In May I published How We Know Daniel Is a Forgery and discussed a debate on the topic involving my Anglican friend Jonathan Sheffield, who has now produced an attempt at a rebuttal, his best case for Daniel being authentic after all. We have arranged to engage a discussion about it. Below I publish his piece. In coming days I will publish my reply in the same word count or less. Then we will discuss this written exchange live on MythVision (this October 2 at 10am PST / 1pm EST). Sheffield has funded this exchange and we share full non-exclusive rights to its content. To follow this exchange you certainly should read my previous article as well as my coming follow-up, but you don’t have to view my recorded discussion of the other debate.

Comments on each of the entries in this exchange are open to anyone who submits polite and relevant remarks. In fact, thoughtful or constructive comments are highly sought and recommended by both of us. Patreon patrons retain the privilege of their comments publishing immediately (if they don’t, email me so I can get you on the white list). Everyone else’s will wait in a moderation queue that I will have to check and clear every few days.


A Jewish Records Argument for the Authenticity of Daniel

by Jonathan Sheffield

-:-

Defining the Argument

In The Meaning of History, the once-Russian-Marxist Philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev provides a thorough explanation as to why he abandoned the naturalistic interpretation of history. He states [1]:

I remember how the materialist interpretation of history, when I attempted in my youth to verify it by applying it to the destinies of people, broke down in the case of the Jews, where destiny seemed absolutely inexplicable from the materialistic standpoint. And, indeed, according to the materialistic and positivist criterion, this people ought long ago to have perished. Its survival is a mysterious and wonderful phenomenon demonstrating that the life of this people is governed by a special predetermination, transcending the processes of adaptation expounded by the materialist interpretation of history. The survival of the Jews, their resistance to destruction, their endurance under absolutely peculiar conditions and the fateful role played by them in history; all these point to the particular and mysterious foundations of their destiny. The history of the Jews is not only a phenomenon; it is also a noumenon… The peculiarity of Jewish destiny consists in its incommensurability with either the pre-Christian or the Christian era. Scientific criticism applied to traditional Biblical history can neither discredit the universal role played by the Jews nor offer a satisfactory explanation of their mysterious destiny.

A Black Swan to the Naturalistic Interpretation of History

In his explanation, Berdyaev explicitly communicates that his departure from the naturalist interpretation was born out of his inability to reconcile the destiny of the Jews with Marx’s economic materialism. Thus, the Jews were the black swan to this philosophy of history designed specifically to analyze and discredit historical mysteries and traditions—essentially falsifying the method.[2]

Berdyaev’s ideas are also independently reflected in the writings of the famed novelist Mark Twain, who historically contributed great insights into the human condition. He expresses: “All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?”[3] Twain and Berdyaev are not alone in their deductions. While inquiring into the destiny and success of the Jewish people, the British Scholar and Scientist C.P Snow was forced to stop and ask the quintessential question, “Are the Jews just a superior race?”[4] Snow’s views and subsequent inquiries presented a kind of scientific Calvinism in relation to the Jewish people, in an effort to find a solution that best explains their success.[5]

Consequently, Berdyaev’s conclusion perpetuates a common viewpoint among countless writers and thinkers; attempting to explain the historical events in the destiny of the Jewish people from the materialist standpoint is certain to court defeat.[6]

Fateful Moments in Jewish Antiquity: Illustrative Case of the Problems of a Naturalistic Interpretation of History

Certainly, the failure of the Assyrian King Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem speaks plainly to the perspective held by Berdyaev and the others. This event in the annals of Jewish and Assyrian history is a microcosm encapsulating the problems faced by advocates of a naturalist interpretation of history. It reflects their inability to offer a naturalistic explanation for Sennacherib, who—on the cusp of victory over Jerusalem—suddenly ended the campaign and arbitrarily withdrew his forces. Accordingly, this momentous event immediately preserved the remaining two tribes of Judea, allowing its people to avoid the likely fate experienced by the upper ten tribes of Israel.[7] Surly, historical episodes of this nature are what Berdyaev had in mind when he noted that the “Jewish destiny reflected the indestructibility of the divine decrees”[8], considering the following factors:

  • First and foremost, “In this expedition, the Assyrian king endeavored to do for Judah what Shalmaneser V and Sargon II had done for Samaria. The armies of Nineveh always sought to capture the royal city of any country in which they were making a campaign.”[9] Moreover, this end would have been carried out on account of Hezekiah’s refusal to submit to the yoke of Sennacherib.[10] This is especially true even after Sennacherib sent a delegation of high-level military and administrative officials to forewarn Hezekiah that Egypt had been defeated and Judah’s god would be of no help against the might of the Great King of Assyria.[11]
  • Secondly, the Assyrian deportation policy presumably would have exiled the remaining two tribes of Judea, as it had the upper ten tribes that began under the administrations of Tiglath-Pileser III in 732 BC and ended with Sargon II.[12]
  • Thirdly, “Sennacherib’s campaign to Judah was a fateful moment in history. Had he demolished Jerusalem or even deported its inhabitants, that would have been the end of the state of Judah. Without Judah, there would have been no Judaism.”[13] To this point, the American historian William H. McNeill concurs: “Judaism would have disappeared from the face of the earth.”[14]
  • Lastly, although the Assyrian records boasted how Sennacherib destroyed 46 of Judah’s cities and trapped Hezekiah in Jerusalem “like a caged bird”[15], the city of Jerusalem itself and its king did not meet the same bitter end.[16]

All things considered; a core question remains. What theory best explains why Jerusalem wasn’t captured by the Assyrians? William McNeill has made valiant attempts to rationalize this fact apart from the Jewish records by suggesting the “siege was lifted after a large part of Sennacherib army succumbed to a mysteriously lethal contagion…an unforeseen factor that can undo the deterministic sure thing or humble the conquering momentum.”[17] McNeil asserts that history is full of such examples, citing the case at Athens and other events of this kind.[18] However, the epidemic nature of the contagion that ravaged the cities of Athens [19], Constantinople [20], and Caffa [21] does not seem to fit the circumstances that befell the Assyrian army, thus reducing the probability of McNeill’s hypothesis.

A contagion is, by definition, contagious; yet there are no available records indicating any manor of infection had spread to the foregoing inhabitants of Jerusalem, neighboring territories, or the people of Nineveh. This seems highly improbable when considering the scale of the contagion that supposedly materialized within the Assyrian camp. Thucydides’ history on the contagion that fell upon Athens reports that the disease broke out in many places; it was not an isolated event.[22] He documented its point of origin in Ethiopia, tracing the spread through Egypt, Libya, and other areas before finally arriving at the port of Athens, Piraeus.[23] His observations support what we would naturally expect to see as the direct effect of a pathogen that is also communicable. This behavior was also characteristic in the contagions that advanced on both Constantinople and Caffa, according to the records of Procopius [24] and Gabriele de’ Mussi [25].

Another apparent problem of McNeil’s working hypothesis is that it doesn’t factor in the amount of time for the disease to begin and end in the susceptible host. For instance, when Thucydides reported on the clinical stage of the disease in Athens, he noted that at the onset of symptoms, most died about the seventh or ninth day.[26] Additionally, when we factor in the incubation period for an infectious disease, a prognosis of death may be in excess of two weeks. In Constantinople’s outbreak, which ran the course of four months, the mortality increased over time, with the greatest virulence unfolding only after the first month.[27] However, an examination of the Jewish [28] and pagan [29] histories documenting that fateful evening in the Assyrian camp unfolds an entirely different account. The historicized details of this event, as corroborated by Berossus [30], references the instantaneous deaths of 185,000 men in just one night—a fate more befitting a mob hit than a prolonged epidemic.

McNeil’s proposal not only fails to explain the Assyrian camp’s swift downfall; it is also unable to satisfactorily track the Assyrian camp’s initial exposure to the microorganism that began the contagion. He can only speculate that “Hezekiah’s effort to stop the fountains around Jerusalem compelled Assyrian soldiers to drink contaminated water and thus expose themselves to widespread infections.”[31] Yet, this defies recorded matters of history, which reveal that the Assyrian army wasn’t ill-advised in its risk assessment during military operations. The army’s leadership was calculated in its approach, expertly procuring adequate resources for the army’s survival while on campaigns in difficult, hostile, and unforgiving environments.[32] The military exploits of Sargon II of Assyria in 714 BC and Esarhaddon invasion of Egypt in 671 BC are representative of the Assyrian army’s aptitude for logistics and supply chain management.[33] Sargon II’s armies looted extensively, seizing enemy resources on horses, mules, camels, and donkeys; they even prepared lavish travel provisions for the march back to Assyria.[34] Esarhaddon’s army also displayed similar methods in their trek across the Negev Region and Sinai desert, collecting an ample supply of water at the wells of Raphia.[35] Ultimately, McNeil’s theory would have us believe that Sennacherib and his advisors completely lacked any regard for safety, somehow neglecting to collect adequate drinking water among its 46 captured cities of Judah in preparation for the siege of Jerusalem.

Faced with historical evidence that counters their claims, naturalistic scholars like McNeil and others tend to advance explanations that continue to inappropriately rationalize Jerusalem’s survival in order to avoid dealing with an observable black swan. Their problems rationalizing events of this kind circle back to Berdyaev’s fundamental point: “The Jewish destiny is too imbued with the metaphysical to be explained either in material or positive-historical terms.”[36]

Other Fateful Moments in Jewish History: Alexander’s & Cyrus’s Decisions Regarding the Jews (General Observations)

In the proceeding section of this thesis, our attention turns to other fateful moments in Jewish history that played a decisive role in the destiny of its people and paved the way for Jerusalem’s continuity. Our primary objective is to seek the more economical solution for these events—a feat we will pursue using the methodological principle known as “Ockham’s razor”.

Consider the following circumstances that impacted Jerusalem:

  • Firstly, Alexander the Great’s resolution not to initiate a conquest of Jerusalem or install a Greek occupation in Judea.
  • Secondly, Cyrus the Great’s decree to return the exiled Jews to their capital city in order to rebuild their temple.[37]

Upon empirical observation, these two events seem to blatantly deviate from the behavior of a conquering nation currently campaigning around the proximity of Judah. History presents an almost uninterrupted series of conquests against the state of Judea. Nearly every major empire partook in the capture of its capital and the persecution of its citizens up to the present day, apart from Alexander and Cyrus the Great. Werner Keller rightly observes that:

It bears eloquent witness to the fact that the Greek conqueror (Alexander) tolerated the way of life of the theocracy of Judah…it was left unmolested as a religious community…with archaeology confirming no traces of either a Greek conquest, or a Greek occupation of Judah during his reign. Only in the neighboring city of Samaria, a strong Greek fortress came into existence.[38]

Keller’s examination leaves no room for error: Alexander’s actions communicate that he indeed possessed a permissive attitude regarding the Jews. However, despite this clear history of tolerance, substantial evidence surrounding Jewish involvement unveils a series of striking factors that should have resulted in the society’s demise. The perpetuation of Judah is made all the more puzzling by the following observations:

  • Firstly, we must examine the situation with Tyre: in which Alexander had drafted into service entire populations of neighboring cities and mercenaries from the Peloponnese in support of his siege.[39][40] The siege lasted an entire seven months [41]—a relentless pursuit that would have required extensive funding, provisions, and auxiliaries throughout the campaign. During this period, the land of Judea was reported to be of excellent character, according to Hecataeus.[42] The soil was most fertile, and Judea boasted countless strongholds and villages.[43] What’s more, Jerusalem’s population center was estimated to have a staggering 120,000 inhabitants.[44] This certainly explains Josephus’s [45] and Origen’s [46] reports that when Alexander was at the Siege of Tyre, he sought out the High Priest of the Jews for auxiliaries, provisions and tribute. However, the Jews were allies of the Persians, and Alexander’s reported request would have placed them in a difficult position. If we recall, the people of Tyre were willing to accede to all of Alexander’s wishes—except for admitting any Macedonian within the walls of the town.[47] Their desire to pacify Darius and maintain their loyalty when the war was not yet decided was the risk that they took to ensure their future safety.[48][49] Thus, it should come as no surprise that when the High Priest responded to Alexander’s request, he referenced his oath to Darius, which prevented him from bearing arms against the opposing leader.[50] Alexander was furious at this denial, threatening to lead his army against the High Priest after he had taken Tyre.[51] He vowed to punish the High Priest as an example to all men[52]—yet this reported threat never came to fruition. If Tyre perished under the weight of the king’s fury, how did the Jews earn Alexander’s lenience and continually escape his wrath?
  • Secondly, it is also attested that the Samaritans saw the opportunity in Alexander’s potential victory and abandoned the cause of Darius.[53] They came with a large number of subjects (8000 auxiliaries) at the beginning of the siege of Tyre and placed themselves and its province under Alexander’s rule during the very time when the Jews refused him.[54] Additionally, the Samarians advocated their case with Alexander, stressing the advantage of splitting the loyalties of the Jews, who had been troublesome to the kings of Assyria.[55] Despite their compliance, “Samaria was forcibly brought to its heel throughout the course of the next few years; as punishment, Alexander had a colony of Macedonians settle in Samarian territory.”[56] This begs the natural question: What did the Jews have to shield their fate that the Samarians lacked?
  • Lastly, Curtius assures us that when Alexander came with all his forces to the city of Gaza, he himself proceeded to venture out and reduce the cities which still rejected the yoke of his rule.[57] This observation is consistent with Jospehus’s report of Alexander—upon successfully besieging Gaza, the king made haste to go after Jerusalem.[58] At this point, an inevitable fate awaited the Jews; yet in spite of Alexander’s rage-fueled vow to make the Jews face severe consequences, this never materialized.

