It is said again that the dates given in Jer. 25:1 and Dan, 2:1 cannot be reconciled with each other. In the former of these the _first_ year of Nebuchadnezzar is the fourth of Jehoiakim, in which year, or at all events in the preceding year, Daniel with his three companions was taken captive. Yet after they have been transported to Babylon and received an education there extending through three years (Dan. 1:5), we find Daniel interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream in the _second_ year of his reign. To this it can be answered in part that in the second book of Kings and in Jeremiah the years of Nebuchadnezzar are obviously reckoned from the time when he was placed by his father, who was now old and infirm, at the head of his army, the title of king being applied to him by way of anticipation. 2 Kings 24:12; 25:8; Jer. 25:1. In the book of Daniel, on the contrary, his years are reckoned 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.