A Critical "Fairy Tale"
Once upon a time (about 175 B.C.) a pious man (really a religious nut or a clever fraud) resolved to avail himself of the traditions surrounding the name of Daniel. He then set about to write the circumstances of his own time. And so, in the name of "Daniel the prophet," this fast-talking "pseudo-Daniel" proclaimed words of admonition and prophecy to the "faithful" (deceived idiots) around him in the second century B.C.
Now ponder what this imaginary situation would have to have been. This wily fellow — living long after the time of Daniel — decided to attempt to foist off a series of spurious prophecies on his gullible contemporaries (perhaps motivated by a dare from friends). He then proceeded to embellish his phony predictions with a detailed description of life in Nebuchadnezzar's court, including punishment given for certain crimes, details of the religious leaders, customs of the time, etc.
The critics have generally felt that many of these details were fanciful tales, since a Jew living so much later would have had no direct knowledge of these ancient times. He would have had to have been something of a historical novelist.
The third chapter of Daniel is thought by critics to bear this out. The "story" of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego has been labeled "preposterous." The very idea of throwing men into a furnace seems absurd. It simply doesn't fit the normal pattern of executions.
A letter (dated even before the time of Nebuchadnezzar), however, has been found (and is in the Nies Babylonian collection at Yale University) which contains a royal decree ordering the death of a slave by burning in a furnace! (John B. Alexander, "New Light on the Fiery Furnace," Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 69, 1950, pp. 375-6)
Daniel's details of Nebuchadnezzar's court have been proven to be remarkably accurate. Sir Henry Rawlinson found that the magicians in Babylon at that time correspond exactly to the three classes of Chaldean doctors which Daniel enumerates.
Fairy tales don't come true.
Daniel's Prophecies for Today!
Daniel's prophecies didn't finish in 175 B.C.! And that's crucial — for this article, and for your life.
Having had Daniel's prophecies in hand since the sixth century B.C., it must have been quite an experience for the Jews of the time to see these things being fulfilled before their eyes. The prophecies of chapters 2, 7 and 8 were proving to be absolutely accurate. The Babylonian Empire was succeeded by the Medo-Persian Empire, which was in turn conquered by Alexander.
When Alexander came to Jerusalem, we are told:
He went up to the temple, where he sacrificed to God under the direction of the high priest, and showed due honor to the priests and to the high priest himself. And, when the book of Daniel was shown to him, in which he had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians, he believed himself to be the one indicated (Josephus, Antiquities, XI, viii, 5).
With Alexander's rise to power at such a young age and his unbelievable march across the civilized world, it must have seemed impossible to those who were holding the book of Daniel that his kingdom could be broken at its peak of strength as Daniel had prophesied (chapter 8:8). Yet it happened! Not only was his empire broken, but it was later — as Daniel had said — divided into four primary divisions.
Daniel's Prophecy for Rome
A person living at the time of the degeneration of these four kingdoms and the rise of Rome in the West could — if we allow our imaginations to be stretched — have forecasted what was about to take place. This, of course, is what the critics believe a pseudo-Daniel did about 175 B.C. A man could — at that point in time — have possibly predicted that Rome would become the fourth great world empire. What a man could not have predicted at that time, was that Rome would be the last!
But Daniel did.
And he did not stop there. He went on to describe the nature of the Roman Empire: what it would be like, how it would develop, predicting that the Roman Empire would endure incredibly — being "resurrected" many times rather than being replaced, as the pattern of world history up to that point had been!
And, finally, as incredible as it may sound, what it would do before the returning, conquering Creator God would destroy it!
The story is worth reading.
It would have been logical in 175 B.C. to look at the lesson of history and thereby assume that Rome was going to be just like all the rest — another fighting, conquering, pillaging, destroying world empire. Daniel, however, emphasizes that this fourth kingdom would be different from all the kingdoms before it (Dan. 7:7, 19, 23).
The unique strength of Rome, its terrifying nature, its twofold division, and its later history are all foretold by Daniel with stunning accuracy. So are the successive revivals — and a final union of ten European kings prophesied to destroy the English-speaking peoples in this generation.
How could a "pious fraud" have foretold the future beyond the latest dates given by the critics?
Or beyond today's date? Daniel's prophecy is alive in today's headlines — and tomorrow's! Using the critics' historical approach to Daniel for a moment, we would have to again humorously conclude that his book is not yet written!
For further information on Daniel and his prophecies, see the next article and write for our free reprint article "The Middle East in Prophecy."
One Isaiah, Two Isaiah — Three Isaiah, Four . . .
Isaiah is dated by Isaiah himself between 760 and 695 B.C. Notwithstanding, and as we might expect, critics have attempted to alter these dates by as much as 300 years. One even went so far as to place Isaiah in the first century B.C. — but was rather embarrassed when archaeologists discovered a complete scroll of Isaiah, copied and preserved, dated in the second century — 125 B.C.
When we examine the reasons for the difficulties that critics have with Isaiah, we find the same answer that we found for Ezekiel and Daniel — Isaiah is just a little too accurate for their materialistic tastes.
But with Isaiah, the problem could not be solved by merely pushing the date forward. The critics had to dissect the book — and have it attributed to the fraudulent writings of between two and five authors!
Jewish tradition informs us that King Manasseh of Judah had Isaiah sawn in two — the New Testament book of Hebrews alludes to this (Heb. 11:37). But today's "higher critics" have butchered him into five pieces!
Why were two to five fictitious authors needed by the critics? To understand, we must return to the "fundamental axiom of criticism."
Having decided that a prophet cannot foretell the future, it is essential for the critics that the "pseudo-author" be writing for his own generation. When we have begun with this assumption, it is only natural to look to history for a historical context into which each prophet can be fit. What is strange about Isaiah, however, is that there is no historical situation into which Isaiah AS A WHOLE can be squeezed!
So there's only one "solution."
Isaiah must be "sawn asunder."
Critics With Saw in Hand . . .
According to some, "the conversion of the heathen" lay quite beyond the horizon of any eighth century prophet; consequently, Isaiah 2:2-4 and all similar passages which foretell the conversion of those outside the chosen people are to be relegated to an age subsequent to Isaiah (George L. Robinson, "Isaiah," The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 1505).
Other ideas which are supposed to be "beyond the horizon" of Isaiah are those of "universal peace," "universal judgment," "the Apocalyptic character of chapters 24-27," "the return from captivity," and even the poetic character of some passages. All this, according to critics, means that Isaiah couldn't have written the entire book.
The question we have faced in Ezekiel, Daniel, and now in Isaiah is whether their prophecies were dreamed up by "religious geniuses," or whether they were inspired by God. The only evidence advanced by the critics to prove a later date for these prophets is the prejudicial "evidence" — actually circular reasoning — that no man could have written the prophecies when these men said they did.
That isn't proof!
That's begging the question! We all agree that the concept of the "conversion of the heathen" might have lain completely "beyond the horizons of any eighth-century prophet." But it doesn't lie beyond the horizons of God, nor does it lie beyond the ability of God to convey His concept to a prophet who otherwise could never have understood it! (See II Peter 1:21 and I Cor. 2:9-10)
Now, what shreds of evidence have the critics mustered up to indicate that Isaiah may have been written by more than one prophet?
All their hopes are placed in the one basket of literary criticism. A "first Isaiah" is supposedly distinguished from a "second Isaiah" (and a "second" from a "third") solely on the basis of changes in writing style.
But the real crux of the matter is not writing style. Nothing definite can be determined by counting particles, articles, conjunctions, or any other "characteristic traits" of a man's writing. The fact of the matter is that an accomplished author's writing style should and will change through the years — so any evidence based upon writing style is tenuous at best. (Modern computer-based literary analysis has claimed that Paul only wrote five of his 14 epistles, that Ian Fleming didn't write James Bond, and that the works of Graham Greene and G. K. Chesterton had "more than one author.")
Obviously, literary analysis of writing style completely fails to take into account the possibility of a purposeful change in form of the literature in question — i.e., a switch from prose to poetry, or a switch from one form of poetry to another (in which the writer uses or omits words for the sake of euphony, rhythm, etc.).
The critics must face their own motivations.
The real criteria for breaking Isaiah Sown into sections are the prophecies themselves. No man could have written them as "prophecies." And any man who wrote them as "histories" would have had to be present in several eras of Israel's history.
Which might be possible for a tree — but not for a man.
Ageless Test of Prophecy
Another reason for the critics' confusion in the prophetic books of the Bible is their failure to understand the simple principle of duality in prophecy.
In the 40th and 41st chapters of Isaiah, God is challenging Israel to prove their idols and false gods. The test He proposes is one of prophecy — foretelling the future. In the process of challenging the idols to prove that they are indeed real gods, an important principle of prophecy is expressed:
Produce your cause, saith the Lord; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen [in the future): let them shew the former things [fulfilled prophecy), what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come (Isaiah 41:21, 22).
This is something which God does repeatedly in prophecy. In preparing to give us the understanding of the latter end of a thing, He gives us a prophecy which will have two fulfillments. The former is not the primary purpose of the prophecy, but is merely a "type" — a model which we can examine to understand the latter fulfillment. It is this latter fulfillment — the "antitype" — which, being far more comprehensive in its scope, is the main goal of the original prophecy.
Isaiah's prophecies are this way — and Isaiah himself knew it. He not only understood that prophecy was dual, but he understood why it was dual. It was not merely to help us understand the latter end of these prophecies — it was also to confound and confuse the skeptics.
In Isaiah 28:9, Isaiah asks: "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts." The spiritually immature will not understand. Isaiah goes on to say:
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little . . . that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken (Isaiah 28:9-13).
God did not intend for scornful men to fully comprehend His Truth. Therefore, the prophecies of God are purposely NOT laid out in a simple, straightforward manner — but are found "here a little and there a little." And they are dual — and it takes a mind imbued with spiritual discernment to understand (I Cor. 2:12-14). (Christ used the same technique when teaching in parables — parables were designed to hide the meaning; see Matt. 13:10-17)
The critics only confound themselves, because it is utterly impossible to confine Isaiah's prophecy to any one historical context. The prophecies are deliberately dual — and are obviously intended for people of other ages.
When the facts are considered, the criticism leveled at all the prophets becomes transparent. The critics have neither correctly evaluated the evidence nor logically combined it. They have started with an assumption — that the authors of the prophets were completely human and had no divine inspiration. From this point on, all criticism degenerates into a simple effort to explain away the fact that God's prophets foretell the future with stunning accuracy.
But why should anyone want to be rid of the prophets?
Paul characterized a group of men who seemed to want to get rid of God. Perhaps there's a comparison.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress [marginal reading) the truth in unrighteousness . . . because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . . and even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind . . . (Romans 1:18-28).