1998 proved a humiliating year for Skeptic X and his newsletter, so much so that one can picture Skeptic X hiding in a fetal position, after the manner of Jim Bakker, for weeks at a time. In that year Everette Hatcher presented a sterling defense of the book of Daniel using the best scholarship had to offer. Now we know well enough what happens when Skeptic X is confronted with scholarship that is far more than he can handle. At such times Skeptic X is reduced to using all sorts of evasive tactics, as we have abundantly seen in our interchange on Jehu: Kings vs. Hosea. Eventually he will run away, proclaiming victory even as all can see the tooth marks in his behind. And he was true to form as well when confronting Hatcher.

We will attend to specific issues regarding Daniel in our article on Daniel, such as is needed. Here we will simply provide an overview of Skeptic X's general reactions and tactics.

Tactic #1: J'Accuse! Hatcher, as we did, made ample use of scholarship on Daniel, consulting the commentaries and piecing together data. This clearly had Skeptic X flummoxed, so per his usual methodology, he had to buy time for himself to scrape up a response. His first effort was to accuse Hatcher of dishonesty. Issue 2 of 1998 contains an article, "The Inerrantist Way of Misrepresenting 'Critics'". Here is the theme:

Anyone who has ever read much literature of Christian apologists and taken the time to check the sources they quote in support of their claims has surely noticed that they often quote out of context and distort their sources to leave the impression that science and scholarship are on their side. Many of their distortions are so flagrant that they have to be intentional, but in the case of Everette Hatcher's attempt to defend the fundamentalist view of the authorship of Daniel, I doubt if the misrepresentations of his sources were deliberate. I suspect rather that he pieced together his article from fundamentalist works without taking the time to check the accuracy of the quotations cited in them, and so the mis representations are not his own but those of the sources that he blindly trusted. At any rate, his article is a hodgepodge of half-truths, misrepresentations, and out-of-context distortions, which I am publishing and taking the time to respond to just to show the tactics that biblicists resort to in order to defend the absurd position that the Bible is completely inerrant.

Skeptic X gets back to this tactic later in the article, where he notes that Hatcher cited a book by Rowley (one of the "liberal" bent) that argues for a 2nd century BC date for Daniel. He comments:

So obviously Rowley did not believe that the book of Daniel was written by a 6th-century B. C. prophet who personally witnessed many of the events recorded in the book, yet Hatcher has taken Rowley's book and quoted it in a way that left the impression that this biblical scholar saw serious problems in the critical views of those who reject a 6th-century B. C. authorship. The snippet that Hatcher quoted, however, was never intended to leave that impression, so Hatcher apparently puts more value on cherished beliefs than on scholastic honor.

J'Accuse, Mr. Skeptic X? A similar accusation is repeated regarding the work of Porteous, another 2nd-century BC proponent. In a later issue Skeptic X stirred the pot further, raising the charge to "deliberate misrepresentation" and delivering a broad salvo against "inerrantist distortion." The crow was mighty tasty in a later issue, though, where Skeptic X had to admit, after a corrective from Hatcher, that he had misunderstood his intentions:

In a phone conversation after the May/June issue was published, Everette Hatcher informed me that I had apparently misunderstood his intentions. He said that he was not trying to leave the impression that scholars like H. H. Rowley, Samuel Driver, and Norman Porteous were advocates of a 6th-century B. C. authorship of Daniel but only that they had made some admissions that were damaging to their position that this book was written in the 2nd century B. C., during the Maccabean era. After this conversation, I reread Hatcher's article and noticed some sections that could be so interpreted, but for the most part, he left the impression that these scholars were on his side. If, however, he assures me that his intention was only to show that what he considers "liberal" scholarship has made some concessions that are inconsistent with the view of a 2nd-century B. C. authorship, I am willing to take his word for it.

Skeptic X tries to cover his immense presumptive gaffe by adding that the concessions in question are "relatively minor" compared to their primary reasons for dating Daniel late, but that is utterly beside the point. Skeptic X charged ahead with his accusations, and there is no excuse for doing so -- other than that it bought him 6 months to try to make an effort to reply to hard data he should have been responding to in the first place. (Again see our article on Daniel for these points. 6 months at least did provide some fruit. Some points Skeptic X concedes as inconclusive; others not so. But it should never have taken 6 months to do this minimal amount of work, and it is work that should have been done long before Skeptic X opened his trap on Daniel! Furthermore, Skeptic X continued to use a variation of this tactic -- one he has used before -- filling space with long and, despite his claim, completely unnecessary quotes from the Bible -- filler space to make his material look longer and more complete!)

Later in the first section we also have this:

When I received the article, my first inclination was not to publish it because it is little more than one appeal to authority after the other strung out over two and a half pages. In other words, Hatcher basically argued throughout his article that the 2nd-century B. C. dating of the book of Daniel is wrong and the 6th-century B. C. dating correct, because certain scholars say so. In so doing, he pieced together various quotations, obviously lifted unchecked from fundamentalist sources, and paraded them before us as if quoting a "scholar" necessarily proves anything.

Allow me to translate from the Skeptic XSpeak, before we get to the rest of the article:

When I received the article, my first inclination was to run away and hide under my bed because it makes use of scholarship and data that I have absolutely no ability to handle or dispute. In other words, he pieced together various quotations, obviously lifted unchecked from fundamentalist sources, and paraded them before us as if quoting a "scholar" necessarily proves anything, but heck if I have any ability to actually check arguments or make critical evaluations myself.

Does quoting a scholar prove "nothing"? If so, then apparently scholars themselves in various fields are wasting their time quoting each other. Let's unmask this pretense: Skeptic X simply didn't have the resources to answer these materials, so he had to buy time with this farce of an excuse. But that wouldn't take up enough space in TSR, so we move on to the next tactic:

Tactic #2: Bias and Bigotry: Here's the next theme played on the harp:

Along with his array of "scholarly" quotations put together in defense of a 6th-century B. C. authorship of the book of Daniel, Hatcher sent me a packet of letters from Bible professors at various seminaries and fundamentalist colleges, such as Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dallas Theological Seminary, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, Covenant Theological Seminary, Wheaton College, and even a couple of British universities. In other words, Hatcher has sent to me a bundle of letters from professors of Bible and religion who have traditional views of the Bible, and presented them as apparent support for his position. Not surprisingly, these professors all seem to agree with Hatcher's belief that Daniel was written in the 6th-century B. C.

Skeptics and subscribers to Skeptic X's dustrag should hang their heads in shame at such pettifoggery. How if I offered this sort of response? "Skeptic X sent me a packet of letters from professors at various liberal colleges, such as Harvard, Claremont, and Vanderbilt, and even a couple of German universities. In other words, Skeptic X has sent to me a bundle of letters from professors of Bible and religion who have liberal views of the Bible, and presented them as apparent support for his position. Not surprisingly, these professors all seem to agree with Skeptic X's belief that Jesus never said the words attributed to him." While Skeptic X does go on to look at some claims from these letters (see next entry), it is rather telling that he finds it necessary to appeal to this "bias" factor, and does so again and again in responding to Hatcher. It shows a remarkable and lamentable inability to actually address the data at hand -- as does the next tactic:

Tactic #3: Fog the Window with Your Breath: Here's the theme for the next issue:

One of them stated that "(t)he discoveries of fragments of Daniel among the Dead Sea Scrolls shows [sic] that it was written earlier than 164 B. C.," but that was all that he said on the subject. He gave no evidence at all to support this assertion. Furthermore, saying that these discoveries show that Daniel was written earlier than 164 B. C. is too imprecise to warrant comment, for if it were written in 165 B. C., that would be earlier than 164 B. C. Referring also to the copy of Daniel found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, another of Hatcher's professors said in awkward syntax that "even the liberals say that this must have had several hundred years before the second century" and that "(i)n that case, it would put it back at least to the fourth or fifth century, if not the sixth." The professor said nothing to explain why the discovery of a copy of Daniel at Qumran would have to mean that it was written "several hundred years before the second century."

On part A, what "evidence" does Skeptic X want? Is he implying this person is lying about fragments of Daniel? Does he want a complete list of fragments and the dating methods? And if we get these, will that be sufficient, or will we then be told that more evidence is needed to satisfy him? The proper response to such an argument is not to demand more evidence, but to provide one's own evidence in response. Skeptic X is, again, doing no more than buying time here because he does not have the competence or the familiarity with the scholarly literature that is needed to address the issue. (In fact, he did this over two issues -- a space of six months overall for himself between printings and receipt of material!) How hard is it to get material on the DSS and confirm or refute this simple claim? It isn't hard at all. In our own study we noted that liberal critics have had to shift into the gear of claiming the some of Daniel is early, and some of it is late -- a supposition with no textual support, merely made to shore up their theory. The text and data as it stands offers no supporting evidence. Further, the throwaway that it may therefore have been written in 165 B.C. is exceptionally naive and just what we would expect from a neophyte like Skeptic X. His demand for explanation is another tactical way to buy time. Simply put, the presence of Daniel at Qumran testifies to its composition much earlier because the Qumranites, by the evidence of their documents (insert Skeptic Xian "demand for evidence" here), were a strict society that would not readily recognize the validity of any book claiming prophetic authority. Someone showing up at the door of Qumran with a newly-minted Daniel scroll, claiming it was a genuine document, isn't going to get a reaction from the Qumranites like this: "Wow, a prophetic document we've never seen before and no one else has ever heard of! Thanks, we'll add it to the library!" More likely any person trying to foist such a document would be spat upon by the clannish Qumranites. Skeptic X and other skeptics take it for granted that ancient peoples were uncritical stoolies ripe for any scam on the block. On the contrary, the ancients had every care and concern that we did. If it was not their own internal material, documents needed a pedigree to be accepted. The ancients respected antiquity. Of course one may speculate that the Qumranites used their copy of Daniel as toilet paper, but then one may as well open that to all their other documents as well. That, however, would be against the evidence, since there is every indication that Daniel was recognized by the Qumranites as Scripture. Daniel is called a "prophet" (4Q174) and comments on his text are made with standard introductory formula for Scripture; there are seven copies of his book at Qumran, in other words, it was not an accident or a passing fancy for it to be there. In order to confound this argument, Skeptic X needs to study Qumranite society, literature, and culture, and in the context of the larger socio-religious culture of Judaism, and provide a reason why Daniel managed to slip through these strictures. Don't hold your breath waiting for him to do so.

So Skeptic X offers little of substance here, and must also resort to arguments from silence like this one:

...[Daniel] went directly from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to the reign of Belshazzar without mentioning any of the four kings who reigned between them. This within itself would indicate an ignorance of 6th-century Babylonian history, because it at least implies that the writer thought that Belshazzar's reign followed Nebuchadnezzar's.

Question: Why is this a problem? Daniel served Nebbie for decades and highlights less than half a dozen episodes with him that took no more than a few weeks at most; why is it such an issue that he says nothing of the four kings with far shorter reigns than Nebbie's (One of them a child! -- what story could there be there? "And the king said to Daniel, 'Let's play with my toy chariot!'")? With reaches like this one, and into apocryphal works like Baruch, Skeptic X is grasping at straws by reading ignorance into silence.

Skeptic X also pulls out the old Joshua stopping the sun not being recorded elsewhere argument, answered here. It is related to the idea that Ezekiel should have mentioned Daniel, and he did, but Skeptic X ID's this with the pagan hero; see our article for response.

A further desperate appeal is made to the idea that the refusal of Daniel and friends to eat from the king's table corresponds to a Maccabbean-era issue in which Jews were threatened with their lives if they did not follow a decree to eat unclean foods. There is no indication that Daniel and friends would have been killed for their dietary choices; their overseer feared for himself, if they ended up looking bad, but the parallel Skeptic X draws is superficial and non-existent. Moreover, such problems as this, and problems of idolatry as in Daniel 3, would have indeed been historically encountered by conscientious Jews in Exile. A Maccabbean parallel is superfluous.

Skeptic X draws another pointless Maccabbean parallel. Belzy defiled the temple vessels by using them at a party; Antiochus defiled them by taking them. So what? Taking temple parephenalia was the normal mode of operation in the ancient world for all invaders and attackers. The Romans did it to the Temple as well. This is again not a unique parallel but a universal in context.

Next Skeptic X tries to throw out a late date by noting that Daniel contains "good history" about Alexander the Great and beyond. But it's not that simple -- it also contains "accurate history" (i.e., prophecy) beyond the time he wants to date it in the 160s BC. See here. See here on alleged inaccuracy about Antiochus. He also tries to make a fuss about certain things, like Daniel's name, not being in Babylonian records, but we hardly could claim to possess complete and full records from this period or from any ancient civilization. This is again no more than argument from silence. Remember again that this is what used to be said about Belshazzar!

The final result is the most intriguing and telling. Skeptic X closed 1998 with a statement of "editorial policy" that TSR "will no longer publish articles either by errantists or inerrantists whose supporting details rely primarily on quotations from books and periodicals." What else would we expect from a person not competent to deal with the data, but a policy designed to allow him to avoid it?

In the year 2000 there was more from Hatcher and more from Skeptic X. Hatcher presented the critical scholarship of one who acknowledged that the Daniel 1:1 timing issue had a potential and plausible resolution in the variable calendar systems of the Babylonians and Jews -- just as Archer argues. This came not from a fundamentalist press in Grand Rapids, but from a critic who admitted that there was no surety of error being found in Dan. 1:1. Skeptic X could offer no actual response to this, but could only seize upon the acknowledgement that the critic preferred to suppose error (never mind that in doing so, he did not act consistently with his admission that there was a plausible solution) and complain that this was no more than "a how-it-could-have-been solution" -- never mind that it works within established knowledge and it fully acceptable historical detective work that would be used by any writer concerning the works of a secular historian. Within such work, such solutions are sufficient justification and constitute reasonable evidence, and can only be responded to with evidence that the solution could not possibly apply (i.e., showing that the calendar system wasn't that different, or that the years in Daniel were still too far apart for the calendar difference to be of use).

To his credit Skeptic X does offer a dubious, albeit poorly informed, effort to show that such dating would not be possible:

Beattie's possible solution to the chronological discrepancy in Daniel 1:1, which solution he himself didn't accept, is dubious on the surface. It postulated that Daniel, a captive in Babylon who rose to prominence in the Babylonian government, used the Judean calendric system, but Jeremiah, a prophet who remained in Judea and did not go to Babylon with the captives, used the Babylonian calendric system. How likely was that?

The answer is that it isn't unlikely at all, though Archer does prefer to suppose that Dan used the Babylon method. Daniel's final form was written for Jews who would leave their Exile; Jeremiah's work was written to people currently in Exile in Babylon. Either writer could have used either system for acceptable reasons, and a critic living in a modern era with standard calendars and no threat of conquest has no cause to complain about such things. That Skeptic X finds such hypotheses "unimpressive" is an interesting insight into his personal psyche, but does nothing to affect the reasonableness and plausibility of the scenario. Demands for "real evidence" could never be met in any historical study context.

Further matters we mostly address within the text of our article on Daniel. There is no controversy at all over whether Pul was a title or a name; it is known as a shortened name for Tiglath-Pileser III. Here is another funny one from Skeptic X's pen:

Hatcher said that the writer of Daniel "must have known that Cyrus was the conquerer of Babylon," because this was mentioned by Isaiah and recorded by Herodotus, Xenophon, and Berossos. What was Hatcher's proof that the author of Daniel had any familiarity with Herodotus, Xenophon, and Berossos? He cited none. He just listed Colless as his source of this claim, but if Colless knows of any reasons why we should think that the author of Daniel was familiar with the writings of these historians, Hatcher should have stated what they are.

What proof is needed that the author of Daniel was familiar with these works? None is needed -- that the author of Daniel could read and write is evidence enough. In an age when 10% or less of the population could read or write, such capability indicated a trip through the ancient educational system. That meant that they would become familiar with, and use, the works of men like Herodotus, Xenophon, and Berossos, since these were the common texts used for study. Of course Skeptic X may wildly suggest that Daniel's 2nd century author was absent that day from class, but once again, he would do so in admission that the historical background data as it stands provides no support for his view. (Skeptic X is so out of touch here that he thinks that Hatcher is arguing that Daniel in the 6th century would have read these later authors!) It is also a counsel of ignorance to claim that "the Jewish scriptures didn't exist in bound volumes" (they did not have to exist in that condition; scrolls are just as usable!) and that the author of Daniel may not have known the writings of Jeremiah or Ezra, etc. As a literate Jew, he was bound to know these things by definition. Anachronistically foisting his own ignorance and apathy upon the ancients -- for whom sacred documents were breath and life, and which were also central to education -- is a tactic worthy of the white sheet.