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.
I’m annoyed that I wasted time reading Sheffield’s piece. He doesn’t address the evidence presented by Carrier. Instead, his argument here seems to boil down to: Josephus said he was telling the truth, and William Whiston (eccentric 18th-century theologian) vouched for him, so we must accept Josephus as reliable. And we shouldn’t consider later scholarship because that’s tainted by Enlightenment rationalism. He also seems to imagine that because he’s poked some holes in McNeill’s plague hypothesis, that must mean “God did it.” Is this what passes for thinking in Christian circles?
IMO, your summary is marvelously succinct and accurate.
Today I shall publish my analysis, which will make use of the same observations to tell a broader story about methodology, and why the kind of thinking Sheffield is engaging in was abandoned a century ago as unreliable. Thus making the most use of this.
I don’t know that this specific approach typifies 21st century apologetics (I think I see this approach only from Sheffield; our previous debates have exhibited it), although it may be more common among the laity than in “the journal circuit,” and it is constructed out of certain tools of thought that I do see typical even in the most ambitious apologists. That will also be a point I make.
Good afternoon, Ginger,
I would like to personally thank you for taking the time to read though the article—it is much appreciated. Hopefully, I can adequately address your observations to help clarify the goal of my thesis.
Firstly, the engagement with Dr. Carrier is to present a thorough examination of a point that I raised in the debate with Dr. Jim and Josh in our defense of the book of Daniel. Therefore, the scope of the discussion focuses on two specific junctures in the history of the Jewish people, and how we best explain the continuity of Jerusalem under the reign of Alexander and Cyrus the Great. To that end, this speaks to a larger trend that was noticed by Berdëiìaev, Twain, C.P snow and other respected academics as to what best explains its mysterious destiny.
Secondly, my argument isn’t Josephus’ assertion of the report is correct, but if he is correct, it presents the simplest explanation as to why Alexander did not take Jerusalem, just as Josephus’ report of Cyrus’ reading of Isaiah explains why the Jews were spared and allowed to rebuild their temple and city walls. The article sets to establish a set of substantial facts from which one could logically infer and corroborate the fact in question. Whiston approaches the question after a similar manor and makes his observations from the forgoing evidence. His study is an academic approach into the credibility of Josephus’ report, and his credentials are most impressive. All things considered, Whiston and I can be wrong. Therefore, I have asked Dr. Carrier to review the set of substantial facts provided and offer a critical review of the data.
Thirdly, I do want to help clarify some statements regarding my perception of the 18th and 19th century Enlightenment. The “Enlightenment” does have several positive contributions. Even Berdëiìaev recognized that it had succeeded in relating, collecting, amassing, and partially apprehending very much. The question of the paper is how people of that age like Alexander, Cyrus and the King of Assyria would have looked at the situation through the prism of their worldview. This circles back to Berdëiìaev characterization of the “Enlightenment” in that it is not in communion with the reason of universal history. For clarification, I am not making a moral judgement against that period.
Lastly, my evaluation of McNeill’s plague hypothesis doesn’t necessarily default to a “God Hypothesis”, but we should be open to alternative hypothesis regardless of our worldviews.
Hopefully this helps provides further explanation of my arguments. Thanks.
Interesting. When I still considered myself Jewish, the last strand that I clung to was the “miracle” that there were still Jews. It was the last, most rational reason I could come up with to believe there was a God ensuring Judaism’s continued existence.
But it was and is just an example of magical thinking. There are many factors that I believe combine to account for Judaism’s preservation, not the least of which is its ability to reform. I won’t say that most modern Jews don’t believe in God (although the statistics on American Judaism would surely suggest that to be the case), but they don’t believe in a reified god that is active in the cosmos.
I’m not qualified to critique the historical minutia aspect of the argument, but as to linking Judaism’s continuity to supernatural causes, well, there are still Zoroastrians…
You’re quite right and I’ll be discussing that more broadly.
So God saved a few thousand Jews from Sennacherib, and then let Hitler murder 6 million of them during the Holocaust. How does that fit into Sheffield’s claim that “Jewish history presents to us an arrangement of consistent data-points that seems to speak to its mysterious destiny . . . .”?
It’s weirder even, IMO, because…Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem just a century after Sennacherib. So…we don’t even have to go all the way to Hitler to catch the flaw you just noticed. I’ll be covering that today.
From 135AD to 1948 the Jewish people were unable to create their own state. However, 3 years after 6 million Jews were killed in World War II, they created their own state, and were able to defeat all the Arab armies of the Middle East.
While Truman did recognize Israel on paper, the United States considered it illegal to arm the Jews. The armies of Jordan and Egypt were armed and trained by the British. Remember, Jordan’s army was also led by a British officer who had converted to Islam and did take East Jerusalem during the war. We are talking about two very capable armies against Jewish exiles from Eastern Europe. The Jews did have armed groups of settlers, but these units were not an army in the traditional sense.
After World War II, the British blockaded the area to prevent Jewish immigration to Palestine.
Prior to this period, a return to the holy land was a Pipe dream. Most of the Jewish organizations were trying to fight for Jewish rights in the area they were living. Hitter created that political shift among the Jews who felt they needed a place to escape too.
All things considered; how does this situation not speak to its mysterious destiny?
This doesn’t mean we naturally default to a “God hypothesis”, but it is difficult to reconcile these events with a naturalistic world view. At minimum, this is a strange sequence of events.
Please share your thoughts. Thanks.
The Israelis were able to defeat “all the Arab armies of the Middle East” in large part because the Arabs were in disarray, could not agree on war aims, and squabbled among themselves. By contrast, the Israelis had one common aim: To create an independent state. Which made it a lot easier for David Ben-Gurion to combine pre-existing militias into an effective force. Those militias (which you refer to as “armed groups of settlers”) were actually a sizable army by the time war broke out in 1948. The Haganah alone probably had at least 30,000 active fighters (and many more reservists). And of course the Israelis instituted conscription in 1947, anticipating what was coming.
The arms embargo applied to all the belligerents — the Israelis were just better at getting around it. The Arabs’ dependence on British arms actually turned out to be a major impediment for them once the embargo took effect (because the British refused to supply them). The Israelis, by contrast, simply went around the embargo and purchased arms from Eastern Europe. Sir Henry Mack, British ambassador to Iraq, bitterly noted that the embargo was “a farce because the Jews import what they want.” He was correct.
I’m not seeing any “mysterious destiny” here. Just history.
Thank you for your follow-up Ginger,
This is the problem I am having with your assessment:
When David Ben-Gurion declared independence , Israel faced another catastrophic event in the destiny of the Jewish people.
Israel was immediately attacked by six Arab countries to include Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Remember, in addition to Egypt and Jordan, Iraq was trained by the British as well. We can also document several of the commanding officers leading those armies like John Bagot Glubb who men of notable repute.
The Arab goal was quite clear: to prevent the implementation of the the UN partition Resolution and to violently remove the Jews from the area. The actions of those armies demonstrate a clear war aim and common purpose.
Additionally, a number of the returning exiles were returning from DPC camps. These are the types of recruits that are being called up to fight, along with primarily three independent guerilla forces.
The Jews are basically surrounded; not a advantageous military position to be in against armies that are better equipped, trained and resourced with commanding officers representing a number of world powers. Not only do the Jews defy fate once again, against unbeatable odds, but this is the second time in its history the Jewish people has been uprooted from its homeland , dispersed and then re-established itself as a sovereign state under very peculiar circumstances to become a sovereign state. The state of Israel in 1948 was not the military power it is today.
I could be wrong, but can we name another nation that was uprooted, dispersed throughout the world, and then re-established itself back in its homeland under similar conditions?
All historical events are unique, Jonathan. The question is not how many times Winston Churchill lived or a Great Wall was build across half a continent. The question is whether the causes that converge to create an event are unique. And they never are. A conjunction of causes may be; but each individual cause is not. And the probability of conjunctions is math. Math humans suck at intuitively. So you can’t trust your gut here. You have to actually look at what actually happened, what conjunctions produced it, and calculate the probability of the conjunction. You’ll find it doesn’t come out all that low here.
For guidance in avoiding fallacies of probability see my article Everything You Need to Know about Coincidences. And for how the Arab League fell, any good history book will lay it out for you. Even the Wikipedia article on the war is pretty good on this point. You’ll find no miracles there.
I’ll also remind you, the Israeli forces failed in their actual objective. They only secured a fraction of Palestine in general and Jerusalem specifically, and had to settle for a stalemate that they have been picking at for decades since, drawing the whole world into an endless cycle of pointless conflict and violence and division. Hardly the Outcome of God.
My problem, Jonathan, is that that phrase “under similar conditions” is doing a lot of work for you here. You haven’t identified any kind of actual historical analysis that would indicate what we would expect for any group under any conditions. That’s why Berdyaev’s argument sucks: It’s a bald assertion with no rigor. As someone with sociological training, I’d need to see something like a base rate for groups that have been through similar conditions as the Jews surviving, for example. You asking if there is such another group is an argument from ignorance: It’s your claim that the Jews are extraordinary, which means by definition you have to prove they are not the default (the ordinary).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diasporas . So, for example, I could argue that Liberia and maybe Ethiopia might count because there African groups resettled after colonialism, invasion and/or slavery. The Cajuns could certainly count: Forcibly moved to a whole new region essentially totally (I don’t know if the Jewish diaspora was ever truly that extreme) and yet surviving as a distinct group. Many Estonians returned. Native Americans have managed to survive tons of forced relocations, some (like the Navajo) arguably to and from their homeland. The South African diaspora could count.
But you could balk at all these examples and say that they’re not like the Jews in some way or another. And that’s basically a fallacy of multiple comparisons and another logical error at the same time. Of course the Jews are different from every other group along some variables or another. That’s why we call them Jews. When you name things, you are usually saying they are different from other named things. The problem is the tea leaf reading you seem to be engaging in where that uniqueness is given a mystical, qualitative importance.
Every group is unique in some ways. The Jews may have unique resilience, though again I find it insulting in the extreme to ignore similarly amazing resilience among other groups like Native Americans, blacks, Berbers, Romani, etc. There are plenty of large groups that have endured pretty awful stuff. But who cares? Why does unique resilience denote special providence but not unique strength, or unique cultural vivacity, or unique consistency? The Chinese and Indians, as both I and Richard pointed out, have a great claim to being able to actually endure in the sense of keeping a true nation.
You would need to actually establish some principle that what the Jews show is not them being unique on one or a few parameters that puts them, at best (and you haven’t even rigorously established this to be the case anyways), as outliers on a bell curve. How far are they an outlier? Is it really statistically improbable? You don’t have even the basis for an actual historical argument. It’s just bald assertion. And it’s weird that you keep insisting on this argument, because it’s such a non sequitur. “The Jews are uniquely resilient”, the only claim you can really even possibly make, does not mean “The Jews are uniquely honest and uniquely avoidant of propaganda”. It doesn’t establish that Jews can’t be dishonest, or engage in the same kind of self-serving narratives as anyone else, or get bamboozled by members of their community with a story to sell and an ax to grind. To get there you have to invoke magic. Magic you haven’t proved exists.
If you were being serious in terms of what you did and didn’t know, at best the Jewish ability to survive would be a mystery. That doesn’t mean you get the supernatural by default. Your entire argument is a dressed-up historical God of the gaps. You ask why we should default to a natural explanation. Putting aside that natural explanations are infinitely more frequently confirmed (and, yes, even Christians have to concede this – no one serious today thinks miracles are frequent, so the only debate is between people who say they don’t happen and those who say they happen with exceeding rarity), the answer to that question would be… defaulting to no explanation. And neither a supernatural nor a natural explanation for any of the ostensible mysteries you mention saves Daniel as a text. Even the supernatural options available (i.e. the Jews are being tormented by a god who keeps them alive and suffering) dwarf your preferred theory.
Thank you, Keith, for that commentary and examples. I concur.
I’ll just add some other examples of lost and/or restored nations (though yours are more apt). We must recall there were plenty of Jews already in Palestine before Israel formed, and Israel did not incorporate all of its historically claimed territory, and thus as such, resembles our examples more than Sheffield might realize.
That said:
Oklahoma
Eritrea
Macedonia
Slovakia
Poland
Ukraine
Belarus
Kurdistan
You already mentioned Liberia
And we should add nearly every Western imperial colony achieving independence after conquest (from India to Egypt: in other words, pretty much every country on the enclosed table that has a blank first two columns, too many to count).
Your main point needs to be reiterated: one can always pick at differences between any two of these cases; but since that can be done with every nation, every nation’s formation or recovery is unique. Therefore “uniqueness” indicates no special property at all. It is a commonplace property, and thus unremarkable.
Point of order: I, Fred, am the guy who made the points in response to Jonathan’s followup, not Keith, who was upthread making other astute points 🙂 .
Jonathan, you seem to not be aware that the United Nations and the United States not only lobbied for the formation of Israel in response to WWII, they funded it and supplied the arms for it, all at the behest of the Christian Armageddon lobby. That’s a policy, not a miracle. See the linked sources I provided in my response article.
And Truman had been a supporter of that plan since 1946. See the United States Office of Historian on this. It had been lobbied for for decades. Read the Wikipedia article on the 1948 Arab-Israeli war for more.
The whole “mysterious destiny” argument is so circular and lacking in self awareness that it would be funny if there weren’t so much suffering involved. What I mean is:
Christianity derived from Judaism. The particular sect of Christianity that Constantine converted to accepted certain Jewish writings as scripture. That sect (which eventually morphed into Catholicism and suppressed all the competing Christian sects) interpreted Jewish writings as prophesying the coming of Jesus. Jews rejected that interpretation, and Christians responded with anti-Jewish propaganda. Once Christianity took over the Roman Empire (and eventually the western world), that anti-Jewish propaganda metastasized into virulent anti-Semitism, leading to widespread persecution of Jews.
Eventually, some Jews said “the hell with this” and started working to create an escape state for themselves in Palestine. That seemed like a long shot, but anti-Semitism actually helped them in their quest because powerful people in the West (Arthur Balfour among them, apparently) had come to believe anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about Jews having outsize, mysterious power. Hence, the Balfour Declaration — because Western grandees wanted to appease what they imagined to be a powerful cabal.
Meanwhile, evangelical Christians — always eager for the Parousia — dug through the Bible looking for reasons to believe that this was all part of God’s Great Plan. (No surprise here, because Evangelicals look for “signs” in pretty much any event of note). They of course found endless Biblical references to the fate of ancient Israel because, duh, they had incorporated Jewish writings into their scripture. They interpreted these ancient references as prophecies of modern events, because that’s what they always do. And they came up with a crackpot theory that the foundation of modern Israel heralds the End Times. Because Evangelicals are a strong political force in the United States, politicians appease them by declaring support for Israel and shoveling money its way.
So Christians are using their own history of anti-Semitism and its fallout to push a narrative of Jews’ “mysterious destiny” — a destiny they largely created through bigotry and crackpottery.
(1) Starting off on the wrong foot:
Just to be clear, this section does not invalidate the overall thesis. I’m pointing this out to Jonathan so in the future he doesn’t make a similar mistake which could undermine acceptance of his points. The introduction lays out the general case that Jewish history is somehow so special as to break the any naturalistic explanation. And the three men he cites are a philosopher, a novelist, and a scientist. None of those men are historians. Berdyaev is noted as a passionate and beautiful writer, but one who is not overly concerned with the methods of history. Twain is a smart guy, but in no way an historical authority. In the very essay quoted from, Twain got a recent (at the time) historical event wrong and had to issue a retraction. Snow doesn’t even make the same argument as Jonathan. Snow was talking about genetic superiority, based on scientific achievements and academic testing of Jewish people. He doesn’t address the history at all.
When learning about these things, it immediately sends up red flags. If a writer is leading with people who (1) don’t support his position and (2) aren’t in a position to support his position, it gets really hard not to just dismiss the rest of the case. I understand the argument isn’t predicated on these men, but you shouldn’t be tripping people in the doorway then expecting them to sit through the rest of your lecture either.
(2) The invisible black swan (Sennacherib):
To be totally honest, I’m not an historian either. And while my first point makes me skeptical that your cited sources really say what is claimed, I’m going to generally accept your narrative about the Sennacherib campaign. So we have an army that, under other circumstances, is well run and knows how to keep itself fed and hydrated. It’s a strong army that capture the rest of Jewish lands at least. On one hand, you have the Bible claiming 185,000 soldiers died in one night (note even biblical scholars don’t think that number is correct). In the Assyrian account, you have the king leaving Judah and receiving a large tribute (ostensibly in lieu of being destroyed). So let’s apply Occam’s Razor. What is more likely: the Jewish capital was saved by an angel who slew 185,000 soldiers in one night OR Judah paid tribute to Assyria to avoid being wiped out?
But lets also take it further. Let’s assume Assyria did try to take Judah, but failed due to losses in their ranks. What is more likely: the Jewish capital was saved by an angel who slew 185,000 soldiers in one night OR the army suffered through some disease or plague that limited their effectiveness? In both questions, which of these posits more entities? Which posits more things not in evidence anywhere else in the world? Why should we give total trust to a single source on one side of the war, and almost none to the source on the other side?
(3) The invisible black swan (Alexander the Great):
Alexander the Great did not conquer Jerusalem. But by Jonathan’s own words, it was conquered many times before, and immediately after. That there are minority cases where Jerusalem wasn’t conquered doesn’t seem to support (at all) that the minority cases didn’t have naturalistic explanations. This is even more odd because his narrative seems to rely heavily on Josephus, who was writing hundreds of years after the events, and whose account is not widely accepted as historically accurate.
(4) The invisible black swan (Cyrus the Great):
Another example where something seemingly unlikely is jumped straight to divine intervention. Even if I ignore all the historical analysis that Jonathan does, his own narrative just doesn’t get you there. Did no other people-groups procure privileges from foreign rulers in the past? Just like Alexander the great above, this is counting the hits and ignoring the misses at best. It would be one thing if Jews by default seemed to received special privileges throughout their history that no other group ever did, but Jonathan is literally arguing from the exceptions.
(5) Re-evaluating ancient Jewish texts:
Josephus declared himself a great historian. A 17th century historian who focused heavily on Josephus also thought Josephus was a great historian. Modern scholars get great insight from Josephus, but have often pointed out his biases and potential fabrications. Should we trust William Whiston more than modern scholarship? He didn’t have any more evidence than modern scholars do (less, in fact), and was using antiquated methodology. I’m not sure why this should move us to reconsider anything.
(6) Daniel explains Alexander the Great:
I get that Jonathan believes he’s established a hole in the Alexander story that needs to be filled, but I don’t agree with him. That makes this entire section somewhat pointless. But really, this should have been his positive case from the start. If the evidence that Daniel maps onto history is so strong, Jonathan wouldn’t need to try to prepare the reader with his narrative.
6.1 – Jonathan claims this is not an argument from silence fallacy, but instead that expected evidence is not available. But he doesn’t actually establish that. There’s no indication Arrian cares about Josephus’s accounts (and he doesn’t corroborate them either). Plutarch likewise. Where is the expectation that these other historians both knew AND cared about Josephus’ additions to the Alexander story? Where is the expectation that someone who wrote against Josephus’ description of Alexander’s trip to Jerusalem would have survived a later Christian and pro-Josephus (to the point of interpolation) time?
6.2 – Alexander was highly superstitious, adopting many of the gods of those he conquered therefore…? This actually seems to undermine Jonathan’s narrative. If Alexander was superstitious, and then believed the Jewish god had a special role in his campaigns, then it’s NOT STRANGE AT ALL that he would treat Jews differently. And further, it would then make his successor’s conquering of Judah just as expected, since he did not hold the same beliefs. This is literally providing a more likely naturalistic explanation for the events.
6.3 – This doesn’t appear to provide anything in terms of argument, just lays out an historical narrative that might align with Jonathan’s views.
(7) The bestest explanation (Alexander):
I’m legitimately perplexed here. Jonathan says the simplest explanation for Alexander leaving the Jews alone (a problem seemingly both created and resolved by a later Jewish author), is that he looked at the Book of Daniel and found it amazing. I mean… ok? Let’s assume all of that is true. At best, it tells us that Alexander read himself into the Book of Daniel and therefore though the Jewish god could provide him insight in his battles. Jonathan himself already established Alexander as especially credulous (literally laughed at by his own superstitious companions for being overly superstitious) when it comes to the gods of other peoples. Even if Alexander read Daniel, and believed it talked about his own campaign enough to forgive the Jews, that doesn’t actually tell us anything about the veracity of Daniel itself. This is like presenting a new conspiracy theory to a flat-earther, and being astounded that they accept it.
(8) The most bestest explanation (Cyrus):
I don’t even understand Jonathan’s objection. He is agreeing with Dr. Carrier’s assessment (Cyrus made the decree for lots of groups to gain favor), but then starts putting extra emphasis on this being propaganda. Well, yeah, that’s what how you gain favor. Does that argue the point at all? His thesis that allowing the Jews (and a host of other people) back into their lands would have been messy doesn’t seem to muddle the point at all. If the Jews were really as small and unimportant as Jonathan implies, then why would it be that big a deal that they moved back to a portion of their land? Jonathan isn’t arguing Daniel is true, at best he’s arguing Daniel could be consistent with the time period. But if Daniel is historical fiction, all his points would still be true.
Conclusion:
I appreciate that Jonathan has put the effort in to write this up. His sourcing continues to be problematic, but he is at least showing us his sources to be checked. In the end, though, it feels like Jonathan’s goal is simply to say that there is a story where Daniel is historically accurate. That story doesn’t seem to be the most well supported, and requires a heavy dose of starting from his conclusion – but it could be a coherent story.
(1) … When learning about these things, it immediately sends up red flags.
I noticed the same thing. I had composed my reply (which I’ll publish shortly) before reading your or anyone’s comments, so it is reassuring to see people noticing the same things.
(2) …So let’s apply Occam’s Razor. What is more likely: the Jewish capital was saved by an angel who slew 185,000 soldiers in one night OR Judah paid tribute to Assyria to avoid being wiped out?
This will be my point as well. I’ll even be going into a textual analysis of how the myth was a later addition to the story. Likewise your epicycles point (angels are not a simpler solve than mundane military causes; there were no angels at Thermopylae).
(3) …and whose account is not widely accepted as historically accurate.
Something I had already documented in my original piece; Sheffield is trying to “end round” that with his dubious construct near the end about how we should trust Josephus anyway. But that suffers multiple defects of logic, not least the ignoring of all the actual evidence against it I already presented.
(4) …It would be one thing if Jews by default seemed to received special privileges throughout their history that no other group ever did, but Jonathan is literally arguing from the exceptions.
That’s a good way to put it. I caught some special pleading in his piece but hadn’t noticed how this is, indeed, likewise classified. I’ll add a line on that in my analysis.
(5) …He didn’t have any more evidence than modern scholars do (less, in fact), and was using antiquated methodology.
I think in a way this goes to the heart of the matter. Sheffield is arguing as if the entire history of the modern professionalization of historical methodology didn’t happen. As if we are still phrenologists in 1844. It’s peculiar. But I wonder if this may be common among rank-and-file Christians.
(6) …where is the expectation that these other historians both knew AND cared about Josephus’ additions to the Alexander story? Where is the expectation that someone who wrote against Josephus’ description of Alexander’s trip to Jerusalem would have survived a later Christian and pro-Josephus (to the point of interpolation) time? [etc.]
These are really good observations. I won’t pick up the one about how a “god fearing” Alexander model already provides a natural explanation (that’s a good point, but I need to keep my word count the same, so I cut it, to make room for more fundamental issues; so I’m glad you brought it up). But you have astutely captured the essential elements of a functional Argument from Silence. I’ll be making the same point (with some juicy new information you might enjoy learning that makes your point even stronger here).
(7) …Even if Alexander read Daniel, and believed it talked about his own campaign enough to forgive the Jews, that doesn’t actually tell us anything about the veracity of Daniel itself.
