The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1898-01-18

IN addition 20 this. the actual contents
OF the book itself seem TO preclude the
superstition of even an approximately con-
temporary origin the work The Book
Of Daniel differs materially from all other
prophetic writings Of the Old Testament
in the especial OF It's prophecies. Other
prophets conane themselves to vague ard
general predictions but the Book 81 Dam
lei gives a detailed account OF historical
events which may be easily recognized
and identified through the thn vel OF
prophetic mystery thrown lightly around
them.
THE PROPHETIC FEATURES.
II # is 10 be supposed that the book or
iginated at the time Of Cyrus thep osi-
tiveness with which events ~ the FAR fu-
ture are prophcsied are certainly strange.
II Is highly suggestive that while the
Book OF Daniel contains an account Of
long series Of historical events. just those
occurrences which are the most remote
from thea assumed standpoint Of tho
writer are the most correctly stated.
while the nearer we approach % the au-
thor's supposed time tire more Inaccurate
does he become. This has especial appii-
cation TO thel ast chapters. where thu
combats between the Ptolemaideg and
Selcucides are 80 clearly laid before the
reader that the visions have more The
IN an early work prophecies Or the return
appearance ~ history than prophecy
II would be more natural. too. 20 expect
of the Jews 90 Palestine. az ~ jeremiah.
l.
clamation ~ an !deai Messlauic kingdom.
such as We ind IN the Book Of Daniel.
Not only do she ApotaIyptic portions Or
the book seem % preclude the theory %
Eabyionion authorship. hut the numer-
Gus inaccuracies IN the near narrative
sections make Il equally difficult e hold
such n view
MANY INACCURACIES.
u must be admitted that chapter Eve.
which f. the biblical account of the fair
Of the Babylon dynasty. contains many
gross inaccurecies. IN spite u The mani
fest errors ~ the writer. however. T. IL
not impossible that the account may hav-
an historical background The tire.
great and paramount inaccuracies ~ the
MN chapter arc. arst. that the last King
of Babylon is called Haishazzar--a name.
by thew ay. occurring only r. Daniel
ard 81 is clearly stated that he wac the
con % Neaschadnezzar Second. the
queens mother 81 intro8uced az feast
on ire eye ~ ths far o. Babylon. ard.
third. tt g. stated that a asdian King.
Darius received ere Kingdom after ths
fali q tire native Babylonisn house
Nov tho fret % these erroneous state
meats is that Belshazzaf Was fhe SOC q
$cbuchadnnzzar Tfe war rot che son
q Eebuc ha1nezzar bet ~ Sa5onffas "a
inscriptions m ancient clay c-unfers
feuad fn r5gtheru Babylon plainly tel
ur Previous o. the fsf-rR ~ sseas IN
s-ribed cytinsers e aas tho3Eht ~ sehoi-
a-n ;hat tlss name relrhazzsr vas ~
vented ~ ere author - Daniel bot e. r.
nov essGe-t thas aueh q person really
existed. Tee frse~efisns state f.af Ea-
t.ar.8ss was th- Isst k.nF ~ Babylon and
thar Beltazzzar Faz Pa ei3er' soa.
THEORY or TEfE gEBoHs.
We may eeaeisse tAst ia th~ c-zs q
tire BOOK ~ Daassi use t-af.E1a ualch
TIE autsor fslsres f1 eating tAs Iars
king Beahazzsr nay sase arsr-n from
the prominence ~ the s91 ~ Eatoalgua
d.-ing Ela fatters rstxa. ar1 aernaua
espscia1sy ;1aar1s SIS eioae s1 ta~ gore
eminent ~ Eatyl1n aHs ,aat t-e state
rnfst - Belsfsszzar's 1easn atses 10
tuae = fhe szptzfe ~ Babyi5a useesasg
ha1 .ta ouz.a ia tae 1eash ~ tfe kanas
son - fse hares - fhe E'erssana go rs-
Corded - fee i-eerf.si.srs
me reraal Ereas seaecsraY - ~ a.
tha~ la hls sntrosacslo- iata re ssory
- fAs o-eaa MofAer. was frssi have
teen see raatheT ef s,ahonss1z Aerers-
i.x f1 fhs aaher tsr aasea entered ne
aelt sa1 stzessaa aas tae 1esash pro
s.zsf uaaei - eafies o. ias@rgret re
,1gafsFfe4s ~rHr SOW &c kagz - 4
rsrta-arT f1roaEa Feeens eisrossrses ss.4t
gee saofs-r q sssls1afss efea sszhf yaass
before tals feAst ls SID % here fa<sa
sssa~ss-..s..s - s-..s.s -