Among the other books of the Bible, the so-called Higher Critics have especially assailed the book of Daniel to disprove its historicity, and thus bring to nought the inspiration of the Scriptures.

Secular history seems to establish as a fact that, not Darius the Median, but Cyrus the Persian, conquered Babylon, as the name " Darius the Median " is found neither in the ancient records nor on the monuments. All the evidences seem to ignore Darius the Median as if he had never existed, or at least that he did not succeed Belshazzar as king over the realm of Chaldea, which the Bible statement declares (Dan. 5:31).

Many an effort has been made by the orthodox writers to remove the difficulty, and make the Bible narrative agree with secular history. Thus a very learned professor has recently made the following statement:"In view of the fact that the Babylonian kings (like the Assyrian kings before them, and the Persian kings after them) were kings over kings, it is entirely consistent with the records of Daniel to suppose that Darius the Mede was only one of those numerous sub-kings who served under the suzerainty of the great overlords, such as Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus."

Others may suppose the same, but suppositions do not prove, especially when Bible statements are against them, and as a result the Critics are not hit very hard.

On the other hand the Bible itself furnishes sufficient proof that all the events it sets before us are historical facts, and in full consistency with secular history as far as the latter can be relied upon. But let us see.

Did the Persians conquer Babylon? What does the Bible say? When Isaiah in the name of God pronounces judgment upon Babylon (about 720 B. C.) the words are these:"Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver, and as for gold they shall not delight in it. Their bows shall dash the young men to pieces, and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children. And Babylon the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah" (Isa. 13:17-22).

Turning to Jer. 51:11, we read as follows:"Make bright the arrows; gather the shields:the Lord hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes, for his device is against Babylon to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance of his temple." And in verses 28 and 29 we read this:"Prepare against her the nations with the kings of the Medes, the captains thereof, and all the rulers thereof, and all the land of his dominion. And the land shall tremble and sorrow; for every purpose of the Lord shall be performed against Babylon, to make the land of Babylon a desolation without an inhabitant."

According to these scriptures it is a settled question that the Medes conquered and destroyed Babylon. But how does that agree with the fact that Cyrus, king of Persia actually did it? It was because Media-Persia was a confederate kingdom-that great world power which is represented by the "breast and arms of silver" in Nebuchadnezzar's image (Dan. 2:32, 33), which was to follow Babylon in world-dominion. And when Cyrus conquered Babylon, he did it not in his own particular interest, but that of the confederate kingdom, of which at that time Darius was supreme ruler.
How Media and Persia became confederated is not our business to account for, though the fact itself is borne out by Daniel's words. When he interpreted the handwriting on the wall, he said to Belshazzar, "Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians," which clearly speaks of a confederate power-and not Persia first, but Media. Isaiah's and Jeremiah's prophecies both ascribe the conquest and destruction of Babylon to the Medes. Jeremiah speaks of "the kings of the Medes, the captains thereof and the rulers thereof, and all the land of his dominion," which seems to include a great deal besides Media proper. Then, consistently with the prediction of Daniel 5:28, we read in verse 31:"And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old." Being the senior, and Cyrus the junior, Darius is acknowledged supreme ruler over the united kingdom.

These facts are supported in Dan. 6:8 by the words of the nobles who came to Darius, saying:"O king, establish the decree and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not." Darius is here acknowledged as king over Media and Persia, with authority to act as such, without responsibility to an overlord.

But the most convincing proof that Darius, as long as he lived, occupied the place of supreme ruler over the united kingdom, is found in chap. 6:28, where we read:"So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian." Darius and Cyrus are put side by side; Darius is marked as the predecessor of Cyrus, and Cyrus as his successor.

In the light of this statement how can it be said that Cyrus was Darius' overlord? Or, as the "Critics" say, that Cyrus having conquered Babylon leaves no room at all for Darius to come in? Moreover, as we go along, we read in chap. 9:1:"In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans." The phrase:"Which was made" does not necessarily indicate that he was made king by a higher authority, nor that Cyrus did it. It simply asserts that he became king over the Chaldean realm; nor does it confine him to that realm. Special stress is laid upon this, for it indicates that Daniel, who formerly was a subject of Chaldea, had now become a subject of Media-Persia, which included the province of Babylon.

But, further, in chap. 8 we see a change coming in, though only in form of a prediction. In verse 3 we read:"Then I lifted up mine eyes and saw, and behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns:and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last." And in verse 20:"The rams which thou sawest are the kings of Media and Persia." The horns then represent kings, or kingdoms. The fact that the two horns belonged to the same ram shows that the two kingdoms, though distinct from each other, unitedly represented the great world – power of Media-Persia. One horn was higher than the other; and notice that the higher one came up last. No doubt, the higher was Persia. But when did it attain to greater prominence than Media? Was it right after the fall of Babylon? No; for the announcement in chap. S would then have been:Thy kingdom is divided and given to the Persians and the Medes; and the nobles in chap. 6 would have spoken of the law of the Persians and the Medes, instead of the Medes and the Persians.

We find this corroborated in the book of Esther which brings us to the time when the Persians had the preeminence. Here we read, in chap. 1:3, of "the power of Persia and Media;" in verse 14 of "the seven princes of Persia and Media;" in verse 18 of "the ladies of Persia and Media;" and in ver.19 of "the laws of the Persians and the Medes." It is no more Media and Persia, but Persia and Media, showing that, while still a united kingdom, Persia was now the leading power; the higher of the two horns had come up last.

Finally, in chap. 10:1,2, we read that the acts of Ahasuerus and the greatness of Mordecai were all written in "the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia." Here it returns to the former title, Media and Persia. How is this? Because the record, or chronicles, began when the Medes were at the head; therefore its title must be:The chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia. How accurate and reliable is the Word of God in every particular, even in its details!

It was "Darius the Median" therefore who took the kingdom after the fall of Babylon as supreme ruler. And if it should seem to us almost incredible that Cyrus, Babylon's conqueror, could have been content with a second ruler's position in the united kingdom while Darius was alive, this might become very simple if we knew all the circumstances. The Encyclopedia Britannica informs us that, according to Ctesias, an ancient historian, the wife of Cyrus (mother of Smerdis and Cambyses) was the daughter of the Median king. If so, it would seem no more than natural that Cyrus, under moral obligation, should grant to his father-in-law the first place in the united kingdom (Cyrus being king of Persia all the same) till after Darius' death, only two years later (536 B. C.), when Cyrus became head of the empire.

If secular history has no place for Darius the Median, the statements of God's word are nevertheless in full consistency with established historical facts. Modern historians admit that much of the accounts which have come to us through ancient writers, is legendary, contradictory and unreliable. Better for the Critics it would be, therefore, that instead of laboring to discredit the Bible, they should test their views by research of the Word of God "which liveth and abideth forever." John Kofal

THE POWER AND COMING OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST