Historicity of Daniel

One way progressive biblical scholars undermine the faith of the Church is by attacking the authenticity of the Sacred Scriptures themselves, and one of the most subtle but insidious ways of doing this is by questioning the historicity and authorship of certain books. For example, it is common in New Testament biblical scholarship to assert that the fourth Gospel was not written by John the beloved disciple around the year 90 AD, but was produced by a "Johannine community" (to use the phrase of biblical heresiarch and ex-priest John Dominic Crossan) influenced by the theology of John sometime around 150.

This type of insidious "scholarship" has several effects. First, by purporting to be true scholarship (while often being nothing other than prejudice), it instills in the faithful the idea that the opinions of contemporary "scholars" (and there is hardly a more ambiguous term than "scholar") are more trustworthy than the perennial teaching of the Church. Second, it attempts to devalue the divine origin of the books without openly denying their inspiration. It has been believed from time immemorial that the Apostles or the Prophets were inspired by God to write the words of the Sacred Scriptures. Being told later that it was not actually that prophet or apostle, but a "community" who was "inspired" by his theology or ideals, greatly dums down the sense of divine origin of the books. Though the Church has never held a verbatim dictation theory of inspiration (as the Muslims hold of the Koran, for example), the further away we get from a notion of dictation the less sacred the books become. Thus we end up having less faith in them without actually denying them.

A most pernicious manner of devaluing the sacred books is by attacking their historicity and placing their authorship much later in history than had previously been thought. Thus the Pentateuch is moved from 1200 BC to the post-exilic period, the Pslams were not written by David but by some Temple scribe of the Second Temple period, the Proverbs did not come from Solomon but from the Maccabean period, Matthew and John were composed in the 2nd century, etc. This has the two-fold effect of causing a loss of reverence for the Holy Scriptures, and more importantly, a disbelief in the teaching authority and traditions of the Church. Why? Because it comes down to us from Apostolic (and in the case of the Old Testament, pre-Christian) Tradition that certain books were written by certain people at certain times. For example, In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, St. Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." This would put the writing of Matthew around 65 AD. Remember, Irenaeus was only two generations removed from St. John. Long standing tradition affirmed Irenaeus' testimony that Matthew was indeed written by St Matthew the Apostle within a generation of Christ's Ascension.

But, arrogantly throwing out 2,000 years of Tradition and Apostolic Testimony, progressive biblical scholar Francis W. Beare says of Matthew, "[T]here are clear indications that it is a product of the second or third Christian generation. The traditional name of Matthew is retained in modern discussion only for convenience" (The Gospel according to Matthew, p. 7). What are the so-called "clear indications?" Nothing but uncertain presuppositions based on the controversial and shaky Protestant Two Source Hypothesis (formulated by the liberal German Protestant Holtzmann). So all of the sudden, Church Tradition is made to look questionable while Protestant liberal biblical scholarship is more trustworthy. The entire deposit of Tradition and Church authority is sacrificed to the most current scholarship. Nevermind that St. Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp who knew John, said otherwise: we now know better than the Church Fathers!

Fortunately, honest scholarship (the kind that takes testimony like that of St. Irenaeus at face value) has in recent years vindicated the traditional dating systems. Most commentaries today will even place John's Gospel around 95 AD and agree that it was written by John himself. But there is one book of the Scriptures that is continually plagued by liberal dating systems, even in otherwise conservative commentaries by companies like Ignatius Press. This is the Book of Daniel.

Traditional dating places Daniel around the Persian period, around 500 BC, i.e., within living memory of the historical Daniel. The problem is that Daniel makes several stunningly accurate prophecies about the fall of Babylon, Persia, the rise of Alexander the Great and, most amazingly, the exact time of the advent of the Messiah. The prophecies are all way too accurate for progressives to deal with, and so they push the authorship of Daniel forward to the 2nd century BC, in the Maccabean time, and an era when almost all the prophecy in the book had been fulfilled. In effect, they demonstrate an anti-supernatural bias. If there is accurate prophecy, it must have occured after the fact (implicitly denying that accurate prophecy can happen otherwise). For example, the Ignatius Study Bible (an otherwise excellent resource), says in the footnote to Daniel on page 736 of the Second Edition: "[T]he visions of the second part are predominantly concerned with the later Greek Empire and it is unlikely that they were composed before that time. Their literary form, too, corresponds to the apocalyptic style of lierature common in the second century B.C." It seems that "literary form" is always the best argument these people can come up with.

What is one to say about this? To refute this, we need look no further than trusty old Josephus. Remember, Josephus is trusted as a reliable historical account in all other matters, just as much as Tacitus. Knowing that, let's turn to his Antiquities of the Jews, Book 11, chap. 8, sec. 5, William Whiston translation (1981) regarding Alexander the Great's visit to Jerusalem in 332 B.C.:

And when the book of Daniel was shewed him, wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he [Alexander] supposed that himself was the person intended; and as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present . . .

Alexander was shown the Book of Daniel by the High Priest in the year 332, well before the events prophesied in the book had come to pass. Even more amazing, Alexander was inspired by these words and encouraged in his war against the Persians! Unfortunately, this passage of Josephus is sometimes dismissed as a fabrication. But we ought to ask, why? At what point to our absurd attempts to deny the historicity of certain books get us into more logical difficulties than the original position we were setting out to deny? So, let's say that the passage in Josephus is untrue. Then Josephus either lied, or somebody interpolated a later text. If Josephus lied, then why do we, and all historians, still accept everything else he said without question? If there was an interpolator, then who, and where, and why? We are embroiled in much bigger problems if we deny the legitimacy of this passage from Josephus.

This is an example of pure bias. When a record from antiquity comes up that contradicts some progressive position, it is simply written off as a fabrication. Here is a pretty good article on this same topic making the exact same point I have made (just to show you that I am not the only one who has wondered about this).

Ten signs you have a bad Bible commentary

In the past few weeks I have been reading several Bible commentaries (well, not really reading them, but browsing theough them) to see what is going on in the world of Catholic biblical scholarship these days. The two I examined most recently were Inside the Bible by Fr. Kenneth Baker, SJ (Ignatius Press, 1998) and another one called A Catholic Guide to the Bible by Fr. Oscar Lukefahr, a Lazarist (Ligouri, 1998). Needless to say, the Ignatius Press one was a little bit more orthodox than the one by Ligouri, but both commentaries suffered from what I considered deplorable deficits in their scirptural scholarship. This led to wonder, what exactly is a good Bible commentary? The answer to that is multifold, and it may be easier to list several warning signs that you have a bad commentary (sadly, because these are so much more common). If you pick up a commentary and some of these positions are espoused, you might do well to get another one.

So, let me present to you my Top Ten Signs You Have a Bad Bible Commentary. I have tried to list these in order from least to most aggregious errors, and some (though not all) of these were found in both of the commentaries listed above. I'm interested on your feedback as to whether these are as serious as I claim them to be, and whether or not there may have been others that I have missed.

One more note: these signs have to do with Bible scholarship specifically (i.e., exegetical and hermeneutical practices in the interpretation of the Scriptures), not with ways that we approach Revelation in general. Thus, you will not find on this list the notion that the Bible is only inspired in areas pertaining to salvation, though this is certainly a huge and common error. Rather, this list treats of more specific errors that pertain to certain biblical books.

Now, on with the list.

10) The Dating for the Book of Daniel

Daniel, for 2,000 years of Jewish and Christian history, has been dated as being written during the time of the Babylonian exile. Modernist scholarship, however, attempts to date it after the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (c. 163 BC). Why? As Fr. Baker says in his commentary, there are too many prophecies in Daniel that have way too much accurate information about the time of Antiochus. The implication is that real prophecy can't happen, and if any prophecy looks too accurate, it must have been written after the fact.

9) The "Reed Sea"

When you get to the commentary on the Exodus, does it say that the Israelites didn't really cross the Red Sea, but a very shallow ( 3 inches) marsh called the Reed Sea? The motivation here is an arrogant disbelief in the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea, since the crossing of a marshland of three inches of water requires no miraculous explanation. Again, the modernist interjection is a denial of the miraculous intervention of God on behalf of His people.

8) There are Two Contradictory Genesis Accounts of Creation

Does the commentary attempt to force a dichotomy between the Creation account of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? This is often suggested by appealing to the so-called "Documentary Hypothesis," a popular belief that several authors with different theologies all contributed to the Old Testament (they are often referred to as the Elohist, the Jahwist, the Priestly, and the Deuteronomic writers). The implication is that there is no clear and consistent theology in the Old Testament, but that it is a pluralistic compilation of several varying and often contradictory theologies. The Pontifical Biblical Commission during the time of Pius X condemned this belief).

7) Second Isaiah

The book of the prophet Isaiah was actually written by two men. Why, well, it is obvious that Isaiah lived in the 8th century BC, but he seems to make prophecies that relate to the restoration of Israel after the Exile (5th century). Therefore, he could not have written them. Again, like with #10, the implication is a disbelief in the reality of prophecy.

6) Jonah is a Parable

Read the commentary on Jonah; does it say the story is probably a parable only? This is another result of a disbelief in supernatural occurences and Divine Providence. The Jews, Church Fathers and Jesus Himself all referred to Jonah as a historical book. Who are we to say any differently?

