Refutation of Infidels

The film Zeitgeist begins with list of pagan gods such Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus and Mithra. It goes through the list of details associated with Jesus Christ and then applies them to these pagan gods in order to create the impression that Christianity is only a copycat religion. However, viewers (whether believers or skeptics) should watch this film with the realization that there is an agenda behind it. — And I advise anyone reading this to do the same with what I am about to say as well.

So far, on the part of the film, claims of being academically are false, as seen in the case of the parallels between Horus and Jesus. — But it goes on to the next pagan deity, Attis, and makes similar claims about him saying,

Attis, of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected.

Before going into detail, I want to emphesize that December 25th has no theological significance to Christianity. It is not mentioned in the Bible as Jesus’ birth date. The date was adopted in 350 AD by Bishop Julius I, too late a date to have any relevance to Christian origins.

The story of Attis begins when Agdistis, a hermaphroditic demon with male and female sex organs, gets castrated by gods that feared him. They disposed of his organ, and an almond tree grew where it landed. — Pausanias, the second century Greek writer, says:

There grew up from it an almond-tree with its fruit ripe, and a daughter of the river Sangarius [Nana, Attis' mother], they say, took of the fruit and laid it in her bosom, when it at once disappeared, but she was with child. A boy was born, and exposed, but was tended by a he-goat. As he grew up his beauty was more than human, and Agdistis fell in love with him. (Description of Greece 7, 17, 11)

After Attis’s birth, Nana’s father ordered the child exposed so that he would die, but fortunately he was saved by the goddess Cybele and was mothered by a she-goat. Attis grew to manhood and was so handsome in appearance that Agdistis and/or Cybele, the mother of the gods, fell in love with him.

When Attis was sent to marry the daughter of the king of Pessinos, Agdistis drove Attis insane to the point of castrating himself so that nobody else could have him. When Agdistis saw Attis’ dead body, he repented of driving him insane and made sure that his body didn’t decay. He was then reborn as an evergreen pine tree, as recounted by Strabo the historian. — In other versions, Cybele, who was jealous and refused to take Attis back, got sexually involved with women, and this drove Attis insane and he mutilated himself under a pine tree where he died. — Pausanias points out one tradition in which Attis is killed by a boar. (Description of Greece 7, 17, 10)

There is no indication that Nana, Attis’ mother, was a virgin when her son was born, though she could have been since there is no reason to believe she wasn’t. As for his death, he was either castrated, or his has gored by a wild bore. He was not crucified.

The claim that Attis was dead for three days and later resurrected seems to have its roots in the Magna Mater’s Spring Festival which lasted from the 15th of March until the 27th. — On the eighth say of the festival, a pine tree which symbolized Attis was cut down, and this was followed by three days of mourning. On the tenth day, he was burried, and then on the so-called Halaria, or the “Day of Joy” was on the eleventh day. This is cited as the resurrection day.

A.T. Fear, who contributed a chapter to the book entitled Attis and Related Cults and wrote about this very same festival, points out in the chapter entitled “Cybele and Christ“ does seem to confirm the claims that that Jesus may have been copied from Attis because of a similar claim that he was killed and resurrected after three days during a celebration that depicts his resurrection out of a tomb. (Page 39) — But there is a major problem. The ceremony that Dr. Fear describes is from a major festival of the metroac cult. But later he points out that this very cult had gone through changes which could have been “a deliberate attempt to rival Christianity” to ensure the cult’s survival in the market. (Page 44) — As a matter of fact, about the resurrection of Attis he says,

Attis too with his strong emphasis on resurrection seems to be a late-comer to the cult, the stress on the Halaria as celebrating the resurrection of Attis also appears to increase at the beginning of the Fourth century AD.: the same time as in the taurobolium towards the rite of personal redemption.

While these changes could simply be a mutation of religion over time, and it is important to remember that here we are discussing a period of centuries not merely years, they do seem to have been provoked by a need to respond to the challenge of Christianity. (Attis and Related Cults, pages 41, 42)

Dr. Fear does question whether the process of changing the Attis cult was conscious, but he never even implies that Jesus was influenced by Attis. He says that the Attis cult either mutated or that it responded to Christianity. He also dates the celebration of Attis’ “resurrection” to the fourth century AD!

To be fair, there is one possible earlier date for the apparent resurrection of Attis, but it is not much better for those that want Jesus to have been copied from Attis. — According to this other reconstruction, the three days of mourning were introduced during Emperor Claudius’ reign which was from 41 to 54 AD. Also, the apparent resurrection day was was introduced during the reign of Antoninus Pius, between 130 to 161 AD. The obvious problem with supposing that this was an inspiration for Christianity was that these aspects of the festival are post-Christian. So either way, both possible scenarios have it as too late to have affected Christianity.

So, my conclusion here is that Zeitgeist’s claims about Attis are only marginally better that those made about Horus. It cannot be said definitively that Attis was born of a virgin because it is not specified whether or not his mother was. His death in both versions of his life differ from the crucifixion of Jesus, and the three day death and resurrection of Attis are from the post-Christian era, not from before as would be expected if Christianity were influence by the Attis cult. — Academic correctness on Peter Joseph’s part (the producer of Zeitgeist) seems to be secondary to his anti-Christian agenda.

References:
The History of Christmas from holidays.net
Description of Greece 7, 17, 11, Pausanias
CATULLUS. “ATTIS” (#63)
Attis — From AbsoluteAstronomy.com
Description of Greece 7, 17, 10. Pausanias
The Great Mother from Asia Minor to Rome. From Mythology.OurGardenPath.com
Attis and Related Cults, pages 39 to 42. — Attis and Christ, by A.T. Fear

The film Zeitgeist begins with list of pagan gods such Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus and Mithra. It goes through the list of details associated with Jesus Christ and then applies them to these pagan gods in order to create the impression that Christianity is only a copycat religion. However, viewers (whether believers or skeptics) should watch this film with the realization that there is an agenda behind it. — And I advise anyone reading this to do the same with what I am about to say as well.

As the film itself says, we want to be academically correct. So now it is our duty to check the facts to see if the makers of Zeitgeist have lived up to that expectation. If the film is right, then that means we Christians have a lot of reevaluating to do. If it is wrong, however, then it is the Jesus-Mythers that should reevaluate what they are spreading all over their webstes.

So, please bear with me as I go over the facts of this matter:

The first God that the film deals with is Horus, the God the Son of Osiris and Isis. — As I point out in the introduction of this review, the film makes claims in an attempt to tie Horus to Jesus. — After going into some background about him, the narator of the film says,

Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior. At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God’s Anointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected.

These are incredible claims. But as I said, we have to be skeptical of any film that has a clear agenda. The truth is that even though it is claimed that Horus was the product of a virgin birth, there is no reference that I could find that supports what the film says. It is actually unlikely that a married couple of gods would have not procreated at any time before the birth of Horus.

In fact, the claim that Horus’ mother, Isis, was a virgin is easily disproven by very little research. — The Encyclopedia Mythica shows that his birth was definitely sexual. After his father Osiris had been murdered by Seth, his body was scatered into pieces leaving Isis to recover them to reassemble her husband’s body. She then “impregnated herself from the Osiris’ body and gave birth to Horus in the swamps of Khemnis in the Nile Delta.”

Also, there is no indication of Horus’ birth-date being on December 25th, there is no Biblical nor historical reason why this date should be relevant to Christianity because the Bible gives no such information of the birth of Jesus. — In reality, Horus was born on the second of the Epagomenal Days which actually corresponds from July 31st to August 24th.

As for Zeitgeist calling his mother Isis-Meri - an obvious word game the film makers try to pull to link her to Mary - there is no reference that I could find that wasn’t a “Jesus-Myth” website. No academic or encyclopedic sources I could find said any such thing. She is simply called Isis. However, that isn’t to say it doesn’t exist as an Egyptian term. The reference I found was that one of Ramses II’s sons bore the name “Meri-Astrot,” or “Beloved of Astrot.” — “Meri” means beloved. (History Of Syria: Including Lebanon And Palestine, page 136) — I suppose Osiris, being her husband, could have called her by that title, but there is no reference to him doing it. But even if he did, it is a title, not a name like Mary, so it would be irrelevant.

There is no reference to Horus being a “prodigal child teacher” at the age of twelve, or of being baptized at age thirty. — Zeitgeist claims that he was baptized by “Anup,” hovever this is a demonstrable error. “Anup” is simply an alternate spelling for the name of the god Anubis who, by the way, was an embelmer, not a baptizer.

As for having twelve disciples, again, I ran into a brick wall as I could find nothing to confirm this claim. — One researcher/Christian apologist I read said he was able to find a reference to Horus having sixteen followers, and another in which he had an undefined number, but twelve disciples escaped his investigative research.

The claim that he performed miracles, even if true, would be irrelevant because “miracle working” is a way too common expectation of deities. And as for having similar titles to Jesus such as “The Truth, The Light, God’s Anointed Son, The Good Shepherd, or the Lamb of God” there is no evidence that he ever had them.

“Typhon” is simply the Greek name for Seth, the murderer of Horus’ father. Zeitgeist claims that he betrayed Horus, however Seth was Horus’ enemy from birth so by definition nobody was betrayed. It’s hard to be betrayed by someone who was never your friend to begin with. — The one reference that I could find that describes his death is seeminly unrelated to the Passion of Jesus. According to the Cippi of Horus, he was stung him to death by a scorpion. When Isis found him dead she is said to have become “distraught and frantic with grief, and was inconsolable.” – Thoth, who had helped her to revive her husband Osiris, heard her and came down to answer her. Isis was then supplied with incantations and then was able to revive her son. — No crucufixion, no three days in a tomb.

Zeitgeist also calls Horus the “Sun” god (or solar deity) in an attempt to tie him to Jesus who was the “son” of God. Overlooking the the fact that this is an irrelevant word game that only works in English, Jesus was never considered a solar deity. It doesn’t help matters for Zeitgeist and other “Jesus-Mythers” who make this claim that sun worship is a violation of Christian teaching. I’m fully aware that Zeitgeist tries to tie Jesus to “sun” worship via the zodiac, but I will cover that in a later post. — For the record, Ra was the sun god, though Horus was considered a sun god in falcon form.

To show that Jesus’ infancy is a plagiarizing, Zeitgeist goes on to cite a 3,500 year old Egyptian inscription found at Luxor that it claims tells the story of the annunciation, the immaculate conception, the birth and the adoration of Horus.

Luxor Inscription

The film then says,

The images begin with Thoth announcing to the virgin Isis that she will conceive Horus. Then Neth the holy ghost impregnating the virgin. And then the virgin birth and the adoration. This is exactly the story of Jesus’ miracle conception.

This seems to implicate Christianity and Jesus as an imitation, however besides my refutation given above of untrue idea of Isis being a virgin when Horus was born, there is yet another problem with using the Luxor inscription to support the copycat hypothesis.

Richard Carrier, a historian and skeptic of Christianity in his comments about the inscription, says that this inscription has nothing to do with Christianity,

The Luxor inscription also does not depict impregnation by a spirit, but involves very real sex (indeed, the narrative borders on soft-core porn), and the woman involved is the mythical Queen of Egypt in an archetypal sense, not Isis per se.

In short, he ends up saying that the parallels are very week, and that what few parallels that do exist need not have been copied. He also points out that “Amun, not Thoth, announces the conception. . .” — Also the inscription, as far as I can tell isn’t even about Horus’ birth which only shows how poor a job the makers of Zeitgeist have done in researching for their film.

So my conclusion here is that there is no relevant parallel between Jesus and Horus, and the ones brought up are mostly fabricated. It’s too bad that a lot of people uncrittically accept such claims without doing any independent research of their own.

References:
Encyclopedia Mythica. Isis — by Micha F. Lindemans
The Ancient Egyptian Calendar
Five Days Out of Time by John Opsopaus
History Of Syria: Including Lebanon And Palestine, page 136. By Philip Khuri Hitti
Classic Encyclopedia - Anubis.
Good question. Was Jesus Christ just a CopyCat Savior Myth? By Glenn Miller.
Osiris and Isis
Cippi of Horus. From TourEgypt.net
Ra - The Sun-God
Horus, the God of Kings. by Jimmy Dunn
Luxor Inscription: Brunner’s Gottkoenigs & the Nativity of Jesus: A Brief Communication. By Richard Carrier

Even though it has been a while since I saw the half hour film on the Jesus Myth which is only a small portion of Zeitgeist - The Movie I have only now decided to write a review of it to investigate the claims that it advances. These claims about the copycat Jesus have been widely circulated on anti-Christian websites and have been used against Christians in religious debates.

Among the listed parallels between Jesus and the pagan gods,

• Born on December 25th
• Born of a virgin
• Star in the east
• Adorned by three kings
• Teacher at twelve years of age
• Baptized at age 30
• Had 12 disciples
• Performed miracles
• Called the “Lamb of God”/”The Light”/”King of Kings”/”Alpha and Omega”
• Crucified
• Dead for 3 days
• Resurrected
• “Sunday” worship

Of course, to any Christian these claims would indicate that the religion they hold so dear is nothing but a mere imitation of pagan religions that they themselves have rejected.

Also, the film also claims that many of the stories in the Old Testament have been plagiarized from pagan lore, and that the the Bible is most accurately a book of astrology than anything else. So since the film itself says that we have to be academically correct, I will see if these claims have any truth in them. Also, if we find any parallels between Jesus and pagan gods then they have to be placed into perspective in order to verify their relevance.

To anyone that reads my future posts on this subject, I hope you find what you read informative. I will start to cover details that are advanced in Zeitgeist, the Movie

Cornelius Tacitus, the second century Roman historian, was born at about 55 AD to a wealthy father who was a member of the equestrian order. Between the ages of 26 and 27, he was admitted to the Roman senate and involved himself in Roman politics. — Later, between the years 105 and 109, he wrote and published the Histories which was his first historical work. Later, after his governorship in Asia in 113 AD, he published the Annals in which he wrote about the emperors Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero.

It is in this second work that Tacitus makes reference to the persecution of first century Christians by Nero and to Jesus himself:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. (The Annals 15: 44)

This passage tells how Nero used Christians as a scapegoat for setting Rome on fire when the public began to suspect him. — Also, like the references from Josephus, this passage has been used as historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. But naturally, not everybody is convinced.

One objection to the reference’s authenticity is that since Tertullian, an early Christian apologist, didn’t cite it, that is an indication that it was most probably interpolated later. — Besides being an ineffective argument from silence, the fact is that citing this passage would have been practically pointless because it only would have served to confirm Jesus’ existence which was actually never questioned by early skeptics of Christianity.

Claims that this passage is an interpolation or was put through a Christian filter are disproven by it’s anti-Christian tone. in the text which describes Christians as “hated for their abominations,” “mischievous” and “evil.” — Later, in just a few sentences, the passage says:

[The Christians were] convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Not only is this inconsistent with what a Christian interpolator would have written, but it is historically consistent with the misinformation that was in circulation about the Christians in the first and second centuries. — Also, the anti-Christian language used is another obvious reason why early Christian apologists wouldn’t have cited it.

Darrell J. Doughty, Professor of New Testament at Drew University, argues in favor of a “block interpolation” in his paper, meaning that Tacitean passage is authentic with the exception of the two sentences that clearly mention “Christus” (or Christ) and the Christians. — This cannot be true because, even though this suggestion can work in modern English, it violates the Latin grammar. Stephen C. Carlson, another New Testament scholar, pointed out in his response to this assertion that,

Doughty cannot propose something as simple block interpolation as the following, because the relative clause, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat, would then be missing its verb.

Basically, this means that the references to Christ and the Christian were most certainly intended to be in the text because it makes no grammatical sense in the Latin language to delete them.

The “Jesus-Myther” and conspiracy theorist D.M. Murdock, in her comments about the Tacitean reference, attempts to show that Tacitus didn’t write the passage claiming that “the tone and style of the passage are unlike the writing of Tacitus.” — This is not an honest claim because competent scholars have actually affirmed the opposite. (Jesus Outside the New Testament, page 43)

She then parrots the fringe assertion that Tacitus’ Annals are a fifteenth century forgery caling it a “peculiar and disturbing fact.” The fact is that no serious historian of scholar that I know of doubts the authenticity of the Annals. As a matter of fact, their genuineness has been confirmed by its accuracy in the most minute details such as with coins and inscriptions which were discovered since that period disproving one of Ms. Murdock’s major justifications for dismissing the Tacitean reference. Certainly, if it weren’t for the one reference to Jesus, such a ridiculous claim would never have been made.

Some argue that even though the passage is most likely authentic, Tacitus may have only uncrittically accepted his information of Jesus from his friend Pliny the Younger. But, there a problrm with this. Even though it is known that Tacitus did source Pliny sometimes, this does not mean that he was uncrittical of the information he was given. In Annals 15.53, he describes information he gained from Pliny as being “absurd.”

Also, there is a major inconsistency with the suggestion that Tacitus sourced Pliny. As mentioned before, Tacitus claimed that the Christians were guilty of abominations. On the other hand, after Pliny had investigated Christian beliefs, he decided that they were generally harmless, as he indicated in a in a letter to Emperor Trajan. — Had Tacitus uncrittically sourced Pliny, one wouldn’t expect divergent conclusions.

Was Tacitus simply repeating what he heared from Christians? Obviously not. If he didn’t uncrittically accept information that Pliny, someone he respected, gave him, then why would he give Christians, who he despised, the benefit of the doubt? — This is like suggesting that he got his anti-semetic “information” of the origins of Judiasm, found in Histories 5.2-5, from the Jews themselves which is absolutely absurd.

As a closing statement about the Tacitean reference, Ms. Murdock says:

Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an “historical” Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition.

She thinks that it has to have been written by an actual eyewitness account to Jesus to be of any value. This is a popular argument among the “Jesus-Myth” crowd, but the standard is extremely unreasonable. Tacitus wrote about several historical figures several decades after the fact and to which he was not an eyewitness. For example, he wrote about Caesar Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius, all of whom had come and gone before Tacitus was born. However, no reputable historian would consider the idea of suggesting that because Tacitus wasn’t an eyewitness to the events surrounding these emperors, that his historical accounts of them are therefore of no historical value.

The same goes for several other ancient historians such as Herodotus, Xenophon, Plutarch, Josephus and others who wrote several decades or centuries after the events the report on and are still believed useful by modern historians and scholars. — The fact is that if we were to hold these other histories to the same standard as “Jesus-Mythers” insist to holding any secular, historical reference to Jesus, then we would end up erasing a huge amount of known history. If a historian writes about an event decades after the fact, that does not invalidate the historicity of what he reports. It does not have to be a first hand eyewitness account to be historically relevant.

The evidence all points to the reference being authentic. It matches Tacitus’ usual writing style and is unlikely to be a Christian interpolation because of its anti-Christian tone. And since it is unlikely that Tacitus uncrittically gave anyone the benefit of the doubt, it is very probably based on personal knowledge about the existence of the historical Jesus.

Recently, I have posted a defence of the partial authenticity of Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum and the complete authenticity of the so-called “James passage.” — Even though, at least to my knowledge, I dealt with the relevant objections to their authenticity there is at least one more objection which I decided to cover here. — It has to do with the James passage.

It is an indesputable fact that the majority of scholarly opinion supports the authenticity of the clause “Jesus, who was called Christ” in the James passage. But there is one more objection that, all though I have never taken it seriously except for this blog post, should be cleared up.

Kenneth Humphreys, while mentioning this passage, mentions in passing that in the same paragraph there is another man named Jesus, the son of Damneus and then indicates that this man is James’ brother, not the Jesus of the Bible. (Antiquities 20: 200-203) Though Humphreys does not go into much detail on this, one other Atheist I communicated with did.

Metro State Atheists, an Atheist blog I occasionally visit, refers to this objection and makes some points that should be answered. — After quoting the entire paragraph in which James and the two Jesuses are mentioned Joel Guttormson the webmaster of the blog goes on to say,

James mentioned in the line in question, which is italicized and underlined in the text above, is the bother of the Jesus mentioned in the bolded line. Context dictates this since they are not separated explicitly (ie Josephus didn’t say that Jesus, the son of Damneus is not the same as Jesus brother of James who they called Christ). Also, there exists no break in the story such that anyone could assert they are different people in the context.

The argument of context needs to be addressed. He saying that because there is “no break in the story” that the brother of James and the son of Damneus are therefore likely the same person. This is not necessarily true. Jesus was an extremely common name, so common that in order to prevent confusion for the readers of his history it would only be logical to identify two different men with the same name with differing means of Identification. This would only become all the more necessary if these two men were mentioned within only a few sentences of eachother and if the context did not change.

The reason why there is no break in the context is that the execution of James lead to all the events that followed in the paragraph (i.e., the deposition of the High Priest Ananus and his replacement by “the son of Damneus.”) This does not prove or even indicate that the brother of James and the son of Damneus are the same person.

Also, even though Joel is correct that Josephus does not say point blank that Jesus and James were not Damnes’ sons, Josephus’ own writing style dictates that they be positively identified as such. Usually, when Josephus first introduced a historical person he gave him the proper introduction the first time that he is mentioned by naming the person’s father (or known relative), hometown or their office.

Here are some examples of Josephus’ first time introductions:

• Antiquities 17: 271: “There was also Judas, the son of that Ezekias who had been head of the robbers.”
• Antiquities 17: 273: “There was also Simon, who had been a slave of Herod the king.”
• Antiquities 18: 4: “Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala.”
• Wars 5: 335: “They intended to have Zacharias the son of Baruch, one of the most eminent of the citizens, slain.”

The list of examples of Josephus’ goes on. When he first names a new person, this is how he he introduced them, the first time he mentions them. This isn’t to say that he never re-introduces anyone in the same manner a second time, but it is characteristic for him to do it the first time as did many other ancient writers. Normally Josephus would not have procrastinated only to give the customary introduction later on.

Assuming that James’ brother and the son of Damneus are the same person, and taking into account Josephus’ normal writing style, by all rights the James passage should say “James, brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus.” But this is not the case. — Josephus usually gave this identification without delay, and yet he does not follow up in this passage. If Josephus indeed meant that James’ brother and the son of Damneus were the same person, then it’s pretty odd that he didn’t follow the norm of identification. That he did not certainly makes sense if they are not the same person.

Another argument that Joel makes that I think deserves to be examined is his claim that the son of Damneus can also be called “Christ,”

Furthermore, Christ is Greek means nothing more than “the anointed one”. Literally, this means that one would be blessed with or covered in [holy] oil. It wouldn’t be out of the question, as far I know, that a “high priest” such as “Jesus, the son Damneus” was, would be called a Christ, an anointed one.

Actually, it would be out of the question because “Christ” had huge political implications, and it is unlikely the Romans would have allowed him to have been seated as high preist if he bore such a title. But let’s not even consider that fact as part of the evidence. — It is accurate to say that the Greek word “Χριστος” is translated as “anointed.” And considering that the son of Damneus would have been “annointed” when he was appointed as High Priest, Joe’s argument does seem plausable. But there is one major problem with this assumption:

Josephus indicates that Jesus already was known as “Christ” during the early High Priesthood of Ananus, that is to say before the anointment of the son of Damneus to be the next High Priest. Because every High Priest was logically “anointed” at his appointment to the High-Priesthood, it is highly unlikely that the son of Damneus would have been known as the “anointed anything” until after Ananus’ term.

Furthermore, as mentioned in my previous post on this subject, the Greek term “λεγόμενος” which Josephus uses for the clause “Was called Christ” is being used neutrally by neither affirming or denying Jesus’ Messiaship, which is a reason why it is widely accepted as authentic.

This neutrality would be understandable if Josephus wanted to at least avoid bashing Christianity. However, if he indeed has the son of Damneus in mind then it would have definitely been pretty odd and un-called-for because the appointment (or anointment) of the son of Damnues was not in doubt at all. It would have been like saying “Some people call him the high priest, but I don’t want to take sides.” Such reasoning, however, would have been considered absurd by a dedicated Jew like Josephus.

— So as it turns out, a major basis for accepting the authenticity of the “James Passage” (i.e., the neutrality of Josephus’ terminology) can also be used to argue against the identification of Jesus, James’ brother with the son of Damneus.

After this, Joe seems to imply that Josephus was probably the source used by Christians to determine that Jesus had a brother named James. But to be fair, probably means that this could have been Mark’s own personal knowledge of Jesus son of Demneus. — He then goes on to say,

Although the earliest possible date for the first Gospel, of what would become the New Testament, is 70ad; the earliest, physical, dated Gospel of Mark dates, approximately, to around the year 90ad. This would give ample time to the author of the Gospel of Mark to construct his Jesus character based on the high priest, Jesus, the son of Damneus.

I’m bringing this up because Mark, the first Gospel which mentions James, is usually dated in the 70s AD which is contemperary with Josephus’ Wars of the Jews and also pre-dates his Antiquities of the Jews by around twenty to thirty years. But Joe places it in a date which apparently is to make all of Josephus’ works pre-date Mark, thus making it unusable to show as a pre-Josephus. — This part Joel’s argument here, like the rest of the Jesus-Damneus argument only presupposes what it sets out to prove. There is no evidence given that Mark should be dated later than the usual date it is thought to be written.

As a matter of fact, most scholarship disagrees with dating Mark so late in 90 AD. — What my impartial sources show is that,

“Most scholars [ . . . ] would be hesitant to assign a date later than 70-73 CE, the latter being when Jerusalem was finally and fully sacked.”

So the fact is that the latest accepted date for Mark is much earlier than the date that Joe is proposing. — Now here is the interesting detail: Even if he were right that Mark should be dated to 90 AD, this would still pre-date the completion of Josephus’ twentieth (and last book) which mentions James and the son of Damneus. Josephus completed his twenty books of the Antiquities in 93 AD, after the alleged late date of Mark. (Source)

— This is enough to refute the implication that Josephus was probably what Christians used Josephus to conclude Jesus had a brother named James because, apparently which ever composition date you prefer for Mark’s gospel, Mark’s mention of James still came first (Mark 6: 3 )

The bottom line is that even though I have known about the skeptic argument that Jesus, the brother of James is the same as the other Jesus who was the son of Damneus, with the exception of this blog response to the argument, I don’t take it seriously. My problem with it is that it starts with a foregone conclusion and then works off of it assuring that the desired conclusion will be reached. It then presupposes that because Josephus mentions a Jesus a few sentences before another that they therefore have to be the same person even though they are identified by different means.

As said before, to assume that the brother of James is the same as the son of Damneus is to assume that Josephus broke with the methodology of identifying a person by his father, relative, hometown, or position the first timehe introduced them, not waiting until later which is what would have to be assumed if the two Jesuses are the same person. — The suggestion that Josephus called the son of Damneus “Christ” because of his “anointment” to the office of High Priest doesn’t work when one realizes that Josephus indicates that this was Jesus’ title during the High Priesthood of Ananus because the son of Damneus wasn’t anointed until after Ananus’ term in office.

Also, Josephus’ usage of the clause “Was called Christ” is agreed to be a completely neutral way of using the title “Christ” without either confirming or denying Jesus’ messiaship. — As said before, this wold make complete sense if Josephus wanted to avoid Christian-bashing while at the same time not accept Jesus as the Messiah. But it certainly wouldn’t make sense to use such a neutral clause with the High Priest. Using this neutral clause with Jesus, son of Damnues would make no sense, unless Josephus neither wanted to confirm or deny his priesthood because it was never in doubt from anyone.

In conclusion, to make a long story short, there is no credible evidence to conclusively say that the “Christ” mentioned by Josephus is the same as Jesus-Damneus, and there are enough arguments to the contrary because it opens the door to inconsistencies.

Joseph ben Matthias, better known as Flavius Josephus, was the son of a priest born in the year 37 AD. — During the first part of the Jewish revolt he was a reluctant military commander that fought the Romans. Later in 67 AD, when many of his allies had committed suicide rather than surrender he surrendered to the Romans for uncertain reasons and provided them with information and then was released two years later in 69 AD. As a result, he has been called a traitor and a pro-Roman propagandist, though he tried to fix the Jewish image in Rome’s point of view.

The works of Flavius Josephus are an important compilation of history that, in many cases, would be otherwise unknown to us had he not written it. He is the basic source from which we learn about many important historical figures and events. He wrote extensively about King Herod the Great, the Jewish revolt of 66 AD which lead to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and about the census of Quirinius of 6 AD which caused the rebellion of Judas of Galilee. — These are all mentioned in the New Testament, but not to the great detail that Josephus had described them.

Many Christians have appealed to this Jewish historian for confirmation of several biblical events and personalities such as the existence of the historical Jesus. One of the most secular historical references is known as the Testimonium Flavianum which is attributed to him. The other is usually called “the James Passage” which only mentions Jesus in passing.

This passage known as the Testimonium Flavianum occurs when Josephus is giving a historical account of the Roman Prefect of Judea Pontius Pilate,

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. (Antiquities 18: 63-64)

The passage not only acknowledges that Jesus had indeed existed, it also affirms that “he was the Christ” and was resurrected after the third day of his death, there in lies the problem. Josephus was a devout Jew, not a Christian. It is practically impossible that Josephus had acknowledged Jesus as the true Messiah (or Christ). Therefore he would not have believed that Jesus was resurrected after being crucified.

Not surprisingly the “Jesus Myth” crowd calls the authenticity of the Josephus passages into question calling the passage into question, Acharya S (a.k.a. Dorthy M. Murdock), being very prominent among them.

Ms. Murdock, in her statements about the Testimonium, in an attempt to prove that it is a forgery mentions that early Christians such as Justin Martyr and Theophilus don’t cite it and therefore this silence indicates that they did not know anything about it. The problem with her argument is that her logic only leads her to a conclusion that was already presupposed.

– She is assuming that early Christian apologists, to defend their faith, would have cited theTestimonium to show that Jesus existed if indeed they knew about it. The fact is that citing the Testimonium would have been practically pointless because it only would have only served to confirm Jesus’ existence which was actually never questioned by early skeptics of Christianity.

Another argument that Ms. Murdock uses is that if Josephus truly knew about Jesus he would have written more about him,

Josephus goes into long detail about the lives of numerous personages of relatively little import, including several Jesuses. It is inconceivable that he would devote only a few sentences to someone even remotely resembling the character found in the New Testament. If the gospel tale constituted “history.” [ . . . ] Moreover, the TF refers to Jesus as a “wise man”–this phrase is used by Josephus in regard to only two other people, out of hundreds, i.e., the patriarchs Joseph and Solomon. If Josephus had thought so highly of an historical Jesus, he surely would have written more extensively about him. Yet, he does not.

This argument proves nothing except that Acharya S has likely not read a lot of Josephus’ works. Josephus mentions others that were well-known in first century Judea and yet wrote little about them. His mention of John the Baptist is only a paragraph long. Josephus calls him “a good man” who taught righteousness (Antiquities 18: 116) — Also, there was another holy man which he mentions (again in only a single paragraph) called Zacharias, son of Baruch who was murdered without just cause. (Wars of the Jews 4: 334-344)

These two men were well known at the time of Josephus and yet he only dedicates a single paragraph to each. So in my opinion this refutes the assumption that just because Josephus didn’t write more extensively about Jesus that therefore he wasn’t known to him.

Also, as mentioned, Josephus speaks in high regard about John the Baptist and Zacharias but does not go into greater detail about them. — This in itself can be used to show that Ms. Murdock’s argument that if Josephus thought highly of Jesus then he would necessarily have written a longer history about Jesus is incorrect. As a matter of fact, her two arguments here can be turned around to argue for the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum because it follows the pattern of the one paragraph accounts of well-known good (or holy) men that Josephus both wrote about and respected.

Ms. Murdock complains that the Testimonium “interrupts the flow of the primary material” meaning that it is out of context. Even if it was out of context this wouldn’t indicate it is an interpolation because such digressions were much more common in Greek and Roman writings than in modern literature. Today, we would place such breaks in footnotes which wasn’t done 2,000 years ago. (Greek and Roman Historians, page 53)

She makes the claim that the consensus among scholars is that the passage is a complete forgery. To back her up she quotes several writters from the 19th century. — Interestingly enough, one of her experts that she cites is Gordon Stein who she quotes as saying that most scholars since the late 1800’s believe the Testimonium to be a forgery. However, on his paper (which is found here) which she cites there is a disclaimer inserted by an editor before the text which says that things have changed since Stein wrote his essay in 1982,

While there is no doubt among the majority of scholars that the Testimonium has been tampered with (and thus the entire passage cannot be authentic), a decent number of scholars believe the Testimonium is based upon an authentic core. In other words, on their view, Josephus really did write a passage referring to Jesus. (Italics mine)

I do not know if this disclaimer was already added to Gordon Stein’s paper by Infidels.org by the time Acharya S decided to use it as a source, but it certainly is enough to refute her claim that the Testimonium is seen as a fake by the scholarly community.

The indication (from the disclaimer) is that even though it is true that at one point (at least until 1982) the Testimonium was seen as a forgery, this is no longer the case. — The vast majority of Acharya S’ sources come from the late 19th to the early 20th centuries. These facts mean that she is using outdated sources to prove her case because the scholarly opinion has shifted.

The late David Flusser, Professor of early Christianity and Judaism and Orthodox Jew, while commenting on the Testimonium says,

Although it is generally recognized that the passage concerning Jesus in the extant Greek manuscripts of his Jewish Antiquities (18:63-64) was distorted by later Christian hands “the most probable view seems to be that our text represents substantially what Josephus wrote,but that some alterations have been made by a Christian interpolator.” (The Sage from Galilee - Rediscovering Jesus Genius, page 12)

So basically, Ms. Murdock’s claims that the vast majority of scholars believe the Testimonium is a Christian forgery is not only out dated. It is completely wrong. It is true that there are certain statements in it that more than likely were not written by Josephus such as “if it be lawful to call him a man” and “he was the Christ,” but that doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that it is a complete forgery “in toto” as Murdock puts it.

The second Josephus passage that mentions Jesus is not quite as lengthy as the Testimonium. As a matter of fact, it isn’t even about Jesus,

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still upon the road. So Ananus assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of that Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some of his companions. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. (Antiquities 20, 200)

The basic objection that the “Jesus Myth” crowd brings up is that Josephus uses the term “was called Christ” in association with Jesus. — Ms. Murdock on her page only mentions this passage in passing and doesn’t go into detail about it. One of her listed sources on her page is the 19th century Christ-Myther John E. Remsberg who claims,

This passage is probably genuine with the exception of the clause, “who was called Christ,” which is undoubtedly an interpolation, and is generally regarded as such.

He goes on to claim that believing that the James mentioned in the passage is in fact Jesus Christ’s brother “accepted history of the primitive church” which says he was killed in 69 AD, not in 62 AD. To this point all I can say is that one should not confuse folklore with true history.

As for his claim that the entire passage except for the clause “was called Christ” is authentic — Considering that the names Jesus and James were very common in the first century AD, if the means of identification were to be erased, as Remsberg apparently believed should be done, then the passage would become pretty unclear and ambiguous. It would simply be a mention of a “Jesus, brother of James.” Anyone reading the passage in the first century would likely have thought “Ok. Which ones? I know a million of them.”

Also, near the end of the paragraph, Josephus mentions another Jesus called the son of Damneus who became the high priest. (Antiquities 20: 203) This is all the more reason for Josephus to identify Jesus Christ in order to distinguish the two to avoid confusion.

Also, it is not true that the clause “was called Christ” is “generally regarded” as an interpolation. — Leading Josephus Scholar Louis Feldman says,

That, indeed, Josephus did say something about Jesus is indicated, above all, by the passage — the authenticity of which has been almost universally acknowledged — about James, who is termed (A XX, 200) the brother of the “aforementioned Christ.” (Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, page 56)

Feldman on the same page goes on to answer a charge that the passage was interpolated because of an apparent contradiction between this passage and another mention of the priest Ananus in Wars of the Jews,

As to the recent suggestion Tessa Rajak that the passage about James is a Christian interpolation because it has a derogatory view of Ananus the high priest (Josephus elsewhere praises him), we may remark that there are a number of instances in the Antiquities where Josephus contradicts what he says in the War. In any case, it would seem more likely that a forger would have been more careful than to contradict outright what Josephus says elsewhere.

Other scholars point out that the “James Passage” fits the context and that a Christian interpolator would have used “laudatory language” different than what Josephus used to describe James and especially Jesus. -A Christian would have called James “the brother of the Lord” much like the Apostle Paul does.

They also point out that the term “λεγόμενος” (pronounced as “legomenos”) used by Josephus for the clause “was called Christ” is way too neutral for any Christian interpolator to have inserted. A Christian would have used the term in a more absolute way leaving no room for doubt that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Josephus’ language, however, neither denies or affirms Jesus’ Messiaship. (Jesus Outside the New Testament, pages 83, 84)

Finally, Ms. Murdock claims that,

Even if the Josephus passage were authentic [ . . . ], it nevertheless would represent not an eyewitness account but rather a tradition passed along for at least six decades, long after the purported events. Hence, the TF would possess little if any value in establishing an “historical” Jesus.

She claims, basically, that even if the Testimonium were indeed authentic it would not prove anything because it is not a first hand account due to the fact that Josephus was born a few short years after the death of Jesus. — This is a popular argument among the “Jesus-Myth” crowd, but it is one that makes absolutely no sense.

Josephus wrote about many people decades and even centuries after they existed. — He wrote extensively on the life of King Herod the Great, the Deposition of Archelaus from Judea, and even on the Census of 6 AD. He even wrote about the invasion of of Jerusalem by the Roman General Pompey over a century after the fact. The fact is that Josephus’ life was much further removed from these historical accounts he wrote about then he was from the life of Jesus. So if these “Jesus-Mythers” were to hold these historical accounts to the same standard that they do with the Testimonium then we would end up throwing out most of Josephus’ valuable works. But no prominent scholar or historian would ever even consider such a thing.

The same goes for several other historians such as Tacitus, Herodotus, Xenophon, Plutarch, and others who wrote several decades or centuries after the events the report on and are still believed useful by modern historians and scholars. So the fact is that a historian writing about an event decades after the fact does not invalidate the historicity of what he reports. It does not have to be a first hand eyewitness account to be historically relevant.

Another fact is that though Josephus was born in 37 AD, about six years after the death of Jesus, he was alive when the event he covers in his “James passage” was happening. He was writing about the stoning of James which historians believe happened in 62 AD, when Josephus would have been twenty-five years of age. (After Jesus: The Triumph of Christianity, page 53) There is therefore no reason why Josephus wouldn’t have had good first hand information about this event about a man known as the brother of Jesus. - If the name and family of the man were known, then almost certainly so was the man himself.

Before I conclude, a word should be said about Ms. Murdock’s sources. — As mentioned before, most of her sources which she uses to back up the claim that the Testimonium Flavianum is a complete forgery come from the late 19th century and considering that the scholarly opinion has completely shifted since then they are therefore outdated and irrelevant.

Also, several of her listed sources who she doesn’t necessarily quote outright are early “Jesus-Mythers” such as Hayyim ben Yehoshua and John Remsburg. Neither of these 19th century “Jesus-Mythers” even had the qualifications of a scholar in the necessary field. Ms. Murdock also lists a paper among her sources from Infidels.org contributed by Scott Orser. But a quick look at his bio once again shows that he is not an expert in this particular field either.

It really strikes me as odd that someone who claims to be an expert in the fields of history, religion and archaeology like Ms. Murdock would resort to citing non-experts in order to prove her point. If I may say so, many amateurs have been known to use much better tactics than her in their own personal research. – I’m not trying to demean her, but honestly –

In conclusion, the arguments that D.M. Murdock uses to prove her case for the Testimonium Flavianum being a complete forgery are mostly al moot. Many scholars, despite her claims to the contrary, do in fact believe that the Testimonium is partially authentic, though not entirely. Her claims that Josephus would have written much more of Jesus if he in fact knew about him are also irrelevant because there are other well-known men that he writes about and yet only gives them a paragraph each. Also the claim that the Testimonium is out of context is irrelevant because, even if true, it was common practice to insert such digressions 2,000 years ago. – It does not help matters for Ms. Murdock that her many of her authorities are outdated and, in many cases, not even authorities at all.

The James Passage is almost universally considered authentic so even if it were true the Testimonium was thought by experts to be a complete forgery, it would still be believed that Josephus indeed gives secular first century proof of Jesus’ existence. — Also, as for claims that he didn’t have firsthand knowledge of Jesus and therefore his short mentions of him are not relevant, this is to undermine Josephus’ known accuracy as a capable historian because it is unlikely that Josephus would have been fooled into writing about a man that was said to have lived so close to his time that did not exist.

It is common for one to hear Creationists protest against evolution because they see it as a conflict with the Biblical story in Genesis. Genesis 1, to the uninformed, seems to indicate that God created everything in it’s basic present form, though not necessarily without an ability of diversify to an extent. Even though beliefs about God creating the universe in six literal days are common among creationists - particularly among Young Earth Creationists - it is obvious to anyone who has looked at the evidence that it didn’t happen that way.

I think I showed in a former post on Evolution and extreme Genesis literalism that the first three chapters weren’t meant to be taken as a complere literal account. However, I received some criticism about that post.

I was asked why I would attempt to fit an Atheistic idea into Christianity.–The fact of the matter is that I don’t. There is no conflict between Christianity and the fact (and I emphesize the word “fact”) of Evolution. The only conflict is inside the minds of those that have been conditioned to think that there is, both theist and atheist. A while ago, I got into a debate with an atheist insisted that since evolution was true, then God must therefore not exist. He insisted that I was in denial. He said “God is dead. Darwin killed him.”

Hard atheists criticize Theistic Evolutionists for claiming that God guided the evolutionary process. Laurence A. Moran, who authored an essay entitled Theistic Evolution: The Fallacy of the Middle Ground, is one of them. He says he can hardly see the difference between Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design. He comments,

In my opinion, the term “theistic evolution” is another oxymoron. Evolution is science and theism is religion. You can’t mix religion and science and still call it science because the practice of science must exclude theistic explanations. There is no middle ground. There are only two possibilities: either what you’re doing is science or it isn’t science. In the case of theistic evolution, the magisterium of religion is overlapping the magisterium of science.

I want to make it clear that I, as a theistic evolutionist, do not think that God guided evolution. I think God created the universe at the big bang with full realization and the intention that we would be the result without his having to intervene. — In his essay, Moran calls people like me “desitic evolutionists,” but I do not qualify as a deist, and here’s why. Even though I do not believe God guided evolution, I do believe that he directly created our souls. Hard atheists rightfully say God cannot be varified by science, but neither can our soul, and it it obvious, in my opinion that it exists. Even though our bodily forms evolved from the autralipithecines and the others in the Homo genus, our soul cannot be explained by evolution by natural selection.

I heard one scientists argue that if my position was correct, that God left evolution alone, and that his main act of creation was at the formation of the universe (i.e., the big bang), then that would make God virtually irrelevant. — This reasoning seems reasonable, but it makes a major false assumption. This would only be true if “creator” were God’s only role. It is not. Christian theology shows that God has other roles, such as redeemer. The fallacy in this atheist’s logic was caused by his failure to take into account other perspectives of different theists.

Perhaps it is my fault that I didn’t tell that atheist I debated with that Darwin himself would have disagreed that his theory disproved the existence of God. He himself said it didn’t. In a letter to John Fordyce, Charles Darwin said,

“It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist.”

Darwin himself was never an atheist even though many Creationists seem to have gotten the impression that he was. It’s not as though he woke up one morning and said to himself, “Hmmm, what can I do to dispove God?”– Even though the death of his favorite daughter Annie crushed his absolute belief in God, he became an agnostic who didn’t discount God’s existence. - Also, it should be mentioned that that happened after the Origin of Species was published, so it is obvious that his views God’s existence were not affected by the theory of evolution. Like me, Darwin never saw a conflic between science and religion since he saw science and religion as completely separate.

And that’s the point that Creationists don’t seem to understand. Religion cannot have any influence in scientific data. If we were to say “God must have done ‘X’ because we don’t know how ‘Y’ naturally could have happened,” then that opens the door scientists to just say “God, God, God” whenever they are just feeling lazy. — Natural explanations in no way exclude the necessity for God, unless you believe in a “God of the Gaps.” The problem is that many Christians, particularly Creationsts, in facts believe in a “God of the Gaps,” so they figure that if evolution is true, then Christianity is therefore wrong.

A basic Young-Earth objection to evolution is rooted in the belief that God made everything all “good.” Then they look at the fossil record and claim that there is a record of death, disease and suffering. They then believe that those animals had to have died after Adam’s sin because death is apparently “evil.” What Young Earth Creationists need to realize is that “good” does not mean “perfect.” The question here is, why should death be considered a bad thing? — In fact, it’s a good thing for preventing ecological meltdown. Also, a close reading of the Bible shows that animal death before Adam’s fall is not unbiblical.

This is tied to another creationist misunderstanding about the evolutionary process of natural selection. They usually object to natural selection as being the “survival of the fittest” and confuse this as meaning that evolution is “a religion of death” because species either have to adapt or die. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Natural Selection is the process of how species adapt, change and survive under new conditions. So it can be argued that evolution is about life. In short, this creationist objection makes no sense when one thinks about. After all, evolution needs life in order to work, so why would it therefore be a good thing? You cannot have evolution if you have no life.

Creationists believe that in Genesis God says “Let there be . . .” that therefore the creation of everything was instantaneous, but the truth is that doesn’t necessarily indicate any such thing. — In fact, there is a Biblical implication that the creation of man was not instantaneous. In Genesis 2:7, the Hebrew word used for man’s formation is יצר (yatsar) which is used as an “Imperfect” tense. Ancient-Hebrew.org says that the “The perfect tense is a completed action while the imperfect tense is an incomplete action.”– If the tense used to describe man’s formation indicates an “incomplete action,” then it is absolutely consistent with human evolution, that is, a continuing process which really doesn’t end.

Unfortunately, most (if not all) Creationists are ignorant of this fact, so they therefore assume that Genesis means that God “poofed” everything into existence. The fact is as mentioned in a former post, that Hebrew scholars agree that Genesis 1 is written in a poetic (not completely literal) form known as Hebrew Parallelism. And I do not think I really have to say that poetry is not to be taken absolutely literally, though there may be litaral details within it. A major contributor to the Creationist rebuttals to the fact that Genesis 1 is poetry may be that the style given isn’t what we are used to today. In fact, 75% of the Old Testament is written in the same Hebrew Style poetry.

To be honest, it isn’t poetry in the strictest sence of the word, but all characteristics of the chapter indicate that it should be regarded as a “hyme of creation,” rather than an acount of straight-forward fact. These characteristics unfortunately are lost in translation, but they include anthropomorphic treatment of God’s creative actions, prominent repetition, as well as the use of numbers in specific ways. — The modern English reader wouldn’t recognize them unless they were pointed out to him.

Also, when Creationists insist on taking Genesis 1 completely literally, they do great injustice to what its writer’s most likely purpose was: To counteract pagan mythologies that abounded when it was being written. Paul Williamson, an Old Testament lecturer at Moore College, says that the purpose of Genesis chapter one was give us a doctrine of the creator, not of creation

Greg Neyman, a Geologist and “Progressive” Creationist, argues that even though he doesn’t personally believe in evolution, that it may in fact be true. On one of his web-pages, he even gives biblical basis from Genesis which allow for evolution. He points out that Genesis 1 says that God told the land to “bring forth” the living things, not “exist now.” This indicates that the creation may not have been instant, but rather gradual.

When Creationists either ignore or dismiss these facts, they do themselves no favors, and their tendency to to call Evolution atheistic because it doesn’t fit their preconceptions only contributes to the commonly held view by Scientists and intellectuals that Creationists are willfully ignorant, as many of them are.

Also, it doesn’t help matters that many “hard” atheists (as opposed to “soft” atheists) use evolution as evidence against God which, of course, it is not. This only motivates Creationists to reject evolution with even more zeal. But both camps are at fault. The Creationists are usually guilty of either ignorance or only reading Creationist literature and also repeating claims which, by the way, have been refuted. — The “hard” atheists are also guilty not recognizing the limits of science. Science it limitted to things that can be theorized, observed, tested and revised. God is outside of this scope, so therefore no scientific theory can ever be used to argue against God. The most evolution can do is falsify certain perceptions of God, like whether or not he directly created all living species on earth, but it cannot falsify God himself.

I want to conclude by saying that the Bible only says that God created us. It never gives us the mechinism for creation, so if that mechinism is evolution, then I say “So be it.” — Biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky said it best when he said,

“It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s method of creation.”

. . . . and I agree. The so-called “conflict” between faith and reason is a farce. There is no conflict between Evolution and Religion . . . . unless one wishes there to be. And unfortunately, many have been conditioned to believe that there is.

References:
Animal Death Prevents Ecological Meltdown by Fazale R. Rana.
Animal Death Before the Fall: What Does the Bible Say? by Rev. Lee Irons
Darwin, the Scientific Creationist from Relion-Online.org
About Charles Darwin?, AboutDarwin.com
Lexicon / Concordance for Genesis 2:7. From BlueLetterBible.org
Learn Hebrew Verbs ~ Lesson 3: Verb Tenses, Ancient-Hebrew.org
The Poetry of Genesis Chapter One by Jeff A. Benner. From Ancient-Hebrew.org
Hebrew Parallelism (Chiasmus) By Jeff A. Benner. From Ancient-Hebrew.org
What does Genesis 1 really teach?. From christianity.co.nz
Making sense of Genesis 1 by Paul R. Williamson
Evolution - The Bible Taught It First!, by Greg Neyman. From AnswersInCreation.org
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution by Theodosius Dobzhansky

When confronted by science, many Christians wonder how they can fit the data into their belief systems. This is especially true in the case of Darwin’s theory of Evolution. Most Protestant Christians (like myself) and also many atheists are taught from birth that Evolution the the Bible are incompatable, and that therefore one has to be wrong. Then when Christians look at the evidence of an old earth and the evidence for Evolution, they begin to doubt their faith. Many of the more dogmatic Atheists hijack this and use it to say “See? The earth is old, so the Bible is wrong about the earth’s age.”

When confronted with the evidence, many Christians who were taught all their lives that the earth is 6,000 years old, and that evolution godless, they are confronted with three options:

1. Ignore the evidence pretending it doesn’t exist,
2. throw out the Bible and become an Atheist, or
3. find a way to harmonize science with the Bible.

The first option is willfull ignorance, the second is an extremety while the third is the middle ground of accepting that science and religion are complementary instead of contradictory. Unfortunately, a lot of people oversimplify matters by concluding that if the earth is not 6,000 years old and created in six literal days, then the Bible is untrustworthy. The truth is, however, is not that simple because science and faith don’t have to oppose eachother. My belief is that even though Evolution is true, the book of Genesis is still divinely inspired.

The first problem confronting Christians, of course, is the fact that Genesis 1 indicates that the universe and the earth were all created in six “days” while the scientific age for the earth is 4.6 billion years old. However, this doesn’t have to be problematic because the Hebrew term יום (pronounced as yom) is not limited to literal 24 hour days. Hebrew word studies show that the terms has a wide range of meanings like time, age and season. (See “Word Study: Yom“) — One linguist prefers translating it as “time.” For example, the “second day” would mean “the second time.” Young Earth Creationists protest this interpretation by mentioning the “days” are defined by evening and morning, but considering that they believe the sun (which defines a literal day) was created on day four, it isn’t likely have a literal meaning.

When I was a Creationist, I used to dismiss claims that the first three chapters of Genesis were to be read in a somewhat allegorical sense as pathetic rationalizations, but after some research I know better. The reason why Theistic Evolutionists say it is to be read in that light is because that was the intention of the author. — Hebrew linguists say that Genesis chapter 1 is written in a poetic form. It is a combination of different Creation accounts which are not necessarily in chronological order. The problem is that modern westerners think in “step logic” which means they tend to assume a written account, unless expressly spelled out, is to be read chronologically. The Hebrew writters, however, thought in “block logic” which means the chapter isn’t to be read chronologically.

This fact would resolve the apparent cosmological inaccuracy of the sun and stars being created on the fourth creation day, as well as the differing order of listed species as given in Genesis verses the order they appear in the fossil record.

The next problem that apparently contradicts the theory of Evolution is the creation of man in which Adam is described as being created from dust (Genesis 2:7), but it turns out that this isn’t literal language either. The Catechism of the Catholic Church #362 points out that,

The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

This is also confirmed by the Historian Josephus who says that “Moses, after the seventh day was over begins to talk philosophically.” (Antiquities 1: 34) It is pretty obvius from Josephus’ writings that he could be classified as a Creationist, and considering that there was no Darwinian Evolution when he wrote for him to explain away, he had no axe to grind on the subject.

Next, young earthers claim that if it’s true that the first three chapters in Genesis are to be read allegorically, then that would mean that there was no “original sin” for Jesus Christ to die for. However, this concern, though legitimate, is based on an oversimplification that everything has to be symbolic if it’s shown that part of the story is definitely not literal. — Catechism 390 points out that,

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.

Translation: This account is allegorical, however there was an original sin. So, the Young Earthers’ worries on this particular subject can be put to rest. And as for whether there was a literal Adam, there seemingly was because of his acceptance in the geneologies (1 Chronicles 1:1 and Luke 3:38). Also, the fourth and fifth chapters of Genesis mention him in totally non-figurative contexts.

While being criticized for reading the Bible literally, some YECs say that the Bible should be read as it’s written. For example, if something is written as history or poetry, then it should be read as such. — I agree, but it just so happens that a study of the language shows that the major portion of the Bible they take woodenly literally is, in reality, figurative. And Moses, assuming he is the author of the account, cannot be faulted for our modern lack of understanding of his writings.

Considering the facts that the creation account, partuculaly the creation of man, is in symbolic, non-literal language, this opens up the door for a non-contradiction between science and the Bible. This means that, as far as the first three chapters of Genesis are concerned, there is no theological problem for a Christian to accept the fact of evolution. The reason the Bible doesn’t allude to the process used in creation is irrelevant because the biblical writters cared about the “what,” not the “how.” The fact of creation is what mattered to Moses, not the process of creation itself.

Finally, a word has to be said about the dangers of Young Earth Creationism. Science does not support a 6,000 year old earth, and the Bible doesn’t even attempt to date creation. And yet, YECs claim the Bible says the earth is young despite the factual proof that the the world is 4.6 billion years old and the evidence of evolution.

YECs have an either/or, black and white mentality. They think that either their interpretation of the Bible is true, or that evolution is true and the Bible is false. When this young earth perspective becomes a dominant perception, and when the evidence of an old earth is inspected, then expect the intellectually honest victim of young-earth to go through a rough crisis of faith. Young earth creationism and science do not mix. In fact, it breeds atheism.

What I say here does not detract the truth and divine inspiration of the book of Genesis. What it does is show that the wide-spread, overtly literal interpretations of it are wrong and actually allow for a harmonization between Christianity and science. When a theistic evolutionist says, therefore, that evolutionary theory fits well with his faith, and that the first couple of chapters of Genesis are written with some allegorical meaning, it is not a poor rationalization.

I have blogged my defence of the authenticity of the book of Daniel quite a while ago and have ceased because I came to the realization that the evidence never matters to many skeptics who have made up their minds to oppose the authenticity of any biblical passage no matter what. — My blog posts that defend the Book of Daniel were responces to Farrell Till’s complaints that Daniel was written in the second century BC and is therefore not an authentic work by an official in the Babylonian court in the sixth century BC.

In the face of any evidence or any credible conjecture that can show that Daniel is not necessarily inaccurate Till looks for any excuse to use to claim that it is all irrelevant, even if a competent scholar has proposed it. — He does this even though Till is not a scholar by any stretch of the imagination and uses in many cases ignorance to argue his cases.

For example, in the possible identification of Darius the Mede as Cyrus the Persian some scholars point to Daniel 6:28 that can be translated as “ . . . Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus,” or as “Darius, even. . .” which implies that the two may be one and the same. — The best argument that Till can come up with is that he couldn’t find any Bible translations to back up this “hypothesis.” Never mind that the ones proposing the translation are experts in the Biblical languages and Till, by his own admission, has never studied in any such field. The appeal to translations is a very unscholarly approach and is not to be taken seriously. (See “The Identity of Darius the Mede“).

He makes similar pathetic statements to defend his preconceived idea that Daniel screwed up by calling Belshazzar the “son” of Nebuchadnezzar. Even though Till realizes the fact that “son” can mean grandson, decedent and even successor whether related by blood or not, he insists that since Daniel doesn’t mention the rulers of Babylon that came between the two that therefore he didn’t know about their existence and therefore actually meant that the two kings were literally father and son. Never mind the possibility that Daniel didn’t mention them because the were probably irrelevant to what he was writing. (See “Belshazzar the “Son” of Nebuchadnezzar“)

In yet another attempt to show the Book of Daniel as historically inaccurate, in an article he wrote, he attacks the perception that Daniel wrote of a united and single empire of “Medo-Persia.” He reasons, as most skeptics, that Daniel believed that the Medes and the Persians, at the time of the fall of Babylon in 539 BC were two independent empires.

He starts with the vision of two rams in Daniel 8 and says,

Bradford sees evidence of a “Medo-Persian” empire in Gabriel’s interpretation of this vision in which he said, “The ram that you saw having the two horns–they are the kings of Media and Persia” (v: 20). Literally, the text reads, “The ram that you saw the kings of Media and Persia” (Hendrickson’s). The verb to be [are] is not in the main clause, so this raises a question of interpretation. Did the writer mean to say, “The ram that you saw is the kings of Media and Persia,” or did he mean to say that the “horns are the kings of Media and Persia”? Obviously, Bradford wants it to mean the former, but there are better reasons to think that he meant to say that the horns were the kings of Media and Persia.

It’s pretty funny that he tries to apply English grammar to argue his case to a text originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic since English is not related to the two former languages. — The irony here is that in the case of Daniel 6:28 (in another one of his posts) he argues that even though some scholars justify the re-translation on the basis that Chronicles 5:26 being similarly structured, the two cannot be compared because one was in Hebrew and the other in Aramaic — Of course, the fact that the two Semitic languages are related and that related languages can , in many cases, be used to facilitate the learning of another related language. For example, knowing Spanish can facilitate the learning of Italian since the two are related and grammatically similar. In the same way, Hebrew and Aramaic are related. English, being Germanic and not Semetic, cannot be used to criticize Semetic grammar.

But what about Till’s evidence that Daniel meant to present Media and Persia as two seperate empires? — He continues to say,

First of all, we have to wonder why the writer didn’t say that the ram was the kings of Medo-Persia if he meant for the ram itself to symbolize a combined Medo-Persian empire. Why did he clearly distinguish between the Medes and the Persians as he consistently did throughout the book? In his interpretation of the handwriting on the wall, Daniel told Belshazzar that his kingdom was divided and given to the Medes and the Persians (5:28), so he had previously spoken of Media and Persia as separate kingdoms. If the writer knew that there was at that time a combined “Medo-Persian” empire, this would have been an excellent opportunity for him to say that the kingdom was being given to the Medo- Persians, but he didn’t say that. He said that the kingdom would be divided and given to the Medes and the Persians. In other words, Daniel’s interpretation of the writing was that part of Babylonia would be given to the Medes, and part of it would be given to the Persians, and so the interpretation indicated that the writer thought that Media and Persia were separate kingdoms that would divide the territory of Babylonia between them. Bradford has yet to show us in what sense Daniel meant that the Babylonian kingdom would be divided if he thought that the whole kingdom was going to be absorbed by a combined “Medo-Persian” empire.

Hold it!– This is his argument? That Daniel didn’t use the term “Medo-Persia” to indicate that the Medes and Persians were united as one empire? I would think it would be obvious why Daniel didn’t use such a term: It is a modern linguistic peculiarity which would not have existed 2,400 years ago. It is like saying “Greco-Roman.” Obviously the Greeks and Romans never used that term, but is obviously isn’t a false description either. Historically, Cyrus united both the Medesand the Persians, so there is nothing wrong with the term “Medo-Persia.” But Cyrus himself would not have recognized the term either.

As for more of his alleged evidence, he says,

Bradford should consider the significance of the word divide in Daniel’s interpretation of the handwriting. There is no way for Bradford to make sense of the word if he sticks to his claim that the book of Daniel was written by a 6th-century B. C. official who knew that the Babylonian empire had fallen in one swoop to a combined “Medo-Persian” kingdom, but usage of the word can easily be explained by the theory that Daniel was written well after the 6th century by an author who was familiar with the Jewish scriptures of the time but not so knowledgeable of Babylonian history.

Another “evidence that Farrell Till uses to show that Daniel thought that Daniel 5:28 says Babylon was “divided” and given to the Medes and Persians. — He thinks that this means half of the kingdom was given to Persia and that the other half was given to Medes. He ignores the fact that Daniel himself shows that the division was into 120 provinces and not in half like he assumes. (Daniel 6:1) — This idea of Babylon being “divided” is supported by The Nabonidus Chronicle which says that Gobryas (Gubaru) installed sub-governors in Babylon. — This would have meant that Babylon was divided, but not in half.

Linguists have pointed out that the term for “Divided” which is “Peres” also means “Persia.” This means, of course that the Persians were the conquerors and the ones that created the subgovernments in Babylon. However, Till, as I mention in “The Identity of Darius the Mede” rejects that this could be an allusion to the Persians because of his insistence of reading the Hebrew-Aramaic with the eye of a modern English literalist.

But, is there evidence that Daniel saw Persia and Media as two components of one single empire? — The answer is “yes.”

Daniel 6: 8, 12 indicates that King Darius the Mede was subject, not only to the laws of the Medes, but also to the laws of the Persians. It would be ridiculous to believe that the King of an independent Median empire would be obligated to follow the laws of a separate empire. The only explanation is that the Medes and Persians were united in a single empire, which is historically accurate.

Till goes on to say that Daniel said the Medes (not the Persians) conquered Babylo because the ancient prophets predicted it so. Till points out Isaiah 13: 17 predicted that the Medes would conquer Babylon and then gleefully points out that that didn’t happen. However, he overlooks Isaiah 21: 2 which says that both Elam and the Medes would capture Babylon. — As is pointed out by one scholar,

These passages single out Media as the nation which God would stir up against Babylon, but as noted [ . . . ] we are told that Elam also would be involved in its actual overthrow. Eastern Elam was occupied by the Persian race at this time and was Cyrus’ place of origin. (See “The Medes and Persians”)

Keeping this in mind, the supposed historical error actually does not exist and skeptics mention it without considering all the evidence. — Also as mentioned in another post, I believe that Cyrus the Persian and Darius the Mede are the same individual based on the alternate translation of Daniel 6:28 and other side historical evidence that Cyrus was half-Median with Astayges as his grandfather.

So in conclusion, considering the textual evidence in Daniel that indicates that Darius the Mede was subject to the laws of the Persians, there is enough evidence that the vast majority of skeptics are incorrect in assuming that Daniel believed the Medes and Persians were independent of each other because it is unreasonable for independent nations to be obligated to obey the laws of other empires. Also, Till’s argument that Daniel should have used the term “Medo-Persia” if he wanted to indicate they were a united empire is moot. No such modern day linguistic peculiarity would have existed in that time no matter how well accurately it describes the situation. Daniel cannot be blamed for not using modern-day English terminology in his book. — Also, Farrell Till’s complaint that Daniel erred by denying the Persians were the conquerors of Babylon is also know to be basless when the relevant evidence is examined.

One of the most criticized portions in the Book of Daniel, besides the appearance of Darius the Mede, the depiction and description of Belshazzar, the King (or co-regent) of Babylon. Critics have often pointed to what they believe to be historical errors in the Book of Daniel as to who and what he was.

The Book of Daniel introduces Belshazzar right after it finishes its account about a divinly inflicted mental illness that causes his predecessor to behave like an animal. — Belshazzar was having a feast and under influence of wine intoxication he orders that the sacred vessels from Solomon’s Jewish temple be brought to him. And he used the dishes which were sacred to Yahweh to bless pagan gods, hence committing sacrilege against him.

And then a hand appears and writes four words on the wall right by a lamp stand: Mene Mene Tekel Parsin. — When the court astrologers and wise men couldn’t understand the meaning of the writing, the Queen mother tells Belshazzar about Daniel and how he helped his predecessor, Nebuchadnezzar. So the king sent for him and offered him a position in his court if he could interprete what had been written.

When Daniel had come, he reminded Belshazzar about Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment from God for until he realized that God was greater than him, but that he (Belshazzar) didn’t repent like him, but blasphemed against God. The writting on the wall was God’s condemnation of his kingdom. And that night, he was killed by the united coalition of the Persians and Medes.

The “Son” of Nebuchadnezzar
The most used criticism of the depiction of King Belshazzar is that the book calls him the “son” of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 5: 1,23. Also, The latter is called the formers “father.” — Farrell Till, in his post entitled “A Father/Son Discrepancy in Daniel” insists that this is a historical mistake and that if the writer of Daniel were a high ranking official of the Babylonian court then he wouldn’t have made such an error. — He protests against Christian apologists that say that “son” and “father” in the case of Belshazzar are nothing more than indications that one was an ancestor and that the other was a descendant. He makes the claim that Christians are wrong in using the logic that Father/Son in this case is anything like saying the Jews are the “sons” of Abraham or that Jesus Christ is the “son” of David because Abraham and David were separated from the later Jews and Jesus by centuries which he points out is not the case with Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. Till says:

In the book of Daniel, however, the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar are related in consecutive chapters. The account of Nebuchadnezzar’s seven years of madness in fulfillment of a second dream that Daniel had interpreted ends the 4th chapter, where Nebuchadnezzar praised Daniel’s god after he had regained his sanity: “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, for all his works are truth, and his ways are justice; and he is able to bring low those who walk in pride” (4:37). Then immediately the next chapter opens with an account of the feast that King Belshazzar held to honor a thousand of his lords, so the writer went directly from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to the reign of Belshazzar without mentioning any of the four kings who reigned between them. This within itself would indicate an ignorance of 6th-century Babylonian history, because it at least implies that the writer thought that Belshazzar’s reign followed Nebuchadnezzar’s.

Till assumes silence means ignorance. — Since Daniel doesn’t mention any of the kings that came between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, then he therefore must not have known of them. On these grounds, he argues Daniel thought that they were literally first generation father and son instead of ancestor and descendant. However, a lack of mention does not necessarily imply ignorance. One could also say that Daniel just didn’t see the other rulers of Babylon that came between the two said kings as being relevant to what he wanted to write about and therefore didn’t mention them.

Till goes on to say that in order for the terms for “father” and son” to be justifiably understood as “ancestor” and “descendant” that there has to be a context to support it. He says:

As I showed by analyzing Driver’s examples above, the word father was indeed used to convey a relationship as distant as “grandfather,” but the contexts of the passages cited show that this was the intended meaning. Context, context, context–it is always the context that determines the meanings of words, and inerrantists like Hatcher and Miller seem to have trouble recognizing this very basic literary principle. (Emphasis his)

Though there is no objection to context, when Till says “textual evidence,” what he really means is that Daniel has to mention the monarchs that ruled in the time interval between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, or else the father/son relatonship must be literal. This is ridiculous. There are other examples of generational gaps between two different historical characters without Till’s “context” standard. For example, 1 Chronicles 6: 3-14 and Ezra 7: 1-5 both give Ezra’s family line, but the book of Ezra leaves seven gaps between Meraioth and Azariah calling the latter the “son” of the former. — My argument, however, is that Daniel omitted any mention of the intervening kings because he saw them as irrelevant to what he chose to write, not necessarily out of ignorance. And if that’s the case, the terms are not problematic at all.

