The main holy text of Rabbinical Judaism, outside the Tanakh, is the Talmud. This book is believed to be on some level divinely inspired, supposedly encompassing the great and reliable memories of the ancient Jewish sages. However, the book is filled with errors and anachronisms, which calls into question the reliability of the Rabbinical tradition. One problem is that the sages in the Talmud believed that Esther and Daniel met one another.
The book of Daniel is set between the third year of Jehoiakim to the third year of Cyrus, which is 605-536 BCE. The history of Nebuchadnezzar has been strongly confirmed by secular history. He constructed the hanging gardens. He also fought in the battle of Carchemish against Egypt in 605.
The book of Esther is set during the reign of Ahasuerus, also known as Xerxes I (not Artaxerxes II). This is the same Xerxes that invaded Thermopylae and killed Leonidas I of Sparta. Xerxes reigned 485-464 BCE, and the book of Esther is set during the tenth year of Xerxes' reign, which is in 476, or about four years after he fought Leonidas and the Spartans. This means that given the latest possible date for Daniel and the absolute earliest possible date for Esther, Daniel could not have possibly been any younger than 130 years old at the time of Esther. The problem is, nobody is supposed to live more than about 120 years, since God decreed in Genesis 6:3 “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” In other words, there is no possible way that Daniel was alive during the time of Esther.
How is this significant? If we go to the Talmud, Bava Batra, page 4A, we read about the Rabbinical discussions of Daniel. In this passage, the Rabbis argue that a Jew is not allowed to give advice to a non-Jew regarding how the latter can receive atonement.
Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Yehoshua ben Levi "For what reason was Daniel punished? Because he gave advice to Nebuchadnezzar on how to escape the wrath of God"
The Talmud will now try to explain the well-accepted belief that Daniel was punished for advising king Nebuchadnezzar.
"And how do we know that Daniel was punished? In Esther we read 'And Esther called to Hasach' -- this is Daniel. Daniel was named Hasach because he was cut down from his greatness. But what about those who say that all affairs of the state were decided by him? He was punished by being thrown into the den of lions!"
The Rabbis agree that Daniel was punished, but disagree how God punished him. The first school says that he was punished by being stripped of power, and the latter school argues that he was punished by being thrown into the den of lions, even though the book of Daniel seems to indicate otherwise.
In a footnote of the Artscroll edition, it says that in the latter opinion, where Daniel was punished by being thrown to lions, Daniel retained his high office during the reign of Ahasuerus, and the name "Hasach" does not imply that Daniel was stripped of power for giving advice to Nebuchadnezzar.
Both schools of Rabbinical thought differ on why Daniel was called Hasach. This means that the Rabbis of the Talmud agreed that Daniel of the book of Daniel was the same person as Hasach in the book of Esther. But of course, there is no way Daniel could be the same person as Hasach, because he could have lived that long.
of course this was an open door
ReplyDeletethe Talmud is of course famous for its many asynchronic conversations that were merely compilations, authorities are wrongly ascribed (see Neusner) etc...
this however, is even better cuz it lays bare the compiled product as even being inaccurate
One Jerusalem prof once told me that for Judaism historical accuracy is of little importance: I also wonder if indeed all the critical german garbage leading to few good fruits is actually of little offense in Judaism, cuz the Talmud had made it clear all the while that the homiletical superseded the factual actual. Don't get me wrong Judaism well preserved invaluable traditions, but if the factual actual doesn't matter much then how is one supposed to still be credible?
Impossible?
ReplyDeleteAbraham - 175
Isaac - 180
Jacob - 147
Well, based on your argument - which heavily relies on secular history over talmudic history - the Bible itself should be considered totally anachronistic. The Book of Esther itself says that Mordechai was alive during Nebuchanezzar's war against Israel (Esther 2:5-6, although one could claim that it was Kish who was part of the exile, see Wikipedia, Mordechai). Furthermore, the Bible tells us that the exile would take only 70 years (Jeremiah 25:11, 29:10, Daniel 9:2, Zechariah 7:5 and other places, if I'm not mistaken) -- which is flatly contradicted by the same secular history that you quoted.
ReplyDeleteI like the post, because it is important that we subject our own worldviews to the same criticism with which we subject others.
ReplyDeleteThe siege and fall of Jerusalem occurred in 607, and the decree of Cyrus allowing the Jews to return to Jerusalem occurred in 538. That's about 70 years. Regarding Mordechai, I think you already answered it.
Now there was a Jew in Susa the citadel whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, son of Shimei, son of Kish, a Benjaminite, who had been carried away from Jerusalem among the captives carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had carried away.
(Esther 2:5-6 ESV)
Clearly, it is Kish, the great-grandfather of Mordechai, that was carried away.
Achiya Hashiloni was from the yotzei mitzraim, that's a bit more then 120.
ReplyDelete"Genesis 6:3 “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.”
ReplyDeleteThis appears to be talking about both men and WOMEN (mankind). Because the reasoning is "for he is flesh". Women are flesh just as men are flesh.
There's one problem with this: Jeanne Calment is confirmed to have lived 122 years. (Birth date: 21 February 1875, Death date: 4 August 1997). So we have a confirmed example that humans of flesh CAN live over 120 years. Unless you want to say the whole bible is wrong, you must admit that Genesis 6:3 is not to be taken literally and must have a metaphorical meaning. You then must admit that this point does not contradict the Talmud and Daniel could very well have been 130 years old (or even older).