96 The Fundamentals to sustain a preconceived theory, that they would have de- ceived none except those predisposed to be deceived. Ac- cordingly attempts have been made to discredit the Book of Daniel; to show that it could not have been written in Baby- lon ; to expose historical inaccuracies and so forth. The scholars discovered some supposed inaccuracies, and, I 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 will be found, for his father outlived him and even though Belshazzar were co-king, his father’s name would be in the dates. The tablets, however, show that Belshazzar was the commander of the troops, that he was the man of action— his father being a studious recluse—t hat he was the darling of the people and that the actual administration was in his hands. He was the heir to the throne and even if not formally in- vested, was the virtual king in the eyes of the people. (3) It is objected next that Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar as the queen mother says in Dan. 5 : 11 . If he were the grandson 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
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker