IS DANIEL A FRAUD? Daniel’s prophecy claims that its visions were received by Daniel in the sixth century BC, revealing God’s knowledge of the future. Critical scholars, however, believe that the book was written centuries later by an unknown writer – AFTER the events it pretends to predict. This article evaluates the evidence for WHEN Daniel was written.
FALL OF ROME As stated, the Book of Daniel itself claims to have been written in the 6th century BC but many theologians believe that it was written in the second century BC. However, if Daniel was written in the time of Antiochus by an unknown and uninspired writer, why do the prophecies so accurately describe the Fall of Rome, about eight centuries later?
DARIUS THE MEDE Daniel names Darius the Mede as king of the Chaldeans but secular history does not mention Darius at all. Critical scholars claim that that was a historical blunder by the second-century writer. This article proposes that Darius was general Ugbaru who conquered Babylon and who Cyrus appointed as king over Babylon. It proposes that Ugbaru chose Darius as his throne name.
THE ANTICHRIST COMES OUT OF ROME.
DANIEL 2 The vision in Daniel 2 divides the history of the world into six successive ages. The first is the Babylonian Empire, followed by silver, bronze, and iron kingdoms. This is followed by a divided kingdom, and, finally, God’s eternal kingdom.
DANIEL 7 In Daniel 7, four beasts arose from the sea, symbolizing four kingdoms arising from the people of the world. Ten horns grow out of the fourth beast, symbolizing ten kingdoms that will arise “out of” that beast. But the most important character in Daniel is none of the above, but an eleventh horn that will become larger than the others. This is the Antichrist.
THE EVIL HORN OF DANIEL 8
Daniel 8 explicitly identifies the ram as Mede-Persia and the goat as Greece but does not identify the main character in the prophecy—the Antichrist that persecutes God’s people and corrupts His message. This article gives an overview of Daniel 8 and lists the alternative interpretations of this evil power.
THE ANTICHRIST COMES OUT OF ROME.
The main character in Daniel 7 and 8 is an evil horn-king. To show that it arises out of the Roman Empire, this article identifies the beasts of Daniel 7 by comparing them to the beasts of Daniel 8, which Daniel 8:20-21 explicitly identifies as the Medo-Persian and Greek empires.
THE ANTICHRIST IS NOT ANTIOCHUS.
OUT OF ONE OF THEM (DAN 8)
In Daniel 8, the horn comes “out of one of them.” If that means out of one of the four horns of the Greek goat, then the small horn must be a Greek king. But an analysis of the genders shows that it came out of one of the compass directions; not from a Greek horn.
THE VILE PERSON OF DANIEL 11
Daniel lived before the kingdoms of Greece and Mede-Persia came to power but the book mentions those empires explicitly. Critical scholars, who do not accept that God knows the future, propose that the book was written after these kingdoms, namely, in the time of Antiochus IV and that he is the Antichrist in that chapter. This article analyses Daniel 11 and refutes that proposal.
ANTIOCHUS DOES NOT FIT THE PROFILE Critical scholars are convinced that the vile person in Daniel 11 is Antiochus IV; a Greek king that reigned in the second century BC. There are many similarities between them but this article lists several differences. Antiochus does not fit the profile. He may be a type, but he is not a complete fulfillment.
Fallen, fallen, is Babylon the Great! The theological faculties of the world have fallen to naturalism. They no longer accept the supernatural. For that reason, critical scholars claim that Daniel was written after the events it pretends to predict. This implies that the book of Daniel is a forgery.
DANIEL 9 In Daniel 9, God promises a further 490 years to Israel. This article summarizes the about 30 articles on this website that evaluate the four main interpretations of this cryptic prophecy in Daniel 9.
ARTICLES ON REVELATION THAT BUILD ON DANIEL
The beast of Revelation 13 is a different symbol for Daniel’s antichrist; the evil horn in Daniel 7 and 8 and the vile person in Daniel 11.
The book of Daniel mentions Darius the Mede as king of the Chaldeans (e.g., Dan 9:1). He is not mentioned elsewhere in the Scriptures or in secular history. Critical scholars, therefore, claim that there never was such a person and that the author of the book of Daniel committed a historical blunder when he referred to Darius the Mede.
This article will make a proposal as to who Darius the Mede was. But first, it is important to explain why who critical scholars are and why it is important to know who this Darius was.
Over the last 300 years, the world of science has become anti-theistic. In other words, it assumes that the supernatural does not exist and attempts to find ‘natural’ causes for all things (naturalism).
Over the same period, the theological faculties at large, independent universities have adapted to this same culture. While theological faculties were initially set up to further the study of the Bible, such faculties have come to claim ‘independence’ and ‘neutrality’ from religious bias. In other words, they no longer assume that the Bible is the word of God.
Unfortunately, this means that they assume that the Bible is NOT the word of God. They assume everything in the Bible is wrong unless it can be confirmed from external sources. Consequently, these institutions no longer study the Bible to gain wisdom from it. These faculties are now dominated by historical-criticism, which is the study of ancient languages and secular history with the intent to ‘criticize’ the Bible against these sources. See the article Critical Scholars for a further discussion.
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
One of the implications of the anti-theistic bias is the assumption that it is not possible to accurately predict the future. And since the book of Daniel claims to have been written in the sixth century BC and to accurately predict events centuries later, critical scholars assume that Daniel must have been written after those events. More specifically, they argue that Daniel was written during the second century BC, pretending to write predictions of future events. This is what readers will find in encyclopedias such as Wikipedia.
To prove their point, one of the things critical scholars do is to find ‘errors’ in the book of Daniel. One of the greatest such ‘errors’, they say, is the reference to Darius the Mede as king of the Chaldeans. Critical scholars claim that there never was such a person because they assume that the Bible is wrong unless validated by external sources.
Conservative scholars, who accept the Bible as God’s word, have made a number of suggestions as to who Darius the Mede may be. For example, Tom Finley proposed that Darius was another name for Cyrus; the king of the Medo-Persian empire. Tom argues that Cyrus’ father was the king of Persia but he married the daughter of the king of Media. So, Cyrus’ mother was a Mede and the custom of the Jews was to trace the ancestry of a person of mixed parents through the mother (cf. Ezra 6:3). For that reason, he is called Darius the Mede.
The current article is a summary of an article by William Shea in which he makes a different proposal, namely that Darius the Mede refers to Ugbaru; the general who conquered Babylon for Cyrus. By comparing the book of Daniel to the Nabonidus Chronicle, Shea provides four reasons for this proposal:
(1) Both were in Babylon that night.
Darius was in Babylon the night the last Babylonian king was slain (Dan 5:30-31). Ugbaru was also there because he was the general who conquered Babylon.
Since Cyrus was not in Babylon when Belshazzar was slain, Daniel 5:30-31 implies that Darius cannot be another name for Cyrus.
(2) Both were made king.
Darius was “made king” (Dan 9:1 – NASB); by implication, by Cyrus.
Ugbaru appointed governors. This implies that he also was king. After the conquest of Babylon, he probably was the military governor and was “made king” when Cyrus arrived in Babylon two weeks later.
(3) Both ruled only the Chaldean province (Dan 9:1).
In other words, they did not rule the entire empire.
This confirms that Darius is not another name for Cyrus because Cyrus ruled the entire empire.
(4) Both appointed governors (Dan 6:1-2).
As discussed above
In the ancient world, kings often had a second name given when they ascended the throne. Shea proposes that Ugbaru took the throne name of Darius, by which he appears in the book of Daniel.
A possible objection to this proposal is that Ugbaru died only three weeks after he conquered Babylon. Shea continues to show that it is possible to fit the events of Daniel 6 into that period. This includes that Darius appointed governors quickly and in a very undemocratic style.
Shea’s explanation implies that Daniel received the prophecy in Daniel 9 (See Daniel 9:1) during the three weeks after Ugbaru conquered Babylon.
