Page 31 - Daniel

conclusion that Darius is either another term for Cyrus himself, or an
appointee of Cyrus who was of the Median race and therefore called “the
Mede.” As there are several plausible solutions to the identity of Darius
the Mede, there is no legitimate ground for objecting to Daniel’s
statements because of lack of support in ancient literature. There are

hundreds of historical facts in the Bible that cannot be independently
verified through external sources, and the Bible itself must be taken as a
legitimate ancient manuscript whose testimony should stand until well-
established facts raise questions.

Those who claim that Daniel was written in the second century B.C.
allege that the “prophecies” relative to the Medo-Persian and Grecian
Empires are of ten inaccurate. In particular, the claim is made that

Daniel teaches a separate Median kingdom as preceding the Persian
kingdom, which is historically inaccurate. But in the first place, the
critics seemingly willfully twist Daniel’s words to teach what he does not
teach, namely, a separate Median empire. Second, the alleged
discrepancy between the prophecy and its fulfillment is in the minds of
the critics. Conservative scholars have no difficulty in finding accurate

historical fulfillment of genuine prophecies made by Daniel in the sixth
century B.C. Here the critics are guilty of circular argument, based on a
false premise, which leads to questionable conclusions. The larger issue
of the interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy does not in itself invalidate the
genuineness of the book, unless it can be demonstrated that the

prophecy itself is inaccurate. Up to the present, the critics have not been
able to prove this.

Taken as a whole, the critics’ objections to the book of Daniel are of
the same kind as those hurled against Scripture and against the doctrine
of supernatural revelation. Often the objections are products of the
critics’ own theory in which they criticize Daniel for not corresponding
to their idea of sixth-century authorship. Prominent in the situation is
the argument from silence in which they assume that Daniel is guilty of
error until proved otherwise.

The broad historical questions raised in the study of Daniel have been
answered by Wilson, who has demonstrated that the critics have not
33
made an adequate case for their theories or conclusions. He shows that
the problem is not with facts, as no facts have been discovered that