The cuneiform inscriptions and the Old Testament - The Search For ...

BOOK OF DANIEL V. 133
Ionia a whole series of rulers (see the canon of Ptolemj
and Berossus), does not fead we -lo thfe Assumption of a
more indefinite and broader signification for the words
"son" and "father". The fact rather is that it was only
the blooming period of the great founder of the empire
(I do not say the first Babylonian king) and the time of the
empire's downfall that remained fixed in the memory. Thus
in the various traditions the period of prosperity was uniform-
ly represented by Nebukadnezzar, while the closing period
was associated in the memory of the Jews with the person
of Belshazzar *. On the other hand among the Babylonians it
* We meet with the same statement in the Book of Baruch I,
1 1 foil. The question may arise whether one of the two writers could
not have borrowed from the other. If so, who was the borrower ? or
have both derived their accounts from a third source. The agreement
also of Bar. I. 15—17, II. 1. 2. 7 foil. 11 foil, with Daniel IX renders
it more probable, that the less original author of the Book of Baruch
derived his materials from the thoroughly independent writer of the
Book of Daniel. Comp. De Wette-Schrader , Einleitung in das Alte
Testament 8t'> ed. § 391 p. 603 note f. Moreover, the manner in which
the Book of Baruch describes the rule of Belshazzar is decisive in
favour of this view. In Daniel Belshazzar is throughout the Baby-
lonian tyrant, who in his arrogance goes so far as to defile even the
sacred vessels, and the representation in this book is pervaded by
the spirit of vengeance, which is to overtake the Babylonians for their
haughtiness. On the other hand, in the Book of Baruch the two kings
of Babylonia are two rulers, under whose shadotv (!) Juda has been
living for a long while, whom Juda serves and before whom he Jiiids
favour; and this is obviously the reflex of a description such as that
in the Book of Daniel of the lot which fell to the person of Daniel
according to this very book. Observe also the verbal agreement of
Baruch II. 6 with Daniel IX. 7; of Bar. II. 8 with Dan. IX. 13 b; of
Bar. II. 9 with Dan. IX. 14; of Bar. II. 11 with Dan. IX. 15 etc. !—
Moreover, while it is quite certain, on account of IX. 4 comp. with
Neh. I. 5, IX. 82; Dan. IX. 15 comp. with Neh. IX. 10; Dan. IX. 8
comp. with Neh. IX. 44; Dan. IX. 7. 8 comp. with Ezra IX. 7 (see
C. von Lengerke, Buch Daniel p. 411), that the writer of the Book of