The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-01-30

nv pOItell as merely freak or the klnS
It is much more likely that the writer
wished TO represent that tho mysterious SEN
tence appeared either in foreign language
or In unusual form of the vernacular.
NOW, had the warning been written in for
eign language the probability is that it
would have been Immediately recognized at
so cosmopolitan court as the Babylonian,
which had come in contact with so many
foreign nations. Then, too, had the. writ
ing appeared in an unknown idiom the eff
feet of the Interpretation would have been
70 great extent lost on the King. This
idea, therefore, could hardly have been in
the authors mind It is much more prob
able that the mysterious sentence as he
used it was an Aramaic corruption of some
| had descended to the Maccabaean author of
Daniel He may have believed that the
sentence appeared at the feast written in
an unusual Geographic form.
| 1t has been asked if the many inaccura-
| cies already discovered in the book of Dan
! lei, and especially. in the fifth chapter,
| necessarily show that this entire account
| of the feast was invented, and if it is not
| possible that there may be in it an echo
| of history which can still be detected. The
! latter question must certainly be answered
| in the affirmative.
FOUNDED ON HISTORICAL FACT.
That such a feast as mentioned in the
| book of Daniel actually took place on the
eve of the fall of Babylon is not altogether
| improbable. Although we have no parallel
account of such an event in the inscriptions
on any of the clay cylinders that have so
far been found regarding the capture of
Babylon by the Persians, it may neverthe-
less, be m ltioned that both Herodotus and
| Xenophon allude to such feast at this
| time In fact, according to Herodotus
Babylon was captured while the besieged
were off their guard during a festival
Xenophon also, in alluding to the capture
of Babylon, says that Cyrus. the conquer
| ing PERSIAN general, heard that feast was
going on.
| 1t is highly probable that the story of the
feast of Belshazzar told of in Daniel is sim
| ply another version of the same historical
| tact; 1t cannot be denied however, that the
| Wn0ie DOCK of Daniel, as pretending to be
| an historical record, is open to all manner
| or attack. 1t is now the common opinion
sluered as intended by the author to be a
| Verac1ouS account of events which took
place at the time of the fall of Babylon
! but rather as a political pamphlet of the
reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. 1t is to-day
the general opinion of most scholars who
study the Old Testament from a critical
point or view that the book of Daniel cam
not nave originated, according to the here
tofore accepted theory, at tive time of Cy-
| this conclusion:
First the position of the book among the
HagIographa instead of among the prophets
would seem to indicate that it must have
Deen introduced after the closing of the
prophetic canon. The natural exclamation
regarding this position of the book of Dan
lei is that the work could not have been in
| existence at the time of the completion
OF the second part of the canon. as other
wise the collectors of the prophetic writ
| lngs, who in their care did not neglect even
! the parable of Jonah would hardly have
| ignored the record of such a great prophet
as Damel is represented to have BEEN
In the second place, the silence of Eccle-
slastlcus concerning Daniel seems to show
writer
third argument against an early origin
ror the book IS the fact that the post-exilic
prophets exhibit no trace of it's influence.
HAD the Book of Daniel been extant and
| generally known since the time of Cyrus it
would be reasonable to look for some sign
| OF It's power among the writings Of the
chi. 49, 1''0ii''i i''ii anu Na''id-
| In addition to this, the actual contents of
the book itself seem TO preclude the SUPPOSE
| ton of even an approximately contempora-
ry origin of the work. The Book of Daniel
| dlf1erS materially from all other prophetic
| writings of the Old Testament in the espe-
cial details of it's prophecies. Other proph-
cts eonfine themselves to vague and general
Preoictlons but the Book of Daniel gives
detailed account of historical events which
t tl%g easily ny Pc pc recognized and identified
tthhrougn the thin vel OF prophetic mystery
thrown lightly around them.
THE PROPHETIC FEATURES.
1t is to be supposed that the book origin
| ated at the time of Cyrus, the positiveness
| with which events of the far future are
| prophesied is certainly strange. 1t is highly
| suggestive that while the Book of Daniel
contains an account of long series of his
| torical events. just those occurrences which
are the most remote from the assumed
standpoint of the writer are the most cor
rectly stated, while the nearer we approach
to the authors supposed time the more in
accurate does he become. This has especial
| application to the last chapters where the
combats between the Ptolemaides and Sell
eucides are SO clearly laid before the reader
t9at the visions have more the appearance
or history than prophecy.
1t would be more natural too, to expect
IN an early work prophecies of the return of
the Jews to Palestine. as in Jeremiah.
Ezekiel and Isaiah, rather than the procla-
nation of an ideal Messianic kingdom,
such as we find in the Book of Daniel. Not
book seem to preclude the theory of Baby
lonian authorship. but the numerous mac
curacies IN the narrative sections make it
equally difficult to hold such a view.
1t must be admitted that chapter five
which is the biblical account of the fall of
the Babylonian dynasty, contains many
gross inaccuracies. In spite of the manifest
errors of the writer however, it is not inn
possible that the account may have an
historical background. The three great and
paramount inaccuracies of the fifth chapter
are, first that the last King of Babylon is
called Belshazzar-a name by the way, oc-
curing only in Daniel-and it is clearly
stated that he was the son of Nebuchad-
nezzar; second, the Queen mother is intro
duced at a feast on the eve of the fall of
Babylon, and, third, it is stated that a
Median King, Darius, received the Kingdom
after the fall OF the native BabyIonian
house.
Now the first of these erroneous state
ments is that Belshazzar was the son of
ACKNOWLEDGMENT. He was not the son of
Nebuchadnezzar. but of Nabonidus as in
ScrptionS on ancient clay cylinders found
in southern Baby!onia now plainly tell us
Previous to the finding of these inscribed
cylinders 1t was thought by scholars that
the name BeShaZZar was invented bv the
author of Daniel, but it is now evident that
such person really existed The inscrip-
lions state that NdbOniduS was the last
King of Babylon and that BelShazZar was
his eldest son.
DANIELS ERRORS
We may conclude that in the case of the
Book Of Daniel the tradition which the
author followed in calling the last King
Belshazzar may have arisen from the prom
inence of the of Nabonidus during his
fathers reign, and perhaps especially tow
ard its close, in the government of Baby
lon, and that the statement of Beshazzar's
death about the time of the capture of
Babylon possibly had it's origin in the death
sians as recorded in the inscriptions.
The second great inaccuracy of the author
is his introduction into the story of the
mother of NabOniduS. According to the
author the Queen entered the hall and
suggested that the Jewish prophet Daniel
be called to interpret the mysterious writ
ing. Now we know for a certainty through
recent discoveries that the mother of Ma
bonidus died eight years before this feast
is said to have taken place, so that her
hn ole