SOURCE: Wilson, Robert Dick. “The Argument from Silence” and “Was Daniel an Historical Character?” In Studies in the Book of Daniel: A Study of the Historical Questions, pp. 1-23, 24-42. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1917.

[In the following essays, Wilson considers the historicity of the events described in Daniel as well as the factual basis for identifying Daniel himself.]

I shall begin the consideration of the historicity of Daniel and of the Book of Daniel with a discussion of the argument from silence, not merely because of its intrinsic importance, but because of its bearing upon many of the objections made against the existence of Daniel himself and against the authenticity and genuineness of the book which bears his name. Before considering these objections, it may be well to state explicitly what is meant in this connection by an argument from silence. When the argument from silence is invoked against a statement of a record of any kind, it is implied that the statement is probably not true because there is no evidence to be gathered from other sources of information in support or confirmation of it. It is a purely negative argument. For example, our Lord is said to have accompanied his parents to a feast at Jerusalem in his twelfth year and to have been present at several feasts in the same place during the years of his ministry. Nothing is said in the gospel records about his attendance at the feasts during the period intervening between his twelfth year and the beginning of his Judean ministry. It would be an argument from silence to maintain that Jesus was never at a feast at Jerusalem during this long period of his life, inasmuch as no mention of his having been there is to be found either in the gospels, or in any other credible document. But the argument is clearly inconclusive and unsatisfactory, because it may be used as well to show the probability that he was there at many, or all, of the feasts of the intervening years,—that it was his habit to attend the feasts. Certainly, the fact that his presence at a feast in his twelfth year is mentioned in but one of the gospels does not render that statement improbable. Nor does the fact that his attendance at certain other feasts during the years of his ministry is stated in but one of the four gospels render such an attendance improbable. The commands laid upon the Israelites to go up three times a year to the feasts, the rigid observance of these commands by other Israelites of that period, and the well-known obedience of our Lord to the injunctions of the law, would make it probable that he observed the feasts. The fact that he is said to have been present at several of them would imply that he probably was present at more. But the mere failure of more than one of the sources, or even of all of them put together, to mention his attendance at a given feast during the whole period from his twelfth year onward, cannot be regarded as proof of his absence from it.

The failure, therefore, of any given authority to mention an event recorded in another, or the fact that a given event is recorded in only one authority, while others pass it by in silence, does not prove that the event did not occur. Most events of antiquity of which we have any knowledge are mentioned in but one contemporary source of information. For most of the history of Cyrus, Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius, and Xerxes, we are absolutely dependent for our information upon Herodotus, often at best a second-hand and unreliable source. For Artaxerxes I, Darius II, and the first part of the reign of Artaxerxes II, we have the fragments of Ctesias, the partial accounts of Xenophon, and allusions and short references in Thucydides and a few other writers. For the history of Assyria and Babylonia, and for that of Syria, Phenicia, and Egypt before 500 b.c., we have no historian, strictly so-called, either native or foreign, who was contemporaneous with the events which transpired. For the history of the Hittites and for that of Elam, Lydia, Media, and Persia, we have no native historians, of any age, whether contemporaneous or not. For the history of all of these countries from 500 b.c. to 300 b.c., we are limited as to contemporaneous historians to the Greeks, especially to Herodotus, Ctesias, Thucydides, and Xenophon. About 300 b.c., a native Egyptian, Manetho by name, wrote in Greek what purported to be a history of Egypt from the earliest times, which, he asserted, he had derived from the records of the Egyptians. About the same time, also in Greek, Berosus wrote a history of the Babylonians; Menander, a history of Tyre; and Nicolaus, a history of Damascus. Unfortunately, fragments only of these historians have been preserved to us, mostly excerpts found in Josephus and Eusebius.

But while, strictly speaking, we have no histories from any of the nations who came into contact with the ancient Israelites, we have from some of them a large number of documents affording us for certain periods the sources, or materials, from which to construct a more or less continuous history, and to obtain for certain epochs and individuals a more or less satisfactory knowledge of their civilization and especially of their political conditions and relations. The relative and even the absolute chronology of the times in which the Israelites flourished is becoming clearer and more definite. The geographical terminology and limitations are becoming known. The laws, manners, customs, science, art, and religion are becoming revealed. Some kings of Assyria, such as the Tiglath-Pilesers, the Shalmanesers, Ashurnaṣirpal, Sargon, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal have left us annals which supply the place of histories and cause these kings to stand out before us as real characters. Hammurabi, Merodach-Baladan, Nebuchadnezzar, and Nabunaid, kings of Babylon, have left us inscriptions from which we can in a measure construct their biographies. The inscriptions of Nabunaid, Cyrus, and Darius Hystaspis enable us, also, to supplement what the Greek historians and the biblical writers have to say about the early days of Persia; while the Egyptian and Phenician records, though not as satisfactory, give us at least a chronological background and check for much of the history. The records of the Hittites, Lydians, and Elamites, also, are being resurrected in part from the graves of oblivion, and even the Arabian deserts are yielding up their long-buried secrets.

But when all these discoveries are taken into consideration, they present at best but a very imperfect view of the general or particular history of the nations of antiquity, that preceded the empires of Greece and Rome. It is impossible as yet to write a continuous history of any one of them. The records are so incomplete and sporadic that they fail frequently to give us information where we most desire to have it. Moreover, when we compare the records of one country with those of another, we find that most frequently those of a given country fail to mention matters which are found recorded at length in the documents of another. Most of them abstain from mentioning occurrences derogatory to the dignity of their kings or to the honor of their country. It is often only from silence or inference that we can supply the gaps, which indicate defeat in the midst of victory, or periods of decay lying between periods of comparative prosperity. The silence of one record, therefore, is no disproof of the accuracy or truthfulness of another. It does not even show that the writer of the record was not cognizant of the event. It is simply and absolutely no evidence at all.

In order to show the futility of the argument from silence when adduced against the trustworthiness of an event, or the existence of a person, mentioned in the Old Testament records, and as a special introduction to the discussion of the following chapters which are chiefly concerned with proving the veracity of the statements of the Book of Daniel with regard to historical matters, I shall now proceed to give a series of parallels illustrating the fact of the silence of certain documents with reference to the statements made in others.

I. In the Scriptures themselves many examples can be cited of the silence of one book with regard to an event which is mentioned in another. For example, in Isaiah xx, 1, Sargon is called king of Assyria, although he is not mentioned elsewhere even by name. In view of the fact that Sargon was one of the greatest of the kings of Assyria; that according to the monuments it was he, or his general, who actually captured the city of Samaria, which Shalmaneser, his immediate predecessor, had besieged; and that he reigned from 722 b.c., the year of Samaria's fall, till 705 b.c., i. e., through a large part of Hezekiah's reign, this silence of the Scriptures with regard to him is a noteworthy fact, especially since, according to his own inscriptions, Sargon fought with Gaza, Ashdod, Samaria, Damascus, Egypt, and other powers in the immediate neighborhood of Jerusalem.

Again, it is said in Ezra iv, 10, that the great and noble Asnapper brought various peoples over and settled them in Samaria. Whoever this Asnapper may have been, he is not mentioned elsewhere in the Scriptures, unless he be the same as “Esarhaddon, king of Assyria” who, according to Ezra iv, 2, had brought the inhabitants of Samaria thither. But if Asnapper be Esarhaddon, this transaction of his, so great in its bearing on the history of the Jews, is not mentioned elsewhere in the Scriptures. Esarhaddon, it is true, is named in 2 Kings xix, 37 and in the parallel passage, Is. xxxvii, 38, as the son and successor of Sennacherib, and is referred to in 2 Chron. xxxiii, 11-13 as the “king of Assyria” who captured and carried captive to Babylon and afterwards released Manasseh, king of Judah; but nothing is said in any of these books, or elsewhere, of a settlement of nations made by him, or by anyone under him, in Samaria, or in any other place. If the importation described in 2 Kings xvii, 24-41 refers to this event, it is remarkable that out of the five names of the peoples imported, as given in Kings, only one, that of Babylon, should be given in the list of names found in Ezra iv, 9, 10. If, however, as is more probable, Asnapper be Ashurbanipal, the successor of Esarhaddon, this transaction of his is mentioned nowhere else, either in the Scriptures or in the monuments.

II. Parallels are numerous, also, where the Scriptures are silent as to events or persons that are mentioned on the Monuments. For example, Shalmaneser III of Assyria (860-825 b.c.) mentions a campaign against the king of Damascus and his allies, among whom was Ahab of Israel, who contributed 2000 chariots and 10,000 warriors to the army of Hadadezer, king of Damascus.¹ The Scriptures do not mention this event in the career of Ahab, nor Shalmaneser's five later campaigns against Damascus and her allies in 849, 848, 845, 842 (?), and 839 b.c.²

Shalmaneser claims also that in his eighteenth year, 842 b.c., he received the tribute of Jehu, son of Omri.³ No mention of this is found in the Scriptures. Again, Sargon says that he subdued the land of Judah⁴ although there is no mention in the Scriptures of this conquest and only one mention of his name, to wit, in Isaiah xx, 1.

