The Skeptical Review Online - Print Edition

In my previous responses to Everette Hatcher, I have noted that the general consensus of biblical critics is that the book of Daniel was not written in the 6th century B. C. A major reason why critics reject this traditional view is that serious errors in 6th-century history are scattered throughout the book, a fact that is incompatible with the writer's claim that he was a Hebrew captive in Babylon, who rose to a position of primary political importance in the Babylonian empire. Many of these mistakes were noted in my last response to Hatcher "Bad History in the Book of Daniel" (July/August 1998, pp. 6-8, 10), so there is no need to restate them here.

A major reason why most critics who reject the 6th-century view of authorship date Daniel in the 2nd century is also related to history. All of the history in Daniel is not bad; some of it is accurate. Critics noticed that even though much of the 6th-century history in Daniel was inaccurate, the most likely meanings of "prophetic" language concerning later events were much more accurate and became even increasingly more accurate as the writer's prophecies referred to 2nd-century B. C. events. This critical opinion of Daniel has become the underpinning of the Maccabean view of its authorship. In the final chapter of his book Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel, H. H. Rowley stated this same critical opinion of Daniel, which I quoted in an earlier response to Hatcher but is worth a second consideration before we look at Daniel's "good" history, which is the keystone of the Maccabean view of its authorship.

The Book of Daniel is not a work of the sixth century B. C. The case against the traditional date to which the composition of the book has been assigned rests on a variety of considerations, but the single one we have examined in the first part of our study would alone be sufficient to establish it. For a sixth-century person, who not only lived through the events of the period, but took a leading part in them, could not have made so gross an error as our author made in introducing Darius the Mede between Belshazzar and Cyrus. Nor could he have supposed that a Median empire stood between the Babylonian and the Persian....

As certainly can we say that the book of Daniel is a work of the second century B. C. If the work is loosed from the sixth century by the inaccuracy of its knowledge of that age, it is anchored in the second century by the accuracy of the knowledge of that age which appears in its pages.... So long as the work was believed to be written in the sixth century B. C., the accuracy of its descriptions of the second century but served to establish the wonderful certainty of prophecy. But when the link with the sixth century is broken by the proved historical errors in the part of the book that relates to that age, the whole case is altered. It is impossible to believe that the mind of Daniel was illumined with accurate knowledge of future times, while, at the same time, thoroughly befogged as to the events in which he himself had played no mean part, and we can only find in the limited range of the accurate knowledge the indication of the author's period (University of Wales Press, 1935, pp. 175-176).

In addition to the mistakes that Rowley noted about Darius the Mede and the Median empire, I discussed in my earlier responses "Daniel's" mistakes in saying that Jewish captives and temple vessels were taken to Babylon during the third year of Jehoiakim's reign (1:1) and that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were father and son (chapter 5). None of these claims conform to Babylonian and other biblical records from this period. The writer of Daniel didn't know the correct 6th-century B. C. history in basic matters like these, but his prophetic statements showed an accurate knowledge of events that happened centuries later. Biblicists, of course, will argue that Daniel's knowledge of events after the 6th century B. C. was the result of divine inspiration, but it's hard to believe, as Rowley noted above, that Daniel's God guided him into accurately reporting events that would happen in the distant future but apparently had no interest in guiding him to report accurately the history of his own era. That pill is a bit too large to swallow.

In chapter 8, for example, Daniel saw a "vision" of a male goat that came from the west, "coming across the face of the whole earth without touching the ground" (v:5). This goat had a great horn between its eyes, which it used to destroy a ram with two horns that had been described in Daniel's vision just before the appearance of the goat. After trampling into the ground the ram with two horns, the male goat "grew exceedingly great" (vs:7-8), but at the "height of its power, the great horn was broken, and in its place there came up four prominent horns toward the four winds of heaven." Admittedly, the language in this vision is typically figurative, but scholars agree that it is an accurate description of Alexander the Great's conquest of the territory that once belonged to the kings of Media and Persia and of the breakup of Alexander's Grecian empire when he died at the height of his power. Upon Alexander's death, his empire was divided into four smaller kingdoms by his generals, who came to be known as the "Diadochi" (successors), so these would have been the four prominent horns that came up when the great horn was broken. Macedonia and Greece were allotted to Cassander, Pergamum and Asia Minor to Lysimachus, Syria and Babylon to Antigonus, and Egypt and Palestine to Ptolemy.

That this was the probable meaning that the writer of Daniel intended in this vision is supported by verses 20 and 21, where Daniel identified the horns on the ram as the "kings of Media and Persia" and the male goat as the "king of Greece." The great horn between the eyes of the goat was identified as "the first king" of Greece (v:21), and the four horns that arose when the great horn was broken were identified as "four kingdoms [that] shall arise from his nation, but not with his power" (v:22). In chapter 11, Daniel again referred to the breakup of Alexander's kingdom. After "predicting" that "three more kings" would arise in Persia, he said that the last one (who would be the fourth) would "stir up all against the kingdom of Greece" (v:2) and that this would cause a "warrior king" to arise, "who shall rule with great dominion and take action as he pleases" (v:3), but, once again, Daniel noted that "while still rising in power, the dominion of this "warrior king" would be "broken and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity," because the kingdom would be "uprooted and go to others besides these" (v:4). The historical facts about Alexander's conquests and the subsequent breakup of his empire fit the symbols in these "visions" too perfectly to suppose that they could have been referring to anything else. Upon the death of Alexander, three of his relatives wanted to take control of his kingdom (his sons Alexander and Herakles, and his half-brother Philip Arrhidaeus), but none of them had the influence and power to do so; hence, when Alexander died, his kingdom was "uprooted" and did not go to his "posterity." Hatcher expects us to believe that someone who didn't even know who ruled in the Babylonian and Persian empires of his time could nevertheless look through time and make an amazingly accurate prediction about who would rule over these same territories two centuries later and what the ultimate fate of this future empire would be. That is also a pill too large to swallow. An easier pill to take would be the more likely premise that the writer of Daniel knew more about the Grecian empire than the Babylonian and Persian, because he lived much closer to the time of the former.

Daniel's accuracy in his visions continued through chapter 11 as he "predicted" events that would occur after the breakup of Alexander's empire. Space will not permit me to discuss the interpretations of these predictions in detail, so I will show the "prophecies" in italicized print and then give brief, undocumented "interpretations" whose facts can be verified in general reference works on the history of these successor kingdoms.

Then the king of the south shall grow strong, but one of his officers shall grow stronger than he and shall rule a realm greater than his own realm (11:5). The "king of the south" was undoubtedly Ptolemy I Soter, who founded the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt after the breakup of Alexander's empire. In 312 B. C., Seleucus I Nicator (a Ptolemaic general) defeated Antigonus in a battle at Gaza. As noted above, Antigonus had received Syria and Babylon, but after his defeat at Gaza, Seleucus ruled these territories and, with the exception of Egypt, eventually expanded his kingdom into almost all of the regions Alexander had once controlled. Thus, a former general of the "king of the south" grew stronger than Ptolemy and eventually ruled over a realm greater than Ptolemy's.

After some years they shall make an alliance, and the daughter of the king of the south shall come to the king of the north to ratify the agreement. But she shall not retain her power, and his offspring shall not endure. She shall be given up, she and her attendants and her child and the one who supported her (11:6). Seventy years later, when Antiochus IV Theos ruled as the "king of the north," a peace agreement was reached between the Seleucid (northern) and Ptolemaic (southern) dynasties. Ptolemy II Philadelphus tried to seal the treaty by giving his daughter Berenice in marriage to Antiochus IV, who then divorced his wife Laodice and disinherited their two sons by declaring that any son that Berenice had would succeed him to the throne. Although Berenice did have a son, when Ptolemy Philadelphus died, Antiochus "gave her up" and took back Laodice, who acted swiftly to have Antiochus, Berenice, and their son all assassinated, along with Berenice's Egyptian servants and attendants. Hence, Berenice was unable to "retain her power," and "the offspring" of the king of the north did not "endure."

In those times a branch from her roots shall rise up in his place. He shall come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north, and he shall take action against them and prevail. Even their gods, with their idols and with their precious vessels of silver and gold, he shall carry off to Egypt as spoils of war. For some years he shall refrain from attacking the king of the north; then the latter shall invade the realm of the king of the south, but will return to his own land (11:7-9). When Ptolemy Philadelphus died, Berenice's brother Ptolemy III Euergetes succeeded him. In retaliation for his sister's murder, he attacked Syria, defeated Laodice's son Seleucus II, who was now the "king of the north," and captured Seleucia (the port city of Antioch), and so a "branch from Berenice's roots" had "entered the fortress of the king of the north." He "prevailed" by taking control of all of Syria, but unrest in Egypt required Ptolemy Euergetes to withdraw from Syrian. In so doing, he took back gold, silver, and images in precious metals that had been brought up from Egypt prior to the Ptolemaic loss of Syria to Seleucid control. After the success of this excursion into Syria, Ptolemy III "refrained from attacking the king of the north," but in 242 B. C., the "king of the north," Seleucus II, "invaded the realm of the king of the south," but his attack on Egypt was costly in defeats on both land and sea, and so he withdrew and "returned to his own land."

Antiochus the Great: His sons shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall advance like a flood and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress (v:10). Seleucus II Callinicus was succeeded by his son Seleucus III Ceraunus, who "waged war against Egypt, but was assassinated in 223 B. C., at which time he was succeeded by Antiochus the Great. Antiochus pursued the war against the "king of the south" with more vigor than his predecessor. In 218 B. C., he "assembled a multitude of great forces" that advanced easily through Palestine and "carried the war" into Gaza.

Moved with rage, the king of the south shall go out and do battle against the king of the north, who shall muster a great multitude, which shall, however, be defeated by his enemy (11:11). The king of the south, now Ptolemy IV Philopator, counterattacked Seleucid forces, and in a battle at Raphia, near Gaza, smashed the "great multitude" that had been mustered by Antiochus. "Defeated by his enemy," Antiochus had to retreat.

When the multitude has been carried off, his heart shall be exalted, and he shall overthrow tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail. For the king of the north shall again raise a multitude, larger than the former, and after some years he shall advance with a great army and abundant supplies" (11:12-13). In a serious military blunder, Ptolemy IV, whose army had slaughtered hundreds and routed "thousands" of Syrian troops, stopped his pursuit of the retreating army of Antiochus and returned to Egypt. This mistake allowed Antiochus to rebuild his army and attack Egypt again, so even though Ptolemy Philopator had scored a great victory over the Seleucid forces, in a real sense he did not "prevail." A 13-year period of "peace" between the Ptolemies and Seleucids followed, during which time Antiochus solidified his military strength and turned his attention to the east to annex territories that had once been in Alexander's empire. When Ptolemy Philopator died in 203 B. C., he was succeeded by his son Ptolemy V Epiphanes, who was only five years old. Antiochus took advantage of this situation to launch another attack on Egypt.

In those times many shall rise against the king of the south. The lawless among your own people shall lift themselves up in order to fulfill the vision, but they shall fail (11:14). This period was characterized by domestic unrest in Egypt as well as an alliance between Antiochus and Philip V of Macedonia to conquer the Ptolemaic empire and divide it between them. Jews in Palestine (Daniel's "own people"), apparently hoping to gain freedom from Ptolemaic rule, also sided with Antiochus against Egypt, but the combined efforts failed. The Ptolemaic dynasty survived, and Palestine remained under Egyptian domination.

Then the king of the north shall come and throw up siegeworks, and take a well-fortified city. And the forces of the south shall not stand, not even his picked troops, for there shall be no strength to resist (11:15). In another battle, Antiochus defeated the Ptolemaic general Scopas, who retreated to Sidon, a strongly fortified city at the time. Antiochus laid siege to Sidon and took it in 198 B. C., so the "forces of the south didn't stand." Although Ptolemaic generals had tried to lead Egyptian troops to the rescue of Scopas, these "picked troops" had "no strength to resist" and could not penetrate the Seleucid siege of Sidon.

But he who comes against him shall take the actions he pleases, and no one shall withstand him. He shall take a position in the beautiful land, and all of it shall be in his power. He shall set his mind to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and he shall bring terms of peace and perform them. In order to destroy the kingdom, he shall give him a woman in marriage; but it shall not succeed or be to his advantage (11:16-17). Undoubtedly, the "beautiful land" was Palestine, which after Antiochus's victory over the Egyptians at Sidon fell under Seleucid control, and no one could withstand Antiochus. Although the Ptolemaic forces had been routed, Antiochus, who undoubtedly wanted to go against Egypt "with the strength of his whole kingdom," was restrained by promises from Rome, a new political force to contend with, that it would assist the Ptolemies if Antiochus invaded. Antiochus then adopted a new strategy by giving his daughter Cleopatra in marriage to the 14-year-old Ptolemy V Epiphanes, but Antiochus's plan to take control of the Egyptian throne through the peaceful means of Cleopatra's influence did not "succeed or be to his advantage," because she became loyal to her husband.

Afterward he shall turn to the coastlands, and shall capture many. But a commander shall put an end to his insolence; indeed, he shall turn his insolence back upon him (11:18). After the marriage plan failed, Antiochus tried to conquer the coastal areas of Asia Minor. He met with initial success (captured many), but when he advanced toward Greece, "a commander," the Roman general Scipio, "put an end to his insolence" in a defeat at Magnesia in 190 B. C. Thus, the insolence of Antiochus was "turned back upon him."

Then he shall turn back toward the fortresses of his own land, but he shall stumble and fall, and shall not be found (11:19). In his retreat to "the fortresses of his own land," Antiochus was killed by an enraged mob while he was pillaging a temple in Elymais. He "stumbled and fell and was not found."

Then shall arise in his place one who shall send an official for the glory of the kingdom; but within a few days he shall be broken, though not in anger or in battle (11:20). Seleucus IV Philopator succeeded Antiochus. Financially strapped because of his father's war debts, Seleucus sent his finance minister Heliodorus to seize funds from the temple treasury in Jerusalem. Not long afterwards, he died from suspected poisoning by Heliodorus, who then tried to take the throne. So Seleucus died "not in anger" or violence or "in battle."

The Reign of the "Contemptible" Antiochus Epiphanes: This verse-by-verse explication of Daniel's vision in chapter 11 shows that the writer, if indeed a 6th-century B. C. Babylonian official, had "prophesied" events from the 4th to the 2nd century B. C. with uncanny accuracy, even though he seemed not to know the history of his own era. This is why modern biblical critics think it is more likely that in chapter 11, the writer, rather than looking forward into time, was actually looking back on events that had happened far more recently than the Babylonian captivity, and so that is why he performed much better in this chapter than in those that reported the activities of "Daniel" in 6th-century Babylon. The uncanny accuracy of Daniel's 2nd-century B. C. prophecies, however, was about to change.

In his place shall arise a contemptible person on whom royal majesty had not been conferred; he shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom through intrigue (11:21). The death of Seleucus IV brought the "contemptible" (v:21) Antiochus Epiphanes to power. Demetrius, the eldest son of Seleucus, was heir to the throne, but Antiochus Epiphanes conspired to have him sent to Rome, then murdered Heliodorus and an infant son of Seleucus, and took control of the kingdom. Thus as verse 20 states, the title of "royal majesty" was not conferred on Antiochus, who "without warning obtained the kingdom through intrigue."

Space will not allow a verse-by-verse analysis of Daniel's "prophecies" about Antiochus Epiphanes, some of which are discussed on the front page of this issue, but such an analysis would show the same uncanny accuracy. The prophecies "foretold" Antiochus's military successes and his deposing of the High Priest Onias in 175 B. C. They "foretold" the attempts of Antiochus to destroy the Jewish religion by banning dietary laws and desecrating the temple in Jerusalem with pagan idols and sacrifices. Then, suddenly, the uncanny accuracy stopped.

At the time of the end the king of the south shall attack him. But the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships. He shall advance against countries and pass through like a flood. He shall come into the beautiful land, and tens of thousands shall fall victim, but Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites shall escape from his power. He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and of silver, and all the riches of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall follow in his train. But reports from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go out with great fury to bring ruin and complete destruction to many. He shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, with no one to help him (11:44-45). None of this happened, and the probable explanation for the sudden prophecy failures after a long string of uncanny successes is that the writer, who lived during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, was looking back on past events until he reached the time when he was writing the book. In order to continue his "prophecies," he actually had to predict, and his predictions proved incorrect. On the basis of past conflicts between the Seleucids and Ptolemaic rulers that the writer was familiar with, he chose to predict that Antiochus, riding high on a string of successes, would invade Egypt again, conquer it, and revel in its riches. It was an intelligent guess, but it didn't happen.

The "prophecy" of the end of Antiochus was rather open-ended. It merely said that Antiochus would "pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the beautiful holy mountain" (between the Mediterranean Sea and Zion in Jerusalem) and "would come to an end with no one to help him." Actually, Antiochus Epiphanes died in Persia (far removed from "palatial tents between the sea and the beautiful holy mountain) of an illness that 1 Maccabees 6:1-6 attributed to mental distress over news he had received that his armies in Judah had been put to flight. Records of the date of his death vary from September 164 to December 164 B. C. Since the writer of Daniel seemed to know everything about the history of the Seleucid kingdom except the final days and death of its most despised tyrant, this is reasonable evidence that the book of Daniel was compiled sometime between the last accurate "prophecies," .i. e., the temple desecrations and Jewish uprisings in 167-165, and the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in 164 B. C. If Hatcher rejects this critical opinion, he must give a reasonable explanation not just for the 6th-century B. C. historical errors in the book but also for the abrupt end to Daniel's remarkable prophetic accuracies in chapter 11. Maybe Dr. Price would like to help him do that.