Belshazzar

Belshazzar, last king of Babylon, coregent of Nabonidus
father	Nabonidus
mother	Nitocris?[1]
reign	550-539 BC
died	October 12, 539 BC
succeeded by	Darius the Mede (=Cyaxares II)

Belshazzar, (Greek: Βαλτασάρ, Baltasár, Aramaic בֵּלְשַׁאצַּר, from Akkadian: 𒂗𒈗𒋀, Bēl-šar-uṣur, meaning "Bel protect the king"), oldest son of Nabonidus, was named as co-regent by his father Nabonidus (556-539 BC) in Nabonidus's third year, 553 BC.^[2][3] He reigned in Babylon while his father spent his time in the Arabian desert worshipping the moon-god Sin, and/or possibly subjugating the Arab tribes. Belshazzar's reign, and his life, came to an end when he was killed on the night that Babylon fell to the combined armies of the Medes and Persians and their allies under the command of Cyrus.^[4][5] The Nabonidus Chronicle dates the end of the Neo-Bablyonian Empire, and thus the death of Belshazzar, to the 16th of Tashritu/Tishri, i.e. October 12, 539 BC.^[6][7]

According to the Verse Account of Nabonidus, Nabonidus allocated the government of the city of Babylon to Belshazzar for 10 years, giving him the kingship over the city, while he dwelt at the Arabian oasis of Tema (possibly in an effort to control lucrative Arabian trade routes).^[8] This means that the people, government and army officials saw Belshazzar more than Nabonidus. Likewise the Nabonidus Chronicle states that Nabonidus fled from the area of Babylon before the city fell to Cyrus's forces.

Some note as evidence of Belshazzar's subordinate role in his co-regency, that Belshazzar offered the prophet Daniel to be third ruler in the kingdom^[9] because he didn't have authority to promote Daniel any higher.

Historical Identification[edit]

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.^[10] Andrew Steinmann writes:

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.^[11]

Similarly, Joseph Free wrote, “The matter concerning Belshazzar, far from being an error in the Scriptures, is one of the many striking confirmations of the Word of God which have been demonstrated by archaeology.”^[12]

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:

1. 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,^[13][14] 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.
2. 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.”^[15] 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.”^[16] 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^[17] 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.
3. 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 ^[18] and Herodotus^[19] 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.
4. 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).
5. As mentioned below, the fact that Belshazzar was only able to offer Daniel the third position in the kingdom because he, Belshazzar, was still under the suzerainty of his father Nabonidus, is another indication of the sixth-century authorship of the Book of Daniel. By the second century BC, all knowledge of this relationship between Nabonidus and Belshazzar kingship seems to have been lost. Even Belshazzar's name was seemingly forgotten as early as when Herodotus wrote his Histories in about 430 BC and when Xenophon wrote the Cyropaedia in about 370 BC.

All of these references to the activities, position, and fate of Belshazzar in early sources outside of the Book of Daniel testify to the historical accuracy of the author of Daniel, an accuracy that is difficult to explain if Daniel chapter 5 is merely “historical fiction,” as confidently asserted by liberal scholarship and as relentlessly maintained by all blogs and encyclopedia sites controlled by atheists and others who deny the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Debated Points[edit]

Some suggest that scenes recorded in the Book of Daniel's lavish party as a coronation festival as Belshazzar seized the throne.^[20] This point is negated by some claiming that the festival was the annual drunken and debauched fertility festival celebrating the union of Nimrod & Semarimis. Meanwhile, others^{[Citation Needed]} working from the ancient custom of 'apprentice kings' (thus creating a clear line of succession), note that Belshazzar offers the Prophet Daniel to be third in the kingdom: as Nabonidus was the first, Belshazzar was the second and Daniel was made the third ruler in the kingdom.^[21]

Resources[edit]

• [3] Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder
• [4] The Nabonidus Chronicle
• [5] Xenophon, Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus, translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell
• [6] The Verse Account of Nabonidus
• J. B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969).

References[edit]