Book of Daniel

This article is about the Biblical book. For the novel by E. L. Doctorow, see The Book of Daniel (novel).

Historical accuracy

Certain statements in Daniel are considered to be in conflict with known history. This is one reason why modern historians of Babylonia or Achaemenid Persia do not adduce the narratives of Daniel as source materials. Other reasons for reservations are given in Dating below.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The four objections given below represent, in order of significance, the major instances of error historians generally find in Daniel.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Darius the Mede

According to H.H. Rowley in Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel, "he references to Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel have long been recognized as providing the most serious historical problems in the book."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Rowley refers to the personage whom Daniel describes as taking control of Babylon after Belshazzar is deposed. Daniel describes this personage as Darius the Mede, who rules over Babylon in chapters 6 and 9. Daniel reports that Darius was 'about 62 years old' when he was 'made king over Babylon'

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Historians have criticized this account for three reasons. First, no secular history speaks of any 'Darius the Mede,' and second, the Persians at that point in history had the upper hand in their ongoing war with the Medes. Third, the contemporary history given from cuneiform documents of the period, the Cyrus Cylinder, and the Babylonian Chronicle leave no room for any Median occupation of Babylon before the Persians under Cyrus conquered it.

Related Topics:
Cyrus Cylinder - Babylonian Chronicle

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Historians such as Rowley and Burtchaell tend to posit that Daniel is mistakenly referencing Darius the Great, who ruled Persia from 522-486 BC, though the Persian Darius was very young while Daniel specifically attributes an old age to Darius the Mede and ruled many years later.

Related Topics:
Darius the Great - Persia

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Belshazzar

For many years Belshazzar, the Babylonian who ruled the city the night the Persians successfully besieged the city, was an enigma for historians. Daniel writes that he ruled the city and calls him the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Prior to 1854, archeologists and historians knew of no Belshazzar, let alone one that ruled the great city of Babylon. This led Ferdinand Hitzig to claim in 1850 that Belshazzar was a "figment of the Jewish writer's imagination." Later evidence verified the existence of the person as well as the plausibility of his co-regency during the known absence of his father, Nabonidus. This evidence involved the use of Belshazzar in oath formulas, his ability to pass edicts, lease farmlands, evidence that Nabonidus was in Teima the night of the siege, and that Belshazzar received the "royal privilege" to eat the food offered to the gods. However, no known extrabiblical text indicates a blood relation between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. Historians have objected to this aspect of the record in Daniel.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

There were several rulers over Babylon between the death of Nebuchadnezzar and the rulership of Nabonidus/Belshazzar. Many scholars have attributed the lack of mention of these rulers as indicating the author mistakenly thought that the two rulerships were consecutive. As the editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901-1906) put it, indicating the belief that Daniel was written much later (see 'Date'), "during the long period of oral tradition the unimportant kings of Babylon might easily have been forgotten, and the last king, who was vanquished by Cyrus, would have been taken as the successor of the well-known Nebuchadnezzar." Based on this reasoning, historians have considered the reference to Belshazzar's relationship to Nebuchadnezzar simply an error based on the above misconception.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Madness of Nebuchadnezzar

A third significant objection by historians is the account of the insanity suffered by Nebuchadnezzar found in the fourth chapter of Daniel. In the Dead Sea Scrolls a fragment known as The Prayer of Nabonidus (4QPrNab) discusses a disease suffered by Nabonidus, and it is thought {{fact}} that the insanity of Nebuchadnezzar discussed by Daniel is actually evidence that an oral tradition of one strange disease was actually transmogrified through retelling into a tale mistakenly recorded by Daniel.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Date of Nebuchadnezzar's First Siege of Jerusalem

The Book of Daniel begins by stating:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:In the third year of the reign of Jehoi'akim king of Judah came Nebuchadnez'zar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoi'akim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god. (King James Version)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This appears to be a garbled description of the first siege of Jerusalem in 597 BC, which occurred in the 12th year of Jehoiakim and into the reign of his son Jehoiachin. (see 2 Kings 24 and 2 Chronicles 36). The third year of Jehoiakim (606 BC), saw Nebuchadrezzar not yet King of Babylon, and the Egyptians still dominant in the region. Advocates of an early date of Daniel generally explain this by positing an additional, otherwise unmentioned, siege of Jerusalem in 605 BC, shortly after the Battle of Carchemish.

Related Topics:
597 BC - 2 Kings - 605 BC - Battle of Carchemish

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~