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 thine exalted
godhead in the hearts of my people, that they sin not against thine
exalted godhead, and let them stand fast like the heavens. _And as for
me, Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, protect thou me from sinning against
thine exalted godhead and grant thou me graciously a long life and in
the heart of Belshazzar, my first born son, the offspring of my loins,
set the fear of thine exalted godhead so he may commit no sin and that
he may be satisfied with the fullness of life._”
In the British Museum, Table Case “G” in the magnificent Babylonian Room
contains these cylinders, which are numbered 91,125 to 91,128; the
cylinders of Nabonidus are many. Some of them recount his building
operations, while others give the record of his discoveries of some of
the great monuments of antiquity in the search for which he spent so
much of his time and treasure. Perhaps no single event in the long
records of archeology so startled and delighted the careful students
whose interest was in the authority of the Word of God, as did this
discovery of the name of Belshazzar. In one magnificent demonstration
archeology thus accredited the _history_ included in the prophecies of
Daniel, and shattered the conclusions of criticism beyond the
possibility of recovery.
Also in this same section and case of the British Museum, there is a
portion of a baked clay cylinder inscribed by Cyrus. This bears the
Museum number of 90,920 and is a priceless record. We are tempted to
believe in the providential preservation of this fragment, since the
balance of the tablet has been destroyed and is missing. In this
particular record, Cyrus describes his conquest of Babylon, following a
recital of some of the chief preliminary events in the early part of his
reign. He ascribes his good success to the god Marduk. He tells how he
had forced all nations to accept his standard until finally, under
divine command, Marduk caused him to go to Babylon. Because of the
significance of this statement and its bearing upon our foregoing
paragraphs, we reproduce this much of the words of Cyrus, “Marduk the
great lord, the protector of his people beheld his good deeds and his
righteous heart with joy. He commanded him to go to Babylon and he
caused him to set out on the road to the city and like a friend and
ally, he marched by his side; and his troops with our weapons girt about
them, marched with him in countless numbers like the waters of a flood.
Without battle and without fighting, Marduk made him enter into his city
of Babylon; he spared Babylon tribulation and Nabonidus the king who
feared him not, he delivered into his hands.”
The Babylonian sources of the British Museum also contain an amazing
number of highly important documents which cover every year of the reign
of Cyrus in Babylon, namely, B. C. 538 to 529. These records are
concerned with commercial transactions, legal business and documents
that deal with the personal and public life of the people. Such homely
affairs as a deed recording a loan of three thousand bundles of onions
from one man to another is legally dated by the year of the ascendency
of Cyrus. The apprenticeship of slaves to various masters in the arts
and sciences, the worship of the people, the blossoming of prosperity
under the firm but kind rule of Cyrus, all make up a wonderful picture
of those days and times. Therein are included apparently unconscious
references to the historic events that are of such tremendous interest
to those who today read the Word of God in the light of this historical
illumination.
There are, of course, also many private and public letters preserved
from this period which are found in Table Case “H” of the Babylonian
Room, where they are available to the student who cares to delve into
the minute evidences of those days and times.
We shall have to condense a great deal of this material, however, into
the one simple statement that _the Book of Daniel is historically
accredited by these voluminous records_! Thus there is only one possible
basis whereupon criticism of Daniel may be continued today. In all
kindness, but in absolute assurance, we must say that the rejection of
the historicity of Daniel by our generation can be predicated only upon
complete ignorance of an amazing body of historical knowledge that is
available to the student. Either that, or there is a sad desire in the
heart of the critic to frustrate the purpose of the Word of God even at
the expense of the surrender of personal integrity. The original
construction of the case against Daniel did appear formidable at first.
It has turned out, however, to be a tissue of falsehood, and Daniel has
emerged from the den of liars unharmed and under the continuing
protection of God, even as he came forth in safety from the den of
lions.
With the coming of Cyrus, the Assyrian and Babylonian dynasties ended
and Persian history began. Much of this period of the Persian sway was
contemporaneous with the times of the Maccabees, and is of tremendous
importance and interest to the student of the history of Israel. But
since that same period parallels the four hundred silent years, during
which the voice of God was not heard through the prophets, and sacred
revelation is awaiting the appearance of Jesus Christ, there is very
little of archeological value from those years that can be useful to the
establishment of our present thesis.
The exception to this would be seen in the case of the return of the
people to rebuild Jerusalem, and to establish a Jewish culture, so that
Jesus could be born in the land of Israel, and minister to the people of
Israel, as the prophecies had foretold. The events of this return are
told in the prophecies of Ezra and Nehemiah, which are abundantly
substantiated by secular evidence, and have thus not been questioned or
disputed by criticism to any major extent. Cyrus has left an account of
this return, and the great king seemed to be vastly elated over the
opportunity thus to show kindness to the people of Israel.
According to the record that is generally received, Cyrus the Great
signed the decree authorizing the return of the children of Israel to
rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and the temple of God, primarily because
of one of those fascinating anticipations of coming events which is the
peculiar field of prophecy.
It is recorded that the scribe Zerubbabel entered the presence of Cyrus
and with the grandiloquent salutation of that day bowed himself and
said, “Oh king live forever! Be it known unto my lord the king that our
God hath named him by name in the prophecy of His sacred writings
generations before the king was born.” When Cyrus expressed a desire to
inquire into this wonder, there was brought into his presence the scroll
of the prophet Isaiah and to him was read the forty-fifth chapter. The
opening verses of this chapter contained this statement:
“Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I
have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins
of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall
not be shut.
“I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will
break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of
iron:
“And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of
secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which call thee
by thy name, am the God of Israel. For Jacob my servant’s sake, and
Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have
surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.”
This is a significant prophecy indeed! Isaiah wrote these words about
the year 712 B. C. Cyrus took over the dominion of Babylon 538 B. C. So
in this ancient prophecy the conqueror is named by name some century and
a half before he was born. His conquest of all nations was clearly
delineated and the explanation was given that God had pre-named him for
the sake of the thing that he should later do for Israel. Astounded and
deeply moved by this evidence of divine favour, Cyrus wrote a notable
decree which is preserved for us in these exact words:
“Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, the Lord God of Heaven hath given me
all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an
house at Jerusalem which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all
His people? his God be with him and let him go up to Jerusalem, which
is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel, (he is the
God,) which is in Jerusalem, and whosoever remaineth in any place
where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver,
and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, besides the free-will
offering for the house of God that is in Jerusalem.”
With this authority, the remnant returned to start that magnificent epic
of the history of Israel that climaxed with the coming of the Redeemer
of whom also Isaiah had written.
There is a sense of frustration that is inevitable to any writer who
attempts to cover so vast a subject as this present work in the limits
of one small volume. The difficulty has not been in finding evidence to
support the thesis that “dead men tell tales” which vindicate the
historical infallibility of the Bible. We have been embarrassed by too
much evidence! So we have sought to present only the most striking
cases, such as can be confirmed by any reader, without the background of
years of archeological education. Unlimited tons of material have been
passed over with scarcely a mention, due to the limitation of time and
space.
The author has hoped to achieve one purpose in this volume, namely, the
arousing of a definite interest in the average reader which will cause
that person to study the sacred page with understanding and appreciation
of its force and authority. “These Scriptures,” said the Apostle Paul,
“are able to make thee wise unto salvation.” It is imperative in the
light of this purpose, that they be able to sustain their claim to
divine origin as well. With the prayer that God will bless His Word to
the salvation of the many in these closing days, we have thus offered
you the testimony of men long dead, whose words nevertheless live on in
the records of tablets and tombs. And with those evidences, we have also
an increased assurance in the infallible character of the Bible, and are
historically justified in receiving it “as it is in truth, the Word of
God.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baikie, James The Amarna Age
Baikie, James Lands and People of the Bible
Baikie, James A History of Egypt (Two Volumes)
Bennett, Charles W. Christian Archeology
Blackman, A. M. Luxor and Its Temple
Boscawen, W. St. Chad The Bible and the Monuments
Boulton, W. H. Egypt
Budge, E. A. Wallis From Fetish to God in Ancient Egypt
Budge, E. A. Wallis Books on Egypt and Chaldaea
Budge, E. A. Wallis The Literature of the Egyptian
Chiera They Wrote on Clay
Clay, Albert T. A Hebrew Deluge Story in Cuneiform
Clay, Albert T. Amurru, the Home of the Northern Semites
Cobern, Camden M. The New Archeological Discoveries
Deissman, Dr. Adolf Light from the Ancient East
Delitzsch, Friedrich Babel and Bible
Gadd, C. J. A Sumerian Reading Book
Gadd, C. J. History and Monuments of Ur
Gardiner, Alan H. Egyptian Grammar
Garstang, J. Burial Customs of the Ancient Egyptians
Garstang, J. The Land of the Hittites
Goodspeed, George Stephen A History of the Babylonians and
Assyrians
Grenfell, B. P. Tebtunis Papyri
A. S. Hunt
J. G. Smyly
Grenfell, B. P. Greek Papyri
Habershon, Ada R. The Bible and the British Museum
Hilprecht, Herman V. Recent Research in Bible Lands
Hilprecht, Herman V. Explorations in Bible Lands During the
19th Century
Hogarth, D. G. Authority and Archeology, Sacred and
Profane
Huffman, Prof. J. A. Voices from Rocks and Dust Heaps of
Bible Lands
Kennedy, Sir Alexander B. W. Petra, Its History and Monuments
Kenyon, Frederic G. Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts
King, L. W. Assyrian Language (Vol. 5)
Koldewey, Robert The Excavations at Babylon
Kyle, Melvin Grove The Deciding Voice of the Monuments in
Biblical Criticism
Kyle, Melvin Grove Excavating Kirjathsepher’s Ten Cities
Laurie, Rev. Thomas Assyrian Echoes of the Word
Layard, Austen Henry Layard’s Discoveries at Nineveh
Lynch, W. F. Expedition to the Dead Sea and The Jordan
Marston, Sir Charles The Bible is True
Marston, Sir Charles New Bible Evidence
Martin, Percy F. Egypt—Old and New
Maspero, Gaston New Light on Ancient Egypt
Maspero, Gaston Egypt—Ancient Sites and Modern Scenes
Milligan, George Greek Papyri
Miller, H. S. General Biblical Introduction
Moulton, James Hope From Egyptian Rubbish Heaps
Murray, Margaret A. Egyptian Temples
Nelson, Byron C. The Deluge Story in Stone
Orr, James The Bible of the Old Testament
Orr, James The Bible Under Trial
Petrie, Flinders Measures and Weights
Petrie, Flinders Royal Tombs
Petrie, Flinders Researches in Sinai
Pilter, W. T. The Pentateuch. A Historical Record.
Politeyan, J. Discoveries from the Nile to the Tiber
Ramsay, Sir William St. Paul, the Traveller and the Roman
Citizen
Luke the Historian
The Trustworthiness of the New Testament
in the Light of Recent Discovery
Rawlinson, Canon Egypt and Babylonia
St. Clair, George Creation Records
Smith, George The Chaldean Account of Genesis
Smith, G. Elliott and Egyptian Mummies
Warren R. Dawson
Stadelmann, H. Cleopatra
Tischendorf, Dr. C. Codex Sinaiticus
Todd, J. A. The Banks of the Nile
Weigall, Arthur The Life and Times of Akhnaton
Weigall, Arthur E. P. A Guide to the Antiquities of Upper Egypt
Wiseman, P. J. New Discoveries in Babylonia About
Genesis
Woolley, Sir Leonard Abraham. (Recent Discoveries and Hebrew
Origins)
Woolley, Sir Leonard Ur of the Chaldees
Woolley, Sir Leonard The Sumerians
Worrell, William H. A Study of Races in the Ancient Near East
Wright, G. F. Scientific Confirmations of Old
Testament History
Wright, William The Empire of the Hittites
_Publications of the British Museum_:
A Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities
The Babylonian Story of the Deluge and the Epic of Gilgamesh
The Babylonian Legends of the Creation and the Fight Between Bel and
the Dragon
The Book of the Dead
The Mount Sinai Manuscript of the Bible
The New Gospel Fragments
The Rosetta Stone
_Pamphlets_:
The Bearing of Archeological and Historical Research Upon the New
Testament. By the Rev. Parke P. Flournoy.
The Witness of Archeology to the Bible. By A. M. Hodgkin.
Biblical History in the Light of Archeological Discovery Since A. D.
1900. By the Rev. D. E. Hart-Davies.
The Value of the Spade. By the Rev. M. G. Kyle.
The Syriac Forms of New Testament Proper Names. By F. C. Burkitt.
FOOTNOTES
[1]As this book goes to press, the grave of this Shishak has just been
discovered in the famous Valley of the Kings. The first word is that
the grave is intact, unspoiled by robbers. If this proves to be so,
much material of value to the Biblical student will probably be
recovered.
Transcriber’s Notes
—Silently corrected a few typos.
—Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook
is public-domain in the country of publication.
—Canonically replaced “plate number” with “plate” in plate references.
—In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by
_underscores_.