Dead Men Tell Tales

by Harry Rimmer

Plate 31

The Altar of Sacrifice

“And Asa cried unto the Lord his God, and said, Lord, it is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power: help us, O Lord our God; for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this multitude. O Lord, thou art our God; let not man prevail against thee.”

The high-hearted courage and simple faith of Asa is sufficient introduction to the very natural result, which follows in simple words:

“So the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled.”

We then read a condensed account of the pursuit that Asa and his people indulged in, chasing the horde of Egyptians all the way across their own border. They were in such confusion that they could not recover and make a stand, so that not even a rear-guard action was fought. The children of Israel recaptured all of the cities that Rehoboam had lost, and with a typical Hebraism the account concludes with the statement that “they carried away exceeding much spoil.” Although they never recovered the golden shields, it is to be hoped they got their equivalent in the value of this recounted spoil.

It was the universal custom of conquerors to record their victories and say nothing of their defeats. Therefore, it is a bit startling to find this record of II Chronicles borne out by the account the Egyptian monarch has left of his own campaigns. This simple paragraph is illuminating:

“Seventeen campaigns I waged. In sixteen of them I was victorious. In the seventeenth campaign I was defeated. Not by man, Heaven fought against me.”

So even in the record of a defeat this man can brag that his strength and greatness were so phenomenal that only the Lord could overthrow him. Once again, a dead man tells a tale. He also, in the illuminating account that he has left, rises from the dead to write “o. k.” across the pages of Holy Writ, attesting its historical fidelity and the accuracy of its records.

CHAPTER X
Mingled Voices

The next definite contact between Israel and Egypt is found in the graphic and terse statement of II Kings 17:4,

“And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea: for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and brought no present to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year: therefore the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison.”

From this point on, the records of Egypt and Palestine are so enmeshed and tangled with the records of Babylon and Assyria that we cannot separate them in their presentation. This king So is identified as the Egyptian monarch Shabaka, who is also known by the names Sebichos, Sabakon, Sabacoa, and Seve. He seems to have been a man of implacable cruelty, if we may judge from the Greek record of his manner of succession. He was preceded on the throne by Bakenrenef, who was one of the wise and kindly lawgivers of Egypt. This noble ruler was one of the first of all the Egyptian kings to come in direct contact with the classical Greeks. The Dorian invasion had now come to an end and the Greeks were free to trade and colonize in the Mediterranean, and in the vigour of their advance they had pressed on to the mouth of the Nile. They had established a close connection with Sais, and by 700 B. C. had entrenched themselves strongly in the culture of that section of Egypt.

The Pharaoh of our present interest, So, invaded that section of Egypt and captured Bakenrenef in a swift and short campaign. The Greek records relate that after treating his defeated enemy with brutality, So then burned him alive. He then established himself as king and ruled not only all of Egypt but Ethiopia as well. He was thus a contemporary of Shalmaneser, Sargon, and Sennacherib, all of whom have a direct bearing upon the records of the Old Testament. One of the interesting discoveries made at the royal library at Nineveh was a seal bearing the name of Shabaka, or So. The visitor to the British Museum, upon entering the Assyrian Room, may pause before Table Case “E” and see this fascinating exhibit of the actualities of these events.

In about the year 700 B. C., according to the record of Holy Writ, when Shalmaneser had dealt kindly with Hoshea, who had accepted his yoke and agreed to pay tribute, the faithless king of Judah entered into conspiracy with Sebakah. Since the common name, So, is the one that is used in the Scripture, we shall refer to this pharaoh by that name from this point on. The tribute that Hoshea should have paid to the king of Assyria he diverted, and paid it into the hand of So for the help that was promised him in throwing off the yoke of Assyria. There is abundant reason to believe, from all the collateral records, that this conspiracy was promoted by So and Hoshea.

This action on the part of the Hebrew king was entirely unwarranted and consisted of a breach of faith on his part. Indeed, the prophet Hosea utters a stern and unmistakable reproof against this action in the strong words of the first verse of his twelfth chapter:

“Ephraim feedeth on wind and followeth after the east wind: he daily increaseth lies and desolation; and they do make a covenant with the Assyrians, and oil is carried into Egypt. The Lord hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; according to his doings will he recompense him.”

As a result of this conspiracy, Hoshea was captured by the king of Assyria and carried away into an imprisonment. The plan did not work out as the faithless allies had intended. Shalmaneser invaded Palestine to punish this rebellion. This wise and able general divided his forces, so that a major portion of his military strength lay between Egypt and Palestine at a part of the border that was easily defended. When So found that the cost of reaching Hoshea with aid was to be a major battle which would endanger his entire dominion, he simply defaulted and left Hoshea to bear alone the brunt of the battle. The prophecy of Hosea was thus literally fulfilled. With the faithlessness that Hoshea had manifested toward Shalmaneser, he had been rewarded by the defection of So from his covenant.

It is interesting to note that So seemed to have been a little ashamed of his conduct, for he offers a rather flimsy excuse for his failure to stand by his contract. His statement is that Hoshea had paid only half of the price agreed upon and for that reason he came not to his aid.

In this invasion of Shalmaneser’s, many of the Hebrew people were taken captive. Hoshea, after being for some time incarcerated in disgrace and punishment, was forgiven by Shalmaneser and restored to his throne and dominion. Shalmaneser seems to have reasoned that having once failed and having tasted of punishment, Hoshea was now to be trusted. Thus, the first conspiracy ended with the common people of Samaria paying the price. Two years later the faithless and foolish Hoshea again listened to the siren song of rebellion as it was sung by the deceitful So and again rebelled against his over-lord and benefactor. Shalmaneser, in great wrath, again moved against Samaria, which resisted in a bitter struggle that lasted three years.

Although the following details are not all mentioned in the text of II Kings, seventeenth chapter, they are emphasized by the change of person in the record. In this bitter conflict of three years, no help came from Egypt. The seventh verse of the text says that the children of Israel had sinned against the Lord, their God. They had gone again into idolatry and had put themselves back under the yoke of Egypt, from which God had repeatedly redeemed them. The miserable and faithless So turned out to be a bruised reed indeed! But while this campaign was being fought, Shalmaneser disappeared. A revolution took place in the homeland and the common oriental disease which may be described as six inches of steel between the ribs, quietly removed Shalmaneser from the scene. A usurper named Sargon, who writes his own genealogy and calls himself “the son of Nobody,” succeeded to the throne.

Thus in the seventeenth chapter of II Kings we have many royal persons, and in order to keep the records straight, we set them forth this way:

Hoshea was the king of Samaria; and he reigned over Israel nine years.

Shalmaneser the Fifth was the king of Assyria, who is mentioned in the third verse by name.

The fourth verse continues a record of Shalmaneser, in carrying away Hoshea and punishing him.

So is the pharaoh with whom we have been dealing.

The king of Assyria who is not named in the sixth verse, is Sargon, who succeeded to the throne after the probable murder of Shalmaneser.

This Sargon is the second man of that name to have reigned in Assyria. The time of his reign may be given as from 722-705 B. C. The first Sargon reigned sometime in the twentieth century, B. C.

Sargon the Second thus reigned for almost eighteen years. He was a war-loving monarch, and that eighteen year reign was one continuous, unbroken series of foreign campaigns. Combining his forces with the small host of the Philistines, he joined battle with the Egyptians at Raphia. Going directly to this campaign, after the termination of his campaign against Samaria, he administered a crushing defeat to the forces of So and had no further difficulty with this pharaoh during the balance of his reign.

In the British Museum, Table Case “B,” which occupies a section of the second Northern gallery of the Assyrian Room, contains some magnificent baked clay cylinders which are the original annals of Sargon. These priceless records came from the ruins of a tremendous building excavated by M. Botta at the ancient site of Khorsabad, which was later proved to have been the palace of Sargon. Most of the sculptured objects from this discovery are in the Museum at Paris. These written records, however, which are of infinitely more value to the student, are fortunately on deposit in the British Museum.

In the Assyrian Saloon of the British Museum the interested student will also behold an inscription bearing the identification number 12, whereupon are recorded the names and titles of Sargon the Second, together with a brief and epitomized account of his conquests in various sections along the coast lands of the Mediterranean, including his famous victory in Judah.

A more complete record is found in the Assyrian Room. In Table Case “E,” exhibits 11 and 12, are two nine-sided prisms containing a graphic account of the expeditions of Sargon. All of his campaigns in Palestine are covered and include his conquest of Israel, which he calls “Omri land.” (These exhibits are identified by the Museum numbers 22,505 and 108,775.)

A further record of Sargon’s bearing upon the text of the Old Testament will be found in the Assyrian Room in wall case No. 9. Exhibits 1-11 are fragments of an eight-sided cylinder containing part of the records of Sargon, particularly recording the campaign against Ashdod, which is also preserved for us by Isaiah in the twentieth chapter, verse one. The people of Ashdod had made a league with Judah and this outburst of Isaiah’s was a stern reproof against this procedure. The prophet objected chiefly because the league depended upon the strength of Egypt. To the end of his life, Isaiah never gave up his justified distrust of that country. This, in a brief summary, presents the records of Shalmaneser and Sargon as they authenticate the Biblical account of the conduct of the wretched So. Sargon recounts that Azuri, who was king of Ashdod, had refused to pay the tribute that was due to the Assyrians. Consequently he was deposed by Sargon, who elevated his brother Akhimiti to the place of dominion. Whereupon the people of Ashdod rebelled and raised Yamini to the throne. They then entered into a conspiracy with Philistea, Edom, Moab, Egypt, and Judah. Sargon recounts their defeat and the bringing back under the sway of his yoke the cities and peoples who joined the conspiracy.

A graphic and significant story is contained in the brief and short words of Sargon’s own record—“Samaria, I looked at. I captured. 27,280 families who remained therein I carried away.” The tragic end of Hoshea and all of his noble counselors and advisers is thus summed up in a brief and terrible sentence.

Sargon the Second was followed in turn by Sennacherib, of whom a great deal is known from his monuments. Their testimony coincides with the story of the Southern Kingdom during the reign of Hezekiah. Three years after the ascension of Hoshea to the throne of Israel, Hezekiah began to reign over Judah at Jerusalem. He had a long and interesting reign, occupying the throne for twenty-five years. In the course of his reign, Sargon the Second died, and Sennacherib inherited the throne.

Encouraged by the success of his predecessor Sargon in foreign campaigns, Sennacherib invaded Judah to round out his empire. Hezekiah accepted his yoke without offering resistance, and paid him a vast tribute.

We are now in the eighteenth chapter of II Kings which repeats part of the events of the tragedy in Israel as they were observed by the scribe in Judah. The invasions of Shalmaneser and Sargon are recapitulated and the carrying away of the people of Samaria by Sargon is again authenticated. But the scribe is more interested in recording the events that make so stirring a chapter in the closing days of the kingdom of Judah. In verses thirteen to seventeen, the story of this first invasion and the surrender of Sennacherib, is told in these words:

“Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them.

“And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.

“And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house.

“At that time did Hezekiah cut off the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord, and from the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria.”

Between the sixteenth and seventeenth verses of the eighteenth chapter of II Kings, ten silent years roll by. They are voiceless as far as our text is concerned, but they are vocal when we listen to the monuments.

It may have been about 705 B. C. when Hezekiah accepted the yoke of Sennacherib. In the meantime Sennacherib had strengthened his alliances and was prepared to essay a conflict with Egypt. The nephew of So, who is called Tirhakah in the Bible, murdered the successor of So, which was his son, Shabataka. Having gained an empire by this ruthless spilling of the blood of the rightful heir, Tirhakah began an ill-fated reign. He rashly matched strength with Sennacherib, who was more than willing to add Egypt to the nations who bore his yoke. The armies of Assyria and Egypt joined battle at the border at the site of Libnah and a mighty conflict resulted. Realizing the strategic importance of an enemy who would threaten the rear of the Assyrian host, Tirhakah made overtures to Hezekiah and invited him to join in a rebellion to throw off the yoke of Assyria. Hezekiah being willing to save the enormous tribute that beggared his country annually, listened to the voice of Isaiah who advised him to join the rebellion. So Hezekiah pronounced defiance against Sennacherib and all of the Assyrian hordes and announced the independence of Judah. The battle of Libnah was then fought, and Tirhakah was disgracefully defeated. The pitiful remnant of his army fled and left Sennacherib the unchallenged conqueror of his day.