5) Most Old Testament Books are Dated as After the Exile

 If you check the dates that the commentator says each book was written in, do most of them fall after the Exile, even the Pentateuch? By placing most books as being compiled after the Exile (c. 497 BC), the commentators are attempting to insert doubt into the Biblical texts by removing them further and further from the events described in them, by making them the work of scribes instead of inspired prophets and by casting doubt on Tradition as a whole, since Tradition says that the Pentateuch was written during the time of the Exodus (c. 1400 BC), not during the Exile.

4) Advocates the "Q" Theory in the New Testament

Does it deny the traditional assertion, going back to St. Irenaeus, that Matthew's Gospel was the first to be written and instead assert the existence of a primitive common "source" for all the Gospels, which it calls "Q"? This is a modernist theory and the corner of liberal biblical scholarship. It is an attempt to solve what is called (arrogantly), the "Synoptic Problem," which is the fact that all of the Gospels use similar language and agree with each other. Admitting that this is due to their historical veracity and divine inspiration is not even brought up. Instead, a purely historical reason is looked for. To the extent that this "Q" theory is advocated, the reliability of the NT is often questioned.

3) The Genesis Account is Taken From Babylonian Folklore 

This assertion makes a joke of the unique Creation of the world by God, casts doubt on the historicity of Genesis, insults inspiration and mythologizes the Creation. For this reason, it is a most grievous error.

2) A 2nd Century Date for John's Gospel

John's Gospel contains some of the most profound and important sayings of Jesus, sayings on which much Catholic doctrine finds its source. Thus, it is in the interest of those who hate the Church to try to claim that this Gospel was not written by John (and therefore, that the words are not really those of Jesus), but was composed sometime between 120 and 200 AD by a "Johannine community" whose writings represent their specific theology and not the authentic words of Christ. This claims dares to put forth the notion that the words fo Christ as recorded in the Fourth Gospel are not His own but those of men put into the mouth of Christ.

And now, the number one sign that you have a bad Bible commentary (drumroll)...

1) Matthew 16:18-20 is A Later Addition

Yes, the biblical foundation of the papacy in Matthew 16 is often claimed to be a later addition by partisans of St. Peter. Why? Because this verse gives such clear authority to Peter that it cannot have possibly come from Jesus! Therefore, it must be an addition. This position rejects out of hand the inspiration of the Scriptures, the power ans authority of the Church and Christ's willed institution of the hierarchy. No one can advocate this position in any way and still be a good Catholic. For this reason, I list it as number one on my list.

Please feel free to add your own if I have omitted any. Please state the reasons why you believe it to be an error.

Conflicting Passover Chronologies?

For some biblical skeptics, one alleged proof for the falsity of the Gospel narratives is the apparent contradiction in when Jesus was put to death. First, let's look at the narrative of the Last Supper from Luke 22:

Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it." They said to him, "Where will you have us prepare it?" He said to them, "Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house that he enters and tell the master of the house, 'The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' And he will show you a large upper room furnished; prepare it there." And they went and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover (Luke 22:7-13).

Here we see the Passover being prepared probably on Wednesday evening but sacrificed and eaten on Holy Thursday. This is evident by our Lord's reference to the meal consumed on Holy Thursday as "this Passover" (Luke 22:15). But now let's look at the account in the Gospel of John:

Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover (John 18:28).

Here is is "early morning" on Good Friday and Passover still had not happened yet, for the Pharisees would not enter the Praetorium lest they defile themselves before the Passover. We see other things in John that suggest that the Passover still had not happened yet as of Friday afternoon:

Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away (John 19:31).

Here we have Jesus dying on the cross at the very time that the Passover lambs around Jerusalem would have been being slaughtered. Later, we see Jesus hastily buried so that the Jews can return to Jerusalem and celebrate the Passover for which they had been preparing:

So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there (John 19:40-42).

So we are left with two chronologies: one has Jesus eating the Last Supper on the eve of the Passover, the other has Jesus dying the afternoon before the Passover even begins, which is apparently celebrated Friday evening going into Saturday. Which one of these accounts is true?

Well, the biblical skeptic quickly says that two contradictory accounts disproves the story, but the historian understands that maybe the problem is not two contradictory accounts but two Passovers.

In Israel in the first century AD there were two different Passovers being kept that were calculated using two differing calendars. The original Jewish calendar (called the "Creation" calendar) dates the beginning of a new day from the setting of the sun, based on Genesis 1 where a day is defined as the time from when the sun rises to when it sets, based on a separation between darkness and light. All of the original mandates for the Feasts in the Old Testament were based on this understanding of the calendar. So for the Creation calendar, a new day is commenced at sunrise, and furthermore, a new month is commenced at the beginning of a new moon (see Numbers 28:14; 1 Samuel 20; Isaiah 66:23).

