THE CASE OF THE MISSING MONARCH

Daniel wrote that Belshazzar, a "son" of Nebuchadnezzar, was ruling as king in Babylon when the city was overthrown.  (Daniel 5:1, 11, 18, 22, 30) Critics long assailed this point for Belshazzar's name was nowhere to be found outside the Bible.  Instead, ancient historians identified Nabonidus, a successor  to Nebuchadnezzar, as the last of the Babylonian kings.  Thus, in 1850, Ferdinand Hitzig said that Belshazzar was obviously a figment of the writer's imagination.  But does not Hitzig's opinion strike you as a bit rash? After all, would the absence  of any mention of this king-especially in a period about which historical records were admittedly  scanty-really prove that the never existed?  At any rate, in 1854 some small clay cylinders were unearthed int he ruins of the ancient Babylon city of Ur in what is  now southern Iraq.  These cuneiform documents from King Nabonidus included a prayer for "Bel-sar-ussur, my eldest son."  Even critics had to agree: This was the Belshazzar of the book of Daniel. 

Yet, critics were not satisfied.  "This proves nothing," wrote one named H.F.Talbot.  He charged that the son in the inscription might have been a mere child, whereas Daniel presents him as a reigning king.  Just a year after Talbot's remarks were published, though, more cuneiform tablets were unearthed that referred to Belshazzar as having secretaries and a household staff.  No child, this! Finally, other tablets clinched the matter, reporting that Nabonidus was away from Babylon for years at a time.  These tablets also showed that during these periods , he  "entrusted  the kingship" of Babylon to his eldest son (Belshazzar).  At such times, Belshazzar was, in effect, king-a co-regent with his father.

Still unsatisfied, some critics complain that the Bible calls (there is no place here in this world for stupid critics, let people read etc. for themselves!)  Belshazzar, not the son of Nabonidus, but the son of Nebuchadnezzar.  Some insist that Daniel does not even hint at the existence of Nabonidus.  However, both objections collapse upon examination.  Nabonidus, it seems married the daughter  of Nebuchadnezzar. That would make Belshazzar the grandson of Nebuchadnezzer.  Neither the the Hebrew nor the Aramaic language has words for "grandfather' or grandson"; "son of " can mean "grandson of" or even "descendant of."  (Compare Matthew 1:1) Further, the Bible account does allow for Belshazzar to be idendified by the ominous handwriting on the wall, the desperate Belshazzar offers the third place in the kingdom to anyone who can decipher the words.  (Daniel 5:7) Why third and not second? This offer implies that the first and second places were already occupied. In fact, they were-by Nabonidus and  by his son Belshazzar. 

So Daniel's mention of Belshazzar is not evidendce of "badly  garbled" history.  On the contrary, Daniel-although not writing  a history of Babylon-offers us a more detailed view of the Babylonian monarchy than such ancient secular historians than Herodotus, Xenophon, and Berossus.  Why was Daniel able to record facts that they missed?  Because he was there in Babylon.  His book of an eyewitness, not of an impostor of later centuries.

Next time: WHO WAS DARIUS THE MEDE?

From the Book: PAY ATTENTION TO DANIEL'S PROPHECY! 1999