4, 5. How has archaeology routed the assertions of higher critics regarding Daniel?

⁴ Though higher critics of the Bible have called in question the historicalness of Daniel’s book, archaeological finds over the years have completely routed their assertions. For example, these critics leveled scorn at Daniel’s statement that Belshazzar was king in Babylon at the time that Nabonidus was reputed to be ruler. (Dan. 5:1) Archaeology has now established beyond question that Belshazzar was an actual person and that he was a coregent of Nabonidus in the last years of the Babylonian Empire. For example, an ancient cuneiform text described as the “Verse Account of Nabonidus” clearly confirms that Belshazzar exercised kingly authority at Babylon and explains the manner of his becoming coruler with Nabonidus.b Other cuneiform evidence supports the view that Belshazzar exercised regal functions. A tablet, dated in the 12th year of Nabonidus, contains an oath made in the name of Nabonidus, the king, and Belshazzar, the king’s son, thus showing that Belshazzar ranked with his father.c This is also of interest in explaining why Belshazzar offered to make Daniel “the third one in the kingdom” if he could interpret the handwriting on the wall. Nabonidus would be considered the first, Belshazzar would be the second, and Daniel would be heralded as the third ruler. (5:16, 29) One researcher says: “Cuneiform allusions to Belshazzar have thrown so much light upon the role which he played that his place in history stands clearly revealed. There are many texts which indicate that Belshazzar almost equaled Nabonidus in position and prestige. Dual rulership during most of the last Neo-Babylonian reign is an established fact. Nabonidus exercised supreme authority from his court in Tema in Arabia, while Belshazzar acted as coregent in the homeland with Babylon as his center of influence. It is evident that Belshazzar was not a feeble viceroy; he was entrusted with ‘the kingship.’”d