The W. A. Criswell Sermon Library

Last Sunday, “Daniel is Eaten Up in the Critics Den.” Accepted by the liberal world, taught in school.
How fare in the white heat and light of historical fact and spirit and truth? "Hold their feet to the fire."
cf. alleged ⁽¹⁾ historical inaccuracies ⁽²⁾linguistic irreconcilables ⁽³⁾prophetical impossibilities ⁽⁴⁾doctrinal aberrations.
Because of lack of time, a few discussed here and there in sermon following:

I. The Alleged Historical Errors--History in the Book

Typical of them all, we choose Belshazzar. Ridiculed the most. Historical case against him water-tight. A figment of pure imagination. No such person, no such king, no such death, no such history. Armed with all these declarations, the critics seem to be an invincible army, a formidable array of troops. Let us put them in the burning, white light of historical truth and see how they fare.

1. The apparent and apparently conclusive historical facts:

(1) Nebuchadnezzar died 562 B.C. after 40 years reign.
(2) Evil-Merodach, his son, reigned about 3 years (II K. 25:27-30)--then assassinated by his brother-in-law, Neriglissar (Jer. 39:3) 560 B.C.
(3) Neriglissar--560-556. Died. Throne left to infant son.
(4) Labashi-Marduk, infant son, after 9 months, deposed.
(5) Nabonidus made king, 556-539. Reigned 17 years. Taken captive by Cyrus.

All known ancient secular sources indicated Nabonidus last king.
But Daniel says Belshazzar the last king.
All known ancient historians, like Berossus (250 B.C.) and Alexander Polyhistor say Nabonidus the last king. But Daniel says Belshazzar. All known secular sources said the last king (Nabonidus) not killed but was given a pension by his conquerors. Daniel says Belshazzar killed. Belshazzar, therefore, a classic illustration of the historical errors in book of Daniel.

2. Then the spade of the archaeologists. What the spade has done to Daniel! Great numbers of clay tablets excavated among the ruins of Babylon were sent to the British Museum. Assyriologists began to study them.
(1) A clay tablet contained the name of Belshazzar, showing that such a man actually existed.
(2) A clay tablet was found which bore the names of both Nabonidus and Belshazzar showing that there was some connection between the two.
(3) A clay tablet was found which referred to Belshazzar as the king's son.
(4) A clay tablet was found which contained an oath taken in the names of Nabonidus and Belshazzar (businessmen, contract). Oath was taken in the name of the reigning king. This tablet showed that Belshazzar was actually co-ruler with his father.

Then in recent years, a flood of discoveries.
Bel-sharra-utsur, (Bel protect the king) now stands before us a very real person, one of the leading spirits of his age.
(1) He was born 575 B.C., eldest son of Nabonidus
14 years old when Nebuchadnezzar died.
20 years old when his father Nabonidus ascended the throne.
(2) At 20 years of age he has a house of his own in Babylon.
(3) At 25 years of age mention is made of his secretary
(4) At 27 years of age mention is made of his steward and his secretaries.
(5) At 27 years of age we find him in northern Babylonia as commander-in-chief of the army.
(6) At 30 years of age we find him sending by water sheep and oxen for sacrifice to the Temple of Shamash at Sippar (up the Euphrates River). On another occasion he sends a wedge of gold weighing one mana.
In the same way one of his sisters sends a silver cup weighing 27 shekels as her tithe. Another sister was dedicated as a votaress to the moon-god SIN in the Temple at Ur (down the Euphrates River) and he built a house for her close to the women's quarters.
(7) We even know that when he was 26 years old his grandfather died at the advanced age of 104 years.

3. Why Belshazzar was left king in Babylon.
The reason lay in the character and personality of Nabonidus.
(1) Nabonidus was a man of great cultural and religious interests. He was an archaeologist and builder and restorer of temples. He sought for inscriptions, concerning exploits of kings, looking for documents in foundations and cornerstones of temples. His mother seems to have been a priestess in the Temple of the moon-god SIN, and as we have seen, his own daughter was dedicated to that god. This inclination drew him away from affairs of state.
(2) In recent years, Raymond P. Dougherty, late Professor of Assyriology at Yale University, published a book showing that Nabonidus spent much of his reigning years at Tema in northern Arabia. An inscription discovered states that before he left for Tema, he entrusted the kingship to Belshazzar. He was king in much the same manner as was Nebuchadnezzar with Nebopolassar.
(3) This explains the strange allusion in Dan. 5:16, 29, "third"
(4) The death of Belshazzar corroborated. The spade of the archaeologist has uncovered the Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus, his description of the fall of Babylon. The Persians had captured Nabonidus some 4 months before Babylon fell. In the eyes of all, Belshazzar king of the city.
The Tablet of Cyrus says Babylon easily taken.--So Dan. 5:30, 31.
The Tablet also says that when it was taken "the king's son died."--So Dan. says "that night Belshazzar was slain."

