Cottonwood report. [volume] (Cottonwood, Idaho) 1893-1901, 1898-04-01


Biblical author might have had some
such allusion in mind when he described
the appearance of the inscription. The
mysterious sentence, therefore, implied a
scathing comparison of the unworthy last
king of Babylon with his great predeceS-
sor and prophecy of the speedy down.
fall of the native Babylonian dynasty
and the division of the empire. Neb-
uchadnezzar, practically the founder of
the Babylonian empire and really the
greatest man of the time might well be
called NINA"
But why was it that the author pictures
the learned scribes whom the king sum-
moned to decipher the inscription as be-
ing totally unable to read and interpret
the sentence? Some scholars hold the
belief that the mysterious writing was
intended as vision to the king alone,
which no one save the supernaturally
gifted Daniel could interpret. But moth
ing in the text of the chapter describing
the scene seems to indicate that the au-
thor had any such idea in mind. The
evident terror, not only of the king, but
of the whole court, and the statement
that the wise men could neither read nor
interpret the writing, seem to show that
the author had no intention of repre-
senting the portent as merely a freak
of the kings brain.
1t is much more likely that the writer
wished to represent that the mysterious
sentence appeared either in foreign Ian
guage or in an unusual form of the ver-
nacular. Now had the warning been in
a foreign language the probability is that
1t would have been Immediately recoS-
nized at SO cosmopolitan q court as the
Babylonian, which had come in contact
with so many foreign nations. Then, too,
had the writing appeared in an unknown
idiom the effect of the Interpretation
would have been to a great extent lost
on the king. This idea, therefore, could
hardly have been in the authors mind.
1t is much more probable that the mys-
ferrous sentence as he used it was an
Aramaic corruption of some original As
syrian proverb or saying which had de-
scended 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
Daniel, and especially in the fifth chap
ter necessarily show that this entire ac-
count of the feast was invented, and If
1t is not possible that there may be in
1t an echo of history which can still be
detected. The latter question must GER
tainly be answered in the Affirmative.
That such feast as mentioned in the
Book of Daniel actually took place on
the eve of the fall of Babylon is not alto
gether improbable. Although we have no
parallel account of such an event in the
inscriptions on any of the clay cylinders
the capture of Babylon by the Persians,
it may. nevertheless. be mentioned that
both Herodotus and Xenophon allude to
such a feast at this time. In fact, &C.
cording to Herodotus, Babylon was cap
tured while the besieged were off their
guard during the festival Xenophon also,
in alludng to the capture of Babylon
says that Cyrus, the conquering 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 simply another version of the same
historical fact. 1t cannot be denied, how
ever, that the whole Book of Daniel, as
pretending to be an historical record, is
open to all manner of attack. 1t Is now
the common opinion of critics that the
book must not be considered as intended
by the author to be a veracious account
of events which took place at the time
of the fall of Babylon, but rather as a
political pamphlet of the reign of Anti
ochus Epiphanes. 1t is to-day the general
opinion of most scholars who study the
Old Testament from a critical point of
view that the Book of Daniel cannot
have originated, according to the hereto
fore accepted theory, at the time of Cy-
rus.
And here are the chief reasons for this
conclusion:
First-The position of the book among
the Photographic instead of among the
Prophets would seem to indicate that it
must have been introduced after the clos
ing of the Prophetic Canon. The natural
explanation regarding this position of the
Book of Daniel is that the work could
not have been in existence at the time
of the completion of the second part of
the Canon, otherwise the collectors of
the prophetic writings, who in their care
did not neglect even the parable of Jonah
would hardly have ignored the record of
such a great prophet as Daniel is repre-
sented to have been.
In the second place, the silence of Ec-
clesiasticus concerning Daniel seems to
show that the prophet was unknown to
that late writer.
third argument against an early ORR
gin for 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 its power among
the writings of prophets like Haggai,
Zachariah and Malachi
In addition to this, the actual contents
of the book itself seem to preclude the
contemporary origin of the work. The
book of Daniel differs materially from all
other prophetic writings of the Old Tes-
lament in the especial details of it's
prophecies. Othe prophets conf1ne them
selves to vague and general predictions
but the book of Daniel gives a detailed
account OF historical events which may
easily be recognized and identified
through the thin veil of prophetic mys-
terry thrown lightly around them.
If it is to be supposed that the book
originated at the time of Cyrus, the pos
itiveness 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
a long series of historical events, just
those occurrences which are the most re-
mote from the assumed standpoint of the
writer are the most correctly stated
while the nearer we approach to the au-
thor's supposed time the more inaccu-
rate does he become. This has special
application to the last chapters, where
the combats between the Ptolemaides
and Seleucides are so clearly laid be-
fore the reader that the visions have
more the appearance of history than
prophecy.
1t would be more natural, too, to ex-
pect in an early work prophecies of the
return of the Jews to Palestine, as in
jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah, rather than
the proclamation of an ideal Messianic
kingdom, such as we find in the book of
Daniel. Not only do the Apocalyptic por-
tons of the book seem to preclude the
theory of Babylonian authorship, but the
numerous Inaccuracies in the narrative
sections make it equally difficult to hod
such a view.
1t must be admitted that chapter g.