Dead Men Tell Tales

by Harry Rimmer

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.