ckoned from his actual accession to the
throne. But even then it is necessary to assume a considerable delay
between his return from his Egyptian expedition and his formal
investiture with the kingdom.

The grounds of such a delay we can only conjecture. It may have
been connected with the settlement of the affairs of the realm,
which he found, Berosus tells us, administered by the Chaldeans,
the kingdom being kept for him by the chief man among them; or
the statement of Berosus may be wanting in fulness and accuracy.
An argument from our ignorance cannot be urged against the
authenticity of Daniel any more than in its favor.

As to the acknowledged difficulties connected with the identification of
Belshazzar and Darius the Median (chap. 5), it is sufficient to say that
the notices which we have of the Chaldean monarchy after Nebuchadnezzar
are so fragmentary and contradictory that no valid argument can be drawn
from such difficulties against the authenticity of the book of Daniel.

An old opinion identifies Belshazzar with Nabonnedus, who was
either a son of Nebuchadnezzar or a grandson--called his son,
Dan. 5:22, in the sense of his descendant. But Rawlinson (as
quoted in Smith's Bible Dictionary) informs us that from
inscriptions deciphered by him it appears that the eldest son of
Nabonnedus was called _Bel-shar-ezer=Belshazzar_. He thinks that
as joint king with his father he may have been governor of
Babylon, when the city was taken by the Medes and Persians, and
have perished in the assault, while, in accordance with the
statements of Berosus, Nabonnedus himself survived. Upon either
of the above suppositions, Darius the Median will be Cyaxares
II., son of Astyages and uncle to Cyrus, who succeeded to the
title of king--"took the kingdom" (Dan 5:31 and chap. 6)--though
the conquest of Babylon was due to Cyrus himself, who not long
afterwards ascended the throne of the united kingdoms of Media
and Persia. Another view makes Belshazzar the same as
Evil-merodach, son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, and
identifies Darius the Median with Astyages. It is not necessary
to decide which, if either of these two views, is correct.

(2.) An argument has been drawn from the fact that Jesus, the son of
Sirach, does not mention the name of Daniel in the catalogue of his
worthies (chap. 49). Such negative arguments are at