Dead Men Tell Tales

by Harry Rimmer

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.