began in the nineteenth century, we began to learn more and more about the period in question. As a result, Belshazzar emerged from the shadows as a definite historical character. Today we have abundant textual witness to the fact that he was the son of Nabonidus. More than that, Belshazzar was coregent and actually in charge of Babylon during his father’s ten-year absence from the capital city, thus explaining the reference to him as king. This information explains, at least in broad terms, the presence of Belshazzar as ruler in Babylon even though he is not listed as one of the kings of a long way from the days when Belshazzar was considered a figment of a later writer’s imagination. We should remember this when we encounter similar problems, and indeed we will as early as the end of our chapter and the next as we meet a Daniel Chapters 4 & 5: new figure, Darius the Mede.” Key transitions between Chapter 4 and 5: (Daniel NIV application commentary Templar Longman III, pg. 134-135) Without further study we can often read through the scripture and miss important details that help provide a fuller understanding of what is happening “For centuries scholars have pondered the relationship between in the text. For example, chapter 5 “…lies theological miles away from the Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. Certainly it was not father and son; that we closing verses of Daniel 4. Nebuchadnezzar had died in 562 B.C., and twenty- have seen. Some interpreters, however, reject the idea of grandfather-grandson three years had passed before the opening words of Daniel 5. The Babylonians (the view taken in this book) and argue that Belshazzar was only the son of had watched a series of worthless kings come and go: Evil-Merodach (562-560); Nebuchadnezzar in the legal sense, much in the way Jesus was said to be the Neriglissar (560-556); Labashi-marduk, who reigned less than a year; and Son of David. Clearly it was a matter of court etiquette to refer to Belshazzar Nabonidus, who took the throne in 556 and reigned until the very night quite commonly as the son of Nebuchadnezzar. described in this chapter, October 29, 539 B.C. But a relationship to Nadonidus is also at issue here. Sir Robert Anderson writes, “Daniel had not been playing golf between these chapters. He was occupied “on clay cylinders discovered by Sir H. Rawlingson at Mugheir and other with receiving and writing prophecies that we shall read later in this book. Chaldean sites, Belshazzar is named by Nadonidus as his eldest son. The Walvoord says: “In the quarter of a century which elapsed between chapter 4 inference is obvious, that during the latter years of his father’s reign, Belshazzar and chapter 5, the further revelations given to Daniel in chapters 7 and 8 was King-Regent in Babylon” (Anderson, p. 221). occurred. Chapter 7 was revealed to Daniel ‘in the first year of Belshazzar, king Options abound, but I prefer simplicity and reasonableness, which seem to of Babylon’ (Dan 7:1) and the vision of the ram and he-goat in chapter 8 suggest that Belshazzar was the son of Nadonidus connected to Nebuchadnezzar occurred ‘in the third year of the reign of [King] Belshazzar’ (Dan 8:1 KJV)” through his mother, the daughter of the great king. (Walvoord, Daniel, p. 116). (Holman Old Testament Commentary, G.E. Max Anders; Author Kenneth O. (Holman Old Testament Commentary, G.E. Max Anders; Author Kenneth O. Gangel, pg. 141) Gangel, pg. 128-129) Who is Belshazzar and how is he the “son” of Nebuchadnezzar? For centuries scholars have asked this question. It is doubtful that I will supply you with an exact answer here, although I am confident we can ease the tension. “Nabonidus is recorded as the last king of the Babylonians, since he ruled until the time Cyrus entered Babylon and brought his kingdom to an end (539 B.C.). So what about Belshazzar? Until recently Belshazzar was thought to be one of those errors in the Bible’s understanding of history that led many to doubt its accuracy. However, after the discovery and decipherment of cuneiform tablets .