Page 30 - Daniel

conquest of Babylon in 539 B.C. It must be concluded that objections to
Daniel as a sixth-century writing on the basis of Greek and Persian words
is without reasonable scholarly support, and becomes an untenable

position in the light of archeological evidence.

Alleged Historical Inaccuracies

Daniel’s supposed inaccuracies will be treated in the exposition, which

will demonstrate that there is no factual manuscript discovery that
reasonably can be construed as questioning the historical accuracy of
Daniel’s statements. On the other hand, it would be most unusual for a
writer in the second century B.C. to have had the intimate knowledge of
Babylonian history presented in the book of Daniel in view of the

probability that the texts and other materials now in our possession may
not have been available at that time.

The difficulty of identifying Belshazzar (chap. 5), the source of much
critical objection to the accuracy of Daniel on the ground that his name
did not occur in ancient literature, has been remedied by precise
information provided in the Nabonidus Chronicle. The “historical
inaccuracies” have been refuted by the finds of archeology. For example,
the coregency of Belshazzar with Nabonidus actually supports an early
date for Daniel. The record of Belshazzar’s coregency was lost by the

time of Herodotus (ca. 450 B.C.) and was not rediscovered until recently.
Josephus illustrates the problem when he mistakenly assumes Nabonidus
and Belshazzar (whom he called Naboandelus and Baltasar) were the
same person. He does this because all available historical records in his
32
day seemed to identify Nabonidus as the final ruler of Babylon, while
Daniel 5 identifies this final ruler as Belshazzar. Josephus assumed they
were two different names for the same individual. In reality, Belshazzar
was Nabonidus’s son and coregent. That is why in Daniel 5 he could only
offer Daniel authority as “third ruler in the kingdom” (v. 16). Cuneiform
inscriptions have been discovered that confirm Daniel’s description of
the relationship between Nabonidus and Belshazzar.

Questions continue to be raised concerning the identity of Darius the
Mede (also considered in the exposition), but the critics’ argument is

entirely from silence. Nothing has been found to contradict the