Despite this series of befuddling circumstances, Alexander did not ultimately occupy or make conquest of Jerusalem.[59] Eventually, just three years after the leader’s death, his general Ptolemy finally took Jerusalem and Judea under accusations of deceit and treachery in 320 B.C.[60] At minimum, Ptolemy’s actions indicate that he likely didn’t support Alexander’s previous decision concerning the Jews and the state of Judah. Yet a nagging inconsistency remains: What influenced these two great military minds to make a stark difference in their decision on the Jews?

A secondary observation leads us to examine the philanthropy of Cyrus the Great towards the Jews. In the sixth chapter of the book of Ezra, we find the following:

In the first year of Cyrus the king, the same Cyrus the king made a decree concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, ‘Let the house be builded, the place where they offered sacrifices, and let the foundations thereof be strongly laid… and let the expenses be given out of the king’s house…also let the golden and silver vessels of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took forth out of the temple which is at Jerusalem, and brought unto Babylon, be restored, and brought again unto the temple which is at Jerusalem’.[61]

The bold claims found in this document are supported by Keller, who reports that archaeological evidence has been able to establish the authenticity of this permit.[62]

In our present inquiry, we can closely dissect the benefits found within Cyrus’s decree. These included:

  • Permission for the Jews to return to Jerusalem.
  • A project, financed by the Persian treasury to rebuild both their temple, and the city walls of Jerusalem.[63]
  • And lastly, the return of its sacred temple treasure that was originally seized by Nebuchadnezzar.[64]

While it may appear that Cyrus’s empire-wide diplomacy campaign partially served to benefit the Jews, the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin did not share that perspective. Recall, that a zealous minority of Jews prevented the people of the land as well as neighboring nations from entering the area,[65] thus indicating another entitlement of the decree. Accordingly, people across many nations filed an injunction against the Jews within the Persian courts.[66] They petitioned for the Jews to cease the refortification of Jerusalem, asserting that the project would lead to lawlessness and rebellion on the part of the Jews.[67] The response was surprising: Darius I not only confirmed the permit issued by Cyrus, but also upheld the decision to move forward with the project, threatening penalties against anyone that moved against his order.[68] The official exchange of letters within the Persian court regarding this decision is documented in the book of Ezra [69]; careful observation has confirmed, there is no longer any doubt as to the historicity of these documents according to Keller.[70]

By acknowledging the historical data-points behind these circumstances, we arrive at a baffling conclusion. It is evident that the Jewish people—for the better part of two centuries under the Persian empire and the reign of Alexander—somehow procured for themselves a host of preferential privileges, along with a reprieve of any apparent violent variations or occupation of its lands.[71] The Jewish nation hadn’t achieved this at any point in its history—even to this day.

In retrospect, according to the American writer and educator Mary Chase:

If the permit had not been granted, there would never have been a return to Jerusalem. Consequentially, Judah would assuredly have shared by and large the fate of the northern kingdom, becoming intermingled with the east, and eventually losing itself as a united people.[72]

This was the same fate that awaited the Jews outside of its city walls before an Assyrian army that besieged Jerusalem; and yet the Jews somehow escaped another inevitable lot. Once again this speaks plainly to Berdyaev’s notion that the “very preservation of this people is rationally inconceivable and inexplicable from the naturalistic presupposition.”[73]

Taking into account these perplexing circumstances, how do we explain Alexander’s decision to spare Jerusalem? How do we rationalize Cyrus’s decree to return the Jews from exile, allowing them to rebuild their temple and city walls amongst mounting pressure from disparate nations to halt the fortification of Jerusalem?

Reconsidering the Historical Value of the Jewish Records

If we intend to closely follow the facts and clear evidence, then we are forced to reconsider the historical value of the Jewish records—factors that otherwise best explain these events and other points in Jerusalem’s history.

Josephus prided himself on the accuracy of his historiography, boldly claiming that the Greeks and Romans would not find a more accurate account of the Jewish histories than what was presented in his works.[74] William Whiston—the distinguished historian and mathematician whose works received praise by the likes of Newton and Locke—lends great credence to Josephus’ histories, affirming that “the records which Josephus ever followed in his accounts of the Jews, were no other than their own Hebrew, Authentic, and Sacred Books written by the most distinguished citizens of its nation.”[75] Whiston’s sentiment, that these histories are derived from authentic Jewish records themselves, is confirmed in Josephus’ own writings.[76] Whiston continues: “We have here in Josephus, not our original historian, but a later abridger of the ancient Jewish histories that were ever esteemed by that Nation.”[77] This places Josephus not as a fabricator within Jewish history, but instead a messenger reporting the facts. Moreover, Whiston makes the following empirical observation: “And how fair, impartial, and exact, Josephus used to be in the compiling of his abridgements, about these times in particular, anyone may easily find, by comparing his abridgement of the first Book of Maccabees with the book itself.”[78]

Whiston’s comprehensive review of these works helps to reveal the historian’s goals. In constructing an empirical history of the Jewish nation, Josephus’ chief aim was to set before the reader a collection of the best authenticated records, and such information as has been communicated by those who were themselves identified with the transactions. Despite the relevancy and availability of these records, modern historians wield a Modern-Enlightenment-Era worldview that is dismissive of the Jewish histories. This should come as no surprise; in his day, Josephus was plagued by a related situation. For the prototype of this worldview originated with those Hellenic Greeks who felt the Jewish histories were unworthy of consideration.[79] For this reason, they did not believe Josephus’ former accounts of the very ancient state of the Jewish nation.

