268 The Fundamentals Belshazzar was slain at the taking of Babylon is unworthy of the scholar who makes it. It is admitted that Belshazzar was a prominent figure before the city was captured, that "the son of the king died" and that he then "disappeared from history". He was heir to the kingdom. He was a soldier. His dynasty was overthrown. He disappeared from history. Common sense can make its inference. (5) It is hard, however, for the impugners of Daniel to n le e t n t t h ly e i B n e t ls h h e az in za sc r ri a p r t g io u n m s, en a t ft g e o r . cr T it o ici h s a m ve ha h d im de a c p i p d e e a d r t p h r a o t m h i e n se e r v t e a r tio ex n is ( t " ed S , ay is ce a ' w s k H w i a g r h d e . r C A r c i c t. or a d n in d g M ly, on w u e m h e a n v ts e ," a 4 lo 9 n 7 g -5 d 3 i 1 s ) showing that the claim of Cyrus to have captured Babylon without fighting is inconsistent with the accounts of the secular historians, which dwell upon the long siege, the desperate fighting, the turning of the river, the surprise at night, etc. Very well, the two accounts are inconsistent. But what has this to do with Daniel ? His account is as follows : "In that night was Belshazzar the Chaldean king slain, and Darius the Mede received the kingdom" (Dan. 5 :31). Not a word about a siege, etc. An account entirely consistent with the inscription of Cyrus. And yet the critic has the n au ou d n ac c i e t d y a to ga s i a n y st t t h h a e t h " i t s h t e or m ic o a n l u a m cc e u n r t a al cy ev o i f de t n h c e e S h c a r s ip h tu e r r e e n pr a o r rative" I ("H. C. & M.", 531). This is not criticism; it is misrepresentation. (6) Daniel mentions the "Chaldeans" a s a guild of wise men. This has been made a ground of attack. "In the time of the exile", they tell us, "the Chaldeans were an imperial nation. Four centuries afterward the term signified a guild ; therefore, Daniel was written four centuries afterward". It is strange that none of the critics consulted Herodotus, the historian nearest to Daniel in time. He visited Babylon in the same cent1:1ry with Daniel and uses the word in the same sense as Daniel and in no 0ther. (Herod. 1 :181, 185.)
J
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker