The strange experience of Nebuchadnezzar for the year of his madness, when he supposed himself a beast of the field and lived without the benefits of his civilization, added strength to this objection against the historicity of a book that incorporates in its structure such palpable fables. The final and most crushing argument, however, was the discovery of certain alleged historical inaccuracies that permeate the text of Daniel. When Nebuchadnezzar died, the kingdom seems to have fallen into a condition that was little short of anarchy. Nebuchadnezzar the Second reigned from 604 B. C. to 561 B. C. Upon his death, he was succeeded by Evil-merodach who reigned for two years. This unhappy monarch passed off the scene by violence, and his murderer, Neriglissar, succeeded him to the throne. After a short reign he, in turn, was removed by Labshi-marduk who reigned but the portion of a year. He also met a sudden and unfortunate end and the succession was in a condition of anarchy. Being backed by the army, Nabonidus, who according to most accounts was the son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar, saved the throne and established himself in power. Having the complete confidence and trust of the military, he established his dominion and reigned from 555 B. C. to 538. But in the year 538, Cyrus the Great captured Babylon and overran the entire kingdom. Cyrus reigned until 529 and was followed by Cambyses. In 521, Cambyses was succeeded by Darius who, in turn, gave place to Xerxes. Thus we have a complete and fairly accurate record of those stirring days that followed Nebuchadnezzar. But in all profane history there was no record of a king by the name of Belshazzar. Yet a surprising portion of the Book of Daniel is given over to the events and incidents in the life and reign of this “mythical” king. According to the critics, such historical inaccuracy was sufficient to condemn the manuscript. Upon these and lesser grounds, therefore, criticism tore Daniel out of the Old Testament and denied him any place in the records of credible historians. Had the hopeful enemies of faith waited but a few short years, they might have saved themselves all this work and trouble. So thoroughly has the voice of archeology accredited the accuracy of Daniel’s writings, that those who foolishly surrendered their faith in the historicity of this Book, have been forced to replace the disputed record, and Daniel has been vindicated as has no other questioned writer of antiquity. To bring a brief and simple refutation of this critical argument concerning alleged discrepancies, we shall go back to the primary argument.