The most dramatic and astonishing vindication of the integrity of the text that the Book of Daniel has sustained, providentially occurred in that field of criticism which was supposed to be the strongest evidence that criticism possessed. This was in the realm of the historical accuracy of the Book of Daniel. The basis of the critical contention was right to a certain extent. Profane history possessed no record of a king in Babylon by the name of Belshazzar. When the period of anarchy in Babylon ended by means of the military coup that placed Nabonidus upon the throne, it took a short while to quiet the realm and reëstablish the authority of the crown. Nabonidus then gave himself to a period of construction and rehabilitation. In the course of his work on the fortifications of his capital city, Nabonidus was strengthening the walls at certain neglected points. Delving deeply, to buttress the foundations, he came upon the ruins of an ancient palace which had been built centuries before by Narum-sin. The discovery so delighted king Nabonidus that he became a confirmed archeologist. He reconstructed this palace of Narum-sin and turned it into a museum of antiquity. The delight of discovery drove the energetic Nabonidus into expeditions far and wide. The administration of the kingdom became of secondary importance to him. He had a son whose name appears in the ancient records as “Belt-sar-utzar,” which is given in the record of Daniel as Bel-shazzar. Upon the thirtieth birthday of his son, Nabonidus made him regent, and the throne of Babylon was thenceforth occupied jointly by Nabonidus and Bel-shazzar. Because the more common form is familiar to our readers, we will from this point on designate him by the Biblical name of Belshazzar. The decrees and laws were signed, of course, by the seal of Nabonidus, the senior monarch, but the practical administration was left in the hands of the regent. This will explain why Belshazzar, wishing to honour Daniel for the interpretation of the writing upon the wall, with which we shall deal later, offered to make him the _third_ ruler of the kingdom. This, of course, is eminently unorthodox! It was always the custom in antiquity, if records can be trusted, to honour a man by giving him the hand of the king’s daughter in marriage and making him ruler over _half_ the kingdom. Belshazzar could not go so far as this. Nabonidus, his father, was the number one ruler as long as he lived. Belshazzar, the regent, was the second ruler of the realm. Therefore, if Daniel became prime minister and had an office second in authority to Belshazzar, _he would be the third ruler in the kingdom_. How amazing indeed is the historical accuracy of this ancient Book! These writers were faultless in their efforts to keep the Scripture in line with the historical facts. In this case they have been inspired even in their choice of numerical descriptions in the honours conferred upon their heroic characters.