But when the Romans came into Palestine they introduced a differing calendar, one where a new day was reckoned from midnight. Thus a Wednesday night and Thursday morning share the same darkness but midnight splits the night into two dates. Another factor is that while in Babylon, the Jews adopted the practice of reckoning the new months not from the new moon but from the sighting of the first crescent of a new moon.

After the return from Babylon, the Jews nationally used the Babylonian system to determine when Passover should begin. This was the national Passover that was kept by the Pharisees, Temple authorities and most Jews that took place the evening of Good Friday going into Holy Saturday, as recorded in the Gospel of John. Since John was a relative of the High Priest and educated in the Temple establishment, he would have naturally regarded the later Passover as the true Passover.

But the Jews were divided on the date of the observance of Passover. Some Jews insisted on following Creation’s calendar, that is, Nisan 1 began on the day of a new moon. Jewish leaders, however, insisted on using the Babylonian method for determining the first day of each month. The High Priest waited until the first crescent of the new moon was sighted before declaring the commencement of Nisan 1. Because the conjunction of a new moon and the sighting of the first crescent of a new moon in Jerusalem is typically 16 to 40 hours later, the celebration of two Passovers on two different days in Israel was not uncommon. Many Jews regarded the date of the Passover as celebrated by the High Priest to be sacriligious, and continued to keep the Passover according to the Creation calendar, which would have been celebrated on Holy Thursday night. Among other groups that kept this Passover were the Essenes and any conservative Jew who dissented from the Pharisaical establishment.

Three things of interest:

First, Jesus chose to celebrate the Passover according to the Creation calendar, not the Temple calendar. This may suggest an implicit approval of this calendar, but it may also be a prophetic way to fulfill both the sacrificial and sacerdotal elements of His offering: in the Passover of Holy Thursday we see him officiating and offering the Passover; the following day, we see Him as the victim, being killed while all the Passover lambs are being slain in Jerusalem. Both are fitting.

Second, one reason the Jews rejected the Temple dating is because it was predicted in Daniel that in the time of the Antichrist (or, the "Abomination" in the language of that book) that the dates and times of feasts would be altered:

After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws (Daniel 7:24-25).

This did in fact happen in first century Judea, and it did in fact herald the coming of the Messiah and the destruction of the Temple.

Third and finally, it was common knowledge in the ancient world that the Jews celebrated two Passovers. This fact was even noted by the Emperor Constantine, who took it as evidence against the veracity of the Jewish calendar when looking to determine the date of Easter:

"They [the Jews] do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for in their blindness and repugnance to all improvement, they frequently celebrate two Passovers in the same year" (Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib iii., 18-20).

Therefore, as with the case with the Resurrection chronology of Jesus, we need not worry about alleged contradictions in the Gospels. The multiple times given for the Passover in the Gospels are not due to inconsistencies or untruths on the part of the Evangelists but rather to the existence if divergent dates for celebrating the Passover in ancient Israel.

Belloc: How Status Protects Labor

In his classic 1937 work The Crisis of Civilization, Hilaire Belloc convincing argues that the rejection of the Catholic Church at the time of the Protestant Revolt is directly responsible for the social and economic troubles of modernity. According to Belloc, the most pressing economic problem is that the vast majority of people are wage-earners to a small owner class who have a disproportionate control of the means of production. This situation Belloc calls 'Proletarianism.' While modern wage-earners have political rights, full economic freedom eludes them because they are too dependent upon those who pay their wages. Unlike the Communists who assert that private ownership of property is the fundamental evil, Belloc states the problem is not that capital is owned and utilized by so few, but that so many are proletarian wage-earners.

One year anniversary!

This week is the one year anniversary of me and Anselm starting this blog (the exact anniversary will be on Sunday, June 29th to be exact). I have had much fun putting this blog together for you all and I hope you have been blessed by it as well. I again apologize for the infrequency with which I have been able to get to posting in the past several months; indeed, I fear that the days of daily postings (or even multiple postings daily) may be done while I am in college. That being said, I will continue to do my best!

In the meantime, I have put together a tremendous list of links to some of mine and Anselm's favorite and best posts of the past year. Please recall that in October, 2007 I accidentally deleted all of my pics for the blog, so the earliest posts may have no pictures with them.

The Convert/Cradle Dynamic: a look at the way Protestant converts and Traditionalist cradle Catholics view the Church differently.

