Changes

=== Historical Identification ===

=== Historical Identification ===

For centuries the identity of Belshazzar lay lost to history, preserved only in the [[Book of Daniel]], consequentially used by many as a challenge to the historical accuracy of said volume.<ref> [https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Hd9BDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT198&dq=%22there+was+a+further+secular+controversy+for+many+centuries+over+the+existence+of+Belshazzar%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik5oLZ6oLpAhW87XMBHeL0AuQQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=%22there%20was%20a%20further%20secular%20controversy%20for%20many%20centuries%20over%20the%20existence%20of%20Belshazzar%22&f=false] Becher, Dave, ''The Tripartite Helmet of Hope and Salvation''.</ref> Andrew Steinmann writes: <blockquote>Until the 1860s no historical source except the book of Daniel and works dependent on Daniel (e.g., Baruch 1:11) could provide independent confirmation of the existence of Belshazzar. Since he is not mentioned in any of the Greek historians, many nineteenth-century critical scholars viewed Daniel 5 as a purely fictional account about a fictional king . . . However, beginning in the 1860s, Babylonian sources came to light that named Belshazzar as the son of Nabonidus. They also stated that Belshazzar was made coregent over Babylon. These texts vindicated the historical nature of Daniel’s account. Furthermore, since these texts had been buried and forgotten and all memory of Belshazzar had been lost to history outside of the Bible and works dependent on it, they furnished proof positive that the writer of Daniel 5 must have been a contemporary who lived during the events recorded in the chapter. Since writers in later centuries, including writers during the Maccabean era, would have had no knowledge of Belshazzar based on the forgotten Babylonian texts, Daniel 5 could not have been composed in later centuries, disproving the long-held critical view that Daniel was written during the Maccabean era.<ref>{{cite book| first = Andrew E. | last = Steinmann | title =Daniel | publisher = Concordia  | location = St. Louis, MO| date = 2008 | page = 260}}</ref></blockquote>

For centuries the identity of Belshazzar lay lost to history, preserved only in the [[Book of Daniel]], consequentially used by many as a challenge to the historical accuracy of said volume.<ref> [https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Hd9BDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT198&dq=%22there+was+a+further+secular+controversy+for+many+centuries+over+the+existence+of+Belshazzar%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik5oLZ6oLpAhW87XMBHeL0AuQQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=%22there%20was%20a%20further%20secular%20controversy%20for%20many%20centuries%20over%20the%20existence%20of%20Belshazzar%22&f=false] Becher, Dave, ''The Tripartite Helmet of Hope and Salvation''.</ref> Andrew Steinmann writes: <blockquote>Until the 1860s no historical source except the book of Daniel and works dependent on Daniel (e.g., Baruch 1:11) could provide independent confirmation of the existence of Belshazzar. Since he is not mentioned in any of the Greek historians, many nineteenth-century critical scholars viewed Daniel 5 as a purely fictional account about a fictional king . . . However, beginning in the 1860s, Babylonian sources came to light that named Belshazzar as the son of Nabonidus. They also stated that Belshazzar was made coregent over Babylon. These texts vindicated the historical nature of Daniel’s account. Furthermore, since these texts had been buried and forgotten and all memory of Belshazzar had been lost to history outside of the Bible and works dependent on it, they furnished proof positive that the writer of Daniel 5 must have been a contemporary who lived during the events recorded in the chapter. Since writers in later centuries, including writers during the Maccabean era, would have had no knowledge of Belshazzar based on the forgotten Babylonian texts, Daniel 5 could not have been composed in later centuries, disproving the long-held critical view that Daniel was written during the Maccabean era.<ref>{{cite book| first = Andrew E. | last = Steinmann | title =Daniel | publisher = Concordia  | location = St. Louis, MO| date = 2008 | page = 260}}</ref></blockquote>

The multiple challenges that the historical records relevant to Belshazzar present to the “critical” or anti-supernatural view of the composition of the book of Daniel may be enumerated as follows:

The multiple challenges that the historical records relevant to Belshazzar present to the “critical” or anti-supernatural view of the composition of the book of Daniel may be enumerated as follows:

# The naming of Belshazzar in the Book of Daniel is, by itself, evidence of the sixth century BC composition of the book. In the Persian rewrite of history that occurred in the time of Cyrus the Great and later,<ref>“The real Cyrus was a master of propaganda, as can be seen from the Cyrus Cylinder, the Babylonian verse chronicle of Nabonidus’ fall, and the stories of Cyrus’ merciful treatment of conquered kings, all no doubt propagated with Cyrus’ encouragement or active participation” (Steven W. Hirsch, ''The Friendship of the Barbarians: Xenophon and the Persian Empire'' [Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 1985], 177, n. 69).</ref><ref>“Cyrus was very successful in his propaganda and modern historiography is still influenced by it” (R. J. van der Spek, “Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations” in ''Extraction & Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper'' [eds. Michael Kozuh et al.; SAOC 68; Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 2014], 260).</ref> the name of Belshazzar was erased from official records. In what is probably the earliest cuneiform text related to the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians, the [[Cyrus Cylinder]], Belshazzar is not mentioned at all (and certainly not by name), unless he, and not Nabonidus, is the “incompetent person” mentioned in the opening lines (A3) of the Cylinder. In the following portion of the Cylinder where the fall of Babylon to the armies under Cyrus is described, Nabonidus is mentioned, but not Belshazzar, who was actually reigning in Babylon at the time. This process of expunging Belshazzar from history continued in later Persian cuneiform texts, so that Xenophon, writing about 170 years after the Medo-Persian capture of Babylon, apparently does not even know the name of the king who was ruling in Babylon at the time of its fall, referring to him only as “this young fellow who has just come to the throne” (''Cyropaedia'' 5.2.27). This presents a difficulty to critics of the Bible who maintain that the Book of Daniel, or at least major parts of it, were written in the second century BC. It is, however, consistent with the traditional Jewish and Christian view that the book reflects accurately events of the sixth century BC because the book was written not long after the events it describes.  

# The naming of Belshazzar in the Book of Daniel is, by itself, evidence of the sixth century BC composition of the book. In the Persian rewrite of history that occurred in the time of Cyrus the Great and later,<ref>“The real Cyrus was a master of propaganda, as can be seen from the Cyrus Cylinder, the Babylonian verse chronicle of Nabonidus’ fall, and the stories of Cyrus’ merciful treatment of conquered kings, all no doubt propagated with Cyrus’ encouragement or active participation” (Steven W. Hirsch, ''The Friendship of the Barbarians: Xenophon and the Persian Empire'' [Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 1985], 177, n. 69).</ref><ref>“Cyrus was very successful in his propaganda and modern historiography is still influenced by it” (R. J. van der Spek, “Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations” in ''Extraction & Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper'' [eds. Michael Kozuh et al.; SAOC 68; Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 2014], 260).</ref> the name of Belshazzar was erased from official records. In what is probably the earliest cuneiform text related to the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians, the [[Cyrus Cylinder]], Belshazzar is not mentioned at all (and certainly not by name), unless he, and not Nabonidus, is the “incompetent person” mentioned in the opening lines (A3) of the Cylinder. In the following portion of the Cylinder where the fall of Babylon to the armies under Cyrus is described, Nabonidus is mentioned, but not Belshazzar, who was actually reigning in Babylon at the time. This process of expunging Belshazzar from history continued in later Persian cuneiform texts, so that Xenophon, writing about 170 years after the Medo-Persian capture of Babylon, apparently does not even know the name of the king who was ruling in Babylon at the time of its fall, referring to him only as “this young fellow who has just come to the throne” (''Cyropaedia'' 5.2.27). This presents a difficulty to critics of the Bible who maintain that the Book of Daniel, or at least major parts of it, were written in the second century BC. It is, however, consistent with the traditional Jewish and Christian view that the book reflects accurately events of the sixth century BC because the book was written not long after the events it describes.  

# Daniel 5:31 relates that Belshazzar was slain on the night of the banquet. This is confirmed by Xenophon in a passage that should be included in every commentary on the Book of Daniel (''Cyropaedia'' 7:25–30).

# Daniel 5:31 relates that Belshazzar was slain on the night of the banquet. This is confirmed by Xenophon in a passage that should be included in every commentary on the Book of Daniel (''Cyropaedia'' 7:25–30).

# As mentioned below, the fact that Belshazzar was only able to offer Daniel the third position in the kingdom because he, Belshazzar, was still under the suzerainty of his father Nabonidus, is another indication of the sixth-century authorship of the Book of Daniel. By the second  century BC, all knowledge of this relationship between Nabonidus and Belshazzar kingship seems to have been lost. Even Belshazzar’s name was seemingly forgotten as early as when Herodotus wrote his ''Histories'' in about 430 BC and when Xenophon wrote the ''Cyropaedia'' in about 370 BC.  

# As mentioned below, the fact that Belshazzar was only able to offer Daniel the third position in the kingdom because he, Belshazzar, was still under the suzerainty of his father Nabonidus, is another indication of the sixth-century authorship of the Book of Daniel. By the second  century BC, all knowledge of this relationship between Nabonidus and Belshazzar kingship seems to have been lost. Even Belshazzar’s name was seemingly forgotten as early as when Herodotus wrote his ''Histories'' in about 430 BC and when Xenophon wrote the ''Cyropaedia'' in about 370 BC.  

All of these references to the activities, position, and fate of Belshazzar in early sources outside of the Book of Daniel testify to the historical accuracy of the author of Daniel, an accuracy that is difficult to explain if Daniel chapter 5 is merely “historical fiction,” as confidently asserted by liberal scholarship and as relentlessly maintained by all blogs and encyclopedia sites controlled by atheists and others who deny the historical accuracy of the Bible.

All of these references to the activities, position, and fate of Belshazzar in early sources outside of the Book of Daniel testify to the historical accuracy of the author of Daniel, an accuracy that is difficult to explain if Daniel chapter 5 is merely “historical fiction,” as confidently asserted by liberal scholarship and as relentlessly maintained by all blogs and encyclopedia sites controlled by atheists and others who deny the historical accuracy of the Bible.

=== Debated Points ===

=== Debated Points ===