In a book
defending the book of Daniel’s historicity, we read the following:
. . . the alleged non-existence of Darius the
Mede has always been a key piece of evidence used by critical scholars to
support their general view of the book of Daniel as a late forgery. An
admission on the part of mainstream scholarship that the book of Daniel has
accurately given the name and position of Darius the Mede would be a
considerable blow to the whole historical-critical approach to the book. Such
details about a man whose name and position are not preserved by later
historians could really only be given by a contemporary, especially by someone
who had just such “insider” posts in government as the book claims that Daniel
had. (Steven D. Anderson, Darius the
Mede: A Reappraisal [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Self-Published, 2014], 40)
One was reminded of something similar we find in the Book of Mormon that
argues for its historicity: the vindication of the book’s claim that there was
a historical figure called “Mulek” (alt. “Muloch” [per early printings of the
Book of Mormon]) who was a surviving son of King Zedekiah. Only in recent
decades has the Book of Mormon been vindicated on this issue, including a
discovery of a seal affirming the historicity of this figure. Indeed, we can
rework the above from Anderson thusly:
An admission on the
part of mainstream scholarship that the Book of Mormon has accurately given the
name and position of Mulek, son of King Zedekiah, would be a considerable blow
to the thesis it is 19th-century fiction and instead supports its claim to be a translation of an ancient document. Such details about a man
whose name and position are not preserved by later historians could really only
be given by Mormon who had access to texts and traditions originating from
Mulek’s contemporaries in the New World where they escaped from the Old.
For useful articles on Mulek, see:
Jeffrey R. Chadwick, Has the Seal of Mulek
Been Found?
Jeff Lindsay, Mulek,
Son of Zedekiah
