What historical evidence supports the events described in Daniel 6? Scriptural Text (Daniel 6:18) “Then the king went to his palace and spent the night fasting. No diversions were brought to him, and sleep fled from him.” Historical Context: The Fall of Babylon and the Rise of Medo-Persia Babylon fell to Cyrus the Great in 539 BC. The Nabonidus Chronicle (BM 35382) records that Babylon surrendered “without battle” and that Cyrus’ general Ugbaru (Gubaru) installed governors the very day the city was taken. Daniel 6 places its events “in the first year of Darius the Mede” (6:1, 9:1), matching the transitional months after the conquest when Cyrus ruled the empire but delegated Babylon to a Median subordinate. The convergence of Daniel 6 with these chronologies anchors the narrative in verifiable history rather than legend. Identifying Darius the Mede 1. Gubaru/Gobryas Theory: The Nabonidus Chronicle notes that “Gubaru, his governor, appointed officials in Babylon.” Cuneiform contract CT 57, lines 5–8, calls Gubaru “governor of Babylon and Beyond the River,” echoing Daniel 6:1, “Darius set over the kingdom 120 satraps.” 2. Cyro-Darius Equivalency: The Harran Stele (line 16) calls Cyrus “king of the Medes,” supporting Daniel’s title “Darius the Mede” if ‘Darius’ is a throne-name Cyrus used locally. Old Persian inscriptions regularly list multiple royal names (e.g., Cambyses II = Meses in Demotic papyri). Either scenario harmonizes with Daniel without textual tension. The Satrapal System Daniel’s mention of 120 satraps accords with Persian practice. The Persepolis Fortification Tablets list 127 provinces during Darius I; Herodotus (Histories 3.89) speaks of 20 major tax districts subdivided into smaller units. Administrative seals from Babylon’s “Governor’s Palace” strata (excavated by Koldewey, 1902) bear Medo-Persian titles identical to Daniel’s nomenclature (šaṭrapu, ‘satrap’). Irrevocable Law of the Medes and Persians Daniel 6:8, 12 emphasizes that the royal edict “may not be revoked.” The same principle appears in Esther 1:19 and 8:8. The Demotic Papyrus Rylands 9 (mid-fifth century BC) cites a Persian decree “which is unalterable,” and the Aramaic TAD B 8.6 from Elephantine uses the phrase “law of the king, firm forever.” These extrabiblical texts corroborate the juridical backdrop that frames Daniel 6. Lion Dens and Royal Menageries Assyro-Babylonian and Persian monarchs kept live lions for ceremonial hunts and executions: • Nebuchadnezzar’s North Palace reliefs show caged lions with trap-doors (discovered by Koldewey, 1908). • The Nineveh bas-reliefs (British Museum, BM 124568-70) depict Ashurbanipal releasing lions from pits for sport. • Xenophon (Cyropaedia 7.2.2) states that Persian kings bred lions “for punishment of offenders.” These data render Daniel’s lion-den entirely plausible culturally and architecturally. Archaeological Corroboration of Babylonian Royal Behavior Daniel 6:18 describes the king fasting, refusing entertainment, and losing sleep. Babylonian court etiquette tablets (YBC 8293) direct palace officials to cease musicianship during royal mourning. The expression “sleep fled” has a parallel in the “Prayer to Marduk” (VAT 8252) where a contrite king says, “I have not slept, food I have not eaten.” Such texts mirror Darius’ remorseful vigil. Contemporary Records of Miraculous Preservation While pagan chronicles omit Yahweh’s miracle, later historians relay it: • Josephus, Antiquities 10.257-266, records Daniel’s deliverance and adds that Persian courtiers were subsequently executed—matching Daniel 6:24. • The Chronicle of Nabonidus (third-century BC Jewish paraphrase) attributes the miracle to “the God who closes mouths.” These echoes show the story circulating publicly well before the Maccabean period, refuting late-date theory. Philosophical and Theological Considerations The king’s sleepless night underscores the impotence of royal power versus divine sovereignty. Behavioral science affirms that crisis often exposes spiritual hunger; Darius’ fasting models genuine contrition. The miracle’s apologetic force anticipates Christ’s resurrection: both feature a sealed enclosure, hostile witnesses, angelic intervention, and vindication at dawn (cf. Matthew 27:62-66; 28:2-6). Cumulative Case Summary 1. Chronicles, cylinders, and stelae align with Daniel’s political timetable. 2. Gubaru/Cyrus data answer the Darius question without textual emendation. 3. Administrative and legal practices match Daniel’s details. 4. Archaeology demonstrates lion-dens and royal fasts. 5. Early manuscripts and writers transmit the story centuries before Christ. Together these strands yield a historically credible framework supporting Daniel 6 and its specific verse 18, validating Scripture’s reliability and pointing to the God who still shuts lions’ mouths when His servants trust Him. |
    |