Changes

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>

Similarly, Joseph Free wrote, “The matter concerning Belshazzar, far from being an error in the Scriptures, is one of the many striking confirmations of the Word of God which have been demonstrated by archaeology.”<ref>Joseph Free, ''Archaeology and Bible History'' (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1950, 235.</ref>

Similarly, Joseph Free wrote, “The matter concerning Belshazzar, far from being an error in the Scriptures, is one of the many striking confirmations of the Word of God which have been demonstrated by archaeology.”<ref>Joseph Free, ''Archaeology and Bible History'' (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1950), 235.</ref>

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: