Johnny Skeptic

At a web site at
" http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...tz/critic.html ":, Bernard Katz aptly deals with Josh McDowell's mention of Daniel's 70 weeks in McDowell's book titled 'Prophecy: Fact or Fiction.' Ironically, Katz discredits McDowell with some of McDowell's own sources. Following are some excerpts from the article:

"Christian fundamentalist Josh McDowell has become quite rash in one of his latest books Prophecy: Fact or Fiction. For he is pinning his whole faith in Christianity on the 'historical evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Daniel.'

"Here's his argument: 'Such amazing accurate predictions (in the Book of Daniel) defy the possibility of merely human origin. If these prophecies were composed in the lifetime of the sixth century Daniel, they would compel our acceptance of special revelation from a transcendent, personal God. No anti-supernatural position can reasonably be defended if Daniel is a genuine book of prophecy composed in 530 B.C. or the preceding years' (p. 5).

"Sounds like Burrows definitely agrees with McDowell as to the historicity of Daniel - right? Wrong! For this 'friendly witness' then goes on to say: 'Naturally readers of the Bible have supposed that in these passages the hero of our book of Daniel was meant... Now, however, we have from Ras Shamrah (tablets which are giving us 'an enormous mass of new knowledge regarding the religion and mythology of northern Syria in the age of the Hebrew patriarchs') a poem concerning a divine hero who name is exactly what we find in Ezekiel. He sits at the gate, judges the cause of the widow, and establishes the right of the orphan... In any case one can hardly doubt that the Dan'el referred to in Ezekiel is the same as the Dan'el of the text from Ras Shamrah. Here is a group of biblical passages which have been put in an entirely new light by a recent archaeological discovery' (p. 263). And this refutation is from a 'friendly witness.'

"In his From Stone Age to Christianity, 1957, paperback edition, Albright tells us: 'And yet, the book of Daniel, the book of Enoch, and other works of the same general age show that a positive doctrine of the after-life had already gained the upper hand as early as 165 B.C....' (p. 351).

"Farther along, on page 362, this archaeologist states: 'It is highly probable that the idea of seven archangels was taken from Iranian sources. In the earlier books of the Old Testament and the earliest apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature there is nowhere any suggestion that certain angels formed a specially privileged group in the celestial hierarchy, nor do the angels receive person names identical with those of human beings. In Daniel (cir. 165 B.C.) Michael and Gabriel appear...' (p. 362)

"Notice that Albright uses the date of 165 B.C. in the above two quotes. This late date of 165 B.C., not 530 B.C. as McDowell would have us swallow, is repeated by a great many other scholars. All of which flies in the face of the extreme claim of McDowell, who quotes from one of his sources: 'Therefore, since the critics are almost unanimous in their admission that the Book of Daniel is the product of one author" (c.f. R.H. Pfeiffer, op. cit., pp. 761, 762), we may safely assert that the book could not possibly have been written as late as the Maccabean age' (p. 14).

"Now if we turn to the very same book by Pfeiffer (Introduction to the Old Testament, 1948 - and cited by McDowell in his own bibliography on page 132), we find that if we look back just one more page - to 760 - we will see that Pfeiffer himself lists twenty major scholars who deny that the book was written by one author, Daniel, and that they mostly agree that the book is much later than 530 B.C.!

"To disprove a long chapter by McDowell ('Attacks on Daniel as a Historian,' pages 33-79, which amounts to 35 percent of the whole of McDowell's book), and in which McDowell says: 'The alleged external discrepancies between the historical assertions of the Book of Daniel and secular historical sources will not hold up under close scrutiny' (p. 129), I'm going to use Pfeiffer again. He's a top scholar and McDowell favors him with a thumb-nail biography on page 139 besides quoting him on pages 14 and 65.

"The historical background of Daniel is presented by Pfeiffer on pages 754 through 760, which is much too long for extensive quoting, so I'll choose just the highlights.

"He denies the correctness of McDowell's assertion that the Daniel mentioned in Ezekiel is the same Daniel who wrote the book of Daniel. This is what Pfeiffer says: 'The Daniel of Ezekiel could conceivably be identified with that of Ras Shamra, but hardly with the hero of our book who, being at least ten years younger than Ezekiel, could hardly be classed with Noah; moreover, in 591 and 586 when Ezekiel was writing those passages, our Daniel had barely begun his career....' (p. 754).

"Pfeiffer continues: (page 754) 'The historicity of the Book of Daniel is an article of faith, not an objective scientific truth... In a historical study of the Bible, convictions based on faith must be deemed irrelevant, as belonging to subjective rather than objective knowledge. The historical background of Daniel, as was discovered immediately after its publication, is not that of the sixth but of the second century B.C. In the Sbylline Oracles (3:3831-400, a passage written about 140 B.C.) the 'ten horns' of Dn. 7:7, 20, 24 are already recognized to be ten kings preceding Antiochus Ephiphanes (175-164 B.C.) on the throne. In the first century of our era Josephus correctly identified the little horn in 7:20-27 with Antiochus Ephiphanes... (Antiquities 10:11, 7)... But the real discoverer of the historical allusions in Daniel was the neo-Platonic philosopher Porphyry (d. ca. 304 A.D.), who devoted the twelfth volume of his Arguments against the Christians to the subject. The extant portions of this work which have been preserved by Jerome (d. 420) in his commentary, which is the most important of all the studies on Daniel. Porphyry assailed the historicity of Daniel by proving in detail that ch. 11 presents a history (not a prophecy) of the Seleucids and Ptolemies culminating in the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus Ephiphanes. Jerome honestly accepted the views of this foe of Christianity, although in 11:21-45, he identified the tyrant Antichrist ... and not with Antiochus Ephiphanes' (pp. 755-56).

"In view of the great importance which Pfeiffer attaches to Jerome's commentary on Daniel, I find it incredible that the only mention in McDowell of Jerome is that this great scholar places Daniel among the prophets (McDowell, p. 38).

"Pfeiffer continues: 'It will be noticed at once that the amount of historical information gradually improves as we move from the days of Nebuchadnezzar to those of Antiochus Ephiphanes' (p. 756). The reason for this is that since the book was written during the reign of Antiochus then those events pertaining to this Greek king would certainly match those in Daniel, but as history receded the events became more confused an in error.

"But McDowell takes the opposite tack. He says that the events of the sixth century B.C. are accurate because that is when the book was written and that the subsequent events (which are historically correct) substantiate the infallible prophetic revelations given by God to Daniel (p. 13). But the whole point of all the critical analyses by scholars shows that McDowell has turned the evidence upside-down and actually inverted the truth!

Pfeiffer: It seems clear that our author's misconceptions about the Persian period are derived to a great extent from late sources of the Old Testament and possibly from other sources of questionable trustworthiness (p. 757).

Pfeiffer: Our author confused Nebuchadnezzar with Nabonidus not only by making him the father of Belshazzar, but probably also in the story of Nebuchadnezzar's madness (p. 758; cf. McDowell pp. 123-4).

Pfeiffer: The chronology of Daniel is sufficiently elastic to allow the author to superimpose on the course of history a mechanical scheme based on the interpretation of Jeremiah's seventy years as seventy weeks of years, or 490 years. He divides the seventy weeks into three periods; seven weeks from 586 to 538 (with close approximation, 48 instead of 49 years), sixty-two weeks from 538 to 171 (actually 367 instead of 434 years), and, correctly, one week from 171 to 164 (p. 758; Pfeiffer cf. McDowell pp. 15-22).

Katz: This one paragraph destroys McDowell's reconstruction of Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks. To authenticate this prophecy, since it's crucial to the dates of the coming and death of Christ, as well as to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, McDowell devotes, as noted above, seven pages (15-22). The arithmetic of the weeks consumes three pages alone. McDowell would have been more productive if he had used the space to prove 'pyramid power!'

"To resume listening to our 'friendly witness'... 'In conclusion,' states Pfeiffer, 'the author's information on the period preceding Alexander is extremely vague, being partly drawn from his imagination and partly from unreliable sources (p. 758). While the author knows very little about the history of his first three world empires, his information about the fourth, particularly in its later phases, is exact and clarified' (p. 759). This corroborates what was said earlier in this article about McDowell inverting the truth.

"'What lies beyond December 165,' says Pfeiffer, 'is not historical reality but apocalyptic dream... our author gives an imaginary picture of his (Antiochus') end. After a successful conquest of Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia, Antiochus shall meet his end in his camp between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean, 'broken without hand' by a supernatural agency. This unfulfilled prediction follows the pattern set by earlier apocalypses...' (pp. 759-760).

"Thus the 'friendly witnesses,' Burrows, Albright, and Pfeiffer break the back of McDowell's thesis. By his own words, McDowell has hoisted himself on his own petard. The implications for a Christian fundamentalist's faith in his religion and his Saviour are in great doubt - this according to McDowell's own words: 'Of course it must follow that if the critics can prove their case, then they have seriously undermined the credibility of Christ, the Bible, and the Christian faith' (p. 9).

gregor

Daniel is a popular topic on prophesies and inerrancy.

Should IIDB have a book of Daniel prophesy/dating threads combined as a single sticky? I noted in another thread someone (I think "aChristian") positing an old-age date for Daniel.

I think a sticky formatted like the reading list might be in order.

Johnny Skeptic

Probably so, but for now, I would like for some Christians to post evidence regarding the dating and authorship of Daniel.

mata leao

yes its time, Josh McDowells book is an international bestseller , well received and reviewed by millions. Johnny Skeptic is a(self admitted) former fundamentalist Christian of 35' yes, 35 years who has never published anything, not even a doctoral dissertation. ps. Eckerd college is nearby Johhnny!!

Johnny Skeptic

How utterly absurd. I DID NOT write the article that I cited in my opening post. It appeared in the American Rationalist, and Bernard Katz quoted it. Are you claiming that how many people buy a book determines whether or not it is true? If you read my opening post, which I doubt that you did, you saw that Josh McDowell's OWN SOURCES refuted him. Do you dispute this?

Jack the Bodiless

mata leao:

It appears that you "don't get out much" (figuratively speaking). Josh McDowell's work is junk: this is well-known (and any scholar who attempted to use it would be laughed at). The only real issue is whether this is due to incompetence or dishonesty. Until now, I thought he was merely incompetent, and hopelessly biased: however, this sort of wilful misrepresentation of his sources shows McDowell in a different light.

gregor

McDowell's books have been picked apart by scholars and lay people alike. McDowell is no scholar, he simply cherry-picks items from other sources that support his biased opinion. ETDAV is the best example of this.

Johnny Skeptic

Yes, that is usually the case, but regarding my opening post, McDowell's OWN SOURCES refute his arguments.

Sven

Hint: He believes the bible is true.

Johnny Skeptic

Mata leao boasted about how many books McDowell has sold, but regarding this thread, he conveniently did not comment on ANY of the opening post. I showed that McDowell's own sources discredited him, but mata leao does not object to that, although if a skeptic's own sources discredited him, in his hypocrisy, mata leao would immediately criticize the skeptic as being incompetent. I challenge any Christian to defend any prophecy in a new or existing thread, or to reply to the opening post in this thread.