Does the Church teach spontaneous Creation?: a look at some historic statements on evolution from the Magisterium and the saints.

Henry VIII divorce shocker: my unconventional historical conclusion that the marriage of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon was, in fact, invalid as Henry asserted. He's still a jerk, though.

Dispensible Disciplines: even though disciplines are not de fide doctrine, does that mean they are just dispensible?

"We agree on essentials": ever heard Protestants say this? Well it's not true!

Wife symbolizes God??: an analysis of the odd phrase in the CCC which states that in marriage the wife symbolizes God.

Are they really the same?: a critique of apologist Jim Blackburn's assertion that the TLM is not any better than the NO is assisting in growth in personal holiness.

Reflection on Tradition: some thoughts on how traditions form and become obsolete.

Oprah Winfrey is the Antichrist: Uh...this one explains itself.

Resurrection Appearances: a review of the traditional method of harmonizing all of the Resurrection appearances of Christ.

The incredible, vanishing Rerum Novarum: why do contemporary Magisterial documents on social justice neglect to reference Rerum Novarum?

Dictation: the Church does indeed teach divine dictation with regards to the inspiration of the Scriptures.

Did anything happen in 1054?: The Eastern Prthodox are in schism, but it didn't happen in 1054!

Excellence is not showing off: for people accused of being condescending or talking down to others just because you try to do something well.

Semantics of reform: the subtleties of what people mean when they say they want to "reform" the Church.

Historicity of Daniel: the book of Daniel was not written during the time of Antiochus Ephiphanes.

Hey,Constantine!: the first Christian emperor tells us about the true Faith.

I'm back from Columbus: NCYC and everything that goes with it.

Where is the ark of the covenant?: first post in the whole series.

Rome was no accident: the headship of the Church in the city of Rome is not due to historical accident, but was part of the divine plan.

Melancholy Christmas: why Christmas songs are sad.

Ten signs you have a bad Bible commentary: ten red lights to watch out for.

At the crossroads of ecumenism: a critique of Cardinal Dulles' stupid assertion that ecumenism ought to consist of sharing our feelings.

Ever heard of epiky?: revisting an old concept from Canon Law.

Protestant and Catholic lyrics: why even Protestant lyrics are better than sappy Haugen/Hass crap.

Evangelical power of the faith: just give people the Truth on its own terms and God will take care of the rest.

The term "extraordinary": it seems that the word means two different things when applied to Extraordinary Ministers and the Extraordinary Form.

"Jobs Americans won't do": they don't exist.

Pigs and evolution: discovery of supposedly extinct species.

Strongholds of traditionalism: where is traditional Catholicism making the greatest headway?

Is reincarnation real?:definitive proof that reincarnation is in fact true (okay, not really...).

When did smoking become a crime?: a stupidity of the anti-smoking lobby.

If you're gonna do it wrong, at least do it right: banality of modern vernacular lyrics contrasted with older English hymns.

"But they're Catholic, too": why that is not a reason to support illegal immigration.

Youth groups are Protestant: sad but true (usually).

Myth of the ignorant priests: were Catholic priests in the past ignorant? Even a Protestant Englishman from the 18th century says no.

Rails not just for TLM: they work great in the Novus Ordo, too!

No alliance with Muslims: do various monotheistic religions of the world need to "unite" to fight off the greater threat of relatavism? No way!

Question on custom: when, canonically, is a custom established and what binding force does it have?

Historicity of the Flood: the anthropological universality of the flood.

Dissecting "We are Church": why I protest the use of that loaded phrase.

Trajectory argument: why the argument "we should just be happy that we're moving in the right direction" is not a good one.

Homosexuality and media culture: Batman and Robin are placed under homo-suspicion.

Should Mother Teresa be canonized?: a serious look at some of the reasons why Mother Teresa ought not to become a saint.

Is carbon dating accurate?: amuzing pics of fossilized fingers and cowboy boots and a critique of the carbon dating system.

Cult of sensitivity: people are too sensitive! Suck it up and take it like a man!

Blame it on the ignorant laity: a refutation to the charge that the laity in the pre-Vatican II period were ignorant and poorly catechized.

Position clarification: where the writers of this blog stand on the Novus Ordo Mass.

Orthodoxy is not enough: contesting the idea that good orthodoxy consists in not actively believing any heresy.

Who do so many Catholics believe in penal substitution?: how Protestant soteriology has influenced Catholic thinking on justification.

Well, is their one rite or two?: comparing Benedict's assertion of two forms of one rite with Paul VI's declaration that the Novus Ordo is a "new rite."

Hope in Latin America?: why the Church in Latin America is a joke.