Belshazzar's name fell out of history completely, absolutely. Herodotus (484-425) visited Babylon 460 B.C., wrote extensively of it, named its kings, queens, but never mentioned Belshazzar. Never heard of him.
How came Daniel to know of him if written 400 years later? The answer is plain. He lived, wrote during those days. A contemporary.
(a) Dr. Joseph P. Free, ". . . . ."

II. The Book In History

1. The canon of the Hebrew Bible. It is there. A hundred noble works refused.
I Macc., a work of highest excellence, possess an authority and value which no other part of the Apocrypha possesses. Even Luther declared it not unworthy to be reckoned among the Sacred Scriptures. But refused.
Ecclesiasticus though representing the dominant thought of the Jews at the time of its composition (200 B.C.) and a noble work. Refused.
Even canonical books such as Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and even Ezekiel were challenged, but "the right of the Book of Daniel to canonicity was never called in question in the Ancient Synagogues"--Edersheim, Vol. II, Appendix V.
The canon of the O.T. was rigidly set. No books were included which were not believed to have been in existence in the days of Nehemiah. The test (canon, rule, measure) of a book was that it had to be inspired and the Ancient Synagogue believed that inspiration ceased with the prophets and no prophet had arisen since Malachi.
The critics would have us believe that around 165 B.C., or at the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, 165 B.C. some Jewish writer incorporated a history of his reign in a spurious prophecy supposed to have been delivered 400 years before, and that the work was thereupon accepted as inspired along with the Psalms of David and the sacred books of the Hebrew writers. The great, ancient Synagogue of the 2nd century B.C. composed of men famous for their piety and learning. Extremely strict views of inspiration and with intense reverence for the sacred writings. These men smuggled into the canon a book which was a forgery, a literary fraud, a fictitious novel of contemporary date! Imagine a meeting of theologians to discuss a modern "Life of Christ" to canon of the N.T. No less grotesquely ridiculous is the suggestion that the Great Synagogue in the 2nd century B.C. would have entertained the idea of adding a forged romance of their own age to the canon of the O.T.

2. The LXX. most famous, most influential translation in the world. The Bible of the apostles. Acts 8:34; 18:24-28: Hebrews
Made in Alexandria under the Ptolemies c. 300 B.C. Some say completed by 275 B.C. The fact: It is there.

3. I Maccabees. Written soon after the time they say Daniel forged. 1:54 quotes Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11, "abomination of desolation." 2:49-70, one of most striking, solemn passages in the book, the record of the dying words of the venerable Mattathias to his sons, esp. Judas Maccabees. Refers to the three Hebrew children, refers to Daniel.

4. Josephus. A contemporary of Paul and John. In c. 80 A.D. wrote the history of the Jewish people from Abraham down to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
One of the most beautiful stories in all literature: Antiquities of the Jews, XI, 8, 4 & 5.
People in white, High Priest Juddua in scarlet robe, mitre, heading procession.
Showed Alexander Daniel [8:1-8, 15-22]. Worshiped God, offered sacrifice in Temple. This around 330 B.C. Yet the critics--not written until 165 B.C.!
The Fact: While Alexander destroyed every city in Syria friendly to Darius, the Persian, he spared and greatly favored Jerusalem.
5. Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls.
Isaiah and fragments of Daniel. The scrolls date practically to the time the critics say Daniel forged.
cf. John's Gospel. Critics said written 200 years after John died. Then a papyrus discovered in Egypt dates c 90 A.D. quoting John.

6. The course of human history laid before us.
Thousands of years to confirm or deny. Follows the mold set for it by Daniel. Still true.
(1) The empire and nation. Man image.
(2) The wars of Dan. 9:26 "and unto the end wars and desolations are determined" [RV]
(a) February, 1914--Prophetic Conference in L.A. Attention called to predictive Scriptures, "nation shall rise against nation . . . ."
Editor of Christian Advocate--"Pathetic Conference"
In less than 6 months, Archduke of Austria assassinated in Serbia . . ..

Archaeology and Bible History
Joseph P. Free, 1950, p. 235

"There is no first-rate liberal today, as far as the writer knows, who urges the old objection concerning Belshazzar.
The detailed facts are that Nabonidus, in one sense the last king of Babylon, was not killed by the invading Persians, but was given a pension by his conquerors. On the other hand, Belshazzar, elevated to the position of ruler of Babylon by his father, was killed when the city of Babylon was taken, as indicated in Dan. 5:30.
The matter concerning Belshazzar, far from being an error in the Scriptures, is one of the many striking confirmations of the Word of God which have been demonstrated by archaeology."