Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Daniel

[Miner]

God saved Daniel from the lions for being innocent. But He didn't save the innocent wives and children of the guilty men when they were put into the same pit. We can be almost sure that the children would have been innocent, even if we doubt the innocence of the wives. Even though it was the action of Darius, God intervened in the same action involving Daniel. God clearly did have the choice and the power. A good god will prevent innocents from being punished if he has the choice and the power. God clearly had both. Thus, god is not good. Daniel himself, now a favorite of king Darius didn't object.

[jimwalton]

The judicial action of Darius was in accordance with Persian custom. Herodotus tells another narrative of how, during the reign of Darius, a high-ranking official and close associate of the king was judged to be involved in a revolt. As a result he and his family were executed.

In Habburabi's laws, if a man brought about the death of another man's son, the penalty was the the perpetrator's son (though innocent) would be put to death.

There were several reasons for this:

1. It was generally considered that parents were an influence on their children, and that conversation of treasonous acts and subversive attitudes and actions were part of the conversation at home. There was no desire for a child to grow up hating the king and seeking revenge, so the family line was generally wiped out.

We see it even now. In grade schools, children of anti-Trump families have brutalized and bullied children of Trump supporters. Before the election, children of Trump supporters accused Hillary of corruption to their schoolmates. The children of ISIS perpetrators have executed prisoners (we've seen the grisly photos and videos). The children of white supremacists declare their hatred for blacks. You can't tell me attitudes and actions don't rub off on the children.

2. As I already alluded, this leaves no chance for revenge by blood relatives, a common practice in the ancient world.

The Bible, however, teaches differently. Deuteronomy 24:16 says that children should not be put to death for the sins of their fathers. Look also at 2 Kings 14.6. So you can't conclude that God is not good if God explicitly commands against such practices.

You should also know that in the ancient world individualism was not like it is in America. There was barely such a thing. Everyone was defined by their family, clan, and group. They were an honor/shame culture: credit to one brought credit to all, and the crime of one made all guilty.

It seems that your question is more like, "Well, God could have stopped it and he didn't, so he's a monster." The burden of proof is on you to prove the innocence of the children. How old were they? What did they know? How much had they been part of it? Had they been indoctrinated/brainwashed/trained?

[Miner]

Deuteronomy 24:16 and 2 Kings 14:6 themselves prove the innocence of the children. God doesn't act according to what he says.

[jimwalton]

You are far too quick to jump to a deleterious conclusion. Read Dt. 24.16 & 2 Ki. 14.6 more closely: "each will die for their own sin," clearly implying that children are guilty of sin and sometimes capital crime.

You didn't substantiate your case. What evidence do you have that the particular children of Daniel 6 were innocent in this particular case?

[Miner]

Sorry, I was hasty and wrong. But I can answer you. Hear me out.

The wives and children were thrown into the pit according to the ancient world custom, not because they were guilty.

It is highly improbable that all the wives and especially all the children of the guilty were guilty enough to be mauled by lions and get their bones crushed. If it was, we will be executing the family of the guilty these days.

If they were guilty, the bible would have pointed it out as the reason for the punishment. But, it seems that god approved of the ancient custom.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the reply. We can easily assume that the men in the family were the primary perpetrators of the deceit. You say it's "highly improbable" that the wives and children were guilty *enough*—on what facts do you base this assumption? Just how complicit were they? To be the judge in this case (the seat you are taking), you have to have enough evidence to render a decision.

When I'm at the dog park with my dog, I can reasonably conclude there are no hippopotami inside the fence, because I can muster enough information through my senses and reason to draw the conclusion. But I can't reasonably conclude that no one is blowing a dog whistle, because my ears don't pick up that frequency, and I don't have enough information to render an assessment.

So also in Daniel 6: you don't know how many children, how old they were, their degree of participation, the level of their complicity, or the extent of their guilt. And yet you are giving God a verdict of "guilty": "God is clearly not good."

You also must realize that the world (according to the Bible, and confirmed by our observations and reason), doesn't work according to the Retribution Principle, which says that all good people get rewarded and know benefits because of their goodness, and all bad people get punished and experience detriments because of their badness. That's not the way the world works; that's not the way the Bible claims the world works; and that's not the way God says he works. The world works by cause and effect, people's decisions, natural events, and cultural patterns. If you think God should jump in at EVERY moment to prevent deleterious harm, then cause and effect as we know it would cease, and therefore science would cease, and therefore there would be no such thing as reason. As a matter of fact, if we play it down to God having to change our actions and even our thoughts, we would cease to be human. God isn't going to jump in every time to prevent harm, even unjust harm, because we would cease to be human and reason would be out the window. It just can't be that way, and the Bible says that the Retribution Principle is not the way the world works. It can't work that way. That doesn't make God evil.

[Miner]

'It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom, with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel'

There were 120 satraps and 2 other administators.

"At this, the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so. They could find no corruption in him, because he was trustworthy and neither corrupt nor negligent. Finally these men said, “We will never find any basis for charges against this man Daniel unless it has something to do with the law of his God.” So these administrators and satraps went as a group to the king and said: “May King Darius live forever! The royal administrators, prefects, satraps, advisers and governors have all agreed that the king should issue an edict and enforce the decree that anyone who prays to any god or human being during the next thirty days, except to you, Your Majesty, shall be thrown into the lions’ den. Now, Your Majesty, issue the decree and put it in writing so that it cannot be altered—in accordance with the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.”

It says that the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel which says that at least the majority of the satraps plotted against Daniel. If you are going to argue that it doesn't say all satraps, the bible also says: 'The satraps were made accountable to them so that the king might not suffer loss'. Doesn't it mean that all or at least the majority of the satraps reported things to the administrators? So, the majority of the satraps and 2 administrators were plotting against Daniel, which is 61 plus 2, 63 people. The bible constantly saying "The men went as a group" also signifies a large number of men(See Daniel 6:6,6:11,6:15). So, the wives and children(assuming one child for a man) will make 126. It now seems that the whole story itself is improbable when also considering the fact that most scholars view Darius the Mede as a literary fiction. However, it is still highly improbable that 63 women and 63 children were guilty enough(because of a guilty husband or father) to get their bones crushed by lions. If it was this probable, we would be executing the family of the guilty these days.

For the sake of argument lets assume that the children were guilty. Children can't really think for themselves and can't choose independently. Still, the guilty father is to be blamed for bad parenting. The children needed guidance not hungry lions.

It is more probable for god to have just approved of the ancient custom rather than god crushing the bones of children during an ancient custom which kills innocents and not mention he did it because they were such guilty.

God valued Daniel's innocence over cause and effect in the same pit some time ago. What made him suddenly value cause and effect more than preventing lions crushing the bones of many innocent children and women?

I sincerely want you to accept the more probable and obvious answer: God approved of the ancient custom.

[jimwalton]

The primary administrative geographical division in the Persian Empire was the satrapy. Historically the number of these varied between 20-31. Therefore the text must be using the term to refer to lower level administrative governors. (The Greeks also refer to these lower-level governors as satraps.)

They are spoken of in general terms such as "they" (v. 4), not implying a number present, deciding, or taking action. You want to assume a majority, but it's not necessarily a legitimate assumption. Sometimes only a few claim to speak for the group when in fact they are pressing their own agenda. We can't really speak with authority as to how many approached Darius.

It says "they went as a group" (6 & 7), which still doesn't really tell us how many. It is giving the impression of a united front, but the language could be hyperbolic. Now instead of just the 122, other categories have been included: administrators, prefects, satraps, advisers, and governors. We know what they are claiming (we ALL...) is a lie since we know Daniel had not been consulted; he didn't agree to this edict. Therefore we can reasonably assume that satraps scattered far from Babylon may not have been in on this either, and possibly not even all those near the capital. The active group of schemers may not have included a large number, though these men hoped that the king would think that. Because satraps were scattered throughout the kingdom, without phones or mass communication technology, it is not likely that all were involved, but only those who lived in the vicinity (possibly born out by the fact their families were nearby).

So how large is this flock of malcontents? It's impossible to know. You put a guess on it, but it's just a guess.

By now Daniel is in his 80s. How old are the others and how old are their children? Again, there's no way to know.

> It now seems that the whole story itself is improbable when also considering the fact that most scholars view Darius the Mede as a literary fiction.

It's true that there is no known historical character named Darius prior to Darius the Great, who is too late to fit in here. Since Cyrus became ruler when Babylon fell, some have identified Darius the Mede and Cyrus as one and the same (see 6:28). "Darius" just may be awn honorific title, like "Pharaoh," meaning "holder of the scepter." "Darius" was used for 5 later Persian rulers. If not a title, it was likely a second name for this person. Others suggest that Darius is an alternate name (or a throne name) for Ugbaru, the commander who led the Persian army into Babylon. He was governor of the Gutium and thus could easily be connected with the Medes (though he died just three weeks after the fall of Babylon, so that's no likely). One named Gubaru was appointed as the governor of Babylon, and is also named by some as a candidate for Darius. The Nabonidus Chronicle states directly that Gubaru did make appointments of such officials. This and other contemporary inscriptions show that persons with the title *pihatu* (the term for Gubaru in the Chronicle) did hold authority like kings: having armies, levying taxes, possessing palaces, and handling royal business.

Further information will need to become available before a firm identification of Darius can be made.

> I sincerely want you to accept the more probable and obvious answer: God approved of the ancient custom.

I don't accept it because of the obvious teaching of the text. One of the explicit points of Daniel 6 is the justice of God and that God would not permit the innocent to suffer unjustly (21-22). You are determined to make this text into "God approves of the injustice," which is directly contrary to the point of the whole piece. The punishment of the perpetrators and their families is put in the context of the judgment of the guilty.