Till rightly points out that other passages in the Bible mention one other Babylonian King Amel-Marduk (a.k.a, the Biblical “Evil-merodach“) in the Book of Jeremiah 52:31. — But taking this fact into account, remembering that the author of the Book of Daniel had in fact read the book of Jeremiah (Daniel 9:2), it is even less likely, in my opinion, that the writer was ignorant of other kings of Babylon between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. And if this is the case, as it seems to be, then Till’s arguments of context are rendered irrelevant, hence, there is no reason to assume that Daniel believed they were actually father and son.

Also, it so appears that the ancient historian Josephus’ perspective concured. In the Antiquities of the Jews 10: 229-231, he mentions the other kings that came between, and then later, in Antiquities 10: 242, Nebuchadnezzar is called Belshazzar’s “progenitor” (i.e. an ancestor). — So Josephus understood the terms in Daniel (as I do), that Nebuchadnezzar was only an ancestor and not the actual father.

However, Till keeps on with his criticism:

The fact that the writer of Daniel leaped from Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar, passing over completely the reigns of four intervening kings, certainly indicates a fuzzy knowledge of the history of this period. That lack of knowledge provides the best explanation for why the writer would have called Nebuchadnezzar the “father” of Belshazzar and Belshazzar the “son” of Nebuchadnezzar when the two were not related. He called them father and son because he thought that they were.

I think I have already made my point clear as to why Daniel wouldn’t have had to necessarily mention the other kings because of the irrelevance to Daniel, so I will move on. — However, Till’s argument that the two men weren’t related is a huge assumption. In fact the Encyclopædia Britannica says:

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.

Till dismisses such claims of relations between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar as nothing more than Christian apologetics that only base their arguments on assumptions. By that standard, I guess the Encyclopedia Britannica is a Christian apologetic. It shows that even secular scholars and historians believe it as well and are therefore not in agreement with Till. But he has a habit of dismissing probabilities if he just doesn’t like them or if they allow for the Bible to be true.

Also, a fact that Farrel Till never mentions it that the two men didn’t have to be related for the terms for “father” and “son” to be used. An alternate meaning, for “father” other than “ancestor,” is also “predecessor.” And likewise, the alternate understanding for “son,” other than “descendant,” can also mean that Belshazzar was just a “successor” to Nebuchadnezzar. So, there’s nothing out of the ordinary here.

Daniel Gets it Right!!
According to the Book of Daniel, Belshazzar was called the “King” of Babylon. This claim hase been assailed by anti-Daniel critics (not Farrel Till) who point out the fact that Nabonidus was still king of Babylon officially as long as he was still alive. – Archaeological Experts point point out that Belshazzar “stood in as temporary ruler” in his father’s absence. One could say he was a stand in king. It is also shown that:

Nabonidus, as King of Babylon, paid little attention to the politics, religion, of Imperial Babylon preferring instead to travel and research the older buildings, temples, and objects of antiquity that lay in the outer most of his Empire. For this reason he is included in archaeology’s ‘hall of fame’ because his abandonment of his royal duties were in favour of some of the first archaeological investigations.

Further vindication of Daniel’s calling Belshazzar the king of Babylon is found in ancient text of “the Verse Account of Nabonidus“ (pro-Cyrus propaganda). In talking about Nabonidus it says:

After he had obtained what he desired, a work of utter deceit, had built this abomination, a work of unholiness -when the third year was about to begin- he entrusted the army [?] to his oldest son, his first born, the troops in the country he ordered under his command. He let everything go, entrusted the kingship to him, and, himself, he started out for a long journey. The military forces of Akkad marching with him, he turned to Temâ deep in the west.

Nabonidus is said to have “entrusted the kingship” to his oldest son in this ancient Persian inscription. In another ancient tablet from Babylon called “the Nabonidus Cylinder”– Nabonidus himself identifies his oldest son as Belshazzar. – The can be no greater vindication for Belshazzar being called the “king” than this, though he was second in the kingdom. — A hint in the Book of Daniel itself that Belshazzar was the second in the kingdom can be found Daniel 5:16 when Balshazzar asks Daniel to interprate what the so-called writing on the wall:¨

Now I have heard that you are able to give interpretations and to solve difficult problems. If you can read this writing and tell me what it means, you will be clothed in purple and have a gold chain placed around your neck, and you will be made the third highest ruler in the kingdom.

The hint that Daniel knew that Belshazzar was the second in the kingdom and not first is his offer to make him the third ruler in the kingdom. Why not make him the second? Because that was his office while Nabonidus, as long as he was still alive, was the first. Hence we have indirect textual evidence of Nabonidus in the Book of Daniel. — Farrell Till, however, has no valid response to this. He dodges this by saying:

This conclusion, however, is mere assumption, because the text reads as if the queen exercised a great deal of power in the kingdom. How, then, do Turkel and his like-minded cohorts who recycle this quibble not know that the author of this book meant here that if Daniel could decipher the handwriting on the wall, he would be elevated to a position that would make him third behind the king and the queen? The fact that chapter five indicates to any reasonable reader who doesn’t have an emotionally important belief in inerrancy to protect that Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar’s father would lend support to the probability that Belshazzar was offering Daniel only a position of authority after the queen’s.

Till’s argument is that Daniel gives the impression that the Queen mother was the second in command, and that Belshazzar was the first. But let’s see what Daniel really says about the Queen mother:

The queen, hearing the voices of the king and his nobles, came into the banquet hall. “May the king live forever!” she said. “Don’t be alarmed! Don’t look so pale! There is a man in your kingdom who has the spirit of the holy gods in him. In the time of your father he was found to have insight and intelligence and wisdom like that of the gods. Your father, King Nebuchadnezzar, appointed him chief of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers and diviners. He did this because Daniel, whom the king called Belteshazzar, was found to have a keen mind and knowledge and understanding, and also the ability to interpret dreams, explain riddles and solve difficult problems. Call for Daniel, and he will tell you what the writing means.” (Daniel 5:10,13)

This is all Daniel says about the Queen mother. There are no other passages about her in the entire book. — And I fail to see where the text of Daniel reads as if ”the text reads as if the queen exercised a great deal of power in the kingdom,” as he says. That’s because it doesn’t say or even imply it what Till argues. He is resorting to inserting details in the text of Daniel that aren’t there because he cannot satisfactually explain away why Daniel would only receive the third position of power and not the second.

The proof is in the name
The very proof that Daniel is authentic is the very use of the name “Belshazzar” in the book. The Bible Dictionary of the Commentary Reference Series , volume 8 points out:

Until Recent years, there was no historic evidence regarding Belshazzar as the last king of Babylon, and critics commonly pointed to this silence as evidence that the writer was misinformed. Now, of course, the existence of Belshazzar, his position as joint king ruling in Babylon for his absent father, and his role during the last years before the fall of Babylon are all amply attested. (Page 250, emphasis mine)

Even though Belshazzar was unknown and therefore considered a myth of the Bible until the 19th century(Ibid, page 126), apparently, not even this is good enough for skeptics. — Farrell Till quotes a Christian apologist that mentions that the Historian Herodotus who wrote in 450 B.C. didn’t know Belshazzar’s name so “the very name of Belshazzar had been forgotten, at least so far as the informants of the Greek historian were concerned.” Till’s rebuttal is:

The fact that the name Belshazzar, to use Turkel’s own expression, had been “forgotten” in some places does not mean that it had been forgotten everywhere; hence, Turkel is arguing from silence when he claims, as he apparently intended, that second-century BC Jews would not have known about the existence of Belshazzar. I have already quoted above a passage from the second-century BC apocryphal book of Baruch that shows a mistaken belief of the time that Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar’s father, so rather than the name of Belshazzar having been forgotten by second-century BC Jews, it was obviously known to them. What had apparently been forgotten was the real parentage of Belshazzar, so the fact that Daniel 5 reflects the same mistaken view of his parentage that was indicated in other second-century BC works really indicates the opposite of what Turkel wants his gullible readers to think: This book was in all probability written much later than the 6th century BC when “Daniel” was allegedly an important official in the Babylonian court.

Till usually resorts to arguments from silence even when the silence is not affective, so I find it kind of hilarious that he would resort to defending his point when it is convenient for him. — This may be an argument from silence, but it is very affective silence because the truth is that absolutely no ancient historian mentions his name including non-Greek historians with the one exception of Josephus.

To make the assertion that an ignorant Jew from the Maccabean period could get information that had already been unknown to the most educated and informed is absurd and a major stretch. Not to mention, Belshazzar is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible outside of Daniel. A writer from the second century B.C. would have had no historical source. The inscriptions mentioned, as I said earlier, were found in the 19th century.

Also, Till’s citation of the non-biblical book of Baruch, despite Till’s claims, is not independent proof that Belshazzar was still known because the book, being written in the late second century B.C., would have sourced the book of Daniel itself. — And If anyone were to cite Daniel as proof that Belshazzar’s name was indeed known in the second century B.C. I would agree, but only because of Daniel. I would like to ask: “Then who did Daniel source?” — Again, there were no sources. Till’s claim is just pathetic and a desperate attempt to salvage his anti-Daniel stance. The only logical explanation is what he rejects: That Daniel was written in Babylon in the 6th century B.C. by someone who knew more about Babylon than any of the best historians.

Conclusion
The conclusion of this post is that there is no historical problem about Belshazzar in the book of Daniel. Perhaps a blood-relationship will indeed be proved in the future or perhaps the meanings of the terms father and son as “predecessor” and “successor” are really all we need to resolve any so-called “problem” in Daniel about this person. — Also, I want to point to the lack of knowledge about Belshazzar out side of the Bible until the 19th century as proof of the books authenticity. Furthermore, the claims that Daniel made a mistake in identifying Belshazzar as the “son” of Nebuchadnezzar are nothing more than critical grumblings that were began when skeptics were forced to eat crow when it it was discovered that Daniel’s mention of a previously unknown Babylonian ruler had been vindicated.