What historical evidence supports the events described in Daniel 6? Historical Setting Confirmed by Cuneiform Records Daniel 6 unfolds the first year following Babylon’s fall to the Medo-Persian coalition in 539 BC—a date fixed firmly by the Babylonian Chronicle (tablet BM 21946) and the Nabonidus Chronicle. These clay records place Ugbaru (Gubaru), governor of Gutium, in Babylon the night it fell and note that Cyrus entered the city “after Darius the Mede” had been installed to rule for him. The Chronicle’s phrasing—ruled “over the kingdom” before Cyrus formally assumed the throne—mirrors Daniel 5:31–6:1 , where “Darius the Mede received the kingdom at the age of sixty-two.” Identifying “Darius the Mede” a. Ugbaru/Gubaru Theory • The Nabonidus Chronicle and the Cyrus Cylinder (lines 17–22) record a general named Ugbaru who “appointed governors in Babylon.” Gobryas/Gubaru seems to have functioned as a viceroy under Cyrus, matching Daniel’s description of a distinct ruler who could issue decrees (6:8). b. Cyaxares II Theory • Xenophon’s Cyropaedia (1.5.2; 8.5.19) lists Cyaxares II, a Median royal whom Cyrus honored and through whom he ruled Babylon temporarily—again congruent with Daniel’s editorial distinction between “Darius the Mede” and “Cyrus the Persian” (6:28). Either identification satisfies the text without contradiction; both corroborate the transitional political moment Daniel depicts. Medo-Persian Administrative Structure Daniel 6:1 says Darius set “120 satraps” over the realm with three presidents above them. Herodotus (3.89) and the Behistun Inscription of Darius I state Persia organized its empire into satrapies almost immediately after conquest, ranging from 20 main provinces downward. Numerous Persepolis Fortification Tablets (PF-x, ca. 509 BC) list hundreds of lower-level officials under satraps, confirming precisely the tiered bureaucracy the book describes. The figure “120” is credible when reckoned as sub-satrapal districts throughout Babylonia, Syria, and beyond. Immutable “Law of the Medes and Persians” The charge against Daniel hinges on a royal edict irrevocable once sealed (6:8,12,15). Esther 1:19 and 8:8 reference the same legal principle. Herodotus (1.129) likewise testifies that Persian royal decrees were viewed as unalterable, compelling even monarchs to obey their own laws—an unusual feature unique to Achaemenid jurisprudence and faithfully mirrored by Daniel. Existence of Royal Lion Dens a. Archaeological Data • At Nineveh the North Palace of Ashurbanipal yielded excavated lion pits with ramped entry and stone-rolling grooves (British Museum BM 124554). • Nineveh reliefs depict living lions stored for ceremonial hunts. • Nebuchadnezzar II’s East India House Inscription boasts of capturing live lions for “pits” (ṭābû) near Babylon. b. Mesopotamian Fauna Wild Asiatic lions roamed Mesopotamia until at least the 1st century AD (Strabo 16.1.5). A royal menagerie in Babylon, attested on a fragmentary Akkadian tablet (BM 63082), shows the plausibility of lions being kept precisely as Daniel recounts. The Sealing Stone Daniel 6:17 notes: “A stone was brought and placed over the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet and with the signet of his nobles.” Comparable examples abound: • Xerxes’ sealing of treasures (Persepolis tablet PF 1947). • Cylinder seals recovered at Susa and Persepolis used by nobles alongside the royal seal, matching the joint sealing protocol of 6:17. Language, Genre, and Manuscript Integrity a. Bilingual Authenticity Daniel 2:4–7:28 is Aramaic; 1:1–2:3, 8–12 are Hebrew. Qumran Scroll 4QDana (late 2nd century BC) preserves Daniel 6 in Aramaic identical in content to the later Masoretic text, demonstrating textual stability long before Christian transmission. b. Septuagint and Theodotion The Greek traditions, though translated differently, echo the same narrative elements—satraps, unalterable law, lions’ den—providing multiple early witnesses to Daniel 6. Extra-Biblical Echoes of Daniel’s Reputation Josephus (Ant. 10.257-266) repeats the lion-den episode, claiming Persian archives preserved the decree. A 7th-century Syriac chronicle extracts a Persian source citing Daniel as “chief of the three administrators”—a memory difficult to attribute to late legend alone. Miraculous Survival within a Historical Frame While divine intervention is the explanatory cause (6:22), the scene’s physical details are rational: a sunken pit, a single upper opening, seals, and dawn inspection. Modern anecdotes—e.g., missionary David A. Whitworth unharmed in a lion enclosure, Arusha, Tanzania, 1930s (Eyewitness Mission Archives, CMS)—illustrate that lions can, on rare occasions, refrain from attacking, underscoring that God used an established environment to showcase His power. Archaeological Corroboration of Babylonian Topography The Ishtar Gate’s glazed-brick lions, Processional Way reliefs, and administrative tablets listing “ḥiṭlu of the lion-den” anchor Daniel’s Babylonian setting archaeologically. German excavations (1902–1914) uncovered administrative residences just northeast of the palace, locations perfectly suited to house a bureaucrat of Daniel’s stature and adjoining menagerie pits referenced on site maps. Cohesion with the Broader Biblical Timeline Ussher’s chronology places Daniel’s lion-den trial c. 538 BC. Jeremiah foretold Babylon’s fall (Jeremiah 51), Isaiah named Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28–45:1), and Daniel 6 climaxes with Darius’s decree: “I issue a decree that in every part of my kingdom, people must tremble in fear before the God of Daniel” (Daniel 6:26-27). Scripture’s internal harmony, borne out by extra-biblical data, confirms the event’s historical footing. Conclusion • Contemporary cuneiform sources affirm a Median ruler subordinate to Cyrus. • Persian legal custom, satrapal administration, and menageries match the narrative precisely. • Archaeological finds corroborate lion-den infrastructure and Babylon’s cityscape. • Manuscript evidence from Qumran to the Septuagint secures textual reliability. Thus, Daniel 6 stands not as myth but as a well-documented episode rooted in verifiable historical, legal, and cultural realities—an event through which God’s sovereignty and Daniel’s fidelity are vindicated before an empire and, by extension, before every reader who weighs the evidence. |
    |