William H. Sheaa
After the Persians conquered Babylon, they proceeded to reorganize the civil service in order to bring the newly-acquired kingdom under the administration of the Persian empire. Darius the Mede, the local ruler in Babylon, appointed 120 governors and three “presidents” over them, one of whom was Daniel (Dan 6:1–2). This did not sit well with the other officials so they set about to have Daniel removed from office. Since they were unable to accuse him of incompetence, they engineered his downfall through another avenue, a religious test which they knew Daniel would fail because of his strong commitment to the God of the Hebrews.
The antagonistic bureaucrats instigated legislation which provided that prayers were to be offered only to Darius for a period of 30 days. Knowing full well that Daniel prayed faithfully to his God three times a day, they were sure that Daniel would be convicted under this new law. Darius, not seeing the trap, acquiesced and decreed that the law should go into effect. Daniel continued to pray in his customary way and evidence for this violation was taken to Darius. Trapped by the force of his own legislation, Darius reluctantly had Daniel sent to the lions. Because Daniel had become such a favorite, Darius spent a sleepless night fasting for him. When morning broke he rushed to the site to learn of Daniel’s fate.
In a dramatic exchange at the edge of the den, the king shouted, “O Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, who you serve continually, been able to deliver you from the
BSP 4:3 (Summer 1991) p. 69
lions?” From his disadvantaged position Daniel called back, “O king, live for ever! My God sent His angel and shut the lions’ mouths, and they have not hurt me, because I was found blameless before Him; and also before you, O king, I have done no wrong.” With great joy Darius commanded that Daniel be brought up out of the lions’ den. Darius found that Daniel was completely unharmed by the experience. Impressed by this deliverance, Darius made another decree, this time ordering that all of his royal dominion should tremble and fear before the God of Daniel for,
He delivers and rescues, He works signs and wonders in heaven and on earth, He who has saved Daniel from the power of the lions (Dan 6:27).
Darius The Mede
The historicity of this episode has been questioned. One of the reasons is because of the king involved — Darius the Mede. Secular historical records have not preserved this name as a ruler of Babylon in the early Persian period. A number of solutions have been proposed. Common to all theories is the idea that Darius was a throne name which was given to or taken up by an individual whom we know in the extra-Biblical texts by another name. I personally have written up a study in which I have advocated that Darius the Mede was Gubaru, the general who conquered Babylon for Cyrus.1 Other candidates have been proposed as well.
My purpose here is not to discuss the identification of Darius the Mede, but to come at this problem from another direction. If we could demonstrate through some historical or archaeological source that Daniel did indeed spend some time in the lions’ den in Babylon, then it would be likely that the Biblical record would receive considerable support. Not only that, but such a source or sources could also provide some illumination upon this episode which itself is of extraordinary interest. Such a search is, therefore, well worth the effort.
The Lions’ Den
First of all, we should close up a blind alley. From time-to-time the story has circulated that the den in which Daniel was thrown has been found. Along with this, other reports have indicated that the burning fiery furnace into which Daniel’s three friends were thrown has also been found. These stories have no basis in fact and are untrue. But they do have a basis in experience and that experience has to do with Robert Koldewey, excavator of Babylon from 1899 to 1917.2 As it turns out, Koldewey was a practical joker who liked to play pranks on Christian pilgrims who came to visit Babylon. Instead of telling them that no lion’s den had been found, he would lead them on by telling them that just such a find had been made. Walter Andrae, who worked with Koldewey, tells of such an experience.
Koldewey guided them through the ruins, and showed them a mound of brick-dross as the place of the “fiery furnace,” a deep dig (excavation) as the lions’ den of Daniel, and the throne hall, where the Mene-tekel had appeared on the wall. .. When we reproached him later of having taken in these poor people, he replied in all seriousness, “Why? Blessed is the one who believes. Should I take away from them this joy and discourage them? This will have been their greatest experience as long as they live!”3
BSP 4:3 (Summer 1991) p. 70
Even though the specific location of the lions’ den has not been found, it is evident that various rulers of the ancient Near East did have zoos. For example, there are eight different cuneiform texts which refer to the feeding of lions kept by a king of Ur named Shu-Sin who reigned just before 2000 BC. In commenting on these texts, a scholar who published one of them has noted,
The lions were likely kept as pets perhaps in a kind of zoo at or near the palace in Ur. It seems as though only expensive equids or mature bovines were utilized to feed the lions. Old, diseased or dead animals were generally fed only to the dogs and in no instance are the animals fed to the lions ever qualified as such. It would seem that the animals were either fed live to the lions, perhaps for the entertainment of onlookers, or were slaughtered just before their being thrown to the lions. Similar customs prevailed in later Babylonia.4
Although the loci of Koldewey’s practical jokes do not provide us with the location of the lions’ den in Darius’ Babylon, the idea that such royal pets would have been kept there is reasonable and has good analogies from other periods of Mesopotamian history. One can go a step further and suggest where such a den or cage might have been located. Since the famous hanging gardens of Babylon served as a kind of royal botanical gardens, it would have been quite appropriate for the royal zoo to have been situated in conjunction with the gardens or adjacent to them. There has been some debate about the site of the hanging gardens. An older archaeological theory put them on the eastern side of the royal citadel, near the Ishtar gate and processional way.
Lion in glazed brick in the Processional Way, Babylon, now in the Louvre, Paris. The ancient city of Babylon has been extensively excavated and rebuilt by Iraq.
BSP 4:3 (Summer 1991) p. 71
More recently, D.J. Wiseman, formerly of the British Museum, has advocated that the gardens were located on the western side of the royal citadel, on the side leading down to the Euphrates River.5 This location makes more sense as it would have facilitated watering the gardens.
The Lion Of Babylon
Thus far we have discounted the old stories inspired by Koldewey’s humor. We have also observed that it would not have been unlikely for a monarch of Babylon to have kept such royal pets. And we have also suggested the most likely location where they would have been quartered. As far as a lions’ den per se, this is as far as we can go in terms of the present state of our knowledge. It is possible, however, that we may be able to say something more about Daniel’s relationship to those lions.
These new remarks stem from close observations on an old monument found at Babylon more than two centuries ago. What is offered here is a new interpretation of that old monument which has been a puzzle to scholars.
In the first place, it should be noted that lions were not strangers to the images and representations of Babylon. On the walls of the Processional Way leading up to the Ishtar Gate, lions are depicted in enameled brick relief along with bulls and dragons. They are also the only beast depicted in the same way on the outer wall of the audience hall of the palace.
While these beasts are interesting in terms of their general use in Babylonian representations, we are more concerned with one specific lion. This lion is so impressive that its statue is referred to as “The Lion of Babylon.” Carved out of black basalt stone, the statue is 9 ft long and depicts a lion standing over a human victim. The victim is on his back and wears no mantle or tunic. His only garment is a pair of shorts which come to a line just above his knee. A flexed knee of the man can be seen on one side of the statue, while a raised arm is depicted on the other side reaching up to the lion’s rib cage.
The history of this massive monument is of interest. It was found by local villagers in AD 1776. It remained in place and was re-excavated by Joseph de Beauchamp in 1784. This limited excavation was the first occasion upon which a crew of local workmen was employed to excavate an archaeological site in Mesopotamia. Even though the monument has been known for a long time, its interpretation remains a mystery. The stone, the style of execution by the sculptor, and the subject matter have been thought to be very un-Babylonian in character.6 It has been suggested that it may be Hittite in origin, having been carried away as booty from a military campaign. I would concur that it is not native Babylonian in origin, but I believe it should be taken as Persian in inspiration.
The lion was found in the “museum” area of the northern citadel of the royal quarter of the old or inner city of Babylon. Within this area of the palace complex the main or original building was the southern palace. To the west of this was built a strongly-fortified citadel which abutted the Euphrates River and formed a protection from it. On the northern side was a courtyard and beyond that the northern fortress or citadel. This northern palace, and its great outer defensive bastion, was built by Nebuchadnezzar in the latter part of
BSP 4:3 (Summer 1991) p. 72
his reign. It still has not been excavated completely, but in its ruins were found a collection of “antiquities” which suggests that Nebuchadnezzar, and the Babylonian and Persian kings following him, housed a kind of museum collection here.
Among the objects in the collection were statues of governors of the city of Mari, a stela of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal and his brother Shamash-shum-ukin who became king of Babylon when their father died, a stela of another governor of Mari, a stela of the Hittite weather god, and numerous fragments of clay tablets with cuneiform texts that date from as early as the Third Dynasty of Ur, ca 2000 BC, and as late as the time of Darius I of Persia, ca 500 BC.7 The range of the use of this portion of the palace runs from the middle of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar down to the time of the Persian king Darius I, or approximately 575–500 BC. It was here that the Lion of Babylon was found. As far as the active use of this palace is concerned, it overlapped the career of Daniel in Babylon through the latter part of the Neo-Babyonian kingdom and the earliest years of the Persian kings.
As we approach the statue for a closer look, we note that the theme is the same as the story of Daniel. A lion stands over a human victim. Secondly, we note that the lion, while standing over his victim, is not actively attacking him. His head is pointing straight forward, and is not turned down toward his victim. Thus, the sculptor is depicting a lion who is not actively savaging his victim. A comparison has been made between this statue and Mallowan’s discovery at Nimrud of an ivory carving representing a lion savaging a Nubian.8
Basalt statue of the “Lion of Babylon.” Note the prone position of the “victim” and the apparent indifference of the lion. Along the side an inscription has apparently been removed at the indentation.
BSP 4:3 (Summer 1991) p. 73
In that case, however, the lion is actively engaged in attacking the Nubian, biting into his neck.
Defacing Of The Statue
It has also been suggested that the Babylon lion was left unfinished. While it is somewhat stylized and thus conveys that impression, when the nature of the statue is understood it is seen that it is fairly complete. For example, the way in which the face was depicted. Only a portion of the face is shown, with the nose protruding. The ears above and behind the face are quite clear, however, as is the mane. It is not that the face was left uncarved, but rather that something was intentionally hacked out from it.
As one looks carefully at the face, head, and neck of this lion statue it is evident that the head was shaped normally, but something has happened to it. The upper part of the nose is present but from there someone has hacked out the forward part of the lower jaw or the anterior part of the mouth. This is where the lion does his damage. This is where he chews, bites, and tears the flesh of his victim.
While the art of the statue is somewhat stylized, there are no other damaged parts, nor are there any unfinished parts. Why then was the statue damaged in this way? This kind of monument does not damage easily. What happened here is not that which occurs from the statue being knocked over or falling over.
I believe that this monument was deliberately defaced. The persons who did so wanted to deface one particular part of the statue of the lion. They wanted to deface the mouth and jaw with which the lion does its damage. Why do that? The most logical answer is that the lion which this monument represents did not do with this mouth and jaw what it was supposed to do in the eyes of the persons who defaced it. That the lion did not carry out its intended task is clear from the stance of the lion — it is looking forward, up and away from its victim. The jaw and mouth did not tear and rend like they should have, and the persons who witnessed the failure of action on the part of the lion represented objected to the fact that it was not done. Their objection was so strong, that they took out their anger by defacing the statue.
Nimrud ivory carving of a Nubian being torn at the throat by a lion.
Let us now look at the situation. Daniel was cast into the lions’ den. He survived because the lions did not do the job the governors intended. The result was disastrous for their group. Darius turned the
BSP 4:3 (Summer 1991) p. 74
tables on them and cast some of the governors into the lions’ den and they were torn limb from limb. This could only have led to further anger and anxiety among the surviving governors and the families of those who were killed in this way. Their animosity towards Daniel must have continued to boil. While their anger and anxiety were directed toward Daniel, it must also have been directed toward Daniel’s friends in the lions’ den, that is, the lions themselves.
Since Daniel 6 tells that Darius made a decree at the end of this episode honoring Daniel and especially Daniel’s God, he may well have commissioned a commemorative statue.
My suggestion, then, is that the Lion of Babylon statue is a depiction of Daniel lying underneath one of the lions. But standing over him is a lion that is not attacking him when he should have, according to the plot of the governors. Sometime after the statue was carved, set up and celebrated, the governors defaced it in their antagonism to both Daniel and the lions.
Why was a statue carved to commemorate this occasion? It should be recalled that there are statues and stelae of other individuals found in this royal museum area. So the idea that an individual would be memorialized in this way is not unlikely. It is also of interest to note that some of the stelae commemorate various events connected with the individuals described and depicted by them. Along with the statues of the governors of Mari there is also a stela of an 8th century BC governor of Mari by the name of Shamash-resh-usur who introduced the keeping of bees into Mesopotamia. If the keeping of bees could be described as a great event in his governorship, then the stopping of the mouths of lions could surely be described and depicted as a notable event in the career of Daniel the governor! Darius’ favoritism towards him would have provided the inspiration for the commissioning of the statue.
A Missing Inscription
Since there are textual descriptions with the various other stelae and statues in the museum, one wonders why there is no inscription with the lion statue. Originally, there probably was an inscription. If one looks carefully at the line which defines the back of the lion’s mane, one can see that it is not actually a line of the mane but rather it outlines an area on the lion’s back that has been carved out. This carved-out space appears on both sides of the lion’s back, but it is carved out more deeply on the left side, so deeply that it came to another surface or stratum in the rock that stands out more lightly in color. This is not the normal way to depict the back of a lion. Something has been carved out from this area. In all likelihood there was a cuneiform inscription here which has been hacked out by someone who did not like what it had to say.
If there was a cuneiform inscription on the back of the lion, which would have been the normal place to locate it, then it no doubt told of the event the statue commemorated. If the correct connection has been made between the statue and Daniel’s experience as described in Daniel 6, then there would have been good reason why any number of people — perhaps Daniel’s enemies at court in Babylon — would have defaced the commemorative inscription.
BSP 4:3 (Summer 1991) p. 75
The missing inscription thus fits the situation described in Daniel 6. The execution of Daniel’s archenemies at the end of this episode, as described in Daniel 6:24, could only have added fuel to the fire of those who wanted to deface the image. Once they had defaced the jaw and the inscription, however, they did not need to destroy the statue and its face any further, for now there was no evidence left to identify the person who was involved in the episode. If we did not have the sixth chapter of Daniel to compare with the statue we would have to agree with Andre Parrot’s evaluation, “this sculpture is therefore still a mystery.”9
Summary
The conclusion to the narrative of Daniel 6 indicates that Darius the Mede sent forth a widely-distributed decree that the God of Heaven, Daniel’s God, should be honored throughout his kingdom. One other way in which he chose to do this appears to have been the commissioning of a statue to commemorate the event. In this statue the elderly Daniel was depicted as bearded and placed underneath the lion whose jaws were stopped.
Since this statue was uncovered in 1776 and again in 1784, it was standing on the palace grounds when Koldewey excavated at Babylon from 1899 to 1917.
If Koldewey wished to show pious pilgrims some archaeological evidence of Daniel in the lion’s den, he should have taken them to the statue of the Lion of Babylon, rather than to an empty hole in the ground.