III. Further, the Scriptures in general are silent as to the history of the great world monarchies, and also of the smaller kingdoms, in the midst of which the Israelites were placed.

For example, of the history of Egypt from Solomon's time down to the time of Alexander, only a very few persons and events are named in the Scriptures.⁵

IV. The instances, also, are numerous where the Scriptures mention events and persons that are not mentioned on the monuments.⁶

Among persons we need only name Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, all the judges, and their antagonists; all the prophets; Saul, David, Solomon, and, in fact, all the kings of both Israel and Judah, except Azariah, Ahaz, Hezekiah, and Manasseh, of the kingdom of Judah, and Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Menahem, Pekah, and Hoshea, of the kingdom of Israel. Nor do we find on the monuments the names of Zerubbabel, Daniel, Esther, Mordecai, Ezra, or Nehemiah, nor of any of the high priests from Aaron down to Jaddua, except of Johanan, the predecessor of the last named.⁷ Nor do we find in any hitherto discovered monuments the names of Jabin, king of Hazor, of Barak and Eglon, kings of Moab, of Cushan-Rishathaim, king of Aram-Naharaim, nor of Nahash, Hanun, and Baalis, kings of the Ammonites.

Among events not mentioned except in the Scriptures, are the sojourn in Egypt, the plagues, the exodus, the wanderings, the conquest, the wars of the Judges and of David and Solomon, the expedition of Zerah, king of Ethiopia (Cush), the wars of Israel and Judah with each other and with the immediately surrounding tribes and cities (except what is recorded on the Moabite stone), the whole story of the relations between Judah and Babylon from Merodach-Baladan down to Cyrus, and, also, of those between the Jews and the Persians in general, and in particular, except the information supplied by the lately discovered Egyptian papyri.

V. There are numerous decades and even centuries of Israelitish history as to which there is a universal silence in the Scriptures. For example, nothing is stated as to the history of the people during their long sojourn in Egypt, except a long account of why they went there and another of why and how they came out. Thirty-eight years of their sojourn in the wilderness are relieved by scarcely a notice of events. The same is true of numerous decades in the time of the judges, and of long periods of time in the history of nearly all the great kings of Israel and Judah. The forty-seven chapters of the books of Kings contain all that is said of the history of Israel from the accession of Solomon to the destruction of Jerusalem! Seven verses only are devoted to the events of the reign of Jeroboam II, who was the greatest king of the Northern Kingdom and ruled forty years; and a like number to those of Azariah, king of Judah, who reigned for fifty-two years! Eighteen verses only are given to the fifty-five years of Manasseh, most of them taken up with a description of his idolatry and of the punishment certain to follow.⁸

VI. There are numerous decades and centuries of Israelitish history, as to which there is absolute silence on the Monuments.

For example, on the Egyptian monuments, there is but one reference to Israel down to the time of Shishak, that is, in the song of triumph of Merenptah, in which he says: “The people of Israel is laid waste, their crops are not.”⁹ These two monarchs, are separated, according to Petrie, by a period of 250 years. After Shishak, there is no reference on the Egyptian monuments to any relations between Egypt and either Israel or Judah.

The first mention of the Israelites on the Assyrian monuments is that by Shalmaneser III in the narrative of his campaign made in 854 b.c.¹⁰ Twelve years later, he received the tribute of Jehu the son of Omri. Then, there is silence for about forty years, till Adad-Nirari mentions “the land of Omri.”¹¹ The next notice is more than sixty years later in the records of Tiglath-Pileser IV, who mentions Jauhazi of the land of Judah as among his tributaries,¹² and says that he ruled over all lands from the rising of the sun to the land of Egypt.¹³ He received, also, the tribute of Menahem of the city of Samaria,¹⁴ and speaks, on a fragment, of the land of Beth-Omri, all of whose inhabitants, together with their possessions, he carried away to Assyria, having killed Pekah their king and set up Hoshea in his place.¹⁵ Shalmaneser IV, the king who besieged Samaria, reigned for five years (727-722 b.c.), but has left to us but one inscription.¹⁶ Sargon,¹⁷ tells of his subjugating Judah¹⁸; and that he besieged and took Samaria, adding,¹⁹ that he carried 27,290 men away into captivity with 50 chariots, leaving the remainder in possession of their goods, but appointing over them his own officials and imposing on them the tribute which they had formerly paid. He adds, that he plundered the whole land of Bit-Omri²⁰; that he conquered Samaria and the whole land of Bit-Omri,²¹ and finally,²² that he carried away captive and settled in the city of Samaria the people of Tamud, Ibadidi, Marsimani, Haiapa, and the distant Arbai, who inhabited the wilderness, who knew neither scholar nor scribe, and who had never before brought tribute to any king.

The references to Judah and its affairs by Sennacherib are numerous²³; but from his death in 680 b.c. to the fall of Nineveh about 606 b.c., the only mention of Judah is found in the parallel lists of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, where Manasseh is called by the former, “King of the city of Judah,” and by the latter, “King of the land of Judah.”²⁴ Esarhaddon informs us, indeed, that he was king of the kings of Egypt, of Patros, and of Ethiopia,²⁵ and of all the kings of the land of the Hittites, including Manasseh king of Judah.²⁶ Ashurbanipal, son of Esarhaddon, says, also, that his father entered Egypt and overthrew Tirhakeh, king of Ethiopia, and destroyed his army, conquering both Egypt and Ethiopia and taking countless prisoners, changing the names of their cities, and giving them new names, entrusting his servants with the government and imposing tribute upon them.²⁷ He names, moreover, their kings and the cities they ruled over,²⁸ and tells of his conquest of Tyre.²⁹ He mentions, further, Psammetichus, king of Egypt, his revolt and his overthrow;³⁰ and his wars with the grandsons of Merodach-Baladan, king of the Chaldeans;³¹ and with the kings of the Arabians, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and Nabatea.³² Yet, except the mention of Manasseh as being among the twenty-two vassals of the land of the Hittites, no notice of Judah is found on the Assyrian monuments after about 685 b.c.; that is, after the reigns of Hezekiah and Sennacherib.

On the Babylonian documents, neither Israel, nor Judah, nor anyone nor anything connected with either, is ever mentioned; though we know from one fragment of an historical inscription of Nebuchadnezzar that he invaded Egypt.³³ Nabunaid, also, speaks of the kings of Phenicia³⁴ and of the tribute of the kings of the land of Amurru;³⁵ and says that he mustered the scattered peoples (ummania rapshati) from Gaza on the frontier of Egypt by the Upper Sea to beyond the Euphrates as far as the Lower Sea.

VII. There are numerous decades, or longer periods, during the history of Israel, which are practically a blank as far as the outside world is concerned, the most that is known concerning foreign nations being the occasional mention of the name of a king. The contemporaneous, or synchronous, history of these kings is consequently frequently impossible to establish; and even their order and the length of their reigns, we are often unable to determine.

For example, in the history of Egypt from about 1200 b.c. during the reign of the ten kings from Rameses III to Rameses XII inclusive, the succession “has long been doubtful and is not yet certain”; and even after the time of the Ramessids but little is known of the history of Egypt down to the time of the Persian conquest.³⁶

Similarly, to cite a few instances from the history of Babylon and Assyria, for the interval—more than half a millennium—between the end of the First or Hammurabi Dynasty and the time of Nebuchadnezzar I; for the period—about two hundred years—between Tiglath-Pileser I and Ashurnaṣirpal II and for the much shorter interval—about twenty years—between the death of Ashurbanipal and the fall of Nineveh the historical information is very meager. Even regarding the Neo-babylonian period we know comparatively little. There are only a few historical inscriptions and the numerous building inscriptions and contract tablets do not supply their deficiencies to any marked degree.

As to the documents from Tyre, Sidon, Moab, and other sources, they are so few, short, and fragmentary, that it would be utterly impossible to relate them in any way with the general history of the ancient world, or to one another, were it not for the annals of the Israelites, and of the Assyrio-Babylonians. The almost entire absence of documents from Persian sources must also be noticed here. Strictly speaking, with the exception of the Nabunaid-Cyrus Chronicle and the Cyrus Cylinder, which are both written in Babylonian alone, the polylingual Behistun Inscriptions of Darius Hystaspis are the only historical documents from the Persians; and from the Medes not one document has survived. Some historical information, it is true, may be gathered from miscellaneous inscriptions of the Persian kings, Darius Hystaspis, Xerxes, and the three Artaxerxeses, and from their coins and the ruins of their buildings; but in general it may be said that from the time of the Behistun inscription (cir. 515 b.c.) to the destruction of the Persian empire by Alexander of Macedon we are dependent for our information as to the history of Persia upon external sources, such as the Hebrew and Greek historians, the Babylonian tablets, and the Aramaic papyri.

VIII. There are numerous cases in which events which are mentioned in the documents of one country are entirely wanting in those of another. For example, the Tel-el-Amarna letters give us much information about the relations existing between Egypt on the one hand and Assyria and Babylon on the other; but the scanty Assyrian and Babylonian documents of that time are devoid of any reference to Egypt. After the time of Amenophis IV, however, the Egyptians make no explicit reference whatever to either Assyria or Babylon. Ashurbanipal gives lengthy accounts of his campaigns, and of that of his father, against Egypt, giving us the names of the kings and governors of Egypt; but the Egyptian records are silent as to the Assyrian invasions and dominations, unless indeed there be an allusion to them in the inscriptions of Mentemhet, “a prince of the Theban principality,” from the time of Taharka, where he speaks of the whole land as having been overturned as a divine chastisement.³⁷ Of the Babylonian invasion of Egypt, the Egyptians have left no record. In fact, outside the Scriptures, the only reference to it is in the fragment of Nebuchadnezzar found near the Suez Canal and written in Babylonian.

IX. There are numerous cases, also, where certain events of a man's life are mentioned in one of his documents and entirely passed over in others, which might have been expected to mention them.

For example, a recently published inscription of Sennacherib,³⁸ contains an account of two great expeditions of the Assyrians against Cilicia in the time of Sennacherib, of which the latter has said nothing in his numerous inscriptions previously published. So in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, his conquest of Egypt is mentioned only in the fragment found in Egypt; but even the name of Egypt is absent from his other records. Again, in the three accounts on the Babylonian monuments of the war between Cyrus and Astyages, the Cyrus Cylinder says simply, “the land of the Kuti, the totality of the host of the Manda he (Merodach) caused to bow at my [Cyrus'] feet”; the Chronicle says that the latter's troops revolted against him and that he was taken and delivered up to Cyrus; the Abu-Habba inscription says that “Cyrus the king of Anzan, his insignificant (small) vassal, scattered with his few troops the widespread armies of the Manda, and that Astyages their king was seized by Cyrus and brought as prisoner to his land.” He adds, also, that it was in the third year, presumably of Nabunaid, that the event happened. In like manner, Nabunaid's dream about the destruction of the Umman-Manda is mentioned only in the Abu-Habba inscription, though others of his dreams (for he was a great dreamer) are mentioned elsewhere.

X. There are cases, also, where the silence of an author with regard to the method of his procedure in drawing up a document has misled us into a false interpretation of it. Perhaps the best exemplification of this is to be found in the brilliant study of Sargon by Dr. A. T. Olmstead,³⁹ in which the author shows that many misapprehensions and misinterpretations of the campaigns of Sargon have arisen from a failure to understand that some of Sargon's inscriptions are chronological, some geographical, some logical, and some a mixture of two or all of these.

XI. There are many nations and persons, whose names merely are known, but over whose history the pall of a universal silence has fallen, as far as native records are concerned. The most notable examples of this kind from antiquity are the Medes and the Carthaginians. With the exception of a few votive and many almost identical mortuary inscriptions, the sources of information which we have with regard to the city of Dido must be found in the works of her enemies. If only we could find the memoirs of Hannibal! With regard to the Medes, we have absolutely no original information, since Weissbach has very conclusively shown⁴⁰ that the third language of the inscriptions of the Persian kings is not the language of the Medes. In view of this, what an astounding statement is that which was made in Dean Farrar's Daniel, that Daniel could not have existed, inasmuch as his name does not appear on the Median monuments! Other examples of nations of antiquity about which we know nothing from native records are the Trojans, the Scythians, the Cimmerians, and the Gauls.

There are many other nations known to have flourished about which we know nothing from any source, except their names. For example, in Herodotus' list of the nations subject to Darius Hystaspis,⁴¹ the Milyens, the Hygennians, the Pantimathians, the Aparytæ, the Paricanians, and the Pausicæ are absolutely unknown except by name. Many other cases can readily be gathered from the great work of Herodotus. So, also, in the inscriptions of the Assyrian kings, numerous examples of nations conquered by them, are found as to which we know nothing except the names. In view of the general trustworthiness of their information where it can be tested by other testimony, as in the case of the Hittites and Elamites and Israelites and Babylonians and Egyptians, no one could reasonably doubt that what they say as to their conquest of these otherwise unknown nations is true.

XII. Again, there are many persons said to have been men of eminence in their day, who are merely mentioned by name and title, or position, about whom we know absolutely nothing further. In Herodotus there are scores of such men, as for example in the catalogue of the generals and admirals of Xerxes. In the inscriptions of Darius Hystaspis, in the contract and historical documents of Assyria and Babylon, in the royal lists of Egypt, and in the synchronous and eponym tablets of Assyria and Babylon, there are the names of hundreds more of such men.

XIII. There are thousands, perhaps we might better say tens of thousands, of eminent men, whose names even are never mentioned on any document, but who we know must have existed. Take Egypt, for example. Every once in a while a new mummy, or monument, or papyrus is discovered, which reveals to us the name and deeds of some hitherto unknown individual, who in his day loomed up large in the view of his contemporaries. Not to mention others, we might speak of Mentemhet from the reign of Taharka, Ibe from the reign of Psamtik I, Nesuhor from the reign of Apries, and Pefnefdineit from the reign of Amasis. All of these were distinguished as priest, steward, general, or physician; and the inscriptions of these which have come to light enable us to get a comparatively fair view of their life and character. But during the long period of the Egyptian dynasties, how many thousands of others equally eminent in every walk of life must have flourished, though their very names have passed into oblivion!

A frequently recurring phrase on the Assyrian monuments, after a record of a conquest of numerous countries and kings, is: “I set my officers over them as governors, or deputies.” But the names of these high officials are not given. It may be truly said, that one would never expect to find the name of an Assyrian governor (qipu, shaknu, or bel pihati) on a royal inscription. Tiglath-Pileser I says that he conquered sixty kings of the Nairi-land; but only one is mentioned by name.⁴²

Of all the sub-kings, governors, deputies, and generals who must have served under the dominion of the Chaldean kings of Babylon from 625 to 538 b.c., the Babylonian historical and building inscriptions mention none by name except Nabunaid II and Belshazzar, the sons of Nabunaid I. On the contract tablets from that period, we find the names of only fourteen asharidus, twenty qipus, and four bel pihatis. No shaknus are mentioned. In the inscriptions from Persian times we find the names of no sub-kings, of only two satraps, of three pihatis, of three bel pihatis, of twelve asharidus, of twenty-one qipus, and of no shaknus. In Herodotus, whose history of Persia extends from 555 b.c. to 480 b.c., we find the names of three or more sub-kings and of about a dozen archons and hyparchons.⁴³ With the exception of a score or so of judges, scarcely any civil officers are mentioned among the thousands of names collected by Tallquist.⁴⁴ With the exception of those mentioned in the Behistun inscriptions, very few generals are named in the Persian or Babylonian documents; though the frequent mention of them in Herodotus and in other Greek historians would teach us that there must have been hundreds of them from 625 b.c. to 330 b.c.

XIV. Lastly, it must be remembered, that, when all has been said, we have discovered but a very limited proportion of the ancient documents which once existed. This is true as to both public and private documents. For example, of the kings of Persia, we have no public documents of Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius II, Xerxes II, Sogdianus, Arses, and Darius III, and only one each of Artaxerxes I and III, two, possibly, of Cyrus, and two of Artaxerxes II, six of Xerxes I, and about a dozen all told of Darius Hystaspis. Of private documents from the time of the Persian kings we have few after the time of Artaxerxes II, and the ones we have are nearly all from Babylonia. There are at most two in Babylonian from the time of Artaxerxes II, who reigned from 404 to 359 b.c.⁴⁵

The places also where the records of Babylon and Persia have been found are comparatively few in number compared with the numerous places where they must have existed; and in these places, but a very few of the whole number that once existed have come down to us. Thus, there were doubtless many banking firms, like the Murashu and the Egibi houses at Babylon and many storehouses for contracts; but most of the contracts known have come from a few localities. Aramaic papyri were probably composed in a score of other Jewish colonies, but unfortunately only the one great find of Elephantine has thus far been made. The letters to Amenophis III and IV found at Tel-el-Amarna were most likely not the only ones ever sent by the vassals of the Egyptian kings to their sovereign lords. The reports to Assyrian kings thus far discovered are doubtless but a small part of those which must have been sent to Nineveh during the 500 years from Tiglath-Pileser I to Ashurbanipal.

CONCLUSION

In concluding these general remarks upon the so-called argument from silence, and having in view our almost absolute lack of first-class evidence bearing upon the historicity of the statements made in the Old Testament in general and of Daniel in particular, we refuse to accept as true the indiscriminate charges and multitudinous specifications entirely unsupported by evidence which are often made against the truthfulness of the Old Testament writings. A man is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. A book, or document, is supposed to be true until it is proven false. And as to particular objections made against the historicity of a person or event mentioned in the Book of Daniel on the ground that other authorities fail to notice them, would it not be well for us to possess our souls in patience, until such charges are supported by some direct evidence bearing upon the case? Why not give Daniel the benefit of the doubt, if doubt there be?

.....

There will be discussed in this chapter the definite claim of the late Dean Farrar that such a man as Daniel could not have existed because his name even has not been found as yet upon the documents dating from the sixth century b.c. It will be shown, that it is not certain that Daniel, under his new Babylonian name given him by Ashpenaz, the prince of the eunuchs of Nebuchadnezzar,⁴⁶ is not mentioned upon the records of Babylon; and, also, that even if it be not mentioned, this affords no presumption against the existence of Daniel, inasmuch as the kinds of records that have come down to us could not have been expected to mention his name. To be sure, by a lucky chance, or a special providence, his name might have been recorded in one of the documents thus far discovered; but these documents being such as they are, it would be most extraordinary if it had been recorded there. Moreover, unless some new kind of document should be discovered, or unless the library containing the contract tablets of the bank, or office, at which Daniel transacted business, should be unearthed, it is hopeless to expect that his name will ever be found on any document yet to be discovered. To be sure, we might have found, or may still find, a letter to him or from him; but the chance of ever finding such a letter is extremely small. As to the decrees, especially those of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter four and of Darius in chapter six, which purport to have been written, and to have been written most probably in different languages, we might naturally suppose that one or more of them would be discovered. But when we recall the fact that these at best would be but a few out of thousands of the decrees of the kings of Babylon and that not one of their decrees has thus far been unearthed, it is scarcely reasonable, to say the least, to expect that these particular decrees which are mentioned in Daniel should ever be found. To hope for the discovery of an historical document recording Daniel's name is groundless in view of the character and paucity of those we already possess. No public records of the kings would be likely to record the name of a servant, and we have no evidence that any private histories were ever written among the Babylonians or Persians. Our only reasonable expectation would seem to be that some future find may disclose to us a literary work, like the Achikar papyrus, which may contain some allusion to the events of Daniel's life, or even make mention of his name. But at present, we can deal only with the records that are known; and to these let us now address ourselves, citing first the objection of Dean Farrar and then proceeding to the assumptions involved in this objection and to a discussion of the evidence in favor of these assumptions, and closing with a few words summing up the conclusions to be derived from the evidence.

OBJECTION STATED

“It is natural that we should turn to the monuments and inscriptions of the Babylonian, Persian, and Median empires to see if any mention can be found of so prominent a ruler. But hitherto neither his name has been discovered, nor the faintest trace of his existence.”⁴⁷

ASSUMPTIONS INVOLVED

It is assumed in this objection, (1) that the absence of the name of Daniel from the inscriptions of the period in which he is presumed to have lived would prove that he did not exist at that time, and (2) that inasmuch as we have not found on the monuments hitherto published “the faintest trace of his existence,” he did not in fact exist.

ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS

These charges will have weight only with those who have never investigated the subject-matter and especially the proper names of the documents of that period. But, inasmuch as this absence of Daniel's name from all documents outside the Scriptures seems to have impressed Dean Farrar as a strong reason for denying his existence, we shall proceed to discuss the whole matter at some length. Let it be said, then, that this argument is fallacious because of the character of the documents to which Dean Farrar has turned for traces of Daniel's existence. These documents extend from the time of Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, down to and including the time of Darius Hystaspis, thus covering the whole period during which Daniel is said to have lived. They may be divided into (1) contract tablets, (2) building inscriptions, (3) historical inscriptions, and (4) miscellaneous documents.

1. We place the contract tablets first, because they are the most numerous, because they have the largest number of proper names of persons upon them, and because these names have been almost all published and classified in a form easily accessible, by Prof. Knut L. Tallquist,⁴⁸ who has collated 3504 tablets, containing about 3000 names connoting about 12,000 persons. Among these we might have found the name of Daniel. But we do not find it there. When we examine these names a little more closely, however, the surprise and doubts engendered by this failure to find his name are dissipated. The name of Daniel, it is true, does not appear on these tablets; but neither can we be certain that the name of any other Hebrew is found there. Certain, we say; for it is probable that we do find several Hebrew names upon them, and it is possible that a number of persons denoted by Babylonian names may have been Hebrews. Several initial difficulties confront us in our endeavor to identify and establish the existence of the names of Jews on the documents of this period. The first is that most of the forms and roots of Hebrew names were common to the Jews along with the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Phenicians, or Arameans, so that it is exceedingly difficult to affirm with confidence, that a given name, without a clearly defining context, is the name of a Jew. The second is, that the way of writing the Hebrew names for God in the Babylonian texts is not clear. The third is, that it seems certain that many of the Jews and people of other nations who came to Babylon to settle, or were brought there as slaves, adopted, or were called by, native Babylonian names, thus destroying the trace of their race and nationality contained in their original native names. The fourth is, that in the case of the Jews, and of those who might have had the same names as Jews, the gentilic title (which is found a number of times with the names of Persians, Egyptians, and others) has never yet been found upon the Babylonian tablets. The fifth is that a different nomenclature was commonly employed for denoting slaves from that which was used for freemen.⁴⁹

For these reasons, we may be pardoned for being exceedingly sceptical as to the possibility of the identification of the Jewish personal names of the Babylonian tablets from Nabopolassar to Darius Hystaspis inclusive; that is, during all the period in which Daniel is said to have lived. A few men, mostly slaves, like the frequently occurring Bazuzu, may have been Jews; but they may just as well have been Arabs or Arameans.⁵⁰

The fact, then, that the name Daniel has not been found on the Babylonian tablets of the sixth century b.c. does not prove that he did not live at Babylon at that time, any more than the fact that the names of other Jews are not found there proves that there were no Jews at Babylon. And yet this is the very time of the captivity! Surely, no one is going to deny that the Jews were taken to Babylon at all!

But even if the name were found, this would not prove that the man so named was a Jew. For the name Daniel has been discovered on both the Nabatean and Palmyrene documents as a name in use among these peoples.⁵¹ Besides, the Babylonian name Dannuilu, which occurs on a tablet from the eighth year of Darius Hystaspis, as the father of a witness called Zeri, may be the same name as the Hebrew name Daniel.⁵²

But in order to prove that a Daniel mentioned on a tablet was the Daniel of our book, the official position of the man would have to be given in a way which is not common on the tablets. The mere name would not be enough. We would require a description of the person named. But such descriptions are not ordinarily given in the Babylonian documents except in a very general way. As stated above, the name of the father may be mentioned, and sometimes that of the grandfather. But as we know nothing of either the father or of the family of Daniel the prophet, such a description on an inscription would not help to identify him. His calling, indeed, might have been given. For, frequently a man is called a shangu (priest), or a shangu of a certain god, or a smith or a secretary, or a measurer of corn, etc. But these descriptions are comparatively uncommon, and are especially unusual in describing the higher officials of the state.⁵³

Inasmuch, however, as the name of Daniel is said to have been changed by Nebuchadnezzar, it may well be asked, whether his new Babylonian name does not occur in the documents of this time. But, here also, we have a great initial difficulty to overcome, in the fact that the authorities are not agreed as to what is the Babylonian equivalent of Belteshazzar. The Greek version and Josephus confounded the name with Belshazzar, giving Baltassar for both. Schrader took the name to be compounded of Balaṭsu-uṣur (protect his life), the name of the god being omitted. Sayce takes it to be for Belit-sharru-uṣur (Oh Bilat, protect the king), claiming that, as it is written in Daniel, it is a “compound which has no sense and would be impossible in the Babylonian language.”⁵⁴ I would suggest as a third view, that we read Bel-liṭ-shar-uṣur, “Bel, protect the hostage of the king.” The evidence⁵⁵ of the manner of transliterating Babylonian names in Aramaic is conclusive in showing that Bel-liṭ-shar-uṣur would be written with but one l, as we find it in the Book of Daniel. This interpretation of the name avoids the necessity of supposing that in Aramaic teth has been substituted for tau, as the meaning suggested by Prof. Sayce demands;—a change, moreover, which is not supported by the transliterations of the Aramaic names of the bi-lingual inscriptions nor by the papyri. We admit, that an exception might have occurred here; but, in view of the common usage, the burden of proof rests with the asserter of the change.⁵⁶

The view suggested by me harmonizes with the statement of the author of Daniel that Nebuchadnezzar called him after the name of his god; and also with the statements of the first chapter of Daniel, which plainly imply that “certain of the children of Israel, even the seed royal, and of the nobles” were taken to Babylon as hostages for the good behavior of the king and people of Judah. The taking of hostages in this manner had been a custom of the kings of Assyria and Babylonia.⁵⁷

No valid objection can be raised against this interpretation of the meaning and of the method of writing this new name which was given by Nebuchadnezzar to Daniel. The interpretation here suggested fits in exactly with the position of Daniel and with his relation to the king of Babylon as a hostage for the king of Judah at the time when it was given.

Having thus determined the meaning and writing of the name, let us proceed to the main question, as to whether such a name has been found on the records of that period. But, here, at the very outset, we must inquire what name we should expect to look for in the inscriptions. One would naturally suppose that we should look only for the name Bel-liṭ-shar-uṣur; and that, if we did not find this name written in full, we should conclude, that the Babylonian designation of Daniel did not occur in these documents. But no! This is not the case. For, Dr. Tallquist has very clearly shown that in ordinary usage the native Babylonians were in the habit of abbreviating their very lengthy names. He shows, first, that the first term in a name of four words may be omitted, as Ina-eshi-eṭir for Nergal-ina-eshi-eṭir; secondly, that the two first may be omitted, as Bel-atkal for Ana-amat-Bel-atkal; thirdly, that the second may be omitted, as Minu-Bel-daianu for Minu-ana-Bel-daianu; fourthly, that the second and third may be omitted, as Shamash-eṭir for Shamash-ina-eshi-eṭir. The first of these methods of abbreviation would allow us to read for Bel-liṭ-shar-uṣur, Liṭa-shar-uṣur; the second, Shar-uṣur; the third, Bel-shar-uṣur; and the fourth, Bel-uṣur. The first of these has not been found. The second is found possibly in an uncertain reading of document 168 of John's Assyrian Deeds and Documents, the same name as the Sharezer of 2 Kings xix, 37, one of the sons of Sennacherib by whom the king was assassinated.⁵⁸ The fourth is rare, but is paralleled by Nabu-uṣur, which occurs as the name of nearly one hundred persons mentioned on Tallquist's tablets.⁵⁹ The third, Bel-shar-uṣur, coincides exactly with the name Belshazzar, the son of king Nabunaid, and is the only one of the four that is found on the tablets from which Dr. Tallquist has collected his chief list of names. Of all the Belshazzars mentioned in these lists, two or three only might possibly refer to Daniel. One of these is found on a tablet from the fourth year of Cyrus.⁶⁰ Here it is said that some minas of silver were to be delivered into the hands of Belshazzar the prince, or first officer, asharidu, of the king. On another tablet from the eighth year of the same king⁶¹ there is mention of “Belshazzar, the man who was over the house of the king.” In the second year of Darius Hystaspis, another tablet mentions a governor,⁶² called Belshazzar. If we suppose that Daniel was the Belshazzar, the prince of the king, who is mentioned in the fourth year of Cyrus (535 b.c.), he would, when thus mentioned, have been only 85 years of age, if we suppose that his age when he was carried as hostage to Babylon was fifteen, or thereabout. Judging from the longevity of officials in the Orient to-day, he may have been the major domo of the eighth year of Cyrus, or even the governor of the second year of Darius Hystaspis. In the latter case, he would have been active at about 100 years of age. This is not so incredible as some would have us believe. In the preface to his great Arabic-English Lexicon, Edward William Lane mentions a number of native Arabic lexicographers from whom he derived the material for his dictionary. One of these, named Abu-Zeyd, lived to be 93; another, El-Asmafie, to be 92 or 93; another, Abu-Obajdih, to be about 98; and another, Abu-Amr Esh-Aheybanu, to be at least 110. Mr. James Creelman,⁶³ describing a visit to Jerusalem and other places in the Turkish empire, says that several of the heads of the great religious communities of that empire had then reached the age of nearly a hundred years, but that they were still enjoying the exercise of their high duties in apparently undiminished vigor of intellect and in certainly undisputed authority.⁶⁴

Further, a presupposition in favor of believing that the Babylonians wrote the Babylonian name of Daniel in the same way that they wrote the name of Belshazzar, the son of the king, is to be derived from the fact that the Greek of the Septuagint version and of Josephus transliterated both the names in the same way in Greek; that is, by Baltasar.⁶⁵

As we have shown, then, that a Belshazzar, who may have been the Daniel of our book, was an “asharidu of the king” in the fourth year of Cyrus, it may be well to ask, before we leave this inquiry, what is the meaning and use of the term asharidu. Delitzsch⁶⁶ defines it as “the first, the noblest, the first in rank”;⁶⁷ and Muss-Arnolt,⁶⁸ as “supreme, leader, prince, first in place.” It is used as an epithet of many gods. Thus, we find “Sin the first son (asharidu) of Bel,” Shamash, Ninib, and Marduk are each called the asharidu of the gods. Nergal is called the asharidu. It is used, especially of the first-born son of the king, as “Nebuchadnezzar, the son (asharidu) of Nabopolassar,” “Antiochus, the son (asharidu) of Seleucus.” Kings, also, used the title of themselves; thus Ashurnaṣir-abal says, “I am the asharidu”; Sennacherib says that he is the “asharidu of all kings.” It is used, finally, of the nobles of the land. In the tablets, which Tallquist has used, it is employed for a small number of persons only, so that Daniel may well have borne the title in his position as third ruler in the kingdom.⁶⁹

2. Having examined the contract tablets we now turn to the so-called building inscriptions. Might we not expect to find the name of Daniel, or Belteshazzar, upon these? Let us look at them and see. All of the building inscriptions of the Chaldean kings have been translated by Dr. Stephen Langdon.⁷⁰ In his inscriptions, Nabopolassar mentions beside himself, no one but Nebuchadnezzar, his first born son, and Nabushum-lishir, the latter's twin brother, and these but once each.⁷¹ Nebuchadnezzar, in his 27 inscriptions, gives us the names of none of his contemporaries, the only names save his own which occur being those of his father Nabopolassar and his remote ancestor Naramsin, the latter mentioned only once.⁷² He speaks of kings and governors (pihati) once, and once of the princes (sagganake) of the land of the Hittites,⁷³ and once of “the kings of the remote regions which are by the Upper Sea and the kings of the remote regions which are by the Lower Sea.”⁷⁴ Neriglissar in his two inscriptions mentions no one but himself and his father Belshum-ishkun, the latter but twice.⁷⁵ Nabunaid, in the seven inscriptions, with their parallels, given in Langdon's work mentions none but names of kings.⁷⁶

In fact, the only names coming within the period we are discussing are names of men of royal blood such as Nebuchadnezzar, his twin brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, and their father Nabopolassar; Nabunaid, his father Nabu-balaṭsu-ikbi and Nabunaid's son Belshazzar; and Cyrus and his opponent Astyages.

The Persian building inscriptions of Darius Hystaspis bear no names of persons except those of Darius and his father Hystaspis the Achæmenid.⁷⁷

3. Of historical inscriptions from this period, we have first the fragments of one describing Nebuchadnezzar's expedition to Egypt in his 37th year. On this he mentions, beside himself, Amasis king of Egypt, and perhaps Pittacus the tyrant of Mitylene.⁷⁸

In the Cyrus Cylinder, we find the names of Nabunaid, and those of Teispis, the great grandfather of Cyrus, of Cyrus his grandfather, of Cambyses his father and of Cambyses his son. In the Nabunaid-Cyrus Chronicle, we find the names of Astyages, Nabunaid, Cyrus, Cambyses his son, Ugbaru (Gubaru?) and Nabu-mah (?)-rib-ahu.

On the Behistun inscription of Darius Hystaspis, there are found beside the frequent occurrence of the name of Darius, the names of Cyrus, Cambyses, and the two Smerdises; the names of Achæmenes, Teispes, Ariaramnes, Arsames, and Hystaspis, the ancestors of Darius; the names of the associates of Darius in the insurrection against Smerdis the Magian, Intaphernes the son of Vayaspara, Otanes the son of Thukhra, Gobryas the son of Mardonius, Hydarnes the son of Bagabigna, Bagabukhasha the son of Daduhya, and Ardamanish the son of Vahauka; the names of the rebels who rebelled against Darius, Gomates (Smerdis), Athrina the son of Upadarma, Nadintu-Bel and Arakhu who called themselves by the name of Nebuchadnezzar and claimed to be sons of Nabunaid, Martiya son of Cicikhrish who said he was Ummanish, Fravartish who said he was Khshathrita of the family of Uvakhshatara (Cyaxares), Citrantakhma who claimed to be of the family of Uvakhshatara, Frada, and Vahyasdata who claimed to be Bardiya (Smerdis) the son of Cyrus; the names of certain generals who led the forces of Darius against the rebels, Hydarnes, Dadarshish the Armenian, Dadarshish the Persian, Vaumisa, Takhmaspada, Hystaspis (the father of Darius), Artavardiya, Vivana, and Vaidafra; and in the small inscription K, the name of Skunka, the Saka. On his other historical inscriptions, Darius mentions no one but himself and his father Hystaspis the Achæmenid.

4. Taking up the miscellaneous inscriptions, we shall look first at the one lately published by M. Pognon in his Semitic inscriptions from Syria, etc.⁷⁹ We find there the names of Ashurbanipal and Ashuredil-ilani, kings of Assyria; of Nebuchadnezzar, Neriglissar, and Nabunaid, kings of Babylon, and of Nabunaid the son of the last named, “the offspring of his heart and the beloved of his mother.”

From the times of Darius Hystaspis, we have the Suez boundary stones, several mortuary inscriptions from Naksh-i-Rustem, and some coins. These mention beside Darius himself, the name of Hystaspis the Achæmenid, his father, and the name of the bearer of his bow, Gobryas, and that of his bridle-holder and companion, Aspaçana.

It will be noticed, that in all these last three kinds of inscriptions are to be found few names beside those of kings, and the fathers and sons of kings. Most of the inscriptions contain only the name of the royal author and generally that of his father. Sometimes, distant ancestors or predecessors are named. Outside the inscriptions of Darius Hystaspis, we find altogether only the name of Ugbaru (Gubaru?) the governor of Gutium, possibly that of Pittacus tyrant of Mitylene, and that of Nabu-mah (?)-rib-ahu.⁸⁰ In Darius' inscriptions, also, it will be noticed that aside from ancestors, kings, and pretenders, and their fathers, or ancestors, he mentions none but a few of his generals, his six fellow-conspirators and their fathers, his bearer of the bow and his bridle-holder. No civil officers are mentioned, unless we put in this category, Vivana, the satrap of Arachosia, and Dadarshish, the satrap of Bactria, who are named, also, among his generals and because they were generals.

CONCLUSION

Inasmuch, then, as these inscriptions mention no one filling any of the positions, or performing any of the functions, or doing any of the deeds, which the book of Daniel ascribes to its hero Belteshazzar; how can anyone expect to find in them any mention of Daniel, in either its Hebrew or its Babylonian form? And is it fair, in view of what the monuments of all kinds make known to us, to use the fact that they do not mention Daniel at all, as an argument against his existence?

What about the numerous governors, judges, generals, priests, wise men, writers, sculptors, architects, and all kinds of famous men, who must have lived during that long period? Who planned and supervised the building of the magnificent canals, and walls, and palaces, and temples of Babylon? Who led the armies, and held in subjection and governed the provinces, and adjudged cases in the high courts of justice, and sat in the king's council? Who were the mothers and wives and queenly daughters of the monarchs, who sat upon the thrones of those mighty empires? Had the kings no friends, no favorites, no adulatory poets or historians, no servile prophets, no sycophantic priests, no obsequious courtiers, who were deemed worthy to have their names inscribed upon these memorials of royal pride and victory; that we should expect to find there the name of Daniel, a Hebrew captive, a citizen of an annihilated city, a member of a despised and conquered nation, a stranger living on the bounty of the king, an alien, a slave, whose very education was the gift of his master and his elevation dependent on his grace? Let him believe who can. As for me, were the documents multiplied tenfold, I would not expect to find in them any reference to this humble subject of imperious kings.

Notes

1. Monolith Inscription, KB i, 172.

2. Winckler's History of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 220, 221.

3. III R 5, No. 6;. KB i, 140, 150.

4. KB ii, 36.

5. (1) Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh, king of Egypt,⁸¹ for whom he built a special house outside of the city of David,⁸² and for whom he received as dower the city of Gezer.⁸³ Solomon had commercial dealings with Egypt, especially in horses.⁸⁴ The king of Egypt received Hadad, the Edomite of the king's seed in Edom, gave him houses and lands, and for a wife the sister of Tahpanes, his queen; and a son of Hadad, Genubath by name, the issue of this marriage, was among the king of Egypt's sons in the house of Pharaoh.⁸⁵ Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, having fled from the wrath of Solomon, was received by Shishak, the then king of Egypt, and remained in Egypt until the death of Solomon.⁸⁶

   (2) In the reign of Rehoboam, we are told that Jeroboam returned out of Egypt to Shechem at the summons of the people⁸⁷; and that Shishak, in Rehoboam's fifth year, came up against Jerusalem and took away all the king's treasures,⁸⁸ and captured all his fenced cities,⁸⁹ and made his people servants of the king of Egypt.⁹⁰

   (3) In the reign of Asa, Zerah the Cushite, came against Judah and was defeated at Mareshah.⁹¹

   (4) Hoshea, king of Israel, conspired against Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, and sent messengers to So, king of Egypt.⁹²

   (5) The Rabshakeh of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, accused Hezekiah of trusting for help to the king of Egypt. Sennacherib heard that Tirhakeh, king of Ethiopia, had come out against him.⁹³

   (6) Thebes (No) was captured and her inhabitants carried away into captivity.⁹⁴

   (7) In Josiah's days, Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt, came up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates; and king Josiah went against him and met him at Megiddo.⁹⁵

   (8) Nebuchadnezzar defeated Necho's army at Carchemish in the fourth year of Jehoiakim.⁹⁶

   (9) Pharaoh-Hophra was to be delivered into the hands of his enemies.⁹⁷

   (10) Pharaoh-Hophra's army caused the raising for a short time of Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem⁹⁸; but the Egyptians were soon compelled to return to Egypt.⁹⁹

   (11) After the fall of Jerusalem, Johanan, the son of Kareah and all the captains of the forces of the Jews and all the people, men and women and children, and the king's daughters, and Jeremiah the prophet, and his scribe Baruch, went down to Egypt to the city of Tahpanhes.¹⁰⁰

   (12) Jeremiah prophesied at Tahpanhes, that Nebuchadnezzar would set his throne upon the stones that he had hidden at that place¹⁰¹; and that the men of Judah who had come down to Egypt should be consumed there.¹⁰²

6. 1 Kings iii, 1.

7. 1 Kings vii, 8; 2 Chron. viii, 11.

8. 1 Kings ix, 16.

9. Rawlinson's Bampton Lectures for 1859.

10. 1 Kings x, 28, 29; 2 Chron. i, 16, 17; ix, 28.

11. 1 Kings xi, 14-22.

12. 1 Kings xi, 26, 40.

13. 1 Kings xii, 2-20

14. 1 Kings xiv, 25, 26; 2 Chron. xii, 9.

15. 2 Chron. xii, 4.

16. 2 Chron. xii, 8.

17. 2 Chron. xiv, 9-15.

18. 2 Kings xvii, 1-4.

19. 2 Kings xviii, 19-21; xix, 9, 10.

20. Nahum iii, 8-10.

21. 2 Kings xxiii, 27-34.

22. Sachau Aramäische Papyrus, p. 5.

23. Jer. xlvi, 2.

24. Jer. xliv, 30.

25. Jer. xxxvii, 5.

26. Id., v. 7.

27. Jer. xliii, 5-7.

28. Id., v. 10.

29. Jer. xliv, 27.

30. 2 Kings xxi, 1-18.

31. Petrie, History of Egypt, iii, 114.

32. Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 329-332.

33. Stone Inscription of Calah, 12.

34. Nimrud, 61.

35. Id., 3, 4.

36. Annals, 50.

37. KB ii, 31, 32.

38. This is on a lion's weight, and gives nothing but the words, “Palace of Shalmaneser, king of Assyria; two minas of the king” (KB ii, 32).

39. Nimrud Inscription.

40. Annals.

41. Display Inscription, 24.

42. Hall XIV.

43. Pavement Inscription, IV.

44. Annals, 94-97.

45. KAT, 285-332.

46. KAT, 354-357, and KB ii, 49, 131, and 239.

47. KAT, 336, and KB ii, 151.

48. KB ii, 149.

49. KAT, 338, and KB ii, 159-169.

50. Id., 161-163.

51. Id., 169-171.

52. Id., 177.

53. Id., 211-213.

54. Id., 215-229.

55. KB iii, ii, 140.

56. Nabunaid-Cyrus Chronicle, Col. ii, 3.

57. i. e., Phenicia-Palestine. Cyrus Cylinder, 29, 30.

58. Petrie, History of Egypt, iii, 137. Of these kings, Mr. Petrie says as follows: “Of Rameses V, the stele of Silsileh is the only serious monument of the reign and that contains nothing but beautiful phrases” (id., 171); of Rameses VI, “There is not a single dated monument of this reign, and no building, but only steles, statues, and small objects, to preserve the name” (id., 173); of Rameses VII, “No dates exist, the works and objects are all unimportant” (id., 177); of Rameses VIII, “The stele of Hora, an official of Busiris, is the only monument of this reign to reward the search” (id., 177); of Ramees IX, “This king is only known by a vase and a scarab” (id., 177); of Rameses X, “with the exception of an inquiry into the thefts from the tomb of Amenhotep I, we know nothing of the history of this reign” (id., 183); of Rameses XI, there is nothing but a “list of documents about the necropolis robberies” (id., 185); of Rameses XII, “there is no more to be said about this reign than about the other obscure reigns before it” (id., 187).

    Again, of the reign of Men-kheper, from 1074 to 1025 b.c., he says, “There are but poor remains of this long reign” (id., 211); of the next ruler, “There is nothing to show that this prince reigned” (id., 214). The documents of Pasebkhanu, 1006-952 b.c., give merely his cartouche and call him a son of Pinezem (id., 219). There is but one important document from the reign of Nesibadadu, 1102-1076 b.c. (id., 220). Of Pasebkhanu I, 1076-1035 b.c., we know that he refounded a temple at Tanis and surrounded it with a mighty wall and that he built a temple at Gizeh (id., 221-233); of his successor, Neferkara, 1035-1031 b.c., we have nothing except the mention of his name in Manetho (id., 223); of the next king, Amenemapt, 1031-1022 b.c., we know only that he continued to build the temple at Gizeh (id., 223); of the next king, Siamen, 1022-996 b.c., we know nothing of importance, except that he built a temple at Tanis (id., 224, 225); of the next, Hez-haq-ra, 987-952 b.c., scarcely anything is known (id., 225). Of the kings of the twenty-second dynasty, “very little is known about the reign of Uasarkon I, 930-894 b.c. (id., 240); Takerat I, 901-876 b.c., was formerly not even recognized as king (id., 244); of Takerat II, 856-831 b.c., no historical facts are recorded (id., 254); of Shishak IV, 782-742 b.c., “nothing whatever is known” (id., 259).

    In the twenty-third dynasty, there were two Pedu-basts who reigned between 755 and 736 b.c.; but “we can only infer which is the earlier of these” (id., 262). Of the other kings of this dynasty, scarcely the names even are known (id., 263-265).

    Of the twenty-fourth dynasty, nothing is known of Kashta, 725-715 b.c., (id., 280); of Shabataka, 707-693 b.c., “not a single fact of history is recorded” (id., 287); of the remaining kings very little is known, except about Tirhakeh, 701-667 b.c. (id., 290-311).

    Of the twenty-fifth dynasty, from the first reign, that of Tafnekht II about 749-721 b.c., we have only two steles (id., 314); of Tafnekht II (Uahab-ra), scarcely anything is known (id., 317, 318).

59. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, vol. iv, p. 461; Petrie, History of Egypt, iii, 305.

60. CT xxvi. London, 1909.

61. In his introduction to the work entitled: Western Asia in the Days of Sargon of Assyria; (New York, 1908).

62. In his introduction to Die achämeniden Inschriften zweiter Art. and in Die altpersischen Keilinschriften, p. xxxi.

63. Bk. III, 89-97.

64. Lotz, Die Inschriften Tiglath-Pileser's I. (Ch. iv, i-v, 32.)

65. The word satrap does not occur in Herodotus, although he twice uses the term “satrapy.”

66. Neubabylonisches Namenbuch.

67. Tablet 86 of the Morgan collection, part I, is from the fifth month of the 41st year of Artaxerxes. Since Artaxerxes I reigned less than 41 years and Artaxerxes II about 46 years, this tablet must be from the reign of the latter. Some of the astronomical tablets mention Artaxerxes II and one at least Artaxerxes III. See Kugler: Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, i, 70-82.

68. Dan. i, 7.

69. See The Expositor's Bible, The Book of Daniel, p. 5.

70. Neubabylonisches Namenbuch zu den Geschäftsurkunden aus der Zeit des Šamaššumukin bis Xerxes.

71. The freeman is X, the son of Y, the son of Z; the slave is merely X,—his parentage is never given. The reason for this being that the slave had no legal standing. He was the son of nobody and his children, in like manner, were the children of a nobody, since he could not be the founder of a family (mar banu)

72. E. g., Aqabi-ili (Nk. 393:4), Bariki-ili (Nk. 346:5, 408:2), Samaki-ili (Nk. 138:12), Adi-ili (Nk. 70:1, 7), Yadi-ili (Nk. 70:13), Idda son of Iddia a slave (Nk. 31:11), Aqabuya (Nd., 542:2), Hashda son of Ibna (Nd. 997:3), Samaku Cyr. 379:5, may just as well have been Arameans as Hebrews. Addu-natannu (Nd. 201: 9) is a good Aramaic word. Shalti-ili is called an Arab slave (Nbp. 19:20). Padi might be Hebrew, but may, also, be Phenician. It was the name of a king of Ekron in Sennacherib's time and is found a number of times in the Assyrian records of the seventh century b.c. (Johns, Assyrian Deeds, etc., iii, 238). Basia (Nk. 31:13), and Busasa (Cyr. 135:9), have a good Syriac root and good Syriac forms, whereas the root is wanting in Hebrew. Dadia may be Phenician and is found in Assyrian as early as the seventh century b.c. (Johns, Ass. Deeds, iii, 526.) Barikiya the son of Akka (Cyr. 59:8) looks like a good Hebrew name.

73. See de Vogüé, Syrie Centrale, p. 62; Lidzbarski, Nordsemitische Inschriften, p. 256.

74. Strass. Inschriften von Darius, 236, 10.

75. We meet, however, such descriptions as “major-domo (rab biti) of Belshazzar” (Nd. 270:3), “overseer of the sons of the king” (Nd. 245:3), and qipu, “mayor” or “officer” (Nd. 33:5 et passim).

76. Higher Criticism and the Monuments, p. 532.

77. I take this to be Bel-liṭ-shar-uṣur “Bel protect the hostage of the king.” For the omission of the r and the writing of the last two parts of the name “shazzar,” compare the name Belshazzar (see Schrader KAT 433). It will be seen, that the last two syllables in the names Belshazzar and Belteshazzar are written in the same way in Babylonian and in Aramaic and Hebrew. As to the writing “Beliṭ” for “Belliṭ” numerous parallels may be found on the Babylonian inscriptions with Aramaic dockets, or indorsements. Thus Ashurraham is written in Aramaic with only one r (CIS ii, 43); Bana-neshaya, with only one n (Clay, Aramaic Endorsements, 40); Sulummadu, with only one m (Cun. Texts of the U. of P., viii, Part I, p. 15): Pani-Nabu-ṭemu, with only one n (CIS ii, 62); Sar-rapid, with only one r (CIS ii, 81); Mar-shaggil-lumar, with only one g and one l (id., 61); Bit-el-edil-ilani, with only one il (id., 54); Ishtar-dur-kali, with dr written once but to be read apparently tar-dur (id., 23); Nabu-takkil-ilani, with only one il (id., 58). So in Syriac kaukab-Bel is written with one b. Spiciligium Syriacum, 15.

78. For example, the Babylonian Beltu is always rendered in Syrian by Blty (Spiciligium Syriacum, 13, 14, 15.9, et al.), the t of Ahe-utir (Clay, Aram. Indorsements, 2), and Pihat-ah-iddina (id., 80), has been correctly transliterated in the Aramaic indorsements by the letter Tau; whereas, in Bel-eṭir (Clay, Aram. Ind., 30, 34, 41, 36 [?]), Shiṭa (id., 4), Shamash-uballiṭ (BE, viii, ii, 68), and Pani-Nabu-ṭemu (CIS ii, 62) the ṭ is in all cases accurately transliterated in Aramaic with a Teth.

79. Thus Sargon took the son of Daiakku the deputy (Shaknu) of Man as a hostage (liṭu). Later, he took one out of every three (?) of the chiefs (nasikati) of Gambuli as a hostage; and later still, he took hostages from the chiefs of Zami, Aburi, Nahani, and Ibuli et al.¹⁰³ These hostages, if youths, were brought up in the king's palace and were sometimes made kings of the subject nations. Thus Sennacherib set up as king of Shumer and Accad “Belibni a Chaldean of Babylonian origin who like a little dog had grown up in his palace.”¹⁰⁴ Jahimilki, son of Baal, king of Tyre, was brought as a servant to Ashurbanipal¹⁰⁵ and afterwards was graciously given back to his father.¹⁰⁶ The sons of Jakinlu, king of Arwad, were brought to the same king of Assyria; one of them, Azibaal by name, was sent back to be king in his father's place, while the rest, nine in number, were clothed in rich garments, gifted with golden rings for their fingers, and caused to sit before the king.¹⁰⁷ The kings of Egypt were brought alive to Ashurbanipal; he showed grace to Necho, clothed him in royal apparel and a golden band, as became a king, put on his fingers golden rings, and girded him with an iron sword, adorned with gold, and with the name of Ashurbanipal upon it; gave him chariots and horses and made him king in Sais, at the same time that he set up Necho's son Nabu-shezi-banni as ruler over Athribis.¹⁰⁸

    It is probable that the kings of Babylon followed the example of the Assyrian kings. Thus, the members of the royal family of Judah were carried by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon and brought up in the royal palace. The names of some of these, at least, were changed, as had been that of the son of Necho, king of Egypt, by Ashurbanipal. Daniel we are told, received the name of Belteshazzar.

80. Annals of Sargon, 76, 262-270.

81. Bellini Cylinder A, 13; KB ii, 115.

82. KB ii, 169.

83. Id., 171.

84. Id., 173.

85. Id., 167.

86. In Abydenus the successor of Sennacherib is called Nergilus. Putting the two names together we would have Nergalsharezer, the first part of the name being preserved by Abydenus and the second part by the writer of Kings.¹⁰⁹

87. Neubabylonisches Namenbuch, p. 151.

88. Strass. Cyr. 178, line 3.

89. Id., 312, line 5.

90. Amel pihati, Strassmaier, Darius 42, 3.

91. KAT 330, and Eusebius, Chron., ed. Schoene, i, 35.

92. Pearson's Magazine, Setp.-Nov.,1990

93. The author of this chapter is especially sceptical upon this argument based upon the impossibility of Daniel's having come to Babylon in the year of the beginning of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and yet having been alive and flourishing in the reign of Darius Hystaspis. For the sake of the bearing upon the case in discussion, he may be pardoned for saying that his great-grandmother Graham, née McCreery, died at the age of 99; a great grand-uncle, Thomas Dick, at the age of 101, two great-uncles, John Dick, and Robert at 92 and 94 respectively; and his great-grandfather, Joseph Wilson, at 105. This last mentioned the writer himself has seen, when he was more than 100 years old. He was active in brain and body till the last, was never ill in his life, and simply went to sleep at last one night and never waked. A simple life, lived in the fear of God, is conducive to longevity; and so may it have been with Daniel.

94. This Baltasar is a correct transliteration of Belshazzar into Greek through the ordinary Aramaic of northern pre-Christian Syria. Compare, for example, Iltehiri for Ilshahri, and Iltammesh for Ilshamesh. (BE X, pp. xiii, xiv.)

95. Assyr. Handwörterbuch.

96. Der erste, der vornehmste, der an Rang hochstehende. See HWB in loc.

97. Dictionary of the Assyrian Language.

98. The following are the names and dates of the asharidus mentioned by Tallquist, the tablets being numbered after Strassmaier.

    From the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

    Nabu-ushezib Nk. 22:9;

    Mar-Bel-atkal Nk. 40:2;

    Shamash-kin-ahu-Nk. 131:23;

    Ubar Nk. 175:13;

    Nazia Nk. 365:12, 369:6;

    Nabu-shar-uṣur Nk. 394:3.

    From the reign of Nergal-shar-uṣur (Neriglissar):

    Nabu-ṣabit-kati Ng. 7:8, 58:6.

    From the reign of Nabunaid:

    Bel-ahe-iddin Nd. 260: 3, 282:2 (?), 517:3 (?) (-Ngl. 44:2;)

    Innia Nd. 261:3 (?)

    Ardi-ta-? aala Nd. 282:23;

    Itti-sharri-balaṭu Nd. 573:10;

    Liburu Nd. 578:10;

    Addu Nd. 782:5.

    From the reign of Cyrus:

    Bel-shar-uṣur Cyr. 188:3;

    Rihitum Cyr. 204:6;

    Sikkabul Cyr. 243;

    Sin-bel-uṣur Cyr. 270:4.

    From the reign of Cambyses:

    Ardi-ahe-shu Cam. 79:4;

    Terik-sharrutsu Cam. 93:7;

    Nabu-dini-bulliṭ Cam. 368:3;

    Nabu-miti-uballiṭ Cam. 368:10;

    Nabu-bulliṭanni Cam. (407:14, 408:12).

    From the reign of Darius Hystaspis:

    Iddiranu Dar. 366:17.

99. Building Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

100. Inscription i, Col. ii, 70, and iii, 5.

101. Id., ii, 26.

102. Id., xvii, Col. iii, 10.

103. Langdon, op. cit., xvii, Col. ii, 25-29.

104. Id., I, Col. i, 14, and II, Col. i, 11.

105. To wit: In the great inscription from Ur, Nebuchadnezzar and his father Nabopolassar (Col. i, 50, ii, 40, 41, 53), Burnaburiash (Col. i, 55, 57), Sargon and Naram-Sin his son (Col. ii, 29), Kurigalzu (Col. ii, 32), Shagashaltiash (Col. iii, 44) and Belshazzar his first born son (Col. ii, 26, iii, 59). In the parallel passage, he names also Hammurabi (Col. ii, 20, Col. iii, 2, 28). In the small inscription from Ur, he mentions Ur-Uk (Col. i, 8, 12, 15, 22), Dungi his son (Col. i, 10, 13, 17, 22), and “Belshazzar, his (own) first born son, the offspring of his heart” (Col. ii, 24-26). In the great Cylinder from Abu-Habba, he names his own father Nabu-balaṭsu-ikbi the wise prince (rubu imgu), Cyrus, king of Anshan, his (Astyages') little servant (Col. i, 29), Astyages king of the Ummanmanda (Col. i, 32), Ashurbanipal and his father Esarhaddon (Col. i, 47, 48), Shalmanassar and his father Ashur-naṣir-abal (Col. ii, 3, 4), Nebuchadnezzar (Col. ii, 49), Naram-Sin, the son of Sargon (Col. ii, 57, 64, iii, 8), Shagashaltiburiash (Col. iii, 28, 31), and Kudur-Bel (Col. iii, 29, 31). In the Cylinder inscription, he mentions his own father, Nabu-balaṭsu-ikbi (Col. i, 16), and Naram-Sin (Col. i, 31). Finally, on three sample bricks, there appear the names of Nabunaid and of his father Nabu-balaṭsu-ikbi. It will be observed, that all the names mentioned are the names of kings, and mostly of kings who had lived long before Nabunaid.

106. Spiegel, Die altpersischen Keilinschriften, H, I, B, L, X.

107. The syllable Am is wanting in Amasis and only ku remains to indicate Pittacus. Whether Mitylene is the correct rendering of Butuyaman is questionable. See Zehnpfund-Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften, p. 206.

108. Inscriptions sémitiques de la Syrie.

109. A person whose name cannot be further defined, since the Nabunaid-Cyrus Chronicle is broken both before and after the name.

Bibliography of Principal Works Cited

BE—Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania.

Bezold, Carl. Die Achämenideninschriften. Hinrichs, 1882.

Breasted, J. H. A History of the Ancient Egyptians. New York, 1908.

CIS—Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Paris, 1881.

Clay, Albert T. Aramaic Endorsements on the Documents of the Marashu Sons (in O. T. Studies in Memory of W. R. Harper). Chicago, 1908.

CT—Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the British Museum. London, 1896 f.

Delitzsch, Friedrich. Assyrisches Handwörterbuch. Leipzig, 1896.

Johns, C. H. W. Assyrian Deeds and Documents, etc. Cambridge, 1898-1901.

KAT—Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament. 2nd edition, Giessen, 1883.

KB—Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek. Berlin, 1889.

Kugler, F. X. Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel. Münster, 1907.

Langdon, Stephen. Building Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Günther, 1905.

Lotz, Wm. Die Inschriften Tiglath Pileser's I. Leipzig, 1880.

Olmstead, Dr. A. T. Western Asia in the Days of Sargon of Assyria. New York, 1908.

Petrie, W. M. F. A History of Egypt. London, 1896.

Pinches, T. G. The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia. London and New York, 1902.

Pognon, H. Inscriptions Sémitiques de la Syrie. Paris, 1907.

Rawlinson, George. Bampton Lectures for 1859 (The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records Stated).

Sachau, Edward. Aramäische Papyrus. Berlin, 1911.

Spriegel, Fr. Die altpersischen Keilinschriften, etc. Leipzig, 1881.

Strassmaier, J. N. Die Inschriften von Nabuchodonosor, Nobonidus, Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius. Leipzig, 1889-1897.

Tallquist, K. L. Neu-babylonisches Namenbuch zu den Geschäftsurkunden aus der zeit des Šamaššumukin bis Xerxes. (Acta. soc. F., Tom. xxxii, No. 2, 1905.)

Voguë, Le Conte de. Inscriptions Sémitiques, Syrie Centrale. Paris, 1868-1877.

Weissbach, F. H. Die Achämenideninschriften zweiter Art. Leipzig, 1890.

Zehnpfund-Langdon. Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften. Leipzig, 1912.