analysis concerning the accurate view of God requires
that testimony regarding external, physical evidence take
preference over subjective knowledge precisely because the
external evidence can be objectively tested, while subjective
knowledge can not.
It is one thing to dismiss a subjective claim of the supernatural,
which cannot be verified through objective assessment of the
evidence as we have done. It is quite another to dismiss supernatural
claims, which do offer objective evidence to substantiate
their claims, without any assessment of the evidence that
they offer. For this reason, we must now perform an evaluation
of the evidence offered by the Judeo-Christian scripture concerning
the supernatural claims that it makes in order to determine
if those claims are valid and should be accepted or invalid
and must be rejected.
With these objections dismissed we can move on to our next
section, a more in-depth look at the books of the Judeo-Christian
scripture, whose historicity and reliability are most contested
by historians and scholars.
The Book of Daniel
As we proceed the Book of Daniel will become relevant to our
examination of evidences for the accuracy Judeo-Christian
theology. This relevance will be explained when we engage
this examination. For now, however, it is first important
to discuss the reliability and historicity of the Book of
Daniel. Or more specifically, to address the scholarly objections
to a 6th century dating of Daniel.
(NOTE: Later it will be shown that the Book of Daniel is sufficient
to conclusively demonstrate the existence of prophecy and
the supernatural within the Judeo-Christian scriptures and
therefore the reliability of Judeo-Christian theology even
if the scholarly dating of this book to the 2nd century is
accepted.)
According to the Bible (specifically the Book of Daniel itself),
Daniel was a prophet who lived during the 6th century B.C.
"Daniel - In the Bible, a Hebrew prophet of the sixth century
B.C." - The American Heritage¨ Dictionary of the English
Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
"Daniel - 1: the Jewish hero of the Book of Daniel
who as an exile in Babylon interprets dreams, gives accounts
of apocalyptic visions, and is divinely delivered from a den
of lions 2: a book of narratives, visions, and prophecies
in canonical Jewish and Christian Scripture -- see BIBLE table."
- Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary
Chapter 1 of the Book of Daniel informs us that Daniel was
taken captive into exile in Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar (II)
when he conquered Israel's southern kingdom of Judah.
Daniel 1:1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim
king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem,
and besieged it. 2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of
Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house
of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house
of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house
of his god. 3 And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master
of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children
of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes;
4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and
skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding
science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the
king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning
and the tongue of the Chaldeans. 5 And the king appointed
them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine
which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at
the end thereof they might stand before the king. 6 Now
among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah,
Mishael, and Azariah: 7 Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs
gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar;
and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach;
and to Azariah, of Abednego...18 Now at the end of the
days that the king had said he should bring them in, then
the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar.
19 And the king communed with them; and among them all
was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah:
therefore stood they before the king. 20 And in all
matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired
of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians
and astrologers that were in all his realm.
From the historical record we know that these events took
place in 586 B.C.
"Judaism - After Nebuchadrezzar's decisive defeat of Egypt
at Carchemish (605 BCE), Jeremiah identified the scourge
as Babylon. King Jehoiakim's attempt to be free of Babylonia
ended with the exile of his successor, Jehoiachin, along with
Judah's elite (597); yet the court of the new king, Zedekiah,
persisted in plotting new revolts, relyingÑagainst all experienceÑon
Egyptian support." - Britannica.com
"Judaism - In 587/586 BCE the doom prophecies of Jeremiah
and Ezekiel came true. Rebellious Jerusalem was reduced
by Nebuchadrezzar, the Temple was burnt, and much of Judah's
population dispersed or deported to Babylonia." - Britannica.com
"Diaspora - The first significant Jewish Diaspora was the
result of the Babylonian Exile (q.v.) of 586 BC. After the
Babylonians conquered the Kingdom of Judah, part of the Jewish
population was deported into slavery." - Britannica.com
"Jerusalem - Jerusalem became the spiritual and political
capital of the Hebrews. In 586 B.C. it fell to the Babylonians,
and the Temple was destroyed." - The Columbia Encyclopedia,
Sixth Edition. 2001.
Nothing in Daniel's record at this point conflicts with our
modern understanding of history. Instead, what Daniel reports
is completely consistent with what we now know of history,
that upon conquering Judah, Nebuchadnezzar did take captive
many of the nobles and people and bring them back to Bablyon.
The second chapter of the book states that Daniel was one
of these captives who became one of the chief ministers of
the court of King Nebuchadnezzar and his successors through
a series of events, initiated by Daniel's interpretation of
a Nebuchadnezzar's dream.
From there the Book of Daniel goes on to present the figures
and events of the 6th century as contemporary events. Likewise,
the book presents future developments in Mesopotamian and
Middle Eastern history for the period of time approaching
the mid-2nd century B.C. through prophecy. In this way the
Book of Daniel provides the following account of Babylonian
and Medo-Persian rulers:
Nebuchadnezzar comes and besieges Jerusalem and exiles it
nobility and youth back to Babylon (Daniel 1:1), among them
is a Jew named Daniel. After Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel reports
that a king named Belshazzar, referred to as Nebuchadnezzar's
son, rules Babylon (Daniel 5:1-2, 9-13) and appoints Daniel
as the third ruler in the kingdom (Daniel 5:16, 29). Belshazzar
is depicted as the last king of Babylon and the Babylonian
empire is said to fall to the Medes and Persians when Belshazzar
is slain the night of a great feast and a man referred to
as Darius the Mede (also Darius the son of Ahasuerus of the
seed of the Medes - Daniel 9:1) takes the kingdom at 62 years
of age (Daniel 5:1, 30).
Daniel presents this Darius the Mede as being a contemporary
ruler with Cyrus the Great of Persia (Daniel 6:28) and refers
to their two reigns alternately throughout the Book (Daniel
1:21, Daniel 6:28, Daniel 9:1, Daniel 10:1, Daniel 11:1).
In the eleventh chapter of the Book of Daniel an account of
events is given that covers the rise of the Greek empire under
Alexander the Great and continuing through the line of Ptolemaic
and Seluecid kings ending with Antiochus III (Daniel 11:1-20).
This account begins with Daniel's statement that after three
more Persian kings a fourth king will arise in Persia, who
will stir up all against the realm of Greece (Daniel 11:2).
Daniel then describes the rise of Alexander the Great as a
mighty king, which will stand up, whose kingdom will be broken
and divided to four others to rule who are not of his bloodline
(Daniel 11:3).
Despite the book's 6th century perspective, scholars have
instead concluded that the book is a product of the 2nd century
B.C. This conclusion is based on two objections.
First, scholars note the accuracy of Daniel 11's depiction
of 4th through 2nd century Middle Eastern history.
"Old Testament Literature - By contrast, the book is
a not inconsiderable historical source for the Greek period.
It refers to the desecration of the Temple in 167 and possibly
to the beginning of the Maccabean revolt. Only when the
narrative reaches the latter part of the reign of Antiochus
do notable inaccuracies appearÑan indication of a transition
from history to prediction. The book is thus dated between
167 and 164 BCE." - Britannica.com
Britannica.com exemplifies the scholarly response to the descriptions
of Daniel 11. First, it is noted that Daniel is a sound historical
source on matters of 4th to 2nd century Middle Eastern history
and that not until the part of the chapter dealing with the
latter part of Antiochus IV Epiphanes' reign do "inaccuracies"
appear.
The "inaccuracies" that Britannica.com says indicate "a transition
from history to prediction" deal with the second half of Daniel
11. In this section of Daniel 11 a king is depicted, which
some historians argue is Antiochus IV Epiphanes. As Britannica.com
confirms the early description of this last figure's life
and actions does resemble that of Antiochus in some ways.
However, the later details of this king's life and actions
do not fit with the history of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. It
is these final details, which Britannica.com identifies as
"inaccuracies." It is these final details, which lead some
scholars to label this portion of Daniel as a failed attempt
to prophecy the end of Antiochus' reign.
However, Christians argue that Daniel 11:21-45 is not at all
a reference to Antiochus IV Epiphanes despite the similarities
to his early reign. Instead, they note that Jesus' comments
in the Olivet Discourse, found in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14,
indicate that one of the most notable actions of this final
king, his desecration of the Jewish Temple, was yet to occur.
Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination
of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the
holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination
of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where
it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then
let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
Therefore, since Antiochus IV Epiphanes lived 175 years before
Jesus and since Jesus' places this act of the final king as
still in the future, Jesus is indicating that Antiochus is
not the final king described in Daniel 11:21-45. So, if Daniel
11:21-45 was not meant as a reference to Antiochus IV Epiphanes
as some have taken it to be, then the inconsistencies between
its description and his reign are explained not as a case
of failed prophecy, but of mistaken identity on the part of
historians, who misunderstood the subject of the text.
But, back to the point, the first objection to a 6th century
origin of the Book of Daniel offered by scholars is founded
on their recognition that Daniel accurately identifies significant
historical events that, if written in the 6th century B.C.,
would constitute legitimate prophecy. Since scholars reject
the notion that prophecy could legitimately occur because
it is fundamentally a supernatural phenomenon, scholars are
forced to conclude that Daniel was not written in the 6th
century B.C. as the book itself proclaims.
However, we can quickly dismiss this first scholarly objection
to a 6th century origin of the Book of Daniel. As we have
previously discussed a rejection of the supernatural phenomena
cannot be used as a legitimate objection for assessing historical
claims. Given that Atheism has been disproved and conversely
that the existence of a supernatural God has been proven,
supernatural phenomena are entirely possible unless one presumes
a Deistic or Naturalist view of God and then by a process
of circular reasoning uses that conclusion to bias an analysis
of historical evidence and claims.
Since, it is premature to assert Deistic and Naturalistic
conclusions before or during our examination of historical
evidences for the occurrence supernatural phenomena, we must
allow for the possibility that supernatural phenomena, such
as prophecy, can occur and then evaluate the specific instances
to determine whether they are valid. For this reason, we cannot
simply reject a 6th century origin of Daniel because it would
require us to accept parts of Daniel as being legitimate supernatural
phenomena in the form of prophecy. Far from being a rational
approach to this comparative evaluation of Theistic views,
to do so would be circular reasoning.
We can only conclude that Daniel was not written in the 6th
century B.C. as the book itself claims, if we can identify
evidence indicating that the Book was not written at that
time. Again, because Atheism has been disproved and because
Deism and Pantheistic Naturalism are conclusions that cannot
interfere with the assessment process, a claim of supernatural
phenomena cannot be used as evidence to object to a 6th century
writing. This is where we arrive at the second scholarly objection
to a 6th century dating of the Book of Daniel.
Scholars object to a 6th century origin of the Book of Daniel
because they claim the book has a sketchy understanding of
6th century Mesopotamian history.
"Old Testament Literature - For many centuries the
apocalyptic character of the Book of Daniel was overlooked,
and it was generally considered to be true history, containing
genuine prophecy. In fact, the book was included among the
prophetic books in the Greek canon. It is now recognized,
however, that the writer's knowledge of the exilic times was
sketchy and inaccurate." - Britannica.com
As Britannica.com articulates, scholars claim that the inaccurate
understanding of the period of Jewish exile exhibited in the
Book of Daniel is not consistent with the book's claim to
have been written by someone who was in close proximity to
the nobility of the relevant empires during that period. Therefore,
because they claim that Daniel does not have a sound grasp
of 6th century history of the region it could not have originated
at that time as the book itself claims.
However, we must ask what exactly it is that has led scholars
to conclude that Daniel does not have an accurate understanding
of 6th century Mesopotamian history. Specifically, they contend
that Daniel exhibits confusion regarding historical persons
and either their relationship with other ancient figures,
their status in the empires of the day, or their placement
in the chronology of events. In some cases scholars have claimed
that Daniel invents figures that never historically existed.
Again, Britannica.com articulates some of these objections.
"Old Testament Literature - Belshazzar is represented
as the son of Nebuchadrezzar and the last king of Babylon,
whereas he was actually the son of Nabonidus and, though a
powerful figure, was never king; Darius the Mede, a fictitious
character perhaps confused with Darius I of Persia, is made
the successor of Belshazzar instead of Cyrus." - Britannica.com
The first historical figure that scholars contend is misunderstood
in the Book of Daniel is Belshazzar. As we recall from our
outline of the Book of Daniel early on in this section, Daniel
reports three things about Belshazzar. First, he was king
of Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar. Second, Belshazzar is referred
to as Nebuchadnezzar's son. And third, Belshazzar is said
to be the last king of Babylon, who is killed when the Medo-Persians
take the city.
Scholars claim that each of these three facts is historically
incorrect. First, Belshazzar was not a king of Babylon. Second,
Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, but the son
of Nabonidus, who was the king of Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar.
And third, Nabonidus, and not Belshazzar was the last Babylonian
king during whose reign Babylon fell to the Persians, not
the Medes.
The scholarly criticism that Daniel's identifying Belshazzar
as the son of Nebuchadnezzar is incorrect and can easily be
dissolved by a look at the Aramaic words the Bible uses to
describe this relationship. The word for father that is used
in Daniel 5:2, 11, 13, and 18 is the word "ab."
Daniel 5:1 Belshazzar the king made a great
feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the
thousand. 2 Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded
to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father
(02) Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which
was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives,
and his concubines, might drink therein.
Daniel 5:9 Then was king Belshazzar greatly
troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his
lords were astonied. 10 Now the queen by reason of
the words of the king and his lords came into the banquet
house: and the queen spake and said, O king, live for ever:
let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance
be changed: 11 There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the
spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father
(02) light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom
of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar
thy father (02), the king, I say, thy father (02), made
master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers;
12 Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding,
interpreting of dreams, and shewing of hard sentences, and
dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom
the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called,
and he will shew the interpretation. 13 Then was Daniel brought
in before the king. And the king spake and said unto Daniel,
Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the
captivity of Judah, whom the king my father (02) brought out
of Jewry?
Daniel 5:18 O thou king, the most high God gave
Nebuchadnezzar thy father (02) a kingdom, and majesty,
and glory, and honour:
Strong's Concordance of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words that
are used in the Bible lists "ab" as occurring 9 times in the
Bible. If we were to survey those nine times we would see
that in at least three cases the word is used more broadly
than simply as the immediate biological father.
Ezra 4:15 That search may be made in the book of the
records of thy fathers (02): so shalt thou find in the
book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious
city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they
have moved sedition within the same of old time: for which
cause was this city destroyed.
Ezra 5:12 But after that our fathers (02) had
provoked the God of heaven unto wrath, he gave them into the
hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, the Chaldean,
who destroyed this house, and carried the people away into
Babylon.
Daniel 2:23 I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou
God of my fathers (02), who hast given me wisdom and might,
and hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee: for
thou hast now made known unto us the king's matter.
In each of the above cases we see that the word "ab" is used
to imply ones predecessors or forebears. It does not require
that the persons in mind be a direct male parent. So, when
Daniel refers to Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar's father he
simply is referring to the fact that Nebuchadnezzar preceded
Belshazzar in the line of Babylonian royalty.
That Daniel's account of this is historically accurate is
further supported the following additional details. The word
for son that is used in Daniel 5:22 is the Aramaic word "bar."
Daniel 5:22 And thou his son (1247), O Belshazzar,
hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this;
Strong's Concordance provides the definition for "bar" (1247)
and its Hebrew counterpart "ben" (1121).
1247 bar
TWOT - 2639 corresponding to 01121
Part of Speech
n m
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) son
1121 ben
TWOT - 254 from 01129
Part of Speech
n m
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) son, grandson, child, member of a group
a) son, male child
b) grandson
c) children (pl. - male and female)
d) youth, young men (pl.)
e) young (of animals)
f) sons (as characterisation, i.e. sons of injustice [for
un- righteous men] or sons of God [for angels]
g) people (of a nation) (pl.)
h) of lifeless things, i.e. sparks, stars, arrows (fig.)
i) a member of a guild, order, class
As we can see the Hebrew word "ben," which corresponds to
the Aramaic word "bar" can be used to refer to a son or a
grandson. These two words are used interchangeably in the
following four passages, which discuss the genealogy of Zechariah
the prophet.
Ezra 5:1 Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and
Zechariah the son (1247) of Iddo, prophesied unto the
Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God
of Israel, even unto them.
Ezra 6:14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they
prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and
Zechariah the son (1247) of Iddo. And they builded,
and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of
Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius,
and Artaxerxes king of Persia.
Zechariah 1:1 In the eighth month, in the second year
of Darius, came the word of the LORD unto Zechariah, the
son (1121) of Berechiah, the son (1121) of Iddo the prophet,
saying,
Zechariah 1:7 Upon the four and twentieth day of the
eleventh month, which is the month Sebat, in the second year
of Darius, came the word of the LORD unto Zechariah, the
son (1121) of Berechiah, the son (1121) of Iddo the prophet,
saying,
Notice, that in Ezra, Zechariah is noted as the son (bar)
of Iddo, but in the book of Zechariah, Zechariah refers to
himself as the son (ben) of Berechiah who was the son (ben)
of Iddo. This means that Ezra uses the word son (bar) to denote
Zechariah's relationship with Iddo even though Zechariah was,
in fact, Iddo's grandson. So, we see that the word "bar" can
be used to indicate a grandson.
So, from our examination of the Aramaic words that are used
in these passages, that the Book of Daniel is simply referring
to Nebuchadnezzar as a predecessor and possibly grandfather
of Belshazzar and not necessarily as father and son as scholars
insist. But the essential question is whether or not history
supports or contradicts Daniel's record of these matters.
As we proceed into the historical record we should also mention
that besides the three objections we identified earlier, some
scholars have also continued to object to very existence of
Belshazzar. But, though scholars are insistent upon the historical
incorrectness of Daniel's account of Belshazzar, history has
proven Daniel to be quite accurate.
For instance, the long disputed existence of Daniel's king
Belshazzar, was proven true by the discovery of Babylonian
cuneiform inscription in 1854.
"Belshazzar - Belshazzar had been known only from the
biblical Book of Daniel (chapters 5, 7-8) and from Xenophon's
Cyropaedia until 1854, when references to him were found
in Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions." - Britannica.com
From these cuneiform inscriptions we know that Belshazzar
did exist, just as the Book of Daniel reported. But we also
learned a great deal of information about Belshazzar, all
of which proves that Daniel's account of him is quite accurate.
First, we now know that Daniel's description of Belshazzar
as the king of Babylon is correct because his father, Nabonidus
made him coregent over the kingdom with Belshazzar ruling
from Babylon while Nabonidus spent most of his time away in
Arabia.
"Nabonidus - After a popular rising led by the priests
of Marduk, chief god of the city, Nabonidus, who favoured
the moon god Sin, made his son Belshazzar coregent and
spent much of his reign in Arabia." - Britannica.com
"Nabonidus - He was not of Nebuchadnezzar's family,
and it is possible that he usurped the throne...Cuneiform
records indicate that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son and his
coregent during the last years of Babylon." - The Columbia
Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
"Belshazzar - When Nabonidus went into exile (550), he
entrusted Belshazzar with the throne and the major part of
his army." - Britannica.com
So, we see that it is in fact, accurate to call Belshazzar
the king of Babylon. For he was coregent with his father over
the empire and he ruled in Babylon, while his father traveled
the empire in exile after a popular uprising led by the priest
of Marduk. Additionally, it is apparent that the Book of Daniel
makes reference to this coregency when Belshazzar appoints
Daniel to be the third and not second ruler in the kingdom.
