The Book of Daniel
267
c to eiv s e u d sta n i o n ne a e p x re c c e o p n t ce th iv o e s d e t p h r e e o d r i y sp , o t s h e a d t t th o ey be w d o e u c l e d iv h e a d v . e A d c e cordingly attempts have been made to discredit the Book of l D o a n n ; i t e o lu; ex to po s s h e ow hist t o h r a i t ca it l i c n o a u c l c d ur n a o c t ie h s a a v n e d b s e o en fo w rt r h i . tt T en he in sch B o a l b a y r s discovered some supposed inaccuracies, and, the fashion having been set, the imitation scholars eagerly sought for more and with the help of imagination have compiled a considerable number. They are in every case instances of the inaccuracy of the critics. ( 1 ) First, may be mentioned, as the only one ever having had any weight, the fact that no historian mentions Belshaz zar. It was therefore assumed that "the learned and pious Jew", whom the critics imagined, had invented the name. Since 1854 this "inaccuracy" has disappeared from the rationalistic dictionaries and other productions. The excava- tions have answered that. (2) Disappointed at the discovery of the truth, the critics now find fault with the title "king" which Daniel gives to Belshazzar and assert that no tablets have been found dated in his reign. It is not probable that any such tablets wi11 be found, for his father outlived him and even though Belshazzar were co-king, hi-s father's name would be in the dates. The tablets, however, show that Belshazzar was the c h o is m f m at a h n e d r e b r e o in f g t a he st t u r d o i o o p u s s , r t e h c a lu t s h e- e w th a a s t h th e e w m as an the of da a r c li t n io g nof the people and that the actual administration was in his hands. v H e e ste w d a , s w t a h s e th he e ir vir to tua th l e ki t n h g ro i n n e th a e nd ey e e v s en of if the no p t e f o o p r le m . ally in (3) It is objected next that Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchad1iezzar as th.1 queen mother says in Dan. 5:u. If he were the grnndson through his mother the same language would be used, and the undisturbed reign of Nabonidus in turbulent Babylon is accounted for in this way. (4) The quibble that the monuments do not say that
1.
)
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker