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>

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>

Modern scholarship having discovered the Nabonidus cylinders notes thereby that ''Belshazzar'' was the oldest son of [[Nabonidus]] who left Belshazzar in charge in Babylon while he lived in Tema (or Tayma).

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 in 539 BC, 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.  

# Further evidence of the early composition of the Book of Daniel is found in its designation of Belshazzar as king. Liberal scholarship on this matter is represented by the oft-cited author John Collins, who wrote, “The fact remains that there is no evidence to corroborate the claim of Daniel 5 that Belshazzar was king in any sense at the time of the fall of Babylon,”<ref>John J. Collins, ''Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 32, 33.</ref> Collins apparently has not read the ''Verse Account'', where Nabonidus states that, when he retreated to the Arabian Desert, “He entrusted the “Camp” to his oldest (son), the first-born . . . He let (everything) go, entrusted the kingship to him.”<ref>Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 313b.</ref> Nor does he show any knowledge of the ''Cyropaedia'', where “this young fellow who has just come to the throne” is repeatedly given the title of king<ref>''Cyropaedia'' 4.6.3;  5.2.27; 5.4.12, 24, 26, 33; 7.5.29.</ref> If the mistaken “absence” of texts referring to Belshazzar as king can be cited as evidence of a second-century writing of Daniel by a pious fraud who did not know the true circumstances of the time, then intellectual honesty should require that this documented evidence to the contrary should be accepted as evidence for the book’s sixth-century authorship.  

# Further evidence of the early composition of the Book of Daniel is found in its designation of Belshazzar as king. Liberal scholarship on this matter is represented by the oft-cited author John Collins, who wrote, “The fact remains that there is no evidence to corroborate the claim of Daniel 5 that Belshazzar was king in any sense at the time of the fall of Babylon.”<ref>John J. Collins, ''Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 32, 33.</ref> Collins apparently has not read the ''Verse Account'', where Nabonidus states that, when he retreated to the Arabian Desert, “He entrusted the “Camp” to his oldest (son), the first-born . . . He let (everything) go, entrusted the kingship to him.”<ref>Pritchard, ''Ancient Near Eastern Texts'', 313b.</ref> Nor does he show any knowledge of the ''Cyropaedia'', where “this young fellow who has just come to the throne” is repeatedly given the title of king<ref>''Cyropaedia'' 4.6.3;  5.2.27; 5.4.12, 24, 26, 33; 7.5.29.</ref> If the mistaken “absence” of texts referring to Belshazzar as king can be cited as evidence of a second-century writing of Daniel by a pious fraud who did not know the true circumstances of the time, then intellectual honesty should require that this documented evidence to the contrary should be accepted as evidence for the book’s sixth-century authorship.  

# Further evidence showing the early authorship of Daniel’s account of Belshazzar is found in Daniel chapter 5, where the capture of Babylon and the end of the Neo-Bablyonian Empire is said to occur when the king and his court were involved in a great drinking party/festival (Daniel ch. 5). Both Xenophon <ref>''Cyropaedia'' 7.5.21, 25.</ref> and Herodotus<ref>''Histories'' 1.191.6.</ref> affirm that the Babylonians were carelessly involved in a festival when the city was taken. Once again, this is a historical detail that lends weight to the early authorship of the book of Daniel.

# Further evidence showing the early authorship of Daniel’s account of Belshazzar is found in Daniel chapter 5, where the capture of Babylon and the end of the Neo-Bablyonian Empire is said to occur when the king and his court were involved in a great drinking party/festival (Daniel ch. 5). Both Xenophon <ref>''Cyropaedia'' 7.5.21, 25.</ref> and Herodotus<ref>''Histories'' 1.191.6.</ref> affirm that the Babylonians were carelessly involved in a festival when the city was taken. Once again, this is a historical detail that lends weight to the early authorship of the book of Daniel.

# 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).