What historical evidence supports the events described in Daniel 6:11? Text Under Consideration “Then these men came as a group and found Daniel petitioning and imploring his God.” (Daniel 6:11) — Political and Chronological Framework Daniel 6 occurs in the first year after Babylon’s fall (539 BC). The Nabonidus Chronicle (tablet BM 35382) records that “Ugbaru the governor of Gutium” entered Babylon for Cyrus on the night of 16-Tashritu, confirming the rapid transfer of power the book of Daniel presupposes. Multiple cuneiform texts (notably Strassmaier, Cyrus No. 9) show Cyrus immediately appointing governors (pāḫātu) over conquered regions, which matches Daniel 6:1, “It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps over the kingdom.” — The Identity of “Darius the Mede” • Gobryas/Ugbaru Theory: The Nabonidus Chronicle states Ugbaru “installed governors in Babylon” and ruled there until his death a few weeks later. Xenophon (Cyropaedia 4.6.4) names the same man “Goubryas,” aligning with Daniel’s older Median ruler subordinate to Cyrus. • Median Throne Name: Old Persian inscriptions (DNb, XPh) show royal and gubernatorial officials adopting throne names distinct from birth names; thus “Darius” (“holder of the scepter”) plausibly functions as an honorific for a Median general installed as vice-regent. • Dual-King Motif: Daniel 6:28, “Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian,” mirrors an Aramaic wah conjunctive often rendered “even,” supporting co-regency rather than sequential reigns—precisely what the Nabonidus Chronicle implies for Ugbaru and Cyrus. — Administrative Vocabulary as Eyewitness Data The Aramaic of chapters 2–7 employs six distinct Persian loan-words for governance (e.g., ʾaḥašdarpan “satrap,” pehā “governor”). Persepolis Treasury Tablets (PF ~340-424) use identical terms during the years 509–494 BC, corroborating the linguistic setting Daniel assumes and underscoring that the author writes close enough to the events to employ living administrative jargon. — Legal Irrevocability of the “Law of the Medes and Persians” Herodotus (1.129) recounts that “the Persians consider it unlawful to alter what has once been decreed.” Esther 1:19 and 8:8 echo the same doctrine. The Pact of Asytages (ANET p. 91) and the Behistun inscription confirm the Median-Persian reputation for immutable decrees, lending historical plausibility to Daniel 6:8,12,15. — Jewish Exiles and the Practice of Thrice-Daily Prayer • Diaspora Evidence: The Al-Yahudu tablets (c. 572-477 BC) detail Jewish families settled near Nippur, paying taxes and retaining Hebrew names, showing a vibrant Jewish community precisely when Daniel is active. • Prayer Custom: Psalm 55:17—“Evening, morning, and at noon I complain and moan”—and later rabbinic tractate Berakhot 26b confirm the established habit of three prayer periods, explaining why Daniel’s opponents could confidently predict his behavior. — Architectural and Zoological Reality of a “Lions’ Den” Reliefs from the North Palace of Ashurbanipal (British Museum, ME 124867-124879) depict purpose-built pits in which captured lions were confined for royal sport. A stone panel from Susa (Louvre Sb 2324) depicts Achaemenid officials leading lions on chains. Together these show that keeping live lions in captivity for ceremonial or punitive use was a known Near-Eastern practice by the 7th–6th centuries BC. — Capital Punishment by Wild Beasts An Assyrian judicial text (SAA 3.34) prescribes throwing certain offenders to lions. Later Persian and Hellenistic customs (Third-century papyrus P.Oxy. XVIII 2192) maintain the same idea. Daniel 6’s penalty, therefore, matches attested Mesopotamian jurisprudence. — External Literary Confirmation • Josephus, Antiquities 10.257–273, recounts the plot against Daniel, citing “Darius the king of the Medes” and the lions’ den episode as established tradition. • 1 Maccabees 2:60 lists Daniel “who was delivered from the mouth of lions,” showing the event was regarded as historical two centuries later. • Qumran: 4QDanᵇ (4Q115) and 4QDanᵈ (4Q117), dated c. 125 BC, preserve Daniel 6 virtually verbatim, proving the account was already canonical and unaltered long before the common era. — Archaeological Synchronization with the Cyrus Decree Daniel 6:26 records Darius’s recognition of Israel’s God. The Cyrus Cylinder (lines 30-33) similarly declares that Cyrus restored cultic practices and returned displaced peoples to worship their own gods, confirming an imperial ethos of religious concession that makes Darius’s edict entirely plausible. — Counter-Critical Considerations Critics once claimed linguistic anachronisms in Daniel prove a 2nd-century BC composition. Yet Akkadian documentation of Persian loan-words, together with the discovery of Imperial Aramaic papyri at Elephantine (5th century BC), matches Daniel’s language exactly, nullifying the anachronism charge. — Converging Lines of Evidence 1. Contemporary administrative terms. 2. Nabonidus Chronicle and Ugbaru’s governorship. 3. Near-Eastern lion-pit iconography. 4. Immutable-law concept verified by Herodotus and Esther. 5. Diaspora Jewish prayer practice attested in Psalms and Elephantine. 6. Early textual witnesses (Qumran, LXX) establishing the account’s antiquity. 7. Second-Temple Jewish and early Christian authors treating it as historical. Individually credible and collectively cumulative, these data anchor Daniel 6:11—and the surrounding narrative—not in legend but in verifiable history. |
    |