The position of Hezekiah can well be imagined. The strength and might of Egypt had been brushed aside by the armed power of Assyria, and tiny Judah was put in the position of defying the greatest military power of that era. While Sennacherib was busy in a mopping-up campaign at Libnah, he sent three trusted generals to lay siege to Jerusalem and to demand the surrender of Hezekiah. The blasphemous oration of one of these generals, Rab-shakeh, is given voluminously in the eighteenth chapter of II Kings. There was a good deal of truth in some of Rab-shakeh’s arguments. He described Pharaoh as “a bruised reed upon which if a man leaned, it would pierce his hand and wound him to the death.” He rightly said that no other countries had been delivered from Sennacherib by the power of their gods. His error was in assuming that therefore the God of Israel would also be defeated by the power of Sennacherib. He gave the king some short while to think over the policy of surrender, and sat down to invest the city. Hezekiah, in his bitter dilemma, sought out Isaiah, whose advice he had followed with such disastrous results.

The thirty-seventh chapter of Isaiah contains the answer that Isaiah made, and the exact words of his prophecy are also found in the nineteenth chapter of II Kings, verses six and seven. To comfort Hezekiah, Isaiah said to the king’s messenger: “Thus shall ye say to your master, Thus saith the Lord, Be not afraid of the words that thou hast heard wherewith the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. Behold, I will send a blast upon him, and he shall hear a rumour, and return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land.”

It is well to keep this prophecy of Isaiah’s in mind until we see how perfectly it was fulfilled in complete detail. In the thirty-fifth verse of II Kings, the nineteenth chapter, the “blast” occurred. The statement is made that the angel of the Lord went out and slew 185,000 of the flower of the Assyrian army.

The next verse says in graphic words, “So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed.”

The literal translation in English of that graphic word would be, “So Sennacherib king of Assyria ‘beat it’.” We cannot blame him for the haste of his departure. Arising after a night of slumber to find 185,000 of his best warriors mysteriously slain, terror must have smitten his heart. At that exact moment word reached him of a rebellion in his own land. This was the “rumour” of which Isaiah had prophesied. He returned to put down this rebellion and never again invaded Judah.

Twenty years later he was murdered. Between verses thirty-six and thirty-seven of the nineteenth chapter of II Kings, a full score of years passed by. After his murder, his son, Esar-haddon, came to the throne and continued the story of conquest and intrigue.

In the meantime, the defeated Tirhakah was unquestionably chagrined to learn that little Judah had been delivered from the power that had defeated him. To apologize for his own failure to support Judah, Tirhakah claimed credit for the defeat of the Assyrian horde by claiming that his god, Amon, had caused the camp of the Assyrians to be invaded by millions of field mice. He claimed that these tiny rodents in one night ate up all the bowstrings of the army and thus they were unable to fight. His interpretation of the event is a bit sketchy, to say the least!

In the Assyrian Room at the British Museum, a very important exhibit will be seen in Table Case “E”. This is a six-sided clay prism containing an unabridged record of Sennacherib’s own account of these stirring events. Here he has given us his story of the invasion of Palestine and the siege of Jerusalem in the days of Hezekiah. So important is this record that we produce here, in its entirety, the fifth oblique (or plane) of this great prism:

“In my third campaign I went to the land of the Hittites. I marched against the City of Ekron and put to death the priests and chief men who had committed the sin of rebellion and I hung up their bodies on stakes all around the City ... but as for Hezekiah of Judah, who had not submitted to my yoke 46 of his strong cities, together with innumerable fortresses and small towns that depended upon them by overthrowing the walls and open attack, by battle, engines and battering rams I besieged I captured; I brought out of the midst of them and counted as a spoil 200,000 persons great and small, male and female, besides mules, camels, sheep, asses and oxen without number:

“Hezekiah himself I shut up like a bird in a cage in Jerusalem his strong city. I built a line of forts against him and kept back himself from going forth out of the great gate of his city. I cut off his cities which I had spoiled out of the midst of his land and I gave them to Metinti, king of Ashdod, and Padi King of Ekron and Til-Baal, King of Gaza and made his country small. In addition to their former yearly tribute and gifts I added other tribute and homage due to my majesty, and I laid it upon them. The fear of the greatness of my majesty overwhelmed him, even Hezekiah, and he sent after me to Nineveh my royal city, the Arabs and his bodyguards, whom he had brought for the defense of his royal city Jerusalem, and had furnished with pay along with thirty talents.... Eight hundred talents of pure silver, carbuncles and other precious stones, a couch of ivory, thrones of ivory, and elephants hide and elephant tusks, rare woods of all kinds a vast treasure, as well as Unachs from his palace, and dancing men and dancing women. And he sent his Ambassador to offer homage.”

This fascinating document is one of the greatest treasures that archeology has produced for the careful student of Christian apologetics. It is notable not only for what it tells but also for much that is left unsaid. In the grim, brutal days of these ancient conquerors, a defeated enemy could expect little mercy at the hands of the victorious. The kings of Assyria ruled by fear and by the implacable, swift certainty of punishment for rebellion. Sennacherib here refers to a common practice of his day, that of impaling rebellious enemies as a lesson to other vassals. In this particular document he recounts how they hung the bodies of the rebel leaders on stakes around their captured cities.

The technique of this execution was simple. A heavy post was driven into the ground until it was about as high as a tall man’s shoulder. The top of the post was sharpened to as fine a point as the tools of that day would permit. In some cases, the rebel was picked up by a pair of burly executioners who swung him through the air and jammed him down with great force upon the pointed stake. There they whirled him as a sort of a human pinwheel until life quickly fled his shattered form. This was a comparatively merciful way of impaling. In other cases the victim was set upon the sharpened stick until gravity bore down his suffering body to the point where death relieved him after hours, and even days of misery and torment.

But while Sennacherib recounted the successful punishment of the rebels of the many cities who had joined in this uprising, it is to be carefully noted that he changed the tone of the record in the case of Hezekiah. He could not say that he impaled him or otherwise punished him for the rebellion! All he could say was, “As for Hezekiah himself, I shut him up like a bird in Jerusalem, his capital city.” Sennacherib can tell of the fenced cities and small villages in the outskirts of Judah which he despoiled from the hand of Hezekiah, but he never laid hand on the person of the king himself, nor did he enter the sacred city. The “blast” of Isaiah’s prophecy can alone account for the failure of Sennacherib to crucify Hezekiah along with his other rebellious enemies.

Also it is to be noted that by a violation of chronological accuracy, Sennacherib “saves face,” after the ancient custom of the Eastern lands. A conqueror of his standing and authority cannot admit that he was defeated before the walls of Jerusalem. Therefore, at the end of this record he gives a list of the treasure that Hezekiah had paid before in his original subjection! This listing of tribute is falsely made to appear as though it were after the siege of Jerusalem. By the simple expedient of introducing at the end of a defeat the record of a previous payment, Sennacherib seeks to delude posterity and wipe out the memory of his one outstanding defeat. This great prism of this Assyrian conqueror is unquestionably one of the strongest bricks in the wall of defense that archeology is erecting around the Sacred Word of God.

There are many other records left by Sennacherib that are also of tremendous importance. The British Museum has a magnificent section which is devoted very largely to those Babylonian and Assyrian chronicles, many of which coincide with this period of history. The murder of Sennacherib that was prophesied by Isaiah and recorded in the nineteenth chapter of II Kings, is accredited and substantiated by archeological sources.

We learn from the records of Babylon that the years between the debacle at Jerusalem and the death of Sennacherib were occupied with wars much nearer home. We read in those chronicles that the Elamites of Suziana, together with certain allied peoples, again rose in rebellion. It took a number of campaigns, which ultimately ravished the whole of Suziana, to put down this uprising. In fact, the campaigns of subjection were not entirely successful until Babylon was destroyed in 689 B. C. In the interim, when not busy subduing his Elamite subjects, Sennacherib campaigned in Cilicia, where he overcame the armed force of the Greeks, penetrating as far as Tarsus in his victorious marches. The Babylonian records conclude by saying that he was assassinated by his sons in the year which by our reckoning would be known as B. C. 681.

In the Babylonian Room of the British Museum, Table Case “E” contains an exhibit which bears the Museum number 92,502. This consists of a clay tablet which is an extensive chronicle written in the Babylonian characters. It delineates a list of the principal events which occurred in both Babylon and Assyria over an extensive period of time.

The history begins with the third year of the reign of Nabu-Nasir, who ascended his throne in Babylon in 744. The record continues to the first year of Shamash-shum-ukim, with whom we shall deal in a future reference. In the third column of this chronicle, lines thirty-four and thirty-five state that Sennacherib was killed by his son on the twentieth day of the month Tebet in the twenty-third year of his reign. This murder is rather graphically described in terse, but satisfactory terms in the record of the nineteenth chapter of II Kings.

There is no more definite and positive example of the coincidence of archeological discovery with the text of the Scripture than is provided by the records of Sennacherib. Though dead for more than two and one-half millenniums, he indeed has a tale to tell! We can condense his record into one graphic, simple sentence which we can sign with the name of this great king, “The historicity of the Sacred Page is unquestionable in the light of archeology!”

The next pharaoh of antiquity who challenges our interest with his confirmation of the Scripture, is variously known by the name of Necho, which is his prenomen as used in the Scripture text, and by the Egyptian forms of Nekau and Uohemibra. He was, perhaps, the greatest of the later conquerors who sought to extend the power of Egypt, and he was certainly the last of that remarkable group. He expended a good deal of the revenues of the crown in rebuilding the canal of Seti the First, which had formed a waterway between the Nile and the Red Sea. It is difficult at times to place absolute credence upon the numerical estimates of the ancient chronicles of Egypt, but it is highly probable that Necho employed more than a hundred thousand men in this work. Herodotus gives great honour to Necho, telling us that he sent out certain ships of Phoenicia which circumnavigated Africa. He maintained a mercenary army of Greeks, and had one fleet in the Mediterranean, and the other in the Red Sea. His record in the Scripture is tangled inextricably with that of Assyria and Babylonia, and for that reason we must sketch-in the background of this coincidence and appearance.

Shalmaneser the Fifth began the phenomenal rise to ascendency of the great power of Assyria. Babylon was the chief adversary and the strongest foe that Assyria faced in the development of her world empire, which ultimately climaxed in Sennacherib. Finding it impossible to preserve the loyalty of the Babylonians, who were a proud and haughty people, Sennacherib finally destroyed Babylon and carried away its people into captivity. When Sennacherib died, according to the record of the nineteenth chapter of II Kings, his son, Esar-haddon came to the throne. Esar-haddon, more of a statesman than a conqueror, rebuilt Babylon. He united Assyria and Babylon into one great domain, naming the combined kingdom Babylonia. For the sake of administration and as a gesture of amity, he made Babylon his capital. Thus the rebuilt city became the seat of government and the center of the culture of Babylonia.

The name Esar-haddon means “victorious,” or “conqueror.” One of the greatest of all the mighty kings of Assyria, he was a worthy successor of Sargon, Shalmaneser, and Sennacherib. His name occurs but three times in Holy Writ. The first occurrence is II Kings 19:37, where it speaks of his ascent to the throne. The next occurrence is in Isaiah 37:28 where this record of II Kings 19:37 is confirmed by the hand of the prophet, who was an active participant in those stirring events. Later, Ezra refers to him in the second verse of his fourth chapter. In this latter reference, the remnant who returned from the Babylonian captivity name him as the cause of their captivity and acknowledged that he gave them the freedom to worship their own God in their own way.

In the reign of Menasseh, Esar-haddon died and was succeeded by two sons. The elder of these was the famous Assur-bani-pal, who was made over-lord of the entire kingdom, with the section that was once called Assyria as his particular domain. His younger brother, Shamis-shum-ukim was given dominion over Babylon, where he reigned as vassal to his wealthy brother. The British Museum is replete with the records and materials from the reign of Assur-bani-pal and from the brief and tragic rule of Shamis-shum-ukim as well.

The fine hand of Egyptian intrigue enters into the record at this point, again tangling up the Assyrian records in a triangular bout between Judah, Egypt, and Babylonia. The Pharaoh Necho, alarmed by the growing power of Babylonia, gathered together a mighty host and invaded the territory of the great Assyrian king. As a preliminary to this invasion, the Pharaoh Necho persuaded Shamis-shum-ukim to rebel against his older brother and to declare his independence. Into this conspiracy Necho succeeded in drawing Syria and Judah. The blow was struck at the dominion of Assur-bani-pal while he was battling certain tribes near his Eastern border. When the couriers brought him word of the revolt of his brother, and of the coalition formed against him at the instigation of Necho, Assur-bani-pal made a swift and remarkable march, returning to his threatened territory. Necho hastily assembled his army, and the major battles were fought on the terrain of Syria. Syria was quickly reduced, Babylon pacified, and Assur-bani-pal emerged completely victorious.

Necho, not having had time to prepare his defenses, was overthrown, defeated, and forced to bow in subjection to Assur-bani-pal. From the record of the victorious king, we offer the following paragraph as a condensed but detailed account of these tremendous events:

“After removing the corpses of the rebels from the midst of Babylon, Cuthra, and Sippara, and piling them in heaps, in accordance with the prophecies I cleaned the mercy seats of their temples. I purified their chief places of prayer I appeased their angry gods and goddesses with supplications and penitential psalms. Their daily sacrifices which they had discontinued, I restored and established as they had been of old. As for the rest of them who had flown at the stroke of slaughter, I had mercy on them. I proclaimed an amnesty upon them. I brought them to live in Babylon. The men of the nations whom Sam ... had led away and united in one conspiracy, I trod down to the uttermost parts of their borders. By the command of Assur, Beltis, and the great gods my helpers, the yoke of Assur which they had shaken off I laid upon them. I appointed over them governors and satraps, the work of my own hands.”

From this account it will be seen that Assur-bani-pal slew his rebellious brother and destroyed the principal leaders of the revolt, with the exception of those who had pleaded for mercy. As a result of this defeat at Charchemish, Necho was dethroned and led in chains to Babylon. This Chaldean conqueror had a policy that was unique for his day. It was his consistent practice to deal mercifully with the repentant. When the Pharaoh Necho professed sorrow for his conduct, Assur-bani-pal, following his established custom, restored him to Sais where he was to rule Egypt as a province of Babylonia.

At this time, Josiah of Judah also accepted the yoke of Assyria and became a vassal of Assur-bani-pal. From what we learn of the character of King Josiah, we would expect that he would be faithful to his pledges and promises and, indeed, this very faithfulness was the cause of his death. The Pharaoh Necho, smarting under his defeat and wounded deeply in his pride, quietly gathered together a tremendous army and rebelled against Assur-bani-pal the second time.

In this second conflict, Charchemish was the chosen battle ground. Although many strategic battles had been waged back and forth about this important center, this is generally referred to as the First Battle of Charchemish. This reference is undoubtedly predicated upon the fact that the ultimate struggle between Assyria and Egypt, which gave the latter power a world dominion, centered about this field.

In order to reach the battle ground, the Pharaoh Necho marched his horde across the terrain of Palestine. The story of what followed is familiar to every student of the Old Testament. In the thirty-fifth chapter of II Chronicles, beginning with the twentieth verse and ending with the twenty-seventh, this incidental tragedy is told. Josiah, who had taken the pledge of fidelity to Assur-bani-pal, gathered together his small army and sought to prevent this passage of the Egyptian army across his domain. It is recorded that Pharaoh sent his heralds to Josiah offering to leave the land of Palestine unmolested on condition that they gave him no opposition in his plans for battle. The pharaoh went so far as to claim that he was on the business of God. Although King Josiah had disguised himself in the common dress of a humble man-at-arms, he seems to have been recognized. The sharpshooters among the archers picked him as their target and he fell sorely wounded. He died after being taken to Jerusalem, and all of the people of Judah and Jerusalem mourned for him.

Jeremiah the prophet deeply loved the godly king because of his fidelity to the law, and the fourth chapter of the Book of Lamentations contains part of the dirge of Jeremiah concerning the death of the king.

In the meantime, hindered by the abortive attempt of the faithful Josiah to delay his passage, Necho swept on to the banks of the Euphrates where a notable battle was fought. The assault of Necho found the Assyrian monarch unprepared. The force that he had gathered at Charchemish was inadequate to defend his borders, and Assur-bani-pal was defeated. In the meantime, Jehoahaz had succeeded his father Josiah and was reigning at Jerusalem. The sway of the young king was short and ended tragically after ninety days. On his way home from his victory at Charchemish, the Pharaoh Necho deposed Jehoahaz because of his father’s conduct and put Eliakim on the throne. Thus the younger brother of Jehoahaz became king over Judah in his place.

The Pharaoh changed the name of Eliakim to Jehoiakim and once more Judah became a vassal to the might and power of Egypt. The unfortunate Jehoahaz, laden with chains, was carried away to Sais. There he dragged out a miserable existence until death brought him a happy release from captivity and degradation. The Pharaoh Necho imposed upon Palestine a fine for their opposition which would be about the equivalent in our modern currency of $200,000. In considering the difference in purchasing power, however, that would be about $3,000,000 in our money.

These incidents are either expressly stated or are referred to in many portions of Holy Writ. We first find them in the twenty-third chapter of II Kings.

The twenty-sixth chapter of Jeremiah, verses twenty-one to twenty-three, contains a bleak record of the hardship and oppression that resulted when men of God were slain for speaking God’s Word concerning the events of this grim and dismal affair.

In the nineteenth chapter of Ezekiel, the third and fourth verses of this record, the prophet sings a lamentation over the “lion’s whelp” and sorrows that “he shall be bound in chains in the land of Egypt.” Then from the fifth verse on, the prophet caustically berates the land because that another of the lion’s whelps, suddenly raised to maturity, devoured the men who had raised him and laid waste their land and cities.

Our present interest, however, is to be found in the records that deal with these events in the sources of archeology. It would be inconceivable that the mighty Necho should fail to boast of his power and victory when he had won so notable an ascendancy over all of his enemies. In the voluminous records of the Pharaoh Necho, the vainglorious boasting of this long-dead monarch comes to us today as a welcome, added voice to the rapidly swelling chorus that testifies to the historical accuracy of the Old Testament.

Leaving the record of Necho, however, for the present moment (as he enters the story again in the reign of the succeeding Babylonian monarch), we turn to the sources of Babylonian and Assyrian antiquity for the authentication of these affairs by the mighty Assur-bani-pal. Now, indeed, it becomes difficult to choose the most effective and pointed evidences, as we are embarrassed with so vast a wealth of material. It would take many days indeed for a careful student to exhaust the possibilities in that collection of the material of Assur-bani-pal that is found in the British Museum alone. In this notable and incomparable deposit of priceless fact and information, there is no more striking section than that which is derived from the works and records of this stormy ruler.

In about the year 666 B. C. this conqueror finished the third of his campaigns against Egypt, and with the sack of the City of Thebes, again established the dominion of Assyria over Egypt. The mighty king then turned his military attentions to the northern regions of his empire and thrust his borders out to an unprecedented extent. At the same time, with a part of his forces he waged a long war with the Elamites on his southeastern border and subjected that country to the yoke of Assyria. Putting down the Elamite uprising with a stern and bloody hand, he left a lesson in implacable cruelty that the Elamites never forgot.

In the Nineveh Gallery of the Assyrian section of the British Museum may be seen great sculptured slabs from the walls of Assur-bani-pal’s palace, which are numbered 45 to 50. At our last visit they were to be seen on the Eastern side of the gallery. These relics completely illustrate his conquest of Elam. Exhibits 45 to 47 further show the crushing of the Elamite forces, and the action is so dramatically depicted that the careful student may sense the excitement which seems to prevail. A voluminous text accompanies the pictured action so that there is no possibility of mistaking the meaning of the illustrations.

At this time Shamis-shum-ukim joined in the great revolt to which we have referred in a foregoing paragraph of this chapter. There are two accounts in the archeological records as to the end of Shamis-shum-ukim. Although a twin brother of Assur-bani-pal, he was some hours the younger, and thus was nominally subject to him under Assyrian law. One account says that he was taken prisoner and that Assur-bani-pal had him burned at the stake. The other account says that Shamis-shum-ukim, seeing he was about to be defeated, locked himself in a small section of the palace, which he set afire and burned himself rather than surrender. There was at this time a revolt in the Egyptian section of the empire which resulted in some long conflicts, which are also given in these records. It was also at this period that Assur-bani-pal left the record above cited, of the pacification of Babylon and the submission of Josiah.

The British Museum has a very large collection of letters from the library of Assur-bani-pal at Nineveh, many of which are of high significance in the study of these historical episodes. These letters cover a broad scope as they include the reports, requisitions, and communications of dignitaries. Some of these came from the crown prince, others from local governors and still more from various military captains. They deal in specific detail with military operations, uprisings, rebellions, and their suppression. They tell of the dispatch of troops to the provinces, with lists of expenses and expenditures. Such intimate details of Assyrian science as the reports of astronomers for regulating the calendar of the year are found there, and illuminating comments upon the political trend of the days. There are many references to these episodes, as would naturally be expected.

One of the great monuments to be found in the Babylonian Room of the British Museum, and numbered 90,864, is a stone stele with a rounded top, that is a treasure indeed. The upright full-length figure of Assur-bani-pal is shown in his capacity of high priest. This stele contains a lengthy chronicle recording the names, honors, and genealogy of the monarch and tells of his godly conduct and fidelity to his religion. There is a note of sadness and an index to the character of this great Assyrian in the line where Assur-bani-pal declares that he himself had appointed his twin brother Shamis-shum-ukim “to the sovereignty over Babylon so that the strong may not oppress the weak.”

Passing over a great many of these sources, we come now to the Assyrian Room where, in Table Case “E,” we find two ten-sided prisms of Assur-bani-pal which bear the Museum numbers 91,026, and 91,086. These lengthy records are inscribed with the outstanding incidents in the earlier years of his busy life. Beginning with an epitomized statement concerning his birth and education, as all good biographies should begin, he took occasion to recognize the great prosperity of Assyria that immediately followed his elevation to the throne. Then quickly the warrior king launched into some graphic descriptions of his principal military expeditions. Here he tells of the two expeditions against Tirhakah in Egypt, to which we have referred above. Among the allies who accompanied him to fight under his banner, who were already subject to him, he mentions levies from Cypress, Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine. After citing the events and victories of five campaigns, the record then introduces the sad tragedy of Shamis-shum-ukim, a portion of which we have cited in a preceding paragraph. In all, there are nine campaigns covered in these prisms, and the student of historical accuracy may find great substantiation for his confidence in the truth and fidelity of the Word of God from these fascinating records.

In the same case is an eight-sided clay prism of Assur-bani-pal, numbered 93,008. This also contains a shorter reference to these same events. To convey an adequate and detailed account of the materials available from the time of Assur-bani-pal and his unfortunate brother would require a large volume by itself. We have come to that point, however, where Assur-bani-pal’s record concludes as it touches the Scripture. So we satisfy ourselves temporarily with this brief introduction of an epitomized section of those evidences.

Three years after the battle of Charchemish, where Assur-bani-pal was temporarily defeated, a new and forceful conqueror appeared in the person of Nebuchadnezzar the Second. Assur-bani-pal was succeeded by Nabopolassar, who will be ignored in this record because of the fact that he is not named by name in the text of the Bible. Nabopolassar, however, had a gifted son who succeeded him as Nebuchadnezzar the Second, and who began his training for the crown by assuming command of the army as the chief general under his father and with his parent’s consent.

The first great campaign that Nebuchadnezzar fought, brought Egypt back under the dominion of Babylon. To see the background of this event, it must be noted that after the death of Assur-bani-pal, the Medes invaded Nineveh and captured that stronghold. Whereupon Nabopolassar reasserted the independence of Babylon and conducted a number of brilliant campaigns to secure the ascendency of his kingdom and to establish his supremacy over the entire ancient world.

When Nineveh fell, the Pharaoh Necho, with whom we are now dealing, entered the story again. Necho invaded Syria and Palestine and successfully campaigned up to the banks of the Euphrates. At Charchemish he met the host of Nebuchadnezzar for what is known as the Second Battle of Charchemish. Necho entered this conflict with considerable confidence, due to his previous victory on this same field. This time, however, a different experience awaited him. Nebuchadnezzar crushed the Egyptians with an overwhelming defeat and drove them back to their own border. As a result of this battle, all Palestine, with the exception of Judah, acknowledged the authority of Nebuchadnezzar. The Babylonian general took Jehoiakim captive and slew the Pharaoh Necho.

All of these events are recorded by the Pharaoh Necho, by Assur-bani-pal, and by certain humbler captains and leaders. The Pharaoh’s record is complete up to the time of the second battle. But as Necho did not survive this campaign, there is a dramatic break in his record. However, what is wanting from the Egyptian sources, is happily supplied from those of Babylon.

It is not to be expected that the young conqueror would remain silent concerning his early victories. His father, Nabopolassar, also recounts with some satisfaction the military ability of his son. Through all of his reign, however, Nebuchadnezzar was more of a builder and architect than conqueror, although he frequently took the field in notable military action. Most of the relics from his reign have to do with the building of great temples and edifices. There are, however, a number of fragmentary chronicles such as that which, in the Babylonian Room of the British Museum in Table Case “E,” bears the number of 33,041. This recounts a later expedition undertaken by Nebuchadnezzar in the thirty-seventh year of his reign. This was to put down an uprising in Egypt.

There are innumerable tablets and records in the British Museum that attest the order and genius of the government in the forty-two years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. We will refer to this later when we come to the closing period of his great career. We have introduced the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar now, and the coincidence of his account which climaxes the reign of Necho, to establish at one more point the historical accuracy of the Old Testament text.

The last Pharaoh who comes into the account of the Sacred Book is positively identified as Hophra. He is called Apris by the Greeks, and is frequently found in the hieroglyphics under the name of Psammetichus, the Second. His name, Hophra, occurs in the Scripture only once, which is the forty-fourth chapter of Jeremiah and the thirtieth verse. Here the three great characters of this last drama are found conjoined in these simple words:

“Thus saith the Lord; Behold I will give Pharaoh-hophra king of Egypt into the hand of his enemies, and into the hand of them that seek his life; as I gave Zedekiah king of Judah into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, his enemy, and that sought his life.”

Hophra was a rash, inexperienced, over-confident ruler who wasted what small strength and wealth his kingdom possessed in useless warfare against mighty powers which were manifestly beyond his ability to cope with. The background of his contact with the Sacred Record begins with his conspiracy that enmeshed Zedekiah. This entire rebellion was a faithless and degraded example of lack of honour and responsibility to a plighted and pledged word. This is primarily so because after the defeat of Necho and his subsequent death, Nebuchadnezzar raised Hophra, the son of Necho, to the throne of Egypt where he governed as a satrap. He was to reign for Babylon, and had taken the oath of fidelity to his over-lord and master.

To make matters worse the conduct of Zedekiah added insult to injury! When Nebuchadnezzar dethroned Jehoiakim and carried him bound in chains to his subsequent death in Babylon, he was followed on the throne by Jehoiakin who reigned for a very brief period. Then Nebuchadnezzar raised Zedekiah to a position of power and on his twenty-first birthday elevated him to the governorship of Jerusalem. For the better part of eleven years, he reigned more or less successfully. He seems to have been a graceless scoundrel and utterly without honour. Completely violating their treaties and their oaths of fidelity, Pharaoh and Zedekiah joined in a conspiracy and rebelled against the power of Nebuchadnezzar. It is a matter of wonder to the modern student that these kings of Judah never learned their lesson.

The Chaldeans besieged Jerusalem to put down this revolt, and Hophra marched to its aid. Because the company of Chaldeans was small, as Nebuchadnezzar had not anticipated a strong resistance, the wise captains of this advance-guard did not join battle with Hophra, but retired in good order rather than fight a hopeless conflict when they were so strongly outnumbered.

The city of Jerusalem went wild with delight and rejoicing over its deliverance. The gloomy Jeremiah warned the leaders in vain that the Chaldeans would return, and in overwhelming force. Refusing to listen to the prophecies of Jeremiah, the people treated him harshly and cast him out. While the city was rejoicing at this early victory, Jeremiah himself gave a manifestation of confidence in the ultimate fulfillment of his own prophecies, when he fled from the city and delivered himself voluntarily into the hands of the Chaldeans. In the meantime, Hophra, overcome with pride at his easy victory, boasted with blasphemy that not even could God defeat him! The sycophantic Zedekiah acquiesced in this boasting and blasphemy and showered the foolish Hophra with unlimited compliments.

With Jeremiah gone and all of Judah turning to the ways of idolatry, God did not lack champions. Messengers and prophets were sent rapidly to Zedekiah and to the princes of the kingdom, but they mocked the messengers of God and despised His words. They misused His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord rose against His people beyond remedy. Therefore, says the thirty-sixth chapter of II Chronicles,

“He brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age; he gave them all into his hand.”

The strongest voice that was raised for God in this dark hour was that of Ezekiel. At this time, the prophet was in Babylon and from there he spoke the words that are found in the first sixteen verses of his twenty-ninth chapter. This is undoubtedly one of the most comprehensive and remarkable prophecies concerning any nation that the student of this fascinating subject may deal with. For the sake of refreshing the mind of the reader, we publish here this prophecy in full:

“In the tenth year, in the tenth month, in the twelfth day of the month, the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, set thy face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him, and against all Egypt: Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself.

“But I will put hooks in thy jaws, and I will cause the fish of thy rivers to stick unto thy scales, and I will bring thee up out of the midst of thy rivers, and all the fish of thy rivers shall stick unto thy scales.

“And I will leave thee thrown into the wilderness, thee and all the fish of thy rivers: thou shalt fall upon the open fields; thou shalt not be brought together, nor gathered: I have given thee for meat to the beast of the field and to the fowls of the heaven.

“And all the inhabitants of Egypt shall know that I am the Lord, because they have been a staff of reed to the house of Israel.

“When they took hold of thee by thy hand, thou didst break, and rend all their shoulder: and when they leaned upon thee, thou brakest, and madest all their loins to be at a stand. Therefore thus said the Lord God; Behold I will bring a sword upon thee, and cut off man and beast out of thee.

“And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste; and they shall know that I am the Lord: because he hath said, The river is mine, and I have made it.

“Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia.

“No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years.

“And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries.

“Yet thus saith the Lord God; At the end of forty years will I gather the Egyptians from the people whither they were scattered;

“And I will bring again the captivity of Egypt, and will cause them to return into the land of Pathros, into the land of their habitation; and they shall be there a base kingdom.

“It shall be the basest of the kingdoms; neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations: for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations.

“And it shall be no more the confidence of the house of Israel, which bringeth their iniquity to remembrance, when they shall look after them: but they shall know that I am the Lord God.”

Analyzing this prophecy, we note the personal element that is introduced when God arrayed himself against Hophra and all of the land of Egypt. This people who, as we have seen, worshipped the Nile and counted it a deified object, had also acquiesced in the claims of Hophra who went so far as to state that he was the one who had made the river and caused it to continue to flow. Adopting this figure, the prophet speaking for God, says that Hophra shall be caught like the fish and cast into the fields by the side of the banks.

The sixth verse states that all the population of Egypt is to be taught a bitter lesson. They shall know forever that God is Lord, in the punishment they shall reap for their defections against Israel.

Verse eight contains the information that this punishment is to take the form of an invasion that shall leave the land desolate and waste. This punishment was to come upon the land and the people because of their idolatry and their sins against Israel.

From verses ten to twelve, a bleak picture is drawn of utter desolation which shall prevail in their land for forty years. The prophecy then turns upon the pivot of the thirteenth verse to a time of a partial restoration. This restoration, however, is limited in the Divine Word to the effect that Egypt shall be the basest of the kingdoms of the earth. It shall never be permitted to exalt itself again in the council of the nations. It is to be eternally diminished and debased.

The consequent history of Egypt has been a complete vindication and fulfillment of this prophecy. Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah and carried away the last remnant of that graceless people into captivity in Babylon. All those who had joined in the defection of Zedekiah, great and small, old and young, they slew with the sword. Then the angry Nebuchadnezzar swept on into Egypt and devastated that land, until, it is recorded, “not a living thing, man or beast,” was left in that once populous country.

For forty years it lay, wasted and idle. Then the counselors of Nebuchadnezzar advised that the land be colonized in order that it might produce revenue for the crown. The first attempt failed because of the climate and the unique conditions of agriculture in a country that required constant irrigation and whose crops depended upon the sole source of moisture the river Nile. Therefore, the counselors gathered together such remnant of the Egyptians as remained from the captivity and sent them back to repopulate the land.

Every student of history will recall that Egypt has been the basest of kingdoms from that hour to this. It has been dominated in turn by the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Arabs, the Turks, the French, and the British.

One notable effort was made in historic time to raise Egypt to its former grandeur and power. The reader will recall the great campaign of Napoleon by which he thought to revive this Mistress of Antiquity and make Egypt an adjunct of his own imperial greatness. If Napoleon had read and believed the twenty-ninth chapter of Ezekiel, he could have spared himself this useless and expensive campaign. We all recall that when victory seemed to be in sight, Napoleon’s power and greatness shattered itself upon an immovable rock. This was composed of the small remnant of indomitable British who refused to recognize the fact of their defeat when it stared them in the face. And that courageous and noble refusal to give up, when they were quite evidently hopelessly overthrown, was again vindicated in the final result. The army of Napoleon was broken, discomfited, decimated, and defeated. Finally, it was deserted by its discouraged leader, who probably never knew why he had failed. He was not fighting against the allies only, nor was he defeated entirely by British valour. Napoleon was fighting against the Word of God and the will of Him whose hand is able to raise to power and to cast down again. From that hour to this, and even in our present moment of historic time, Egypt remains the basest of the kingdoms of the earth.

To come back to the miserable Hophra, his final end came when he was assassinated by his own general, whose name is given by the Greeks as Amasis and who appears on the monuments under the name of Iahmose. Amasis occupied the throne until the final conquest by Nebuchadnezzar.

We note again the coincidence of ancient records with the accounts that portray these events in the books of II Chronicles, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Voluminous sections of the Word of God are extended a strong and friendly hand of historical authentication by the secular records which have survived from that time.

In the British Museum will be found tablets, stelae, portraits, and sculptured remnants from Egypt which have been derived from those unsettled times. In the Egyptian collection of the British Museum, the exhibit numbered 1358 contains a portrait of Hophra. There are also a number of scarabs in Table Case “B” in the Fourth Egyptian Room, and a fragmentary sistrum in the Fifth Egyptian Room, all of which bear the name of Hophra and authenticate his record.

Thus we have seen in a brief but accurate recapitulation of generations and centuries of history that dead men do tell tales! We have Hophra’s record together with the annalistic tablet of Amasis to aid us in our understanding of these stirring days. Added to that, the record of Nebuchadnezzar brings additional confirmation of the thesis that is maintained in this brief work.

The evidence of archeology as it bears upon the text of God’s Word is final and complete wherever men have delved into the records of those days.

It may not be exactly what was in the mind of the Lord Jesus Christ when He uttered the words, but we can certainly apply to the generation in which we live, His striking statement:

“If men should hold their tongues, the very stones would cry out!”

And if living men will not speak the truth concerning the finality of the Bible—dead men must!

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 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.”