…. Nabonidus, who is mistakenly identified as his predecessor Nebuchadnezzar II (r. 605–562 B.C.), is described as a mad king obsessed with dreams. According to the Book of Daniel, the king leaves Babylon to live in the wilderness for seven years. This depiction overlaps somewhat with Nabonidus’ own inscriptions, in which he emphasizes that he was an especially pious man who paid heed to dreams as the divine messages of the gods. Nabonidus was also infamous in antiquity for abandoning Babylon for 10 years to live in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, where he established a kind of shadow capital at the oasis of Tayma. This was a strange and unprecedented move for a Mesopotamian ruler. ….
As I see it, though, King Nabonidus was not “mistakenly identified as his predecessor Nebuchednezzar”, but he was Nebuchednezzar:
Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus
It is known that Nabonidus’s son, Belshazzar, looked after the affairs of state during the absence of the legitimate king, his father.
William H. Shea, for instance, has written on this unconventional situation (Andrews University Seminary Studies, Summer 1982, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 135-136):
NABONIDUS, BELSHAZZAR, AND THE BOOK OF DANIEL: AN UPDATE
…. Entrusting the kingship to Belshazzar, as mentioned in the Verse Account, is not the same as making him king. The Verse Account refers to Belshazzar as the king’s eldest son when the kingship was “entrusted” to him, and the Nabonidus Chronicle refers to him as the “crown prince” through the years that Nabonidus spent in Tema [Tayma]. Moreover, the New Year’s festival was not celebrated during the years of Nabonidus’ absence because the king was not in Babylon. This would suggest that the crown prince, who was caretaker of the kingship at this time, was not considered an adequate substitute for the king in those ceremonies. Oaths were taken in Belshazzar’s name and jointly in his name and his father’s name, which fact indicates Belshazzar’s importance, but this is not the equivalent of calling him king.
There is no doubt about Belshazzar’s importance while he governed Babylonia during his father’s absence, but the question remains – did he govern the country as its king? So far, we have no explicit contemporary textual evidence to indicate that either Nabonidus or the Babylonians appointed Belshazzar as king at this time. ….
Given the pre-eminence of the name Nebuchednezzar over the less familiar one of his alter ego, Nabonidus, I would be extremely pleased to find evidence in the historical records of an illness and alienation of Nebuchednezzar qua Nebuchednezzar.
And so I have, thanks to A. K. Grayson.
For, as I wrote in my recent article:
Cyrus as ‘Darius the Mede’ who succeeded Belshazzar
I was gratified to learn of certain documentary evidence attesting to some apparent mad, or erratic, behaviour on the part of King Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean, to complement the well-attested “Madness of Nabonidus”.
This led me to conclude – based on a strikingly parallel situation – that Evil-Merodach, son and successor of Nebuchednezzar, was Belshazzar.
I reproduce that information here (with ref. to British Museum tablet No. BM 34113 (sp 213), published by A. K. Grayson in 1975):
Read lines 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, and Mas referring to strange behavior by Nebuchadnezzar, which has been brought to the attention of Evilmerodach by state officials. Life had lost all value to Nebuchadnezzar, who gave contradictory orders, refused to accept the counsel of his courtiers, showed love neither to son nor daughter, neglected his family, and no longer performed his duties as head of state with regard to the Babylonian state religion and its principal temple. Line 5, then, can refer to officials who, bewildered by the king’s behavior, counseled Evilmerodach to assume responsibility for affairs of state so long as his father was unable to carry out his duties. Lines 6 and on would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar’s behavior as described to Evilmerodach. Since Nebuchadnezzar later recovered (Dan. 4:36), the counsel of the king’s courtiers to Evil-merodach may later have been considered “bad” (line 5), though at the time it seemed the best way out of a national crisis.
Since Daniel records that Nebuchadnezzar was “driven from men” (Dan. 4:33) but later reinstated as king by his officials (verse 36), Evilmerodach, Nebuchadnezzar’s eldest son, may have served as regent during his father’s incapacity. Official records, however, show Nebuchadnezzar as king during his lifetime.
Comment: Now, is this not the very same situation that we have found with regard to King Nabonidus’ acting strangely, and defying the prognosticators, whilst the rule at Babylon – though not the kingship – lay in the hands of his eldest son, Belshazzar?
Belshazzar: The Fictional Babylonian King Who Actually Lived
….
Belshazzar was having a party in Babylon on the night the Achaemenid Persians assumed power from the Babylonians.
He’s become a pretty popular guy in the 2,500+ years since his death in 539 BC.
At least, he’s more popular than he used to be.
That’s because many scholars long believed him to be a historical forgery and wrote him off.
This article reviews the context surrounding Belshazzar and the more recent archeological discoveries that attest to who he was and confirm the historical accuracy of the long-maligned account in the Bible.
For this to all make sense, you’ll need to mark four important Babylonian names as we go along:
Belshazzar (our protagonist)
Belteshazzar (a very similar name and a very different person)
Nabonidus (one of the reasons many doubted in a historical Belshazzar)
Nebuchadnezzar (the OG Babylonian king)
So, Who Was Belshazzar?
Belshazzar was the last king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. His name meant “Baal protect the king.”
For thousands of years he was only known in the Bible, where he is recorded as throwing quite the party.
Here’s how it’s told in the book of Daniel:
King Belshazzar gave a great banquet for a thousand of his nobles and drank wine with them. 2 While Belshazzar was drinking his wine, he gave orders to bring in the gold and silver goblets that Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken from the temple in Jerusalem, so that the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines might drink from them.
3 So they brought in the gold goblets that had been taken from the temple of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines drank from them. [Source: Daniel 5: 1–3]
Why did Belshazzar have gold and silver from Jerusalem at this party?
The answer is connected to one of our other important names: Nebuchadnezzar
Who was Nebuchadnezzar and What Was His Connection to the Party?
Belshazzar’s ancestor, Nebuchadnezzar II, was the second emperor in the Neo-Babylonian Empire.
Mackey’s comment: Nebuchednezzar so-called II was actually the first.
His predecessor, Nabopolassar, was an Assyrian, Sennacherib.
Nebuchadnezzar ruled Babylon from 605 BC until his death in 562 BC. Belshazzar was likely his grandson, through his daughter (Nitocris).
[Note: Daniel 5 calls Nebuchadnezzar the “father” of Belshazzar, which is a generic word meaning ancestor. It’s the same word that it used in Daniel 2:23 → To you, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise…]
Mackey’s comment: Belshazzar was Nebuchednezzar’s direct son (cf. Baruch 1:11, 12)
Nebuchadnezzar, known to history as Nebuchadnezzar the Great, was renowned for his building prowess and his military campaigns.
One of those military campaigns was through the home of the Jews.
He defeated Judah and captured the city of Jerusalem around 600 BC. The city was destroyed and the residents forcibly deported to Babylon.
This is how the beginning of the book of Daniel records the events. The treasures from the temple in Jerusalem even get a mention here.
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Babylonia and put in the treasure house of his god. 3 Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring into the king’s service some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility — 4 young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians [Source: Daniel 1: 1–4]
The Jews had been living in Babylon since that time. In the Babylonian captivity they were expected to conform to the culture of Babylon and acknowledge the gods of Babylon.
It was this culture that took center stage 23 years [more like 3-4 years] after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, at Belshazzar’s party with the temple goblets.
Below is Rembrandt’s famous painting depicting Belshazzar at his banquet.
Rembrandt’s Painting of Belshazzar’s Feast
Rembrandt painted “Belshazzar’s Feast” around 1638. His only source was the Bible, since nothing else discovered in the historical record to that point attested to his existence.
The goblets make their appearance.
But Belshazzar is far more focused on the wall behind him. A disembodied hand writes on the wall. We’ll come back to those words later.
Belshazzar summoned one of the Jewish exiles, Daniel, who had a reputation for deciphering divine symbols and visions.
The Daniel credited as the author of the book of Daniel. The same Daniel who was known as Belteshazzar in Babylon.
Belteshazzar vs. Belshazzar
Belshazzar (“Baal protect the king”) was the king in Babylon the night the empire fell to the Persians. Belteshazzar (“Bel protects his life”) was the Babylonian name given to the Jewish exile named Daniel.
Mackey’s comment: Scholars say that Belteshazzar is not, in fact, a Bel name, more like, say, a Balatu- construct.
Part of the cultural assimilation process for the captive Jews was getting a new Babylonian name.
Daniel chapter 4 makes it clear that Daniel and Belteshazzar were one and the same in another account when he is called to help Nebuchadnezzar understand his dreams.
19 Then Daniel (also called Belteshazzar) was greatly perplexed for a time, and his thoughts terrified him… [Source: Daniel 4:19]
Ok, you say. These are some hard to pronounce names. The hand writing on the wall is bizarre. But the general framework of the story seems plausible. Why were the historians so hard on poor Belshazzar? Why didn’t they believe him to be real?
For that, we need to introduce our fourth Babylonian name: Nabonidus.
Who Was Nabonidus?
According to ancient historians, it was Nabonidus — not Belshazzar — who was the last king of Babylon. Here are some of those sources:
Herodotus of Halicarnassus (480–429 BC) is known as the “Father of History.” He called Nabonidus the last king of Babylon. Of note, he called him king Labynetus, which was Greek for Nabonidus.
Another Greek historian Xenophon (430–355 BC) agrees that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon. He says that he was killed when the Achaemenid Persians took Babylon.
The Jewish-Roman historian Josephus (37–100 AD) also claimed that Nabonidus to be the last king of Babylon.
Mackey’s comment: The whole solution is to recognise Nabonidus as Nebuchednezzar, and Belshazzar, son of Nebuchednezzar, as Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus:
Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus
Here’s Nabonidus worshipping the symbols of the sun and moon gods. He was very real and there is plenty of evidence in the archeological record to validate his existence.
What does the Bible say about Nabonidus?
Nothing. The Bible doesn’t mention him.
Mackey’s comment: The Bible has a lot to say about Nabonidus, as Nebuchednezzar.
And that seemed like a big problem for the Bible. Especially since it has a character named Belshazzar as the last king of Babylon who didn’t appear in any sources outside the Bible.
Not only did Belshazzar seem like a fiction, but it followed that the book of Daniel and the Bible as a whole was just a myth.
Here’s what more recent historians had to say about Daniel based on Belshazzar.
Criticism of Daniel
I came across the following remarks saying that Daniel has “no historical basis whatever.” Thanks to this article for compiling the quotes.
There is no historical basis whatever, on which such an account can rest. The whole must be pure fiction [Source, Cäsar von Lengerke, Das Buch Daniel, 1850]
And again, it’s called a “palpable forgery.”
But a man like Belshazzar would never have received such an ominous prediction from the mouth of Daniel, and have rewarded him for it. The whole thing is a palpable forgery, got up merely to magnify Daniel. [Source, Cäsar von Lengerke, Das Buch Daniel, 1850]
It’s the presence of Belshazzar that seems to definitively prove that the “whole story is disfigured and falsified by the author.”
The name Belshazzar is a mistaken one. The name of the last king was Nabonned. The writer has given us a mere figment instead of a real name. The whole story is disfigured and falsified by the author, who was neither an eye-witness of the occurrences, nor accurately acquainted with the history of them. [Source, Frederic William Farrar 1831–1903, Expositor’s Bible: The Book of Daniel.]
All of history knew the last king’s name to be Nabonidus! At least, that was until the Nabonidus Cylinder was discovered in the latter half of the 19th century.
The Nabonidus Cylinder
J.G. Taylor made an important discovery in the ancient city of Ur, located in southwest Iraq.
While exploring the foundation of a ziggurat in Ur, Taylor discovered four identical cuneiform cylinders. Historians estimate they had been deposited in the four corners of the ziggurat in 540 BC.
Here’s how the inscription ends:
As for me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, save me from sinning against your great godhead and grant me as a present a life long of days, and as for Belshazzar, the eldest son — my offspring — instill reverence for your great godhead in his heart and may he not commit ant cultic mistake, may he be sated with a life of plenitude. [Source, livius.org]
Belshazzar was redeemed! The account from the cylinders makes it clear that he was, in fact, the eldest son of Nabonidus.
But that left one more problem. The Bible calls Belshazzar a king. How could that be when Nabonidus was the king?
That mystery was unraveled by another discovery. A cuneiform tablet that was discovered in ancient Nineveh, by modern day Mosul, Iraq.
The Verse Account of Nabonidus
Years after the discovery of the Nabonidus cylinder, 45 clay tablets were discovered that detailed major events in Babylonian history.
Within these Babylonian Chronicles — now located at the British Museum — was something called called the Verse Account of Nabonidus.
Here’s what that says about the reign of Nabonidus:
…when the third year was about to begin — he 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 Tayma deep in the west. [Source, Verse account of Nabonidus, livius.org]
Towards the end of his reign as king of the Babylonian empire, Nabonidus “turned to Tayma”, which … is in what it now northwest Saudi Arabia today. Nabonidus “let everything go” and “entrusted the kingship” to Belteshazzar.
….
This was a highly unusual arrangement.
Somehow Belshazzar, and Nabonidus, were both ruling as kings of Babylon.
Nabonidus ruling from the outskirts of the empire of Babylon. Belshazzar as king of the greatest city in the empire, which was also called Babylon.
So There Were Two Last Kings of Babylon?
Yes.
….
Belshazzar had the same royal power as his father. While not officially named as such, the Verse Account of Nabonidus makes it clear that Nabonidus gave him powers of the king.
Other documents confirm the same.
Belshazzar could grant royal privileges identical to those granted by kings. One preserved document, which regards the granting of the privilege to cultivate a tract of land belonging to the Eanna temple in Uruk, is virtually identical to similar privileges issued by Nabonidus, though it is specified to have been issued by Belshazzar. As he could lease out temple land, this suggests that Belshazzar, in administrative matters, could act with full royal power. [Source: Wikipedia]
And since Nabonidus was away in Tayma for more than 10 years, Belshazzar had plenty of time to cement his status as the authority figure in the city of Babylon.
Mackey’s comment: It needs to be noted that this was only a temporary situation until King Nebuchadnezzar returned to full power.
Years later, after he had died, his son Belshazzar, as Amēl-Marduk (Evil-Merodach), become sole ruler of the kingdom (cf. 2 Kings 25:27), for a few short years.
A position he retained until the night of the feast.
How Did Belshazzar Die?
Belshazzar died the night of his big feast.
Let’s now get back to that mysterious hand on the wall. Here is how the Bible orders the events in Daniel 5:
Belshazzar’s massive party is interrupted by the hand writing on the wall:
5 Immediately the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace, opposite the lampstand. And the king saw the hand as it wrote. 6 Then the king’s color changed, and his thoughts alarmed him; his limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together. [Daniel 5: 5–6]
Belshazzar calls for someone who can read the mysterious writing. He summons Daniel and promises him great rewards if he can read the writing. And Daniel responds making it clear he’s not interested in the rewards (Belshazzar had offered to make him the 3rd highest ruler in the kingdom).
17 Then Daniel answered and said before the king, “Let your gifts be for yourself, and give your rewards to another. Nevertheless, I will read the writing to the king and make known to him the interpretation. [Daniel 5:17]
And Daniel gives the meaning of the words: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN
23 but you have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven. And the vessels of his house have been brought in before you, and you and your lords, your wives, and your concubines have drunk wine from them. And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see or hear or know, but the God in whose hand is your breath, and whose are all your ways, you have not honored. 24 “Then from his presence the hand was sent, and this writing was inscribed. 25 And this is the writing that was inscribed: Mene, Mene, Tekel, and Parsin. 26 This is the interpretation of the matter: Mene, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; 27 Tekel, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; 28 Peres, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.
And, “That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed.” (Daniel 5:30).
Can the Bible Be Trusted?
On the surface, this story seems like a perfect case study for why the Bible is only a collection of legends.
There are claims of a king who was unknown to history. Who, in fact, the historical record seemed to completely disprove based on the existence of Nabonidus.
There’s a seemingly fanciful account of a mysterious hand writing on a wall. And there’s an almost more ludicrous claim that the heavily fortified city of Babylon could fall in a single night.
After all, Babylon was had incredibly thick and high walls and was considered impregnable. The Euphrates river ran through Babylon, making it almost impervious to siege. Surely, if a city like that would fall it would make months of extended warfare. Years.
Mackey’s comment: The Bible tells only of the King, not the city of Babylon, falling in a single night.
And yet, as the years have rolled on, the evidence has proven otherwise.
As it turns out, Belshazzar did indeed exist. And he was reigning over the city of Babylon when it fell to the Medes and Persians.
Somehow, he was the last king of Babylon despite Nabonidus also having claim to the same title.
Mackey’s comment: No. Nabonidus was Nebuchednezzar.
The outlandish contention that the city could fall in a single night is validated by other sources. Both Herodotus and Xenophon talk about a surprise attack, where the Medo-Persian army diverted the Euphrates river allowing the soldiers to march into the city through the dry river bed.
What better time to do that than when all the leaders of the city are getting drunk at a massive party.
That just leaves the mysterious hand on the wall.
Like all matters of faith, there is no objective proof. There are reasons to believe. There is evidence that the overall story is beyond the natural realm. And there is also no conclusive proof.
If you don’t believe there is more to the world than what we can see, you surely cannot believe that a disembodied hand can be sent from God. You can’t believe in God at all, since He is by definition outside of natural explanation. He is supernatural.
But perhaps it makes you think.
Because the Bible, as it turns out, was the only source that had all the accurate information in one place.
Not Herodotus. Not Xenophon. Not the Babylonian Chronicles.
They all had pieces.
Only the Bible had it all. It just took over two thousand years for the rest of the archeological record to catch up.
It makes me think about other things the Bible says are true. Things that might seem fanciful. That could never be true.
But what if they are true as well? What if everything else is just a piece of the ultimate Truth? What is real Truth is found in Jesus?
What if what Paul wrote in his letter to the church at Philippi is actually going to happen one day? What if the evidence will finally all be revealed and we’ll all see that it is actually all true?
…so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. [Philippians 2: 10–11]
If you’re wrestling with all of it, try asking Him.
Not the Jesus of political power or the Jesus who you hope might make you rich, but the real Jesus.
Daniel returned to Jerusalem as governor Nehemiah 