The narrow time frame explains why historians have not found other evidence for Darius elsewhere in the Scriptures or in secular sources.
– END OF SUMMARY –
Critical scholars believe Daniel committed a historical blunder when he referred to Darius the Mede in Daniel 5:31-6:28 and Daniel 9:1. No such person is known from history. But this article identifies Darius with Ugbaru. He was the Babylonian governor of Gutium (according to the Nabonidus Chronicle), defected to the Persians and became general of the Persian army that overthrew Babylon in 10/11 or 10/12 539 B.C. He died 11/6/539 B.C., almost a month later.
Cyrus himself was with other troops at Opis when Babylon was captured, and Cyrus did not enter Babylon until 10/29/539 B.C. Cyrus was said to be the grandson of Astyages, through Astyages’ daughter Mandane.
IN BABYLON THAT NIGHT
Firstly, both Darius and Ugbaru were in Babylon the night the last Babylonian king (Belshazzar) was slain and assumed temporary rule of the Chaldean kingdom at that time:
“That same night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. So Darius the Mede received the kingdom at about the age of sixty-two” (Dan 5:30-31).
“Received” does not mean to become king. It implies that he became the temporary ruler after the previous king was slain.
As stated, according to the Nabonidus Chronicle, the name of the general whose troops conquered Babylon for Cyrus on the 16th of Tishri was Ugbaru. His name in the Nabonidus Chronicle varies. In one instance, it is spelled as Ugbaru. In another instance, it is spelled Gubaru. According to Shea, these names refer to the same individual. He became ruler until Cyrus – the king of kings – arrived two weeks later. He was, in effect, the trustee of the conquered kingdom until Cyrus arrived.
As stated, Cyrus was not in Babylon when Belshazzar was slain. This means that Darius cannot be another name for Cyrus.
A second reason to identify Darius with Ugbaru is that both were made king:
Darius “was made king” (Dan 9:1). This is the correct translation of the hophal verbal form, and the weaker translation “became king” (RSV, et al.) does not adequately capture the sense intended. It means he was made king by someone else—it is proposed here by Cyrus.
According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, Ugbaru appointed governors. To be able to do that, he had to be ‘king’. Ugbaru, therefore, also was made king under Cyrus. This would have happened when Cyrus – the ruler of the empire – arrived two weeks later, on the 3rd day of the eighth month. Cyrus, therefore, installed Ugbaru as vassal king in Babylon to rule jointly with him but subject to him.
A third reason to identify Darius with Ugbaru is that both only ruled the Chaldean province—not the entire empire:
According to Daniel 9:1, Darius “was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans”. This confirms that Darius is not another name for Cyrus, because Cyrus ruled the entire empire. The phrase “received the kingdom” (Dan 5:30-31) confirms Darius’ limited rule because it means that Darius ruled under Cyrus.
The same is said of Ugbaru in the Nabonidus Chronicle.
A fourth reason for identifying Darius with Ugbaru is that both appointed governors (Daniel 6:1-2 and the Chronicle).
VERY SHORT TIME FRAME
A possible objection to the proposal that Darius is Ugbaru is that Ugbaru ruled only for one week and that the events of Daniel 6 cannot fit into one week. This section, therefore, will show that the events of Daniel 6 can fit into one week.
On 7/16 (16th of Tishri, the seventh month), Ugbaru “received the kingdom,” awaiting Cyrus’ arrival. At this time, he could best be described as the military governor.
Cyrus arrived two weeks later, on 8/3 (3rd day of the eighth month). Crowds of people greeted him—apparently with jubilation. They saw him as a deliverer from the disliked Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar. Ugbaru already acted as the trustee of the conquered kingdom. It is at the arrival of Cyrus that he—as the ruler of the empire—would have installed Ugbaru as vassal king in Babylon to rule jointly with him and subject to him. It is proposed that Ugbaru took the throne name of Darius, by which he appears in the book of Daniel.
Cyrus probably set out in further pursuit of Nabonidus on 8/4 or 8/5. Shortly after Cyrus’ departure, Darius took his first action in setting the kingdom in order: He appointed governors (Dan 6:1-2). He did this quickly and in a very undemocratic style. He conquered Babylon because he was able to make quick decisions and execute them immediately. He ruled the kingdom in the same way.
But the highest post under the king had not yet been filled—that of chief governor or first president. The other officials could see, however, the way the selection process was going. Darius had evidently become acquainted with Daniel during the period of his military governorship, and Daniel 6:3 says he “planned” to appoint him to that post. Fearing that Daniel’s appointment was imminent, the other officials – his rivals – had to swing into action quickly. If they were appointed on 8/6, then they probably hatched the plot against Daniel that night and went to the king with it the next day (8/7). Darius, unaware of Daniel’s religious habits, acceded to the decree that no prayers could be given to any god for thirty days. The decree went into effect, let us say, on 8/7.
Daniel heard about the issuing of the decree, but he determined to continue with his usual practice of praying three times a day (Dan 6:10). It did not take thirty days to catch Daniel in prayer; it only took one day. His rivals were eager to prevent him from being appointed as ‘president’. The next day, 8/8, Daniel’s violation was reported to the king, and the king was forced to take action by the strength of his own decree. He had to put Daniel in the lions’ den.
Daniel spent that night 8/8 in the den with the lions, where he was protected. The king worried about Daniel and spent that sleepless night fasting (Dan 6:18). The next morning, however, Daniel emerged unscathed (vs. Dan 6:19-23). By now we have reached 8/9 in the rapid procession of events.
Angered by the officials who had maneuvered him into this awkward position, Darius now took action against them. Probably within an hour or two after having Daniel removed, he cast the officials and their families into the lions’ den. On this occasion, the lions were not so cordial in their reception as they were to Daniel. Those officials and their families died there in Daniel’s place (Dan 6:24).
Recognizing the divine protection afforded to Daniel, Darius made a decree that all of his subjects should “tremble and fear” before the God of Daniel (Dan 6:25-27). It is interesting to note that the text does not say they should pray to his God on this occasion. That would be contrary to his previous decree.
Darius had now angered the priests of Marduk on two counts. First, he had prohibited any prayers to their god, the god of the city and the country of Babylon. Then, he had added insult to injury by proclaiming a decree in favor of the God of Daniel, not their own god Marduk.
The priests of Marduk were a powerful class in Babylon. They were sufficiently powerful that Nabonidus went into exile in Teima of Arabia for ten years for favoring the moon god Sin over Marduk. They were not a class to be trifled with, and by favoring the God of Daniel over their god, Darius put himself in the path of danger. The priests of Marduk, perhaps joined by disaffected officials, hatched a plot against Darius. They determined to poison him. The plot against Darius had been hatched by 8/10, and they put it into effect on 8/11.
The animal sacrifices in Babylonian temples took place twice a day in pairs of offerings. These animal sacrifices were, technically, a banquet to which other deities were invited. The gods themselves received specified parts of the animals. The remainder went to the king, the priests, and the temple staff. This then presented an opportunity for the priests of Marduk to get their revenge. When the king was presented with his portion of the sacrifice, there was an added ingredient in it – poison. The king died that night, 8/11. This is recorded by the Nabonidus Chronicle both with regard to the date and the time on that date, at night.
This is a rare, indeed virtually unique reference to the time of a king’s death. The poison ingested with his portion of the evening sacrifice did its work, and he died that night. A general aged 62, in previously good health, strong enough to lead a conquering army three weeks earlier and to welcome Cyrus but a week before, dies suddenly after ingesting his portion of the evening sacrifice; a very suspicious circumstance. If we had his body to assay, it probably would show that it was well laced with one kind of poison or another.
It may at first appear paradoxical that a king who prohibited prayers to the gods should then partake of a sacrifice offered to them. In spite of the prohibition against prayers, the sacrifices undoubtedly continued. These two liturgical functions served different purposes:
Prayers served the purpose of gaining an answer to those petitions for the benefit of the person offering them.
Sacrifices, on the other hand, were for the benefit of the gods. The gods were hungry, and they had to be fed. If they were not fed, they could turn upon the population and the country and cause all kinds of havoc.
One did well, therefore, to continue sacrifices, even if prayers were suspended.
Daniel could have prayed the prayer of Daniel 9—dated in the 1st year of Darius the Mede—and received the prophecy of Dan 9:24-27—anytime during the week between 8/4 and 8/11. However, to fortify him, Daniel might have received the prophecy on the same night the king died:
Things looked favorable for the exiled Jews. Darius the Mede appeared to be kindly disposed toward Daniel and thus, through him, possibly to his people.
But the next morning Daniel woke to find the king had died during the night. Would all of his optimism for the return of his people be dashed by this evil turn of events?
No. Gabriel had already assured him the night before that Jeremiah’s prophecy of the return would occur, in spite of what happened among the rulers of this world. Viewed from this perspective, there would have been no more appropriate time for Gabriel to have brought this assurance.
The events described above may be tabulated as follows:
Ugbaru/Darius “received” the kingdom of Babylon by conquest (Dan 5:31). He established peace there as military governor (Chronicle, col. III, line 15).
Cyrus arrived in Babylon, greeted by crowds (Chronicle, col. III, line 18b-19).
Ugbaru/Darius “was made king,” by Cyrus (Dan 9:1).
Cyrus left Babylon in pursuit of Nabonidus.
Ugbaru/Darius appointed governors (Chronicle, col. III, line 20; Dan 6:1-2) and planned to make Daniel chief governor (Dan 6:3).
Seeing Daniel’s appointment coming, the other governors plotted against him (Dan 6:4-5). On their request, Darius issued his decree against prayer (Dan 6:6-9).
Daniel, caught in prayer, was reported to Darius and placed in the lions’ den (Dan 6:10-17).
Daniel was delivered in the morning (Dan 6:19-23). The plotting officials were immediately killed in the lions’ den (Dan 6:24). Darius issued a decree on behalf of the God of Daniel (Dan 6:25-27).
A plot against Darius by priests and surviving officials.
At the evening sacrifice, Daniel prayed and Gabriel answered (Dan 9:1-27). Ugbaru/Darius died that night (Chronicle, col. III, line 22b).
H. H. Rowley once wrote that there is no room in history for Darius the Mede. Actually, there is room in history for Darius the Mede as king of Babylon, but the size of that room is only one week. It has been shown above that it was possible for all the events of Daniel 6 and 9 to have occurred within this week—in a tight and detailed integration of what is known of these events from Daniel and the Nabonidus Chronicle.
The scenario sketched above explains a number of things:
It explains why the prophecy in Daniel 10 to 12 was not dated to a year of Darius the Mede. Darius was dead, and that date formula went out of circulation after this brief use.
It explains why the idols were only returned to their cities in the 9th month. To protect them, the idols were brought to Babylon before Babylon was captured. The Chronicle (col. III, line 21-22c) notes that the idols did not begin to return to their citiesuntil the 9th month. The Chronicle does not specify upon which day this process began, but if we speculate on the basis of the chronology elucidated above, it would have been on 9/6; 30 days after the date that Darius’ decree probably was originally given. Darius’s thirty-day decree was a law of the Medes and Persians that did not change, even if the king who gave it had died.
This scenario might also explain the statement in Daniel 11:1, which seems out of place in the context. In Daniel 11:1, the angel said that he protected Darius. Daniel must have been remorseful for not being able to protect Darius better. Therefore the angel explains to him that supernatural forces (Dan 10:21) led to the death of Darius by the hand of the priests of Marduk.
Lastly—and very significant—the narrow time frame of one week explains why historians have not found other evidence for Darius.
In Revelation, the one that persecutes God’s people (Rev 18:24) is represented by a woman with the name Babylon (Rev 17:5). She sits on a beast with seven heads (Rev 17:3), representing the political powers of the world (Rev 17:10). In the scenario sketched above, she is the priest of Marduk, killing Darius. She has been around in every generation.