Walvoord writes that “the controversy over Belshazzar....has become one of the most complicated problems in the entire book.” Walvoord quotes Bible critics James A. Montgomery as saying the story of Belshazzar is “unhistorical” and also H. H. Rowley arguing that calling Belshazzar a king “must still be pronounced a grave historical error.”[1]
The problem with the critics is that Belshazzar is not mentioned by the ancient writers such as Herodotus ( 484 – c. 425 BC). Herodotus was an ancient Greek historian who became known as “The Father of History.” When the “Father of History” does not mention Belshazzar, the critics as usual jump to the conclusion that Daniel has historical errors.
History records the following kings of Neo-Babylon:
1. Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 B.C. after a 43 year reign. About 30 years have elapsed since chapter four in Daniel. Daniel is in his early eighties.
2. Evil-Merodach, Nebuchadnezzar’s son, succeeded his father. He released Jehoiachin from prison and was kind to Jehoiachin in 2 Kings 25:27-30; Jeremiah 52:31-34.
3. Neriglissar, Evil-Merodach’s brother-in-law, murdered Evil-Merocach in 560. He ruled four years.
4. His young son, Labashi-Marduk, ruled only nine months and was assassinated the same year by a gang led by Nabonidus, Nebuchadnezzar’s son-in-law.
5. Nabonidus reigned for seventeen years. For fourteen years he reigned from Arabia. The so-called Nabonidus Chronicle is incomplete, but it tells of the return of Nabonidus to Babylon to perform the new year festival. The date is missing, but ‘seventeenth year” is conjectured, for the armies of Cyrus were closing in. The month Tashritu (the seventh month) is named in connection with the attack of Cyrus on the Babylonian army at Opis on the Tigris and the revolt of the city and its massacre. ‘The 15th day Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The 16th day Gobryas the governor of Gutium and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle.’ Presumably this was the event referred to in Daniel 5:30, though it was during the next month that Cyrus entered the city in person (2 November 539).[2]
Critics like James A. Montgomery and H. H. Rowley reject the authenticity of Belshazzar because his name was not found in history.
But with the discovery of the Nabonidus cylinders from Ur (in 1854), his son’s name Belshazzar was discovered. The cylinders state that Nabonidus prays to the moon goddess Sin that his son may be faithful to her cult: “May it be that I, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, never fail you. And may my firstborn, Belshazzar, worship you with all his heart."[3] More recent critics argue that although now Belshazzar has been mentioned in history, he has never been mentioned as king. Here is another quote from the Nabonidus cylinder: "[Nabonidus] entrusted the army to his oldest son, his first born, the troops in the country he ordered under his command. He let everything go, entrusted the kingship to him, and, himself, he started out for a long journey. The military forces of Akkad marching with him, he turned to Temâ deep in the west."[4]
The critics have been answered from archaeological discoveries. But how can we from the text in Daniel five argue that Belshazzar was the king of Babylon? The evidence from the Daniel five text is the fact that Belshazzer could offer Daniel to be third ruler because he was second and co-regent with father king. If the Nabonidus cylinder confirms that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, then why does 5:2 states that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar? The designation “father” could be translated “forefather” just as Jesus is called the son of Abraham and David in Matthew 1:1.
[1] Quoted in Walvoord (114-115).
[2] Baldwin, J. G. (1978). Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 23, p. 133). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
[3] Nabonidus Cylinder, iii.3-31
[4] Nabonidus Cylinder, ii. 18-29