I’m studying Daniel this year, and I’m almost done. Right now I’m deep into chapter eleven which chronicles the rise and fall of the wicked Seleucid king Antiochus IV. There’s a verse in Daniel 11 that details Antiochus’ invasion of Egypt and subsequent subjugation of the nation. It wasn’t a long-lived overthrow but it was an overthrow all the same…

He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps. 

Daniel 11:42-43 

Antiochus will totally subdue Egypt (and her neighbors, Libya and Ethiopia), taking possession of her treasures of gold and silver, etc.

Here’s the thing, though: Ancient history is spotty regarding a major southward push and victory by the Seleucids over Egypt. You can find a ton of historians call into question the words of Daniel, arguing that the things he prophesizes never happened, specifically that the Seleucids, late into the reign of Antiochus IV, never penetrated so successfully into Egypt, because there is no Egyptian history to support such a claim.

Except, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen (it did happen; the Bible says it did); it’s just the fact that ancient history was almost always written by the winners of the wars, not the losers, which meant the Egyptians tended to gloss over their defeats in their own history.

It might actually be, in fact, that the only unbiased recording of history is the Bible, since it has an agenda separate from all other nations. The fact is, the Bible roasts everybody equally and one of the major themes of Daniel is to show the foolishness of Kings and Empires thinking they had a permanent hold on power. God is in control, not an Emperor or a King or a Caesar, etc. The Bible puts God in the center of history, not the nation or King that commissioned its writing, because it was God (not a nation) that ordered the writing of the Bible.

To that, a critic might say that the Bible is little more than an exaggerated history of the nation of Israel and thus is subject to the same biases found in Egyptian history, etc. To that I would say: The Bible devotes more pages talking about all the ways the nation Israel was stupid and lost a bunch wars because of her stupidity than it does praising Israel and highlighting her victories.

Now you might want to argue “well then it’s God who is biased for Himself, writing a Bible that makes Him the hero of history” and to that I would say…

~ Matthew