Monuments to the Truth of the Scriptures. 9 (see 2 Kings 1:17 and 8:16), or that Jotham should have been made king before his father, Uzziah, died of leprosy, though Uzziah is still called king in some of the references to him. That Belshazzar should have been called son of Nebuchad nezzar is readily accounted for on the supposition that he was his grandson, and there are many things to indicate that Nabo- nidus married Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter, while there is noth ing known to the contrary. But if this theory is rejected, there is the natural supposition that in the loose use of terms of re lationship common among Oriental people “son” might be ap plied to one who was simply a successor. In the inscriptions on the monuments of Shalmaneser II., referred to below, Jehu, the extirpator of the house of Omri, is called the “son of Omri.” The status of Belshazzar implied in this explanation is confirmed incidentally by the fact that Daniel is promised in verse 6 the “third” place in the kingdom, and in verse 29 is given that place, all of which implies that Belshazzar was sec ond only. Thus, what was formerly thought to be an insuperable objection to the historical accuracy of the Book of Daniel proves to be, in all reasonable probability, a mark of accuracy. The coincidences are all the more remarkable for being so evidently undesigned. THE BLACK OBELISK OF SHALMANESER. From various inscriptions in widely separated places we are now able to trace the movements of Shalmaneser II. through nearly all of his career. In B. C. 842 he crossed the Euphrates for the sixteenth time and carried his conquests to the shores of the Mediterranean. Being opposed by Hazael of Damascus, he overthrew the Syrian army, and pursued it to the royal city and shut it up there, while he devastated the territory surrounding. But while there is no mention of his fighting with the Tyrians, Sidonians, and Israelites, he is said
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker