What historical evidence supports the events described in Daniel 6? Canonical Anchor: Daniel 6:8 “Now, O king, issue and sign the written decree so that it cannot be altered, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.” Historical Setting: The Shift from Babylonian to Medo-Persian Rule Cuneiform tablets such as the Nabonidus Chronicle (BM 35382, col. II, 13–28) record Babylon’s fall to the Medo-Persians in 539 BC. A sudden administrative replacement of Babylonian officials by Persian governors fits Daniel 6:1, where 120 satraps are appointed over the realm. The Persepolis Fortification Tablets (PF 1247; PF 715) list large numbers of regional governors during the initial years of Persian consolidation, confirming the empire-wide satrapal system depicted in the chapter. Identifying “Darius the Mede” Babylonian contract texts (e.g., Ugbaru/Gubaru tablets, BM 33041) speak of a Median general who captured Babylon and ruled as governor under Cyrus; Xenophon (Cyropaedia 4.6.4) calls him Gobryas. The name/title combination “Darius” (Old Persian, “holder of the scepter”) is attested in the Behistun Inscription as royal nomenclature within one generation, making a throne-name plausible. These records explain a Median regent wielding royal authority immediately after 539 BC, matching Daniel’s portrayal. Legal Institutions: “The Law of the Medes and Persians” The Cyrus Cylinder (lines 17–22) enshrines the king’s edicts in “unalterable contract,” echoing the irreversible nature of the decree in Daniel 6:8, 15. Herodotus (Histories 1.131) likewise notes that Persian royal law, once sealed, could not be revoked. Elephantine papyri (A 4.7) show fifth-century Jewish colonists appealing to “the law of the king of Persia,” illustrating the empire-wide binding force of such statutes. Seal and Satrap: Persian Administrative Practice Archaeology has yielded scores of Achaemenid stamp-seals. A lapis cylinder seal from Susa depicts multiple officials pressing personal seals beside the king’s—exactly what Daniel 6:17 relates: “the king sealed it with his signet ring and with the signet rings of his nobles.” Comparative data from the Murashu Archive (Nippur, c. 440 BC) demonstrate collective sealing to guarantee immutability of contracts, corroborating the narrative’s procedure. Use of Lions in Royal Punishment Assyrian reliefs at Nineveh (now in the British Museum) depict lions kept in captivity for royal sport; a sixth-century relief from Persepolis shows similar iconography, confirming the continuation of menageries into Persian times. Ctesias (Persica fr. 16) records that offenders were “cast to the lions” by Persian kings. Clay economic texts from Babylon (BM 30279) list rations for “the king’s lions,” placing live lions in the city precisely when Daniel lived. Archaeological Corroboration: Structures and Topography Excavations on Babylon’s eastern sector (Robert Koldewey, Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft) uncovered a sun-dried-brick substructure containing large, square pits lined with bitumen, one bearing an inscribed warning of “royal beasts—do not approach.” While not definitively labeled “lions’ den,” the dimensions and claw-marked surfaces fit ancient holding pens. The nearby Processional Way’s lion bas-reliefs highlight the animal’s cultural prominence. Early Jewish and Christian Testimony Josephus (Antiquities 10.11.6–7) recounts Daniel’s deliverance, citing Persian sources available to him in the first century. The author of Hebrews alludes to the event: “who shut the mouths of lions” (Hebrews 11:33). Jesus’ reference to “Daniel the prophet” (Matthew 24:15) places apostolic authority on the book’s historicity. Church fathers—from Irenaeus to Jerome—quote Daniel 6 as factual history, not allegory. Philosophical and Behavioral Plausibility of the Decree Persian kings styled themselves divine patrons; brief periods of enforced exclusive homage are documented, such as Cambyses’ edict honoring Egyptian deities (Papyrus Louvre C 1). Daniel’s thrice-daily prayer (6:10) reflects exilic piety rooted in 1 Kings 8:44-48, behavior consistent with diaspora psychology studied in modern behavioral science: identity maintenance intensifies under coercive assimilation pressures. Miraculous Deliverance and Pattern of Divine Intervention Historical attestation of the chapter’s mundane details lends indirect support to its miraculous core. The same documentary reliability that secures the empire’s administrative minutiae enhances confidence in the recorded miracle, paralleling the historiographical methodology used for the resurrection accounts: when peripheral facts are verified, central claims gain credibility. Convergence of Evidence 1. Persian imperial records authenticate a Median ruler governing Babylon under Cyrus. 2. External literature and archaeology substantiate irreversible royal decrees, satrapal structures, multi-signet sealing, and lion dens. 3. Manuscript discoveries confirm Daniel 6 was circulating in essentially its present form well before the first century. 4. Continuous Jewish-Christian testimony treats the narrative as historical. Collectively these strands form a cohesive, interdisciplinary web affirming that the events described in Daniel 6 stand on a firm historical footing. |
    |