Berdyaev recognized the same connection, emphasizing that the “enlightenment” of the Hellenic Greeks is essentially analogous to the historically-recognized Enlightenment era of the eighteenth century.[80] A common trait shared was its tendency to attack and discredit what was sacred in the ‘historical’ and all the organic and traditional elements of history.[81] Berdyaev characterized the enlightened reason of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as self-assertive and limited in its scope—that was not in communion with the reason of universal history.[82] To that end, this “enlightenment” detached itself from the experience of humanity and set itself up in the judgement seat, forcing their contemporary narrative on history.[83] Recognizing this reality during the Hellenic Greek enlightenment, Josephus pondered the following questions that we continue to ask of the naturalistic philosophy.[84]

  • Why must we attend to none but the Greeks when we are inquiring about the most ancient facts?
  • Why must we inform ourselves of their truth—and only their truth—disregarding the beliefs of ourselves or other men?

Frustrated by the enlightened worldview’s dismissive nature, Josephus expressed that “it was an absurd thing for the Greeks to vaunt themselves to be the only people that are acquainted with antiquity and have delivered the true accounts of those early times.”[85] In the face of such a limited perspective, Josephus stated he would not be led by vain opinions; instead, he pledged to seek the truth from the facts themselves.[86] It is our intent to follow suit in this process; and ultimately, the exploration and interpretation of facts will lead to the simplest explanation of the events under investigation.

Central Thesis: Alexander’s & Cyrus’s Decisions regarding the Jews (Particular Observations)

Through careful analysis, this study is positioned to demonstrate that the book of Daniel presents the simplest explanation as to why Alexander did not take Jerusalem. It also serves to articulate that Cyrus’s reading of Isaiah provided ample grounds for his decree permitting the Jews a return to Jerusalem to rebuild its temple and city walls.

1. Negative Fact—The Dog That Didn’t Bark:

Firstly, we must observe a crucial fact: Josephus impressed upon his readers that the antiquities were written for a Greek and Roman audience.[87] He personally received public requests for such a treatise, as there was a prevalent desire to know Jewish history.[88] During this time, he communicated that the Greeks took considerable pains to know the affairs of the Jewish nation.[89] The Jewish antiquities were circulated throughout the Greek-speaking world—a reality that would naturally subject Josephus’s Jewish reports to criticism among the ruling class. As Dr. Carrier has stated, “the masses were often gullible, yet educated elites reading books like [Josephus] typically were not.”[90] As a matter of history, how do we explain an expected fact absent from the record of such a bold claim, especially from the Greeks?

The intent is not to draw a conclusion from this silence, but recognize the silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark.[91] Thus, the absence of those expected facts supplies positive evidence supporting the validity of Josephus’s reports.[92] Case in point: The treatise On the Jews—attributed to Hecataeus was challenged during the time of Hadrian as an apologetic falsification invented by the Jews, criticized by the Greek Historian Philo of Byblos.[93] This is relevant to our case, as Josephus specifically referenced that title and section of the work in his defense of the ancient state of the Jewish nation. Therefore, our objection is not based on a hypothetical situation, but from an empirical observation of history. The circumstances of this period would have made it politically expedient for Arrian and Plutarch to discredit Josephus’s report given that they were historians serving in the time of Hadrian during a period that was particularly hostile to Jews.[94] Despite this reality, they presented no counternarrative in their writings to these events—thus creating a negative fact. Arrian is abundantly clear in his statements: a deal was reached with Judea.[95] Considering his background, he would have certainly been familiar with the works of Josephus—so why isn’t this deal being discussed in his histories? Hence, the dog that didn’t bark.

2. The Zeitgeist of Alexander & Cyrus the Great – An Element of History:

Secondly, the defining spirit of this period of history was based upon a clear foundation: most ancient civilizations believed that the gods must be appeased. Men of this age—like Alexander and Cyrus the Great—wouldn’t have offended a god like that of the Jews, who they felt predicted their victories and supported their absolute reign. Alexander and Cyrus were not men of the enlightenment; therefore, in order to understand their decisions, we must remove ourselves from the modern lens and enter the historical wormhole, peering through the paradigm of their god-fearing eyes. “In the ancient world, the ‘fear of God’ must have expressed the very essence of religion, or at least its most important element.”[96] This idea is well attested in ancient records, including the Hammurabi Code, Assyrian correspondence, Hittite texts, and innumerable others.[97]

According to Plutarch, the Spartans paid tribute to Phobos, the god of terror, because they believed that fear was the chief principle that supported their civil policy.[98] This behavior was characteristic in Alexander as well; he was certainly no Alcibiades. The king was historically devout and sincere in his religious affirmations. One instance in Gaugamela accurately portrays Alexander’s piety. While the Macedonians slept, the king snuck out in the dead of night with his seer, Aristander, intending to make a sacrifice to the god of fear.[99]

Another consideration is Alexander’s affinity for adopting foreign gods—a trait his men mocked him for at Opis.[100] The king’s historically-recognized tendency helps explains Josephus’s report, in which Alexander was intrigued by the unique nature of the Jews’ sacred procession to meet him. [101] We also must consider that in the pagan world, “religion—much like high society—possessed a well-defined etiquette: whoever is admitted before a god must be spotlessly clean and wear fine garments.”[102] The high priest represented a bridge to god, just as the oracles of Delphi presented a means of communication with Apollo. Alexander would have also understood the duality that pervades these situations. Therefore, Alexander’s act of obeisance toward the Jewish god in Josephus’s report is consistent with what we would expect to see.[103] In addition to this is Alexander’s decision to accompany the high priest into Jerusalem—a choice that would have been fueled by the same impassioned state the king experienced that swiftly led him to the shrine of Ammon.[104]

Additionally, Alexander’s request of Tyre to sacrifice within its city walls was a direct attempt to rally their god behind his cause.[105] This historical lens adds a new level of clarity to Josephus’s chronicle of events. When he reports that the book of Daniel was presented to the Macedonian King—in which Daniel declares that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians [106]—Alexander would naturally ally himself with a powerful god whom he felt could predict his victories. From Alexander’s perspective, the power of such a god wielding valuable foresight explains the Jews’ treatment outlined in the histories of Josephus [107] and Hecataeus [108].

This was also the case with Cyrus—he would have understood as a general rule that his compliance as a servant of the gods would impact his celestial support.[109] If he did not fulfill his obligations, or behaved in direct opposition to them, he would be of the persuasion that the gods would inevitably crush his conquests beneath a powerful fist.[110] It is for this reason that knowledge of Isaiah’s prophecy would have necessitated such actions from Cyrus. Each leader’s fear of the gods explains their otherwise strangely lenient behavior and preferential treatment of the Jews.

3. Corroborating the Event: Alexander, the Jews & the Book of Daniel

  • Direct Source Evidence:

In building our case, we first turn our attention to Josephus, whose evidential value directly addresses the issue at hand, and plainly offers an answer to the specific question under review. Josephus is abundantly clear regarding the source of his information: he merely described what was contained in the Jewish records in full accuracy.[111] Josephus’s Antiquities provide the only specific record for the public presentation of Daniel in 332 BC to the Macedonian king, Alexander.[112] However, the flurry of circumstantial evidence presented below will be able to establish a set of substantial facts from which one could logically infer and corroborate the fact in question.

  • The Circumstantial Evidence:

To wit:

  • Firstly, from the general observations, we have already established that the siege of Tyre would have required extensive funding, provisions, and auxiliaries throughout the campaign. This necessity is historically evident in Diodorus’s texts, particularly on account of Alexander drafting into service entire populations of neighboring cities for the project at hand.[113] Moreover, Hecataeus, a historian of that era, spares no detail in describing how large and bountiful the land of Judah was.[114] Alexander’s mere request for assistance from the High Priest of the Jews—as documented in the writings of Josephus [115] and Origen [116]—actually fits the historical conditions of the period, which dictated Alexander’s need for resources.
  • Secondly, the High Priest’s denial of Alexander’s request on account of certain oaths to the opposing ruler, Darius,[117] is consistent with the circumstances of another Persian ally (Tyre) in their refusal to accede to Alexander’s terms.[118] This specific piece of history—which documents the Jews’ rejection of aid—is recorded in the writings of Josephus [119] and Origin [120]. Additionally, other supplementary documents, such as the Babylonian Talmud [121] and Pseudo-Callisthenes [122] lends support to an act of rebellion on the part of the Jews against the Macedonian king, which builds confidence in this version of history.
  • Thirdly, we must take note of Curtius’s report,[123] which states that Alexander ventured out from Gaza to reduce the cities which still rejected the yoke of his rule. This record not only helps corroborate Josephus account [124] but is also consistent with Alexander’s vow to fulfill his vicious threat against the Jews.[125] At this point, it is important to consider Keller’s belief that the siege of Gaza must have made some impact on the Jews. The grounds of Judah would have undoubtedly been shaken by the harsh rhythm of Macedonian troops marching down the coast below them, while the roar of the warriors’ camps would be heard in the hills above.[126] This event—along with Whiston’s observation from the writings of Arrian, Pliny, and Eusebius that place Alexander in Judea [127]—would have necessitated certain actions by the High Priest to ensure the safety of the Jewish people.
  • Fourthly, just as Tyre and other cities sent out delegations to meet with Alexander as his soldiers loomed menacingly over the horizon [128], we would naturally expect the Jews to follow suit. As expected, such a procession of Jews did come out to meet Alexander, including its priests and a multitude of citizens—a fact established by the writings of Josephus [129], Eusebius [130], Origen [131], the Megillat Taʿanit [132], the Babylonian Talmud [133] and Pseudo-Callisthenes [134], either through direct reference or inference.
  • To truly grasp the extraordinary nature of the events about to unfold during the conversion of these two nations, Whiston states:

He [Alexander], coming with a victorious army, full of Anger against these Jews, and is ready to revenge the Affront they had of late offered him, by their Message to Tyre, that they would not fight against his Enemy Darius. In the proceeding days, Alexander goes away with the greatest Love and Kindness for these Jews; permits them to live by their ancient Laws; forgives them the Tribute of the Sabbatical Year; and readily invites their People to fight for him, as his Allies, without entrenching the least upon their Consciences: Which Friendship became immediately so great, that the very next Year he gave them equal Privileges, at his own new built City Alexandria, with the Macedonians themselves: Which Friendship, is also well known, to have continued under his Egyptian Successors for a long Time afterward.”[135]

  • Whiston’s statements regarding Alexander, who met the Jews’ refusal with “Love” and “Kindness,” are baffling—and yet his description of this event is substantiated by historical documentation.[136] This blossoming “Friendship” between the Macedonian king and Judah is puzzling, communicating that something extraordinary must have intervened to result in Alexander’s unexpected affability.
  • In describing the privileges that Alexander proceeded to bestow upon the Jews, Josephus appeals to a series of writings that establish a history of transactions among the Jews and King Alexander.[137] These texts chiefly document a uniquely strong relationship with the king, listing the benefits the Jews procured from him. The list of writings Josephus cites includes: The epistles of King Alexander, Ptolemy, the writings of the succeeding kings, Hecataeus and a pillar at Alexandria containing the privileges that Alexander bestowed upon the Jews.
  • Lastly, Arrain confirms that the area known as Syrian Palestine (i.e., Judea) had accepted Alexander’s control [138]; while elsewhere, enumerated Palestine among the areas from which Alexander secured tribute.[139] This event illustrates positive evidence supporting the notion that a deal had been reached with the Jews.
The Simplest Explanation: Alexander & the Jews

While Egypt presented Alexander with numerous splendors [140]—like the national treasuries and the title of Pharaoh [141]—what could the Jews, allies of the Persians, based in a strategic military high ground, give the king after denying his request to spare its capital? Confronted with this very question, Josephus supplies us with the simplest explanation. He reports that Alexander—after having been shown the book of Daniel and believing he was the Greek that should destroy the empire of the Persians—was beyond pleased. The next day, he quickly called upon the Jews in kindness bidding them to ask whatever favors they pleased.[142]

However, this observable black swan (i.e., The Book of Daniel) has left naturalistic scholars scrambling to advance their own narrative. In response, they have presented an explanation that inappropriately rationalizes Jerusalem’s survival at this juncture.[143] To explain this event apart from the Jewish records, a theory has been popularized to suggest that the Jewish accounts are just mere legends and cannot be true [144]—an essential white-washing of this population’s entire history. The basis for the assertion is a supposed “silence” among the surviving pagan histories of Alexander. Their rationale presupposes two points: firstly, there is no reason to assume that the ancients would have suppressed a report of Alexander paying homage to the god of the Jews or even to the high priest.[145] Secondly, historians such as Arrian, Curtius, Diodorus, Plutarch, and Justin say nothing of an encounter between Alexander and the Jews.[146]

In addressing the first point, Josephus speaks to this issue at great length in his writings and explains why a considerable number of Greek authors make no mention of the Jewish nation in their histories. Josephus confirms:

Some writers have omitted to mention our nation, not because they knew nothing of us, but because they envied us, or for some other unjustifiable reasons. I can demonstrate by particular instances; for Hieronymus, who wrote the history of Alexander’s successors, lived at the same time with Hecataeus… Now, it is plain that Hecetaeus wrote an entire book concerning us, while Hieronymus never mentions us in his history, although he was bred up very near to the places where we live. Thus, different from one another are the inclinations of men; while the one thought we deserved to be carefully remembered, so some ill-disposed passion blinded the other’s mind… [147]

The antagonistic envy and other reasons that Josephus speaks of are symptomatic of the Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Examine, as one author has noted:

The Jews were despised for their exclusiveness and alleged hatred of humanity. Additionally, Jewish success in attracting converts was a sure formula for resentment especially since the Graeco-Roman world looked down on Jews as superstitious, credulous, odd, and lowly both in class and in origin. For a group of this type to propagandize successfully offered a real threat to religion, country and family.[148]

Furthermore, the Septuagint—the version of the Bible that would have been available to the Greek-speaking world—is unmistakable in its affirmation that the gods of all the nations are demons.[149] To that end, a report of Alexander paying reverence to the Jewish god would not have served their interests, nor fit their narrative. Moreover, we must take into consideration that Plutarch and Arrian lived at a time of war against the Jews and served at the court of Hadrian. The optics of such a report published in their histories, which would highlight Alexander’s interactions with their bitter enemies, would not be well received by an emperor who sold all Jewish prisoners into slavery, forbade the teaching of the Torah, and expelled them from their land while re-naming the province to Syria Palestine.[150] With this history rife in Anti-Semitism in mind, the assertion that later pagan historians had no reason to suppress such a report of Alexander and the Jews is blatantly against the facts.

The critics’ next assertion—which states that the surviving pagan histories of Alexander, by Arrian, Curtius, Diodorus, Plutarch, and Justin, say nothing of an encounter of Alexander with the Jews [151]—once again fails to present the unfiltered truth. Reality diverges from this claim; Hecataeus, a contemporary of Alexander and Ptolemy, provides evidence to suggest the contrary. He affirms, “Alexander honored the Jewish nation to such a degree, for the equity, and fidelity which the Jews exhibited to him he permitted them to hold the country of Samaria, free from tribute.”[152] Hecataeus’ statement presents direct evidence against the naturalistic narrative—a fact that, despite being entirely relevant to this matter, has been cast into the shadows. Finally, how do we explain these privileges Alexander bestowed upon the Jews unless Josephus’ history is correct?

The Simplest Explanation: The Philanthropy of Cyrus the Great towards the Jews

In explaining this event, Dr. Carrier has suggested that “Cyrus the Great himself says he did it as an empire-wide diplomacy campaign to gain the loyalty of disparate nations under his rule. And that’s the simplest explanation: it is what he says.”[153] While at face value Dr. Carrier’s explanation is sound, “it is what he says” imparts an oversimplification of the true intent and design of the inscription. This conclusion is as if I were to suggest that Rome’s support of the Jews against the Seleucid Empire was a charity campaign to promote the republic’s ideals and valiantly protect the Jewish citizen’s freedom. Rome’s true intentions were far more selfish: to divide and conquer the empire and bring wealth into Rome. Through this example, my overarching point is that royal prescriptions of this kind are never exactly how they appear to be. For instance, the ordinance (diagramma) promulgated in 319 by Philip III spoke of freedom for the Greek cities. On paper, this involved the merciful recalling of exiles, and altruistic removal of oligarchies; yet its true intentions were designed to push the king’s propaganda, specifically to win allies and prevent a war against Macedon.[154] Cyrus’s inscription operated in the same manor, serving as a tool of Persian propaganda to preserve the empire and prevent the former from re-constituting itself.

While it is true that Cyrus’s messaging campaign did promote religious freedom for all, this result was merely a byproduct of his true intent. There is meaning in personally taking the time to recognize the notable city-states from Mesopotamia. Referring to them as individual city-states, instead as a united empire provides another clue as to the true thoughts and intentions of Cyrus. Those city-states had wealth, power, and influence unlike the dispossessed Jews in the area—a likely reason as to why the Jews didn’t quite make the VIP list. Also consider that the honorable mention of the Jewish people would not have been politically prudent or well received among the empire’s newly-acquired constituents. Ultimately, if Cyrus’ chief aim with this policy was to secure the loyalty, gratitude, and wealth of subject nations, then the decision to return a religious minority of Jews to Jerusalem did not achieve that goal—especially from the watchful perspective of the people of the land and the neighboring populations.[155]

During the enactment of this policy, the returning exiles exerted prerogative over the land and dictated terms on who was permitted to worship at the temple.[156] They brashly began efforts to refortify Jerusalem in blatant defiance of a public outcry from their neighbors.[157] These actions speak loud and clear, therefore who impressed upon the Jews this brash view of entitlement? We must also factor in that the project was being funded by the Persian treasury.[158] In this event, the people of the land and the neighboring territories filing an injunction against the Jews were of notable repute.[159] Are we to believe that the Babylonians and Lebanese, with their heavy political swing, didn’t exert more influence on the Persian courts than a small religious minority of Jews? Wasn’t Cyrus dependent on Tyre for its navel fleet? During an ongoing litigation, did the Jews throw all caution to the wind and have the audacity to fabricate a so-called “two Isaiah,” mocking Cyrus’ name? Are we to suppose that the king was just going to allow a community—which was contemporaneously perceived as rebellious and seditious [160]—to go ahead and refortify Jerusalem, only to risk a revolt in the proceeding years?

In the end, Darius I not only authenticated Cyrus’s permit,[161] but upheld the decision to side with the Jews, threatening penalties against any who dared impede their progress.[162] The objective reality is this: Jerusalem was rebuilt, the book of Isaiah exists, and the circumstantial evidence supporting Cyrus’s reading of the prophecy is consistent with the period under review. These are the observable facts of history, which Josephus’s report provides the simplest explanation for.[163]

The alternative to the Jewish records is a convoluted naturalistic explanation that relies heavily on an argument based upon silence [164]—a silence that actually goes both ways. It is true that the earliest extant record of the event between Cyrus and the Jews is only sourced from Josephus, who affirms that his histories were based on the Jewish archives.[165] If this report is truly farfetched, it is odd that Herodotus, whose ideas of unsubstantiated tall tales has defined his works doesn’t speak of it. He was a Persian citizen, living at the supposed time of Esther, and when Jerusalem was still under Persian rule—hence the dog that didn’t bark. Furthermore, the book of Isaiah also promoted the prophecy of Cyrus and was echoed throughout the Greek-speaking synagogues for generations without any sounding of the alarm from the God-fearers—another dog that didn’t bark. The real silence at play is the idea of the so-called “second” and “third” books of Isaiah, which has created a fictionalized narrative to avoid the observable black swan to its naturalistic philosophy. Just ask for the ancient reference to any such publication, and it becomes strikingly quiet. Weighing against their beliefs is the crushing burden of history that is stacked against this theory.

There is no manuscript authority for the separate existence at any time of any of the three supposed divisions of Isaiah.[166] In fact, the Isaiah scroll was found in its entirety—a 24-foot-long manuscript with all 66 chapters intact.[167] This division is not found amongst the various factions of the Jews, nor is it represented in the Greek or Aramaic Translations. There are multiple records of Ezra, two Talmuds, additional works attributed to Daniel, and two of Baruch; yet there is only one Isaiah mentioned. At best, the narrative that Isaiah was the product of three separate works can only be classified in the realm of the unknown—a sort of philosophical teapot. Perhaps this theory belongs to metafiction, or the results of Rorschach Inkblot Test—but never actual history.

Conclusion

The Jewish history presents to us an arrangement of consistent data-points that seems to speak to its mysterious destiny, which otherwise cannot be explained by the naturalistic presuppositions. Therefore, we should allow the Jewish witnesses to speak for themselves, while providing a level of respect for the experience of the Jewish people, despite the differences in our philosophical worldviews. To that end, ongoing dialogues on these matters should embrace the principles of Rabbi Martin Buber’s I-Thou relationship model, which calls for openness, and ethical engagement from all parties involved, rather than a homo-sacer one.

-:-

Now see my Methodological Analysis of Sheffield’s Case

-:-

Endnotes

[1] Nikolaæi Berdëiìaev, The Meaning of History (Bles, 1936), pp 86-87. Retrieved from archive.org.

[2] Berdëiìaev, Meaning, p. 9.

[3] Mark Twain, “Concerning The Jews,” Harper’s Magazine (March, 1898).

[4] “Let’s Face It, Says C.P. Snow: Are the Jews Just a Superior Race?” National Catholic Reporter 5.24 (9 April 1969), p. 2. Retrieved from thecatholicnewsarchive.org.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Nikolaæi Berdëiìaev, “Christianity and Anti-Semitism,” CrossCurrents 1.1 (Fall 1950), pp. 43-54. Retrieved from theanarchistlibrary.org.

[7] R. Cowley & S.E. Ambrose, What if? The World’s Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been (Berkley Books, 2000), pp 4-7. Retrieved from GooglePlay.

[8] Berdëiìaev, Meaning, p. 86.

[9] R. Dougherty, “Sennacherib and the Walled Cities of Judah,” Journal of Biblical Literature 49.2 (1930), p. 160.

[10] N. Na’Aman, “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah and the Date of the lmlk Stamps,” Vetus Testamentum 29.1 (1979), p. 62.

[11] I. Spar, “Sennacherib and Jerusalem” (24 November 2014) at metmuseum.org.

[12] H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria (Blackwell, 1994), pp. 138-39.

[13] P. Stern, “Assyrian March Against Judah,” Antiquity’s Greatest Clashes (Weider History Group, 2006). Retrieved from HistoryNet.

[14] Cowley & Ambrose, What if?, pp 4-7.

[15] D.D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (Chicago, 1924), pp. 32-3, lines 18-23; cf. A.L. Oppenheim, ANET, p. 288a and CAD K 67a.

[16] Dougherty, “Sennacherib,” p. 164.

[17] Cowley & Ambrose, What if?, pp 1-4.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War II.vii.3-54. Retrieved from Gutenberg.org.

[20] Procopius of Caesarea, History of the Wars II.xxii-xxxiii. Retrieved from Fordham Sourcebooks.

[21] Mark Wheelis, “Biological Warfare at the 1346 Siege of Caffa,” Emerging Infectious Diseases 8.9 (September 2002), pp. 971-75.

[22] Thucydides, op. cit.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Procopius, op. cit.

[25] Wheelis, op. cit.

[26] Thucydides, op. cit.

[27] Procopius, op. cit.

[28] 2 Kings 19:35-37 & Isaiah 37 (verses 16-17, 20-21, 33, 35-38).

[29] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 10.1.

[30] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 10.5.

[31] Cowley & Ambrose, What if?, pp 7-10.

[32] John Marriott and Karen Radner, “Sustaining the Assyrian Army among Friends and Enemies in 714 BCE,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 67 (2015), pp. 131-37.

[33] Marriott and Radner, “Sustaining,” p. 134.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Marriott and Radner, “Sustaining,” p. 138.

[36] Berdëiìaev, Meaning, p. 86.

[37] Ezra 6:3-6.

[38] W. Keller, “Under Greek Influence,” in The Bible as History: A Confirmation of the Book of Books, ed. Werner Keller & William Neil (William Morrow, 1965), p. 324.

[39] Diodorus, Library of History 17.40.5. Retrieved from Thayer’s LacusCurtius.

[40] Arrian, in The Campaigns of Alexander (Penguin, 1976), p. 136.

[41] Plutarch, The Life of Alexander. Retrieved from Thayer’s LacusCurtius.

[42] Josephus, Against Apion 1.22. Retrieved from Perseus.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 11.8.

[46] Origen, Against Celsus. Retrieved from CCEL.

[47] Arrian, Campaigns, p. 131.

[48] Diodorus, Library 17.40.3. Retrieved from Thayer’s LacusCurtius.

[49] Arrian, Campaigns, p. 131.

[50] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 11.8.3. Retrieved from Penelope (see also Origen, Against Celsus at CCEL).

[51] Ibid.

[52] Ibid.

[53] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 11.8.4. Retrieved from Penelope.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Ibid.

[56] Keller, “Under Greek,” p. 323.

[57] Quintus Curtius, History of Alexander IV.v.10-13.

[58] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 11.8.4. Retrieved from Penelope.

[59] Keller, “Under Greek,” p. 324.

[60] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 12.1. Retrieved from Penelope.

[61] Ezra 6:3-5.

[62] Keller, “Under Greek” p. 313.

[63] Ezra 6:4.

[64] Ezra 6:5.

[65] Ezra 4:1-10.

[66] Ibid.

[67] Ezra 4:4-5.

[68] Ezra 6:8-11.

[69] Ezra 6.

[70] Keller, “Under Greek,” p. 316-17.

[71] Keller, Op. cit., pp. 320 & 324.

[72] Keller, Op cit., p. 314.

[73] Berdëiìaev, “Christianity and Anti-Semitism.”

[74] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.11.2.

[75] William Whiston, Of the Thundering Legion (London: 1726), pp. 47-63. Retrieved from Penelope.

[76] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Preface.

[77] Whiston, op. cit.

[78] Ibid.

[79] Josephus, Against Apion 1.1.2.

[80] Berdëiìaev, Meaning, pp 86-87. Retrieved from Archive.org.

[81] Ibid.

[82] Berdëiìaev, Op. cit., p. 6.

[83] Berdëiìaev, Op. cit., p. 6-7.

[84] Josephus, Against Apion 1.2.

[85] Ibid.

[86] Ibid.

[87] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Preface 2.

[88] Ibid.

[89] Ibid.

[90] Richard Carrier, “How To Fabricate History: The Example of Eusebius on Alexandrian Christianity” (20 November 2020).

[91] Mike Skotnicki, “‘The Dog that Didn’t Bark’: What We Can Learn from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle About Using the Absence of Expected Facts” (25 July 2012).

[92] Ibid.

[93] L. Capponi, “Hecataeus of Abdera and a New Conjecture in Josephus,” Histos 5 (2011), pp. 247-65.

[94] Capponi, Op. cit., p. 249.

[95] Arrian, Campaigns, p. 144.

[96] R. Pfeiffer, “The Fear of God,” Israel Exploration Journal 5.1 (1955), p. 42. Retrieved September 1, 2021, from JSTOR.

[97] Ibid.

[98] Pfeiffer, Op. cit., p. 42-43.

[99] Plutarch, Alexander. Retrieved from Perseus.

[100] Arrian, Campaigns, p. 360.

[101] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 11.8.5. Retrieved from Penelope.

[102] Pfeiffer, “Fear of God.”

[103] Josephus, Ibid.

[104] Arrian, Campaigns, p. 151.

[105] Arrian, Op. cit., p. 131.

[106] Josephus, Ibid.

[107] Ibid.

[108] Josephus, Against Apion 2.4.

[109] Pfeiffer, “Fear of God.”

[110] Ibid.

[111] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Preface 3.

[112] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 11.8.5.

[113] Diodorus, Library 17.40.5. Retrieved from Thayer’s LacusCurtius.

[114] Josephus, Against Apion 1.22. Retrieved from Perseus.

[115] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 11.8.

[116] Origen, Against Celsus. Retrieved from CCEL.

[117] Josephus, Ibid.

[118] Diodorus, Library 17.40.3.

[119] Josephus, Ibid.

[120] Origen, Ibid.

[121] J. Goldstein, “Alexander and the Jews,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 59 (1993), p. 66.

[122] Op. cit., p. 67.

[123] Quintus Curtius, History of Alexander IV.v.10-13.

[124] Josephus, Ibid.

[125] Ibid.

[126] Keller, “Under Greek,” pp. 322-23.

[127] Whiston, Thundering, pp. 47-63.

[128] Arrian, Campaigns, p. 129.

[129] Josephus, Ibid.

[130] Whiston, Ibid.

[131] Origen, Ibid.

[132] Goldstein, “Alexander and the Jews,” p. 66.

[133] Ibid.

[134] Goldstein, Op. cit., p. 68

[135] Whiston, Ibid.

[136] Ibid.

[137] Josephus, Against Apion 2.4-6.

[138] Arrian, Campaigns, p. 144.

[139] Arrian, Op. cit., p. 360.

[140] Arrian, Op. cit., p. 149; cf. Curtius, History 4.7.4 (where Mazaces handed over the Egyptian treasure).

[141] Arrian, Op. cit., p. 153.

[142] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 11.8.

[143] Goldstein, “Alexander and the Jews,” pp. 70-79.

[144] Goldstein, Op. cit., p. 70.

[145] Ibid.

[146] Goldstein, Op. cit., p. 71.

[147] Josephus, Against Apion 1.23.

[148] J. Daniel, “Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period,” Journal of Biblical Literature 98.1 (1979), p. 63.

[149] Psalm 96.

[150] Myles Hudson, “What was Hadrian’s Relationship with His Jewish Subjects?” Britannica Online (n.d.).

[151] Goldstein, Op. cit., p. 70-79.

[152] Josephus, Against Apion 2.4.

[153] Richard Carrier, “How We Know Daniel Is a Forgery” (9 May 2021).

[154] Victor Alonso Troncoso & Edward M. Anson, eds., After Alexander: The Time of the Diadochi (323-281 BC) (Oxbow Books, 2013), pp. 225-26.

[155] Ezra 4:1-10.

[156] Ezra 4:3.

[157] Ezra 4:12.

[158] Ezra 6:4-8.

[159] Ezra 4:6-10.

[160] Ezra 4:12-13.

[161] Ezra 6:2; cf. W. Keller, “Return to Jerusalem,” in The Bible as History: A Confirmation of the Book of Books, ed. Werner Keller & William Neil (William Morrow, 1965), p. 316-17.

[162] Ezra 6:11.

[163] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 11.12.

[164] Richard Carrier, “How We Know Daniel Is a Forgery” (9 May 2021): “Nor, obviously, is that far-fetched claim found anywhere else. It’s not in any recorder of Cyrus’s policies and philosophy or even biography—neither Herodotus, nor Xenophon, nor anyone else closer to that era than Josephus mentions any such thing. And accordingly, Josephus cites no sources for his claim.”

[165] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Preface.

[166] J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (InterVarsity Press, 1996), vide, “2. Isaiah as Author.”

[167] James Karl Hoffmeier, The Archaeology of the Bible (Lion, 2008), p. 24.

Discover more from Richard Carrier Blogs

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading