CHAPTER XI
Vindication of Daniel
Nowhere in all this long and profitable study has archeology more perfectly and thoroughly vindicated the accuracy of the Scripture than in those portions of the disputed record that are found in the Book of Daniel.
A great deal remains to be discovered at Nineveh and Babylon, and it is highly probable that the excavations to the present hour have but scraped the surface of the marvelous treasure that remains to be uncovered. It is a happy circumstance, however, that in our present incomplete but numerous sources, a great deal of information has been brought to light in vindication of the prophet Daniel.
In the heyday of its brief popularity, the school of higher criticism pounced with great glee on the alleged inaccuracies and historical errors in the Book of Daniel. The general argument against the integrity of this writing may be summed up in a simple resumé. In the Book of Daniel, there are supposed to be a number of outstanding philological anachronisms. The school of higher criticism, in its weird procedure, made great capital of the presumed cultural development of the people with whom the record dealt.
Daniel is pictured in the Bible as having lived and written in the last days of the Babylonian dynasties. He was carried away from his native land as a lad when the wrath of Nebuchadnezzar was poured out on Jerusalem in the days of Zedekiah. He lived throughout the reign of each of the last Babylonian kings, and was alive when Cyrus signed the decree that enabled the remnant to return to Jerusalem. No leader of Hebrew life and thought lived in a more stirring span of history than did Daniel.
The bright minds of the higher critics, which were never limited in their flights of fancy by historical fact, concluded that the Greek language could not have reached the courts of Babylon until after the conquest of Alexander. In examining the Hebrew text of this book, the self-styled scholars claimed to have found eleven Greek words in Daniel’s manuscript. The occurrence of these words was sufficient evidence that the Book of Daniel was not written in the days of the Babylonian dynasty, but must have originated after the exile and in the days of Alexander. This was the first great argument directed against the credibility and authenticity of this prophecy.
The second alleged fallacy in the Book of Daniel is to be found in the predication of the entire book. The sweep and movement of Daniel’s account begins with the adventure of certain young lads of the royal seed who were carried away as hostages to Babylon. Daniel’s own records state that by orders of Nebuchadnezzar these young Hebrew boys were put in the schools of learning where they might be instructed in the wisdom of Babylon, and taught patriotism, and affection for the conquering power of Chaldea. To this basis of the entire narrative criticism objected vociferously and strenuously. The argument advanced by this now discredited school was that the brutal conquerors of that day did not treat their hostages with such kindness and courtesy, and so the entire record was declared to be incompatible with the known facts of history.
The third and more serious objection of the critics was directed against the appearance in Daniel’s manuscript of certain stories which were alleged to consist of pure myths. Among these is the story of the three Hebrew children in the fiery furnace. The demands of intelligence were supposed to find this utterly unreasonable and the doubters declared that such a miracle could not have occurred.
Another weakness in the structure of the narrative was presumed to be found in the preservation of Daniel in the den of lions. In fact, this whole record was relegated to the realm of improbability, as this method of execution was never practiced by the Babylonians. These objections constituted the case in the dogmatic assertions of the advocates of higher criticism.
The strange experience of Nebuchadnezzar for the year of his madness, when he supposed himself a beast of the field and lived without the benefits of his civilization, added strength to this objection against the historicity of a book that incorporates in its structure such palpable fables.
The final and most crushing argument, however, was the discovery of certain alleged historical inaccuracies that permeate the text of Daniel.
When Nebuchadnezzar died, the kingdom seems to have fallen into a condition that was little short of anarchy. Nebuchadnezzar the Second reigned from 604 B. C. to 561 B. C. Upon his death, he was succeeded by Evil-merodach who reigned for two years. This unhappy monarch passed off the scene by violence, and his murderer, Neriglissar, succeeded him to the throne.
After a short reign he, in turn, was removed by Labshi-marduk who reigned but the portion of a year. He also met a sudden and unfortunate end and the succession was in a condition of anarchy.
Being backed by the army, Nabonidus, who according to most accounts was the son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar, saved the throne and established himself in power. Having the complete confidence and trust of the military, he established his dominion and reigned from 555 B. C. to 538.
But in the year 538, Cyrus the Great captured Babylon and overran the entire kingdom. Cyrus reigned until 529 and was followed by Cambyses. In 521, Cambyses was succeeded by Darius who, in turn, gave place to Xerxes.
Thus we have a complete and fairly accurate record of those stirring days that followed Nebuchadnezzar. But in all profane history there was no record of a king by the name of Belshazzar. Yet a surprising portion of the Book of Daniel is given over to the events and incidents in the life and reign of this “mythical” king. According to the critics, such historical inaccuracy was sufficient to condemn the manuscript. Upon these and lesser grounds, therefore, criticism tore Daniel out of the Old Testament and denied him any place in the records of credible historians.
Had the hopeful enemies of faith waited but a few short years, they might have saved themselves all this work and trouble. So thoroughly has the voice of archeology accredited the accuracy of Daniel’s writings, that those who foolishly surrendered their faith in the historicity of this Book, have been forced to replace the disputed record, and Daniel has been vindicated as has no other questioned writer of antiquity.
To bring a brief and simple refutation of this critical argument concerning alleged discrepancies, we shall go back to the primary argument.
The reign of Nebuchadnezzar was characterized by a recrudescence of architecture and busy years of building. The great king spent his enormous revenues in the construction of public buildings, and the land blossomed under his influence and sway. It was inevitable that the delvings at the site of Babylon should have brought to light some of the palaces and works of this great kingdom. It was the custom among the Babylonian builders to mark their public buildings, even as we do in our present culture. Upon the cornerstone of our city hall or court house, we engrave the name and purpose of the building, with the date of its erection. Over the doorways of our libraries and public buildings we chisel deeply into the building stones the name of the building and a brief dedication. It seemed to be almost providential that one of the first great marble palaces discovered in the ruins of Babylon was designated by the builders themselves as “The Place of Learning.” There captive princes were taught the learning of Chaldea.
This one discovery reopened the whole case of the credibility of Daniel. His historicity was questioned primarily upon the grounds that such schools did not exist, and captives were not so treated. The foundational vindication of Daniel that emerged from the dust of countless centuries, caused a re-examination of the entire structure that criticism had reared against his integrity. The result was a complete vindication of Daniel and his record.
The argument of philology also turned against its producers and showed that their case against Daniel was baseless. It has been shown that eight of the eleven alleged Greek words in Daniel’s manuscript are Sumerian and not Hellenistic. At one time the Sumerian language was the universal language of ancient diplomacy. As French was the language of international correspondence until recent times, when it has been largely displaced by English, so most of the courts of antiquity conducted much of their business in the Sumerian tongue. This custom, however, was discontinued by the time of the Persian conquest. If there is any value in the argument of philology for the dating of a manuscript, the evidence is conclusive that Daniel could not have written after the time of Nebuchadnezzar, for the Sumerian language was no longer in use from that time on.
The three bona fide Greek words that do occur in Daniel’s writings are an evidence for his accuracy and historical fidelity, rather than a source of criticism, as has been implied. These three words are the names of musical instruments that were Greek in origin. The language of music was and is universal and it did not take generations for such words to penetrate to the courts of other nations. As an instance, the reader may remember that the seven-stringed harp was invented by the Greek poet Terpander. Assur-bani-pal died twenty-five years after the invention of this harp. He shows it, however, upon his monuments, and the statement is made that one was buried with the king. The Babylonian records depict this harp under its Greek name. Thus we see that instead of taking centuries for a Greek word to reach Babylon, this word had become a household word in a few short years. So the argument of philology turns out to be a boomerang which returns to smite the critic who hurled it.
The tales that are told by dead men who have no purpose in deceiving the living, not only enhance our understanding of this disputed text, but bring to us irrefutable evidence of its scrupulous accuracy. The case for Daniel’s vindication is even more graphically presented when we come to the realm of these sections of alleged folklore and fable.
It is of course necessary that the careful scholar walk warily so as not to over-emphasize the facts at his disposal. There is a tendency among those who have a justified confidence in the Book of God to allow their natural elation over the illuminating vindication wrought for the Scripture by archeology to result in an unfortunate over-emphasis. Here is where we face an illustration of such a tendency.
In one of the earlier excavations at Babylon a peculiar building was uncovered which at first sight appeared to be a firing kiln in which bricks or pottery might be baked. It was rounded in the typical shape common to the ancient beehive, which is preserved even among some of our kilns of the present generation. When the inscription was deciphered that designated the purpose of the building, however, it was startling to read, “This is the place of burning where men who blasphemed the gods of Chaldea died by fire.” The tremendous significance of this discovery becomes at once apparent. The tendency would be to explain with delight, “We have discovered the fiery furnace where Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego walked with the Son of God.” Such an application of this fact, however, would not quite be warranted. This may or may not have been the Scriptural site of that great miracle. We can say, however, that the three Hebrew children in the fiery furnace can no longer be consigned to the columns of mythology and dismissed as simple folklore. This discovery has showed us without doubt that there was such a furnace as Daniel depicts. It was customary to punish blasphemy in this fashion, and the Chaldean monuments and annals are replete with instances of men being burned alive, who had angered the king or rebelled against his sovereignty.
So, then, the implacable, unrelenting voice of archeology penetrates the innermost retreats of higher criticism to destroy, in this instance, their familiar and favorite argument of folklore and mythology.
No less dramatic and interesting was the accidental experience of the famed excavator Dieulafoy, who fell into what at first sight would have been called an ancient well. Being rescued by his companions from his uncomfortable, but in nowise dangerous, situation, they proceeded with their work to the point of identification. The well turned out to be a pit which was used as an open cage for wild animals, and upon the curb was found the inscription, “The place of execution where men who angered the king died torn by wild animals.”
Once again we must tread cautiously, for we cannot say with dogmatic finality, “This is the place of Daniel’s experience.” We can say, however, with positive assurance that there was such a pit of execution, and the only unusual feature in Daniel’s experience was that he came out alive under the defense and protection of the God whom he served.
In the excavation of the palace at Shushan, an ancient record was uncovered giving a list of four hundred eighty-four men of high degree who thus died in a den of lions. The name of Daniel was not found among them. This might be accepted as collateral evidence that Daniel escaped alive from that place of execution.
Even the strange experience of Nebuchadnezzar, who dreamed that he would be turned into a wild beast and roam the fields like an ox, has also been accredited. It will be remembered that the mighty monarch dreamed of a tree that stood in the center of the earth and grew to an unprecedented height. Its towering branches swept the heavens and from all the ends of the earth its foliage was visible. Fruit hung upon this tree that satisfied the needs of men, and the very beasts of the field shadowed themselves under its spreading branches. Even the fowls of the air dwelt safely therein, and all living things drew strength and protection from this mighty growth.
The dream continued to the point where a Holy One came down from heaven and ordered the destruction of the tree. The trunk, the branches, the leaves, and the fruit were all to be swept away, but the stump and roots were to be undisturbed. The heart was to be changed from a man’s heart, and the heart of an animal was to be given it until seven times should pass over that stump. This drastic action was explained by the Holy One as being intended to teach the high and lordly king that only the Most High rules in the kingdom of man, and that He gives dominion to whomsoever He will. He has the right and authority to make the basest of men to sit in the places of highest power and to humble the most lordly.
Upon coming to Daniel with his troubled spirit, the king sought an interpretation of the dream. Daniel recounts that for the passing of an hour he was so astonished and troubled in heart he could not find the strength to speak. The king, whose kindly affection for Daniel is one of the wonders of that day, besought him to speak frankly and not to allow his affection and regard for Nebuchadnezzar to hinder him from telling the complete truth to the troubled king. Daniel’s interpretation was given in simple but graphic words: The tree which grew and reached the heavens, whose leaves, branches, and fruits sheltered and nurtured all flesh, was a symbol of the mighty Nebuchadnezzar. (It is true that in the day of Nebuchadnezzar he builded a world empire, as far as the cultured races of mankind extended.) But because of the high pride which was natural to the human heart over such great accomplishments, the Most High God had decreed that the king should be humbled. He should forsake the councils and fellowship of men and sleep in the open fields, wet with the dew of heaven; imagining himself to be one with the beasts of the earth, Nebuchadnezzar was to learn humility.
Daniel then pleaded with the king that by repentance and restitution he should forsake his sins and dedicate himself to the pursuit of righteousness. Thus by showing mercy, he might receive grace and his iniquities be blotted out.
Twelve months later the prophetic dream was fulfilled. As the king strolled on the roof of his great palace, he surveyed the might of Babylon and boasted in his heart saying, “This great Babylon have I not myself built it; have I not erected this kingdom and this house by the might of my own power and for the honour of my majesty.” While this exalted boast was still echoing upon the king’s lips, there fell a voice from heaven which said that the hour of the fulfillment of the prophecy had come.
Madness fell upon Nebuchadnezzar, and he fled from the presence of men. Sleeping in the open fields and dwelling with the beasts of the earth, his hair grew as long as an eagle’s feathers and his nails became like the claws of a bird. During those seven years of the madness of Nebuchadnezzar, his faithful counselors administered his kingdom, apparently in the earnest hope that the reason of the king would be restored. Their confidence was justified, for at the end of seven years the king recounts that he lifted up his eyes to heaven and understanding returned to him. Thereupon he blessed the Most High God and swore that he would bless and honour Him that liveth forever. He confessed that the dominion of God is an everlasting dominion and His kingdom is eternal. His psalm of praise exalted Almighty God above the reach of men.
When his reason had thus been restored, the king again occupied the throne of Babylon and profited by this experience. The glory and honour of his kingdom he henceforth attributed unto the majesty and kindness of God. The king testified personally that the words of God are true and His judgments righteous. He turned to monotheism, and became the greatest convert, perhaps, that Daniel had made in all of his ministry.
This brief account of those amazing seven years is given by Daniel in the fourth chapter of his great prophecy. The literal words of the king are preserved for us in that historical record. This is perhaps the most outstanding instance of critical repudiation of the text that we have in the Old Testament. The whole record was uncompromisingly declared to be a fabrication of a vivid imagination.
It fell to the lot of the great Sir Henry Rawlinson to find the original document wherein Nebuchadnezzar tells this episode exactly as Daniel had given it.
The most dramatic and astonishing vindication of the integrity of the text that the Book of Daniel has sustained, providentially occurred in that field of criticism which was supposed to be the strongest evidence that criticism possessed. This was in the realm of the historical accuracy of the Book of Daniel. The basis of the critical contention was right to a certain extent. Profane history possessed no record of a king in Babylon by the name of Belshazzar. When the period of anarchy in Babylon ended by means of the military coup that placed Nabonidus upon the throne, it took a short while to quiet the realm and reëstablish the authority of the crown. Nabonidus then gave himself to a period of construction and rehabilitation. In the course of his work on the fortifications of his capital city, Nabonidus was strengthening the walls at certain neglected points. Delving deeply, to buttress the foundations, he came upon the ruins of an ancient palace which had been built centuries before by Narum-sin.
The discovery so delighted king Nabonidus that he became a confirmed archeologist. He reconstructed this palace of Narum-sin and turned it into a museum of antiquity. The delight of discovery drove the energetic Nabonidus into expeditions far and wide. The administration of the kingdom became of secondary importance to him. He had a son whose name appears in the ancient records as “Belt-sar-utzar,” which is given in the record of Daniel as Bel-shazzar. Upon the thirtieth birthday of his son, Nabonidus made him regent, and the throne of Babylon was thenceforth occupied jointly by Nabonidus and Bel-shazzar. Because the more common form is familiar to our readers, we will from this point on designate him by the Biblical name of Belshazzar.
The decrees and laws were signed, of course, by the seal of Nabonidus, the senior monarch, but the practical administration was left in the hands of the regent. This will explain why Belshazzar, wishing to honour Daniel for the interpretation of the writing upon the wall, with which we shall deal later, offered to make him the third ruler of the kingdom. This, of course, is eminently unorthodox! It was always the custom in antiquity, if records can be trusted, to honour a man by giving him the hand of the king’s daughter in marriage and making him ruler over half the kingdom. Belshazzar could not go so far as this. Nabonidus, his father, was the number one ruler as long as he lived. Belshazzar, the regent, was the second ruler of the realm. Therefore, if Daniel became prime minister and had an office second in authority to Belshazzar, he would be the third ruler in the kingdom.
How amazing indeed is the historical accuracy of this ancient Book! These writers were faultless in their efforts to keep the Scripture in line with the historical facts. In this case they have been inspired even in their choice of numerical descriptions in the honours conferred upon their heroic characters.
So now we peer into ancient Babylon through the telescope of archeology and we see a quaint situation. Nabonidus, the kind and able monarch, fascinated with the study of antiquities, has left the active control of the kingdom to his son and heir, Belshazzar. The prince regent, however, was not able to stand prosperity. He seems to have degenerated into a drunken profligate who spent all of his time in the dubious pleasures of sin. The administration of the kingdom fell on evil days during the brief span of time that Belshazzar was in authority. As nearly as we can build an accurate and credible chronology from the now available records of Babylon, Belshazzar became regent in 541 B. C., and in the year 538 B. C. the Babylonian dynasty disappeared.
In those three years great and marvelous events were being shaped in the womb of time. Cyrus, thereafter called the Great, had previously begun his phenomenal rise to power. Apparently he had been born a minor prince in an obscure tribe of the Medes, but was endowed with genius and brilliancy from his early youth. The picture that is now painted of Cyrus, as we see him in the treasured records, depicts this fascinating personality engaged first of all in welding the scattered families of the Medes into a close, binding organization that made them a power. So rapid was his climb to dominion, there is no other explanation to account for the phenomenon than that of Isaiah, who in his forty-fifth chapter, states that the Lord God Almighty Himself had raised Cyrus to the position of world dominion. This prophecy we shall refer to later; but our present purpose is to show the conjunction of Cyrus with Belshazzar.
We come to a period of time when the records are fragmentary, but it is evident now that Cyrus the Mede became naturalized as a Persian that he might occupy that throne and combine it with his own kingdom. When the youthful Cyrus had combined Media and Persia into one great dominion, a new world empire was born, although it was not immediately apparent. After a number of successful forays and campaigns that enlarged his possessions and strengthened his position until he felt himself to be well nigh invincible, the ambitious Cyrus turned his eyes toward Babylon. He realized that if he possessed Babylon, he would indeed be the master of the earth.
Cyrus is reported to have sent an ambassador to Nabonidus saying, “Come thou under my yoke and I will be thy protection and defense.” The modern system of ‘muscling in’ is supposed to be a development of the racketeers of our generation. These modern pragmatists, however, are merely amateur performers at an old game, at which the ancients were masters. This invitation of Cyrus, of course, could be interpreted only one way. In the vernacular of the modern day, it was a case of surrender, “or else.” When the Persian ambassador arrived at the court of Babylon, Nabonidus was absent on one of his many expeditions. Belshazzar, as usual, was in the midst of a drunken orgy and was more concerned with the hilarity of the hour than with the future safety of the kingdom. With that ill-guided and perverse humour which is characteristic of the insanity of drunkenness, the Regent conceived a brilliant jest. He caused the ambassador to be hewed into pieces and packed into a basket which was returned to Cyrus with a note saying, “This we will do to you and your army if you invade our empire.”
When this insult was delivered to Cyrus, the outraged king was so wild with indignation that he could not contain himself long enough to assemble his army. He ordered Darius the chief of his bodyguard, who was one of his Median counselors and companions, to assemble an advance force and lay siege to the city. While Darius invested the city, Cyrus was to follow with the balance of his cohort. Thus the scene was set for the most singular episode of those stirring days.
It occurred on the birthday of Belshazzar, which marked the beginning of the third year of his regency. The ignoble king had gathered to himself all the lords and ladies of his court, the thousand dissolute companions who were the fellows-in-drunkenness of this king. Belshazzar again conceived a drunken jest, which struck him as highly humourous. In the midst of their debauch, he ordered that the sacred vessels, which his grandfather, Nebuchadnezzar, had taken from the temple of God in Jerusalem, should be brought to the table to be used as flagons for their drinking bout. This was done, and as this godless and idolatrous crew drank from the holy implements dedicated to the God of Israel, they toasted the idols of Babylon and sang their praise.
Even while they were thus engaged, according to the fifth chapter of Daniel, a hand appeared which wrote on the wall and pronounced the doom of the kingdom. Almost at this exact hour, Darius, the counselor, friend and commander of the vanguard of Cyrus’ army, appeared before the walls of Babylon!
To the surprise of the great Median general, the gates of the city were open. This is according to his own record. It being the birthday of Belshazzar, the entire city was celebrating in a fashion made popular and characteristic by the debauched ruler. Wine had been provided for the guards that they also might share in the happy celebration of the king’s natal day. The drunken soldiers had failed to close the city gates with the coming of nightfall, and by the time Darius appeared before the city, they were in a stupor of drunkenness. The able Mede, skilled in all the arts of ancient warfare, moved swiftly, well knowing the value of a surprise attack. His company, although few in number when compared to the complete might of the armed forces of Cyrus, was sufficient to hold the city, if it could be gained.
Daring men fell upon the drunken guards and slew them. Leaving a small company to guard the gate and keep it open, Darius’ troops swept through the city to the very palace of Belshazzar. Slaying all whom they met upon the way, they fell upon the royal company with a shock of complete surprise. Scarcely had the voice of Daniel finished interpreting the words that the hand of God had written upon the wall, when the sword of Darius fulfilled the prophecy by slaying Belshazzar. Darius caused the head of Belshazzar to be sent to Cyrus with a grim and brief note, saying “The kingdom is thine. Do thou enter.” When Cyrus, therefore, came with his mighty company, the city already had been captured by Darius and Cyrus had only to make a triumphal entry.
In the meantime, Nabonidus heard that his kingdom was invaded, so he gathered a force and marched to the relief of Babylon. When he arrived, however, he found that the city was already in the possession of Cyrus. Acting with characteristic wisdom, he laid down his arms, surrendered to Cyrus and cast himself upon the mercy of the great king. He was well received, and lived as an honoured guest in the court of Cyrus until he died a natural death several years later.
Cyrus ruled Babylon through Darius, his counselor and friend, whose courage and strategy were rewarded when the king made him satrap of Babylon. Herein is found a reconciliation of the apparent contradiction between the two statements made by Darius and Cyrus concerning the fate of the king of Babylon. Although the critics never bothered to notice such, archeology has its difficulties as well as has Scripture.
Darius tersely recounts, “In the night that I captured Babylon, I slew the king.”
The annalistic tablet of Cyrus, however, contains this note, “In the day that I entered Babylon, I made the king my captive.”
The contradiction is more fancied than real. The two generals are speaking about two different kings! Darius killed King Belshazzar; Cyrus made King Nabonidus his captive and friend.
Because of the insult that Belshazzar had offered to his majesty, Cyrus caused the Regent’s name to be stricken from all the available records and thus Belshazzar’s name passed out of history and faded from the memory of men. For twenty-five hundred years the only record of the name of Belshazzar that was preserved for posterity was found in the writings of Daniel. This very historic accuracy of Daniel was the source of a great deal of the critical rejection of his notable writing!
The first discovery in archeology that shed light upon these events was the prayer cylinder of Nabonidus. Upon the ascension of Belshazzar to the regency of the kingdom, Nabonidus caused to be engraved in all the temples of Bel a prayer for the protection, praise, and prosperity of his son, Belt-sar-utsar. In the excavations at Mukkayyar, one of the great buildings uncovered was the temple of the moon god. In each of the four corners of the building, Nabonidus, who had rebuilt the temple, had caused a clay cylinder to be buried containing the record of the work. On this cylinder, which dedicated the rebuilding of an ancient temple which was originally constructed about seventeen centuries before the day of Nabonidus, the kindly king engraved the prayer for his son and heir, to which we have previously referred.
The name of the moon god was Sin, and he was one of the chief deities of the land of Babylon. The wording on the cylinder that particularly interests the student of historical accuracy is found in these words: “Oh, Sin, thou lord of the gods, thou king of the gods of heaven and of earth, and of the gods of the gods, who dwellest in heaven, when thou enterest with joy into this temple, may the good fortune of the temples E-sagil, E-zida and E-gish-shirgal, the temples of thine exalted godhead be established at thy word. And set thou the fear of th