Since Belshazzar and his father, Nabonidus both ruled as kings
of Babylon, Belshazzar could only offer Daniel the third position
in the kingdom.
Daniel 5:16 And I have heard of thee, that thou canst
make interpretations, and dissolve doubts: now if thou canst
read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation
thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain
of gold about thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler in
the kingdom.
Daniel 5:29 Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed
Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck,
and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should
be the third ruler in the kingdom.
We also saw in the quote from Columbia Encyclopedia that Nabonidus
was not of Nebuchadnezzar's family. However, this does not
pose a problem for Daniel's description of Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar's
son for two reasons. First, as we have already stated it is
entirely possible that Daniel was only referring to the fact
that Belshazzar was a successor to Nebuchadnezzar over Babylon.
Second, it is believed by some scholars that Belshazzar's
mother was, in fact, a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar.
"Belshazzar - Though he is referred to in the Book
of Daniel as the son of Nebuchadrezzar, the Babylonian inscriptions
indicate that he was in fact the eldest son of Nabonidus,
who was king of Babylon from 555 to 539, and of Nitocris,
who was perhaps a daughter of Nebuchadrezzar. When Nabonidus
went into exile (550), he entrusted Belshazzar with the throne
and the major part of his army." - Britannica.com
So, it may well be the case that Belshazzar is not only Nebuchadnezzar's
successor, but also his grandson on his mother's side. So,
we see that scholarly objections to Daniel's description of
Belshazzar as king of Babylon and the son of Nebuchadnezzar
are invalid. But what about Daniel's claim that Belshazzar
was killed the night of a great feast as the Medo-Persian
army took the city?
Daniel 5:30 In that night was Belshazzar the king
of the Chaldeans slain.31 And Darius the Median took
the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.
Again, history substantiates the Book of Daniel.
"Belshazzar - According to the accounts in the Bible
and Xenophon, Belshazzar held a last great feast...Belshazzar
died after Babylon fell to the Persian general Gobyras without
resistance on Oct. 12, 539, and probably before the
Persian king Cyrus II entered the city 17 days later."
- Britannica.com
So, we see that, though our modern understanding has been
quite inadequate, Daniel's account of the fall of Babylon
is, in fact, quite accurate (even his mention of the feast).
But what about Daniel's report that a person named Darius
the Mede (whom Daniel later says in chapter 9 is the son of
Ahasuerus) takes the city and acts as king? Is this an accurate
understanding of history or not?
According to scholars, Daniel is again in error here. Scholars
note that Daniel falsely credits this Darius the Mede with
taking the city of Babylon. They claim this task was accomplished
by Cyrus the Great and that the author of Daniel probably
confused Cyrus the Great with Darius the Great (who became
the king after the death of Cyrus' son Cambyses II.)
However, history is not so clear on this point. What we do
know is that just as Daniel reports, Cyrus did not take the
city himself, but his forces were led by another man, known
as Gobryas.
"Belshazzar - Belshazzar died after Babylon fell to the
Persian general Gobyras without resistance on Oct. 12, 539,
and probably before the Persian king Cyrus II entered the
city 17 days later." - Britannica.com
"Nabonidus - After a popular rising led by the priests
of Marduk, chief god of the city, Nabonidus, who favoured
the moon god Sin, made his son Belshazzar coregent and
spent much of his reign in Arabia. Returning to Babylon in
539 BC, he was captured by Cyrus' general Gobryas and exiled."
- Britannica.com
(Continued in next section.)