You are on to a crucial point here. I’ll be opening with the fact that…it’s even worse than you think.
(8) If the Jews were really as small and unimportant as Jonathan implies, then why would it be that big a deal that they moved back to a portion of their land? Jonathan isn’t arguing Daniel is true, at best he’s arguing Daniel could be consistent with the time period. But if Daniel is historical fiction, all his points would still be true.
I agree there is a muddle here. I think Sheffield intends this to support his argument for the authenticity of a complete Isaiah, not Daniel. I know that seems off point, but he does slip both arguments in and weave them together here, and I think this is supposed to be a part of that “secondary” mission. And he sort of uses that as a pillar for his Jews Are Special argument, which he sort of tries to use as a Prior Probability amplifier for Jews Never Made Anything Up. Ergo Josephus is reliable. So it does get back to Daniel in a dizzyingly convoluted way. I do address all this in my reply.
I appreciate that Jonathan has put the effort in to write this up. His sourcing continues to be problematic, but he is at least showing us his sources to be checked.
Indeed one thing I have to credit to him is that he is consistently sincere. He is wrong; and badly so. But he isn’t trying to snow us or run a con, as many Christian apologists do.
Good afternoon, Keith,
Thank you for sharing your observations and taking the time to read through my thesis. Regarding your individual points, allow me to share my thought process in constructing my thesis.
Since you cover many points, let me break it down into individual postings to keep the ideas focused for the follow-up conversations.
Under section 1 you stated: “The three men he cites are a philosopher, a novelist, and a scientist. None of those men are historians.
Here was my thought process as to the selection of these figures and their statements:
Firstly, these men were all well-educated and rounded individuals. I think of them as big thinkers, with big and innovative ideas.
Berdyaev was of the class that produced the biggest revolution of the modern era, which was the Russian revolution, whose influence we are still being affected by.
Your statement does appear to be anachronistic, given how different the educational system was that he was a part of compared to the specialized field that defines our modern economy.
His work, The Meaning of History is a philosophy of history, and he clearly states in the work he was well acquainted with Marx economic materialism and applied it in his study to the destiny of peoples.
Furthermore, he studied the history of the Jews and found he couldn’t reconcile their history with a naturalistic worldview.
So, help me understand how you draw the conclusion “he was not overly concerned with the methods of history”?
Secondly, we have the empirical observations these men made about the Jewish people.
Berdyaev is as follows: “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 point to the particular and mysterious foundations of their destiny”
This idea is also found in Twain, very specifically, and in the statements of the Chaplain to Frederick the Great (which I did not quote).
Snow stated his view presented a type of “Scientific Calvinism”, which ideas are consistent with Berdyaev statements from my perspective.
In addition, the article does state Snow did give his views on the destiny of the state of Israel; and regarding his thoughts on genetic superiority, it wasn’t specifically about genetics, but the observation that the Jews coming over from Eastern Europe backward areas were able to go to schools, study hard, and were able to achieve Nobel prizes in science, and dominate that list despite their small population and humble beginnings.
This circles back to Berdyaev point about the Jewish people endurance under horrific conditions and the fateful role played by them in history that point back to their mysterious foundations of their destiny.
This is the central theme my thesis.
The particular points of history that is being reviewed in the article deal with these types of circumstances. Additionally, the Jewish destiny was at stake. My position is not that we automatically default to a “God Hypothesis” or “Angels/Prophecy” as the explanation, but why default to a naturalistic conclusion before all the results are in?
Firstly, thank you very much for replying. It’s helpful to be part of the discussion, small as my part may be.
As much as I want to delve into each point raised, I don’t think it’s terribly pertinent. My original comment was a suggestion, not a refutation of your argument. So I can only point out how your thinking may not jive with your readers’.
“…these men were all well-educated and rounded individuals. I think of them as big thinkers, with big and innovative ideas.”
That’s fine, but that’s not what I would care about in an historical debate. Twain and Snow can honestly be dismissed out of hand. They aren’t historians, and being generally smart really provides no insight as to why we should take interest in their opinions on the subject. Berdyaek is potentially closer to an historian, but his writings are very focused on philosophy, and he is not subtle about his bias/desire towards a theistic model. By now, these ideas should no longer be big or innovative, yet not a single modern historical scholar was cited. This is a red flag for an historical debate.
Good afternoon Keith,
Thank you for your follow-up. I certainly appreciate your participation in the discussion and do take note of your comments on how I can clearly communicate my ideas in future articles.
Help me understand your statement that “not a single modern historical scholar was cited. This is a red flag for an historical debate”
I cited the modern historian William McNeil. McNeil boasts degrees at the University of Chicago, and a PHD at Cornell. He chaired the department of history at Chicago and received numerous prestigious awards. While he supports a naturalistic interpretation of the events in the Assyrian camp, he did recognize the significance of the event in the history of the Jewish people, and formed an entirely different hypothesis on the events outside of Jerusalem.
I also quote from Phillip Sterns article “Assyrian March Against Judah” who also recognized that the state of Judah hung in the balance of that event.
I cited archeological research from Werner Keller’s work. Keller doesn’t support my thesis on Josephus’ report, but he did recognize that it was odd that Alexander tolerated the way of life of the theocracy of Judah. He also seemed to form a naturalistic interpretation of the events in the Assyrian camp.
Mary Ellen Chase isn’t a historian, but her literary contributions is well recognized and she understood the significance of Cyrus’ permit not only for the Jews, but what is meant from the rest of history.
The point is, many scholars of notable repute apart from Berdyaev, Twain, Snow, recognized the significance and strangeness of these events in the history of the Jews.
Additionally, why would we just dismiss the statements from Mark Twain? Is there something from his concluding remarks on the Jews that doesn’t square with history? He has made great insights on the human condition.
Look forward to our continued discussion.
Jonathan, you are conflating a bunch of different historians saying a bunch of different things about a bunch of different events. Not a single one of whom (counting only the actual historians, of recent methodological competence) says any of the things you are. Not one of them says these events have no natural explanation or are unprecedented in history. Not one of them even says they are unusual.
Even the one, McNeil, who attempts an over-confident contrafactual is writing pop market musings (outside peer review) and not surveying the actual recent opinion of scholars in the field. If he had, he’d not have misled you into thinking plague is even a top contender among explanatory models of those events in the actual peer-reviewed literature. The majority of actual Assyriologists today argue pretty much as I do, as I have cited.
Hello again, Jonathan. I think you might not be understanding my point (or I am not being clear). Let’s keep in mind that the original point I made had to do with “Getting off on the wrong foot.” I was not saying you make no references to modern scholars throughout your entire essay, just that you start with people who cannot support your claim (which is confusing and undermines the reader’s likelihood to accept your citations going forward).
Consider you find out there is a symposium about the science behind COVID-19 and the vaccines created for it. You don’t know who’s speaking here, but you get a free ticket and decide to give it a go. Now, you get a seat and proceed to sit through the first three lectures: Elon Musk talks about the politicization of vaccine acceptance; JK Rowling talks about personally contracting COVID; and Alison Sheridan (Archaeologist of the Year 2020) describes how we know the spread of bubonic plague in the Middle Ages.
If your goal was to learn about the science behind COVID and vaccines, wouldn’t you be pretty skeptical at this point that the symposium is really going to touch on those issues? Even if the next lecturer who steps up introduces him/herself as a medical doctor, wouldn’t you be a little less trusting of the information they provide, and want to fact check it a lot more rigorously before accepting it? That’s what I’m trying to point out with your essay. Twain is not a scholar, and does not detail good reason to support an especially amazing history of the Jews. Snow does not even address the point you are trying to make (this has been pointed out several times now, and is plainly obvious from reading the article you referenced). Berdyaev is not an historian. You can call him a scholar, but you wouldn’t trust an archaeologist to tell you about COVID.
I have to correct you here. The article you cite is about Snow’s argument for the genetic superiority of the Jews. It does not discuss alternative causal explanations.
The role of education culture in post-war Judaism (which tracks similarly to the same in Confucianism) is a relatively new theory (I cite the study on it myself in my reply).
Keith,
Responding to point 2:
What is more likely is weighing the evidence after its all in, than making an a priori assumption. I’m just saying we shouldn’t be jumping to conclusions.
There are several competing theories. Both the ancients and modern historians were baffled by the events that transpired within the Assyrian camp-hence the multiple competing theories.
If the goal was money from Jerusalem, why attack 46 cities, only to leave the capital and its walls standing. In that case, they could have went to Jerusalem first.
His predecessors took the capital city during their conquests. Are we suggesting the Assyrian king didn’t care about his legacy? I referred to this point in the article.
Militarily, if you wanted to secure your rear, and not fight a war on two fronts, you take out the smaller areas before moving on to the capital city.
In terms of tribute, which was very common in the ancient world, did all this transpire in a day, and then they packed their bags and left?
Even if tribute was secured, do you still leave the walls of Jerusalem in tack, Hezekiah as King and not deport the inhabitants of Jerusalem? The Assyrian empire had a clear deportation policy.
My point here is I think it is important to take everything into consideration before a judgement is made.
I will be honest here and admit I read Dr. Carrier’s response before I saw this reply. I will try not to rely on his response, but certain points are difficult to avoid.
It’s not an a priori assumption to look for naturalistic explanations. Naturalistic explanations are literally the most common explanations and the most well supported. Also, all of your response is predicated on your assumption that the bible is accurate. Really, take out that assumption (which is not based on the historical data), and everything falls apart.
I will refer to Dr. Carrier here. This is a stretch at best, and false at worst. Modern historians aren’t really split on this. It’s only fringe or fundamentalist views that differ from the obvious explanation. As pointed out, the bible itself gives a naturalistic explanation (corroborated by other sources), and then contradicts itself with an unnecessary and nonsensical legend.
When it comes to the rest of your comments here, it’s really strange you think these are thought-provoking questions. If you don’t start from the premise that Assyria ran away from Jerusalem in a single day due to a massive military failure, none of these questions are difficult to answer. Jerusalem was without the strength to do any damage, in no small part by being bankrupted to stay alive. There’s no reason to think getting a massive tribute instead of wasting further resources on Jerusalem would diminish his legacy (or bite him in the back).
I also want to point out that you wrote both of these things just three sentences apart:
I mean, mind blown. For one, there’s no reason to presume money WAS the original goal. More likely, the Jews realized they were about to be demolished, and chose the less bad option of giving away everything they had instead. For two, you’ve literally explained why they attacked 46 cities before the capitol. All of this stuff makes perfect sense if you start from the evidence, and not from an inerrantist view of the bible.
Good afternoon Keith,
Regarding the following observation:
“It’s not an a priori assumption to look for naturalistic explanations. Naturalistic explanations are literally the most common explanations and the most well supported”
Here we agree. Even as an Anglican, I am still a by product of our modern era. I don’t interpret sightings of bigfoot as manifestations of the devil, as someone from the middle ages would. Even from my stand point, it is only natural to begin from a naturalistic perspective. However, when there is an observable black swan or an indication of one, do we engage it, or dismiss it because it doesn’t fit with a naturalistic presupposition? This is all I’m asking.
My assumption isn’t that the bible is correct on this event or any other, but I’m asking questions, and trying to make sense of the data. Isaiah was presumably there with Hezekiah, so he is a relevant witness of the events.
I do also have to take into consideration, as I quoted in the article that “The armies of Nineveh always sought to capture the royal city of any country in which they were making a campaign” This is the empirical observation of his predecessors Shalmaneser V and Sargon II.
The tribute makes sense before they arrive on your doorstep, as the Hebrew sources indicate. It was also reported that the tribute he received didn’t stop his attack on Lachish. Lachish was only 30 miles away from Jerusalem. It seems odd that Hezekiah hearing about what was unfolding at Lachish would hold off a large bribe until Sennacherib shows up at his front door.
Also it is reported that there was a negotiation on a terms of surrender. Keep in mind Sennacherib was giving away the surrounding areas to his vassal rulers.
As you indicated, the Jews didn’t have the strength to stand up to the Assyrian army, so why were they allowed to keep their city? The bribe most likely keeps you alive, but then your deported, with some of the Jewish leaders getting executed, and then the land is given away to his vassal rulers.
Then there is the Babylonian historian Berossus, quoted by Josephus, whose report is consistent with the Jewish records. I certainly have to take that record into account.
At minimum, this is a very strange sequence of events.
Formalized Gullibility.
We do not have reliable access to anything Isaiah thought or said. You are not having a conversation with Isaiah. This is the fundamental problem of history as an empirical science: we never get to talk to these people; all we do have is edited and mediated, even by themselves (no one is perfectly reliable or honest), but often by others after them who had custody of and copied and modified and often added or deleted things. We as historians must apply a critical method to texts. It is not valid to just gullibly believe what we have is accurate and reliable. That’s not doing history anymore.
In this case we only have access to a book called Isaiah, which the evidence shows has been edited over time. To “presume” otherwise is not valid reasoning; to the contrary, it’s gullible. Whereas on the other side, we don’t presume it’s the case, because the field has presented abundant evidence that it’s the case. There is no evidence to the contrary. And even weak evidence beats none. But even if we lacked that, we would still need a reason to be confident we have a reliable record. Without which, we still cannot assume we do.
The Kings narrative is out of order, because it has stitched in the siege myth from Isaiah after the tribute resolution account, as I noted in my reply, producing a nonsensical narrative, as well as a hopelessly implausible one; and one that contradicts actual eyewitness sources (which Kings is not). When we fix the error, we find that we cannot trust the sequence of events in the Kings literature or literature derived from it. So no such judgment as this is possible, least of all without further information, which we don’t have. We simply do not know this was the order of events, or even if it was, why it was. Therefore, we can base no arguments on “assuming” these things. That’s more Formalized Gullibility, the opposite of critical historical method.
As has been explained multiple times now, continuing a siege is always expensive. Always. There is no such thing as a “cost no money and lose no soldiers or time” siege, no matter how weak the besieged may be. Time is a precious resource. Troops managing a siege on one front can’t be moved to guard or fight another. Money and resources diverted to them, are thus not available for other battles on other fronts. So any sane general, no matter how ruthless, will always accept a well-funded surrender. It allows them to reallocate more troops and resources to other campaigns, indeed where they might even be more needed, and at the same time, actually funds them. In other words, not only does the warlord get all those resources back to spend on another battle or war, already an invaluable benefit only a feel would forego, but he also gets a vast sum of money and resources to help fund them and other regiments in other wars, an even greater benefit only a fool would forego. There is no evidence Sennacherib was that big of a fool. And to assert that he was on no evidence is simply Reverse Incredulity.
You did not present any article that actually tested rather than just gullibly asserted this. This is an example of an assertion made from the armchair that you haven’t actually vetted. Have you actually checked how many times these rulers struck a siege because the target surrendered or paid them to? Always question your sources. Always ask of any assertion, “Do we even know that that’s true?” And then find out. That’s doing history.
It’s also a fallacy. The most relevant comparand is Sennacherib. It would not matter if his predecessors were wastefully irrational warlords who behaved foolishly contrary to historical precedent throughout history the world over (though you would still need to prove that with evidence before asserting it as you just did), if Sennacherib himself was sensible. So the question is, are there other examples of him accepting surrenders, particularly well-paid ones? Have you checked his entire historical war record to make sure? And can you even? As in, do we even have a record of every city Sennacherib threatened in every war in his reign, so as to make assertions about what he “never” did? You need to think and act like a historian. Not a Christian apologist. Apologetics is designed to avoid these questions; real history is designed to ask them, and answer them, and then non-fallaciously take those answers into account.
Dr. Carrier has already responded to the main factual points of contention. I won’t presume to be able to provide more on those points. I will simply address the more issue about starting points.
You say:
“My assumption isn’t that the bible is correct on this event or any other, but I’m asking questions, and trying to make sense of the data.”
I don’t think this is the case. And to be clear, I don’t think it even makes sense for you to say this. You are a Christian. You have (both with Dr. Carrier and in your own writing) consistently claimed to believe the bible is a highly accurate historical document. I don’t think it would be honest of you to say that you didn’t believe the accuracy of the bible before you addressed the history of Isaiah.
But further, it is completely belied in your essay:
“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.”
Ignoring that this isn’t true, there are naturalistic explanations both from ancient and modern historians, it’s predicated on the Biblical account. The moment you ask if that account is true, that entire sentence becomes moot. There’s no reason to think Sennarcherib suddenly or arbitrarily withdrew. You are using the word suddenly because you already think there was a military defeat that happened in one night (as opposed to a standard military withdrawal after a tribute). You are calling it arbitrary because you are just ignoring the obvious explanation because of a legend added to the bible. If you weren’t committed to the biblical account being true, there’s no reason to think some other cause was needed.
“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.”
Ignoring the issue where McNeil’s entire argument isn’t a mainstream (or even scholarly) view, this is only a problem if you assume the biblical account. Take out the assumption that the Assyrian army was ravaged in a single night, and McNeil’s argument is STILL more probably than an angel attack.
“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.”
Do you really think 185,000 men were killed in one night? You are aware that Sennarcherib went on to several successful military campaigns AFTER this, right? Do you have any idea how many people 185,000 even is in 700 BC? No critical historian would take this as corroboration of anything. It’s only if you already are giving credence to the biblical account (as Josephus does), that you would assume this provides corroboration.
All of your questions are predicated on the biblical account being true or at least being roughly accurate. I know you believe you have reasons to think that. But many of us don’t. And if we don’t, your argumentation here can’t even begin to convince us.
To be fair to Jonathan, the Mongols did pretty prominently break the pattern Richard is talking about in terms of being so ruthless that they destroyed everything in their path, precisely so that they had no enemies behind them. But not only was this not a universal pattern even with them, but that pattern is not the norm. Most conquerors in antiquity, from what I’ve seen, did indeed happily negotiate the matters of tribute, surrender, etc. In fact, to some extent, the whole game was tribute: you conquer someone, they give taxes. So them doing that once is the start of power over them. There’s little difference between a city you nominally haven’t conquered that pays you whenever you roll up and a city you have conquered.
That’s a good general point, but ironically, your example isn’t even correct. The Mongols routinely used the same carrot-stick strategy, and spared cities and nations that surrendered and paid tribute. Most famously the Goryeo Dynasty in Korea and the Rus prince Alexander Nevsky. Those are large scale examples; many individual cities were spared by the same strategy, as any detailed history of the Mongol conquests will attest.
I actually don’t see much bafflement from ancient or modern historians at the events you discuss. The literature then as now seems to have no problem explaining them, or doesn’t notice any need to. Please don’t confuse your bafflement for someone else’s. This looks more like Reverse Incredulity to me.
Consult the size of the tribute, attested both in Kings and the Prism. Wars cost money. And this guy was fighting one on multiple fronts. So, option one, an expensive war detaining and expending a considerable amount of your forces and resources, or option two, detain and spend and lose nothing and instead gain vast sums of cash to relocate your forces and fund the other wars. No miracle is required to explain why even the most ruthless of conquerors would elect option two. You are deploying Reverse Incredulity here. That is not a historical method.
Even your own source (the Bible) says it was. So we have two corroborating sources, including both an eyewitness and state document and a source speaking against interest. And aainst this weighs…exactly zero evidence. There is therefore no reason to doubt it. You are deploying Formalized Gullibility here. That is not a historical method.
This is a comment regarding Boyce’s assertion in the debate breakdown that late authorship would require a ‘conspiracy’. I did an experiment and copied out Daniel 12 (379 words ESV) by hand and it took 21 minutes. This corresponds to a rate of 10.2 hours for the full book (est. 11052 words ESV), which is to say a full days work.
Let’s allow a generous 6 weeks for an imaginative fellow to compose a full book of Daniel on wax tablets. At a rate of a copy of day this fellow could then produce another 100 copies on papyrus over the next 3.5 months.
I’m not sure how many settlements there were in Judea at the time but that’s likely enough copies to have one in every settlement, hamlet, town, or city with at least one literate person. Let’s allow another full month for distribution by an individual we can refer to as “Mr. Hammer’s minister of propaganda” (though he need not be acting in official capacity and likely wasn’t).
Thus in only 6 months every settlement in Judea with a literate person would be aware of Daniel. This ‘conspiracy’ would only require 2 people: an energetic and imaginative scribe and an agent sympathetic to Mr. Hammer’s organization willing to distribute it and promote it.
It actually sounds like a fun project.
You are quite right. I would put the pace at a slower rate than you do (papyrus and quill work isn’t as rapid; likewise wax and stylus; and composition, as opposed to copying, entails many stages of thought and editing) but not by much to make a conceptual difference to your conclusion.
I make this point myself in “How We Know Daniel Is a Forgery” that Sheffield is responding to. My conclusion there:
I identify their argument as an example of Reverse Incredulity, a common tool of apologetics I will discuss in my analysis of Sheffield today.
Jonathan is a nice guy and a good writer, so this post being so fallacious is frustrating.
What I find baffling is that Jonathan chose to spend his opening word count citing Twain and Berdyaev. Berdyaev is the only one making a serious argument, and he… isn’t. Neither Berdyaev nor Jonathan cite any actual principles of history that say that Jewish survival is especially noteworthy.
As a sociologically trained person, I would look at Berdyaev’s claim and ask: Is it true? Like, is there a rigorous rule where peoples in the position the Jews were in happen to always disappear as people? And there is no such principle anywhere. So the argument falls as a bald assertion and an argument from incredulity. Berdyaev may find the Jews remarkable, but that’s not an argument. And we know so little about how human societies actually work that trying to make the claim that a particular outcome is so impossible as to imply some kind of divine providence or special position is just not in the cards. Outliers are omnipresent.
That pretty much hoses the argument, but I also see others.
Jonathan cites Josephus who argued that just assuming that what the Greeks thought of history and other issues was flawed. But then he repeats the same problem, only with the Jews. I didn’t see primary sources being extensively cited. Why did the Assyrians do what they did? The answer can easily be, “We don’t know”. Because in most of the cases Jonathan mentions we don’t have a cross-section of the histories of people involved. There are countless reasons why an army may stop: Maybe a general has proven too ambitious and is recalled; maybe there was an unknown political calculus; maybe the final conquest would have been uniquely difficult. Europeans almost certainly thought that God has specially protected them from the Mongols when they turned around from their invasion, but it was just internal politics.
In other words, as Richard’s response centers on, my problem is Jonathan’s methodology. How can we justify the idea that invisible activity is responsible for history from the quality of the data we have? We can’t. As always, agnosticism would be the better response even given Jonathan’s case being mostly true.
Then there is the problem of the cherry-picking, which others have noted. What is Jonathan’s theory? The Jews are special. Yeah; so’s every group. That’s what makes them a group. If we want to say that the Jews had special providence, why didn’t they not have a Holocaust against them? Why did they keep being slaughtered? If we were to be honest and not put our theory before our evidence, if the Jews are truly inexplicable, it’s evidence for a force or God that wants them to suffer, keeping just enough of them alive to remember this pain. Even Christianity (and Islam) is evidence for this conclusion: Judaism’s greatest global impact by far is a religion that stemmed from it and yet routinely persecutes it. We could just as easily point to the Chinese who have remained important and influential on the global stage for thousands of years, or African-Americans and Native Americans who both survived incredible violence to make major contributions.
So, yes, the Assyrians may not have conquered Jerusalem… but other forces did. The Jews have endured pretty much everything. Which illustrates the problem. If we point to an awful thing the Jews survived, then Jonathan can claim that it proves the theory that they are special. if we point to a fate averted, then he can do the same. The only thing that could falsify Jonathan’s position is if the Jews had actually been wiped out. That’s not a valid way of arguing.
And all of this doesn’t establish that Jewish sources are infallible. In fact, that’s practically circular: Jonathan is leaning on the strength of Jewish sources to argue for the strength of Jewish sources.
This hits on the core of it. Among the things the Enlightenment taught us is one central principle: always ask of anything you think or are told, “Is that even true?” Including, of any methods you think or are told you should use to answer that question with: of any method, what exactly does it consist of doing, and “Does that even work?”
This is also a true and important point. Our not being able to know things is one thing us historians are trained to get used to, but that most people find extremely frustrating. But I think the problem here is more fundamental.
Sheffield’s argument is something like, “If no available causal paradigm explains some fact, except mine, then probably mine.” That’s formally valid; as in, if the premises are true, the conclusion follows (I can sketch out the deductive probability calculus if I needed to).
The problem is however the argument’s soundness, not its validity. It is not so much that we don’t know why certain groups acted as they did (we could all grant that for the sake of argument); it’s that we have ample causal paradigms that fit the known facts, and therefore we don’t need Sheffield’s. In fact, in its full intention, it’s the least probable of the available causal models (the supernatural is technically not even an available causal model; unlike the others, we have zero confirmed instances of it ever being the case, which is generally what we mean by “not an available option”). And even in its most restrained intention (whereby we can still have what Sheffield wants without any supernatural occurrence), it does not compete all that well with the other options available, empirically or explanatorily—and is ultimately refuted by the evidence these books didn’t even exist at the times required. Which makes this a cart before the horse fallacy: Sheffield wants his argument to be evidence that outweighs and thus refutes all that other evidence, but all that other evidence is stronger and more extensive—and weak evidence cannot trump strong; it’s the other way around, as again I could show the probability calculus to demonstrate.
At a minimum, as a bare matter of logic, if you want to make a claim about a set you need to have a level of certainty about the set that allows you to make that claim, and if you want to make a claim about a member of a set you have to have either data about that member specifically or data about the set. Lots of arguments that are made about social or historical matters are straightforwardly false because they’re based on premises that are just not in evidence. Yeah, it’s frustrating for historians and sociologists and political scientists and economists alike that we don’t have better theory, but… we don’t.
I would say that the “If no available causal paradigm…” argument is actually only true if you have a well-founded belief that you have a substantial array of the possible causal paradigms available. If something can be one of a hundred things and you’ve eliminated two, it’s straightforwardly irrational to think that it’s a third you chose, even though it’s true that that third becomes a better option than the two you eliminated. And both in history and in study of societies I simply don’t think that our granular understandings of causal paradigms are remotely good enough to make the kind of claims Jonathan is making. Broadly, naturalism should win out on average even when there’s apparent mystery for the reasons you’re discussing. But I also think it’s critical to note that Jonathan is making an argument that hinges on a more narrow argument for a lack of an available causal paradigm, and I think it’s actually a much bigger problem that the entire conversation is based on GIGO: We just don’t have reliable enough data.
The problem comes when the apologetic two-step then tries to convert a lack of knowledge into assurance of their belief system. At that point, yes, it is critical to stop that retreat and say “No, we have to default to what the evidence shows is likely, and the evidence shows that your causal paradigm never occurs”. But I think that catching people out on the first step is especially critical. A few whacked moles can go a long way to showing that the apologists’ apparent strong argument is actually based on an array of false premises. (Like how you noted the fact that everyone involved on both sides, Sennacherib and the Jews alike, basically agreed that a large payment was made. I think this is why Jonathan needs the Jews to be specially magically honest and reliable: By default, if two opposing factions agree that an event happened, it probably happened, and the event is enough to answer Jonathan’s question, unless we somehow believe the Jews were also telling the truth about angels). Methodologically, making claims like Jonathan is trying to make is not possible. The theory isn’t there to even begin to ask the right questions to investigate Jonathan’s assertion without rigor. (What does it mean for a culture to survive? How does one differentiate between a culture evolving and it dying?) Jonathan should surely want a standard of belief for something as important as the idea that there’s a master race that’s higher than “It’s not literally impossible”.
Otherwise, agreed, precisely as a result of the pretty obvious fact that you clued me into that I had informally understood and communicated but hadn’t realized was formally true: The supernatural is obviously far less common than the natural, as everyone honest has to agree, so even those who think the supernatural exists have to agree that natural causes must be assumed until supernatural ones are ruled in, and that means that “no natural causes are presently available” isn’t good enough. (Funny that this same problem has come up in the writings you’ve done this month on Daniel and on abiogenesis alike!)
I concur on all points.
Indeed, you are getting at another point I have brought out before: apologetics depends, always, on leaving evidence out. Like, in this case, evidence regarding what actually commonly happens in human cultures and geopolitical relations. Such that when you put the evidence left out, back in, the conclusion reverses.
In essence this means religion is based on the apocryphal ostrich technique: keep head in sand, Know Nothing, so you can then claim incredulity at what is in fact commonplace behavior. When we reject that method, and instead pull our head out and make an effort to actually look around at what commonly really does happen, we end up…well, no longer Christians, for one thing.
Good afternoon, Frederic, thank you for your observations, and your kind words:
Let me help clarify my opening remarks from the article, since there have been several questions asked with respect to this section.
Firstly, the goal of this article was to build on my previous arguments from the debate with Dr. Jim and Josh, with a special emphasis on Josephus’ report on the presentation of Daniel to the Macedonian King, Alexander in 332 BC.
My engagement with Dr. Carrier was to pursue the thesis that Josephus’ report presents the simplest explanation as to why Alexander did not capture Jerusalem. Additionally, Josephus’ report of Cyrus’ reading of Isaiah explains why the Jews were spared and allowed to rebuild their temple and city walls.
Keep in mind that the political reality that pervades these situations is Carl Schmitt’s friend and enemy distinction that the ruler must decide on in a state of exception (newly created empires).
From the worldview of Cyrus and Alexander, the gods would have also been part of that friend enemy distinction.
In most cases the Jews were the enemy. So, all of a sudden, how did the Jews and their god become the friends?
This is what is strange in the history of the Jewish people; consequently, these events are part of a bigger trend in the destiny of the Jewish people that was noticed by Nikolai Berdyaev and Mark Twain. This is not just my observation.
The key takeaway from Nikolai Berdyaev is he applied the materialist and positivist criterion to the destinies of people, and he felt it broke down in the case of the Jews—as a result he left Marxism.
What is clear from his statements, is basically what we also find in Mark Twain, who makes the same empirical observation of the Jewish people.
Help me understand from your perspective what isn’t true from Mark Twain’s concluding remarks regarding the Jews?:
“To conclude. – If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one per cent. of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star-dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of; but he is heard of, has always been heard of.
He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world’s list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers.
He has made a marvelous fight in this world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished.
The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?”
Snow recognized the same statistical anomaly by looking at the list of Nobel Prize winners. The main point I am illustrating in the opening of the article is something just doesn’t add up in the history of the Jews people. This empirical observation was made by the Chaplin to Frederick the Great Berdyaev, Twain, Snow and others.
Jonathan, you’re really not engaging with my points at all.
I point out that you have no actually data-rooted, rigorous reason to make any of the comparisons you do. You then proceed to… make more arguments without such a basis, including a friend-enemy distinction. You’re not showing me some theory that’s been confirmed with thousands of examples.
That’s fine for ordinary history: The data just isn’t good enough. Even when we have a sociological or political science theory that’s really well established to work in the modern context in a good cross-cultural vein, something like dyadic democratic peace theory (yes, I have huge objections to that theory, but it is true that there are very few inter-democratic wars in the modern period), anyone serious trying to apply these theories to history knows that we have to take it with a big grain of salt. Even if we had perfect theory today, barring the ability to literally run the clock backwards using theory, we would have to accept huge margins of error in associated “predictions” about the past because we know that the data that we have about the past is so heavily distorted.
The problem is that you are trying to argue for a transcendental master race in order to then argue that this master race never acts like other humans would so that you can then claim that a text that gets numerous details about the time it was supposedly written wrong (and not minor errors; what Richard showed in his initial articles, and what it seems the consensus is on why Daniel is a forgery, is that Daniel makes errors akin to someone saying Donald Trump was America’s first black President) yet gets details closer to a particular historical point where it was convenient for that text to be deployed and/or re-deployed right and then starts getting all those details wrong again, in addition to numerous other clear signs of propagandistic forgery, can’t be because Jews aren’t like all other humans and don’t lie. This isn’t just ludicrous, man, it’s actually reprehensible.
To make strong claims like that, you need theory that is as good as the theory of evolution. You don’t have that. You have the messy, highly contingent, exception-ridden theories of history. That alone makes it game over.
Take Schmitt’s enemy-friend distinction. Okay, you cite one source. Great. Is Schmitt infallible? What was his data pool? What was his methodology? Has his methodology been experimentally verified? Nope; historians don’t do that. (The fact that they can’t is moot here: You don’t have the data you don’t have). Are there even, say, computer simulations that support Schmitt’s theory?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schmitt/
What do you know? No! Schmitt’s theory is actually highly contested, and every article that I read that used it conceded that it does not have unlimited application. So… that point is done, Jonathan. You just don’t have the certitude possible to make the argument you’re making.
Jonathan, let me say that when you do something like that engaging with someone like me… you don’t just sound unconvincing, you actually produce some annoyance. I told you the strength of the argument needed to convince me. You’re not talking to me. You’re talking past me. I appreciate how polite and reasonable you can be, but I hope to communicate that this feels deeply insulting.
Let’s say for a second that Schmitt’s theory was as well-established as something like dyadic democratic peace theory. (It’s not. It’s also antiquated, furthering one of the problems that Richard pointed out to you: You keep on citing theorists who are a friggin’ century old. Schmitt made many of his key insights in the 1920s and 1930s). Your argument is that you have identified that the historical testimony we have seems to be inexplicable in light of this theory. So, immediately, there are at minimum three interpretations:
The Jews have a special providence
This is an outlier, an exception to the rule, a statistical deviation
There’s some reason we don’t know based in incomplete data about the period that explains the discrepancy
Your problem, Jonathan, is that #2 and #3 are at least as likely as #1. In reality, they are infinitely more likely. #1 requires magic, and it contradicts the evidence. If the Jews had a special providence, they shouldn’t be being exterminated. Their survival is moot: If you were honest, you would expect God’s chosen people to have never been put into that position in the first place. #2 and #3 are omnipresent in history. If you were to make this argument under formal peer review, I have no doubt that your methodology would be scorched at this point. Which is why you have to rely on pseudo-sources like Berdyaev.
That was the argument I made to you before Richard exposed the con that you are running, however unwittingly: There is no mystery. The Jews paid off the Assyrians. Alexander actually never acted like you claim he did. (While we’re at it, note how you don’t invoke the fact that Alexander got virtually nowhere in India and didn’t even scratch China to claim that the Indians and the Chinese have special providence. Wouldn’t it be better to not have been invaded in the first place?) When I learned about the tribute both factions agree was paid, I became real annoyed, Jonathan. You had hidden evidence. What seemed like an interesting historical mystery wasn’t. And the worst part is that it knew that was coming. I knew your argument had to be based on cherry-picking. Because all apologetic arguments are.
You have no response to my sadist god proposal either. and it explains all your data but better. The Jews have an unusual rate of survival and a disproportionate amount of cultural and intellectual influence in the modern era… both of which only makes them even more hated. Nazis invoke their supposed mental superiority as a reason to view them as dangerous parasites (you do realize you are signal-boosting Nazi reasoning, right?) They get to participate in culture and still be mistrusted and feared, their very participation being viewed as contaminating that culture. When they regained a state after thousands of years, it was done in the aftermath of a genocide that had targeted them and millions of others and as a process of colonialist abuse that they became part of, and that put them into the position of being a militarized vassal state. Moreover, when they got that state back, they got it back in a secular form, which pretty much single-handedly destroys Abrahamic interpretations for this supposed success. If you were interpreting the evidence with an unbiased eye, you would assume that the Jews were being forced to suffer by a Cartesian demon. And nothing you have pointed to suggests that Jews are especially honest or would have been especially reliable transmitters of information (aside from scholarly success that didn’t occur at the time). Their great influence could mean they are just very good at surviving and maybe even devious…
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/08/01/please-evolutionary-psychology-just-fade-away/
Again, you do realize that invoking Snow means you are perilously close to the land of the neo-Nazis, right? This isn’t a genetic fallacy, man. I am telling you as someone who has had this debate, in a form that I know you would find grotesque, that you are invoking extremely bad theory that is propagated by bad actors.
Take the Jewish intellectual advantage. Okay, so were the Jews the first to make democracy? Nope. The ones to advance science in the Greek and Roman era? Nope. Only in a very specific context (being as charitable as possible, the collapse of the Roman Empire onward) were they able to secure enough money and ability to study to achieve a huge footprint. That not only stuffs Snow’s explanation and shows that he’s using a bad data set and relying on pseudoscience, it stuffs yours too. If Jews had a special providence, they would have been good at what you claim they were good at all the time. Your argument is exactly the same as the ones made by the white supremacists; We’re winning now, so that can’t be historical contingency, it must be something that is special about us! Ignore all the times we lost in the past; that doesn’t count! It’s cherry-picking, making it illogical, and it’s racist claptrap, making it immoral. And you’re trying to defend a holy book on this basis.
Steinberg thrashed Sowell and others trying to propagate a “model minority” theory (the discredited notion that you are now arguing from) on the supposed unparalleled Jewish superiority in the United States. He pointed out that the Jewish success in America had very mundane explanations: They came here, settled in big cities like New York (and later Los Angeles) that ended up being as a result of where they moved the financial and cultural centers of the world, and worked their way up the ladder. It took generations in the United States for Jews to go from small business owners to students threatening the WASP academic club with their “actually giving a crap about knowledge”. When you combine a rabbinical culture that valued knowledge, the fact that immigrants who are not literal refugees of last resort are disproportionately entrepreneurial spirits (well-accepted immigrant studies conclusion, by the way, infinitely more well-supported than Snow or Schmitt), and the specifics of the country they immigrated to, there is nothing to explain. As Richard would put it, there is no epicycle left. Some Jews (not, noteworthily, Sephardic or Ethiopean Jews, who are still pretty screwed over even in Israel – funny how the data you’re operating from only cares about the white ones) had the right cultural traits at the right time. And even if you want to invoke a mystery from that, Steinberg’s response to Sowell’s entire methodology, the response Sowell never recovered from, hoses you. When you identify a cultural trait that gives supposed advantage or disadvantage, you are at the start of sociological inquiry, not the end. Cultural traits are rooted in a context: They emerge from, and then move on to influence, an environment defined by, among other things, political economy. Magic is never a good theory. Neither is innate cultural or genetic superiority. Human history is just too messy to make those claims viable.
There’s other points I made that you’re not engaging with, but this response is long enough already. So, just take this for what it is, a friendly retort done in admiration for your courtesy and your willingness to defend your views in a hostile space with arguments that are at least interesting: I’m a Buddhist pantheist, and I don’t find your argument compelling. I am deeply skeptical that there is anything supernatural, but my mind could be changed by evidence. The reason I don’t find your argument compelling isn’t hostility to your religious views. It’s that your argument is not possible to seriously pose. You are relying on a quality of data and theory that isn’t available to you, or anyone else. You are making extraordinary claims with deeply, deeply ordinary “evidence”. It doesn’t cut the mustard.
Sheffield seems to be claiming that “Jews are still here today despite many attempts to exterminate them” equals the conclusion that a magic sky wizard is protecting them. This is begging the question, or assuming his conclusion in the premise.
Lots of other people groups are still here, despite extermination attempts.
The rest of his argument seems to be, “why would the Jews of antiquity or their historians make any of this stuff up, no matter how fantastic it sounds?”
Does he apply this logic only to Daniel, or does it work for the rest of the OT? Surely they wouldn’t make up stories like the Earth standing still for a day, or knocking down city walls by blowing on goat horns, or curing diseases through animal sacrifice?
And it’s all interspersed with claims about circumstantial evidence that can never be physically verified. This whole essay is fail.
Interesting article related to this topic:
Israeli Archaeologists Reveal Secrets of Assyrian War Machine That Conquered Ancient Judah https://www.haaretz.com/hblocked?returnTo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.haaretz.com%2Farchaeology%2Fisraeli-archaeologists-reveal-secrets-of-assyrian-war-machine-that-conquered-ancient-1.10366408%3Futm_source%3Dpocket_mylist