HOW BELSHAZZAR

WAS DELETED

RooGER C. Yourue

According to the book of Daniel, chapter 5, a certain

Belshazzar was the king of Babylon when the city fell to the

armies of Media, Persia, and their allies, thus ending the Neo-

Babylonian Empire. For many years Belshazzar was a puzzle

to historians and commentators on the Scripture because his

name was not found in any ancient documents outside of the

book of Daniel and works dependent on it. Early sources such

as Berossus and Claudius Ptolemy mention Nabonidus as the

last king of Babylon. Over a period of more than two thousand

vears, no writers could be found that specified Belshazzar as

the last king of Babylon except iosephus and the apocryphal

Book of Baruch, both of which derived the name from the

biblical account.

Faced with this fact, skeptical scholars unsurprisingly

denied the historicity of Daniel's references to Belshazzar.

Biblical commentators who held to a high view of inspiration,

and who were familiar with the ancient sources, generally took

the path of assuming that Belshazzar was an alternate name

for one of the historically attested last Neo-Babylonian kings.

Thus, Josephus in the first century AD (Ant. 10.231,10.11-2)

and lerome in the fifth century (Commentary on Daniel,ca. AD

{07) identified him as Nabonidus, as did Archbishop Ussher

in his Hisfories of the World (t7th century) and Carl Friedrich

Keil in the Keil and Delitzsch OT commentaries (1g60s).

Subsequent to the appearance of the Keil and Delitzsch

commentaries, Otto Zitckler published, in 1g70, his

commentary on Daniel in the original German edition of

|ohann Peter Lange's commentary. Zockler recognized that it

had become difficult to defend the identification of Nabonidus

rvith Belshazzar. He cited evidence from Berossus, as quoted

in )osephus (Against Apion 1.t49-153, t.2O), and also from

Abydenus, as quoted by Eusebius (preparation of the Gospel

9.40,9.41), that Nabonidus was not killed when Babylon was

taken, but that Cyrus made him governor of Carmania. As

further evidence against equating Nabonidus with Belshazzar,

Zockler noted that ancient authors and inscriptions describe

Nabonidus as a usurper who was not ofroyal descent, and that

lherefore he was not a "son ' of Nebuchad nezzar II, as reiterated

fbr Belshazzar in Daniel 5: I 1 (three times), 5: 13, 5: 18, and.5:22.

)ible ond Spade 35,2 (2022)

Various alternatives have been offered in order to explain

why Belshazzar is called the son of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel

5. They all rely on the fact that the terms father and son in

Semitic usage convey a broader meaning than in English.

The Hebrew and Aramaic words for son frequently mean

descendant (fesus is called the son of David in Matthew 20:30

and 20:31), and Matthew 3:9 shows thatfather can mean any

male ancestor. In the ancient Near East the terms could be

even broader than that, with father signifying predecessor and

soir meaning successor. An example of this latter usage is found

on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, where Jehu is called a

son of Omri, even though |ehu had killed all the descendants

of Omri. Another instance of this, even more pertinent

because it comes exactly from the time of Daniel, is when

Nebuchadnezzar calls Naram-Sin, an Akkadian king whose

reign some scholars put in the 23rd century BC, his "ancient

father" (a-ba-a-am laberi), using the Akkadian cognate for the

Aramaic ab (father) in Daniel 5.r This latter option is favored

by Andrew Steinmann in his commentary,, while f. paul

Tanner advocates that Belshazzar's mother was the daughter

of Nebuchadnezzar, so that Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar,s

maternal grandfather.3 With the present state of knowledge,

any of these options would explain why Belshazzar is called

the son of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel5, and all are compatible

with ancient Near Eastern usage.

The critics, then, are in error when they claim there is

no evidence (the Bible not being accepted as evidence) that

Belshazzar could be called the son of Nebuchadne zzar in

any sense. Similar bad logic is exhibited by those who seek

to disparage the Bible by arguing that contract texts during

Belshazzar's tenure were dated to his father's reign, or that

Belshazzar did not officiate at the annual New year's Festival,

and so the Bible is wrong when it calls Belshazzar a king (as

are Herodotus and Xenophon; see below). But the critics

have no problem with Cambyses I of Persia being a sub-king

under Astyages, king of Media and hence not having all the

prerogatives of his Median overlord. These critics' positions

are basically losing arguments that can be described by that

good English word sophistry.

i{OINII

AND WHO DID IT

The Cylinder of Nebuchadnezzar ll, created ca. 580 BC, was

discovered in an ancient Babylonian temple at Wana Sadoum

(Marad). lt is 8.5" in height with an 18" diameter and is actually

a truncated hollow cone of fine clay burned at such a high

temperature it resembles a stone. ln the text of the cylinder,

Nebuchadnezzar identifies himself as a favorite of the gods

and as the firstborn son of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon. The

cylinder also notes that Nebuchadnezzar's diggers uncovered

the foundation of the ancient temple and an inscription of

Naram-Sin (2255-2218 BC). This inscription, on a flat, circular

piece of marble (likely as the doorpost socket at the temple

entrance), was already thousands of years old at the time of

Nebuchadnezzar. Naram-Sin was the grandson of Sargon the

Akkad, or Sargon the Great.

But let us return to Zockler's dilemma: In what looks like

desperation, he equated Belshazzar with Evil-Merodach

(Amel-Marduk). But this position was also untenable, since

Amel-Marduk, son of Nebuchadnezzar II, reigned from 562

to 560 BC, well before the fall of Babylon in 539 BC. Further,

Claudius Ptolemy's list of Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, Persian,

and later kings from 747 BC to AD 150 (Ptolemy's time),

which has been proven accurate at many places in its list of

kings, the lengths of their reigns, and astronomical events

associated with them, shows Nabonidus as the last king of

Babylon, followed immediately by Cyrus of Persia.

Zockler can be forgiven for ignoring Ptolemy's Canon, since

the evidence from ancient astronomical and other inscriptions

and modern astronomy's confirmation of the accuracy of

these observations were largely the result oflater scholarship.

Nevertheless, the situation in 1870 looked difficult for those

who held to the divine inspiration of the Bible. How could the

Bible be inspired in any meaningful sense if it was wrong in

such major areas as the names of ancient kings, the fates of

their kingdoms, and the timing of related events? The evidence

against the historical accuracy of the book of Daniel therefore

appeared formidable: Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon,

followed immediately by Cyrus the Persian. There was no

such person as Belshazzar; no evidence for this name existed

outside the Bible and literature derived from it. Even the idea

that Belshazzar was an alternate name for Nabonidus could

not explain the sources that testified that Nabonidus was not

killed on the night that Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians,

as was the Babylonian king of Daniel 5. Instead, the king of

Babylon survived for some time afterward in Carmania,

according to Berossus/)osephus and Abydenus/Eusebius.

The position of the critics therefore seemed well established:

Belshazzar and the whole scenario of his banquet and the

"handwriting on the wall" were the invention of a second-

century BC author who wanted to teach spiritual truth by

inventing a fictitious story. Any sixth-century BC author

would have gotten the names of the Babylonian kings right.

The "assured results" of modern criticism had established that

Belshazzar never existed and that the book of Daniel could not

be trusted as a historical source.

A BnEAKTHROUGH FRoM ARCHAEoLoGY

It was Zockler himsell in his writing on Daniel in Langet

commentary, who gave a glimpse of the surprise that solved this

perplexing problem. The solution came from cuneiform texts

from Iraq (Mesopotamia) and Arabia that were undergoing

translation at the time he was writing his commentary. Here is

what Zockler wrote after promoting his own mistaken theory

that Belshazzar = Amel-Marduk:

The fact that the name Belshazzar occ\rs as belonging to

Chaldean kings is substantially established by the notice

deciphered on the cylinders of Mugheir by Oppert and

Rawlinson, which refers to a "Belsarussur [Belshazzar],

son of Nabomit or Nabumtuk [Nabonidus]"...although the

identity of this Belsarussur with the Belshazzar of Daniel,

which is asserted by Rawlinson and Pusey (Daniel the

Prophet, p. 402 [slc; should be 405]), appears to be highly

improbable, since this son of Nabonidus cannot be shown

to have been either of royal rank nor descended from

Nebuchadnezzar.a

As is now universally accepted, Rawlinson and Pusey were

right, and it was Zockler who failed to recognize the significance

of this text and others that came from the court of Nabonidus.

Other inscriptions were found in which Nabonidus names

Belshazzar as his firstborn son. Equally important, Belshazzar

could properly be called king, since Nabonidus had appointed

him to reign in Babylon while he himself reigned in Tema,

Arabia:

He [Nabonidus] entrusted the "Camp" to his oldest (son)

[Belshazzar, from other texts], the firstborn...He let

(everything) go, entrusted the kingship to him IBelshazzar]

and himself [Nabonidus], he started out for a long journey,

the (military) forces of Akkad marching with him; He

turned towards Tema (deep) in the west...He made the

town beautiful, built (there) [his palace] like the palace in

Su. an . na (Babylon).s

Bible and Spode 35.2 (2022)

642

Birth of

Nebuchadnezzar ll

Amytis, a Median princess, is

the first wife of Nebuchadnezzar

(Antiquities 10.226).

Nebuchadnezzar marries a

second wife, an unnamed

daughter of Necho ll.

There is d6tente between

Babylon and Egypt.

(Herodotus, Histories 1. 185-188),

queen mother of Daniel 5

Nabu-ba latsu-iqbi

This lineage of Belshazzar proposed by Raymond

Dougherty, Nobonidus ond Belshozzor (L929), is

one of the possible explains for why Belshazzar is

called the son of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 5. lt also

explains why Belshazzar's mother, Nitocris, had an

Egyptian name (Herodotus, Histories 1.188).

Tt T NAME BELSHAZZAR HAD

DISnPPEARED FROM HISToRY, EXcEPT

AS DERIVED FROM THE BIBLE, IN THE

STCOND CENTURY BC nruD EARLIER

The new information, which has continuallygrown since the

late 19th century, showed that it was the critics-and indeed

all scholars, conservative and nonconservative alike-who

were uninformed, not the author of Daniel chapter 5. Andrew

Steinmann summarizes the significance of the new evidence:

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,6

The critics, therefore, were wrong in their assertion that the

author of Daniel made a historical blunder regarding the last

kings of Babylon. Despite their error about the existence of

Belshazzar, negative critics of the book of Daniel have continued

to argue for a second-century BC date for much of if not all

the book of Daniel. But if Daniel (particularly chapter 5) were

composed at that time, then from what source did its author

derive his information about Belshazzar? Current scholarship

cannot name any classical authors from the second century BC

who give the name of the last Babylonian king as Belshazzar.

Bible and Spade 35.2 (2022)

Belshazzar

Reign of Nebuchadnezzar

Egyptians under Pharaoh

Necho ll aligned with the

remainder of the Assyrians

are defeated by Babylonians

at the Battle of Carchemish.

The Verse Account of Nabonidus showed that Nabonidus

had a son named Belshazzar, whom Nabonidus "entrusted

the kingship to" so that Nabonidus could reign in Arabia

while Belshazzar reigned in Babylon. The finding of this

text dispelled over two thousand years of doubt about the

existence of Belshazzar except as possibly another name

for Nabonidus. lt also showed that Belshazzar was actually

reigning in Babylon when the book of Daniel says he was. The

Verse Account is universally recognized as a propaganda text,

produced by the Persian rulers, that pretends to be entirely

by Nabonidus. Nevertheless, its relation of events related to

Belshazzar is generally accepted as copied from an authenttc

record of Nabonidus. Despite the witness of the Verse Account

to Belshazzar being appointed as sub-king in Babylon, critics

who seek to disparage the Bible's correctly calling him the

king of Babylon (and thus refuting their second-century BC

date of authorship of Daniel) resort to various gymnastics to

say that he was not king in any real sense and that the book of

Daniel was wrong in giving this title.

BC 562 556 553

The dilemma for the critics goes even further back in time.

Herodotus, who wrote his Histories around 430 BC, does not

name Belshazzar, although, as we shall see later, he passes on

some relevant information about him, including the name

of his mother (Hist. 1.188). Herodotus also records (1.191)

some specific information about the fall of Babylon: that

it occurred on the night of a festival (agreeing with Dn 5:l)

and that the invading army was able to enter the city via the

riverbed after diverting the Euphrates for that purpose. Other

early historians (except for Xenophon; see below) were even

less informed than Herodotus, showing no knowledge at all

about the existence of Belshazzar. Why this curious omission

by ancient authors of references to Belshazzar, the one that

Nabonidus "entrusted the kingship to" so that he could reign

in Babylon while Nabonidus himself reigned in Tema?

Although other early historians did not know the name

Belshazzar, the author of Daniel not only knew his name

but correctly described him as reigning in Babylon when

the city was captured in 539 BC. Critics had cited the lack of

reference to Belshazzar except as given in the book of Daniel

and works dependent on it as evidence that the book must

have been written much later than the events it describes. But

then things were turned on their head: even as early as the

time of Herodotus (fifth century BC), the name Belshazzar

had apparently been forgotten. No source could be named

from which a second-century BC writer would know this

name unless it was a source that must be dated before the fifth

century BC. Only one source is currently known that satisfies

this dilemma: the book of Daniel, as written in the sixth

century BC by someone who was well informed on events

related to the closing days of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

Despite being unable to produce any credible source

outside the book of Daniel that would be available to a

second-century BC "pseudo-Daniel," critics, especially those

whose anti-supernatural presuppositions ruled out a priori

any consideration that the prophecies of Daniel could be

authentic, clung to their theories. Thus Carol Newsom assures

us regarding Daniel chapter 5 that "the story is historical

fiction that uses sometimes distorted memories of events

to construct an alternative narrative about the end of the

Babylonian Empirei'7 She offers no explanation of where the

"distorted memories" came from. Why is the book of Daniel,

which fewish and Christian tradition has always assigned to

the sixth century, automatically ruled out as a source? Instead,

the "distorted memories of events," for which Newsom can

offer no tangible evidence, are presented as the origin of Daniel

chapter 5. Why exclude the very real evidence of the existence

of the chapter itself? Why exclude the evidence that it is from

the sixth century-such as the author remembering correctly

the name of Belshazzar and the fact that he was actually

reigning in Babylon when it fell to the Medes and Persians?

Even historians who are always ready to dismiss the Bible

when it speaks of historical matters have now accepted the

testimony of the "Verse Account" and other cuneiform texts

that show that Belshazzar really was reigning in Babylon when

the book of Daniel says he was. For such historians, it is as if

a biblical text will not be believed until a non-biblical account

is found that verifies it. They cling to this method despite the

numerous findings from archaeology that have verified that

the Bible is accurate in places where skeptical scholarship

previously would not accept the Bible's narrative of events.

HrnoDoTUs's

IUpTRFEcT RTUTMBRANcE oF BELSHAzZAR

In the above discussion it was emphasized that, outside of

the book of Daniel and writings dependent on it, the name

Belshazzar had apparently been lost-erased from history-

from as early as the fifth century BC (Herodotus) until the

deciphering of cuneiform texts in the latter half of the 19th

century AD. In Histories 1.188, however, Herodotus passes on

some useful information about Belsha zzar -information that

is often overlooked because of the difficulty in interpreting

this passage. In the preceding sections, 1.185-87, Herodotus

relates the exploits of a queen (basileia) of Babylon named

Nitocris. He then says, in 1.188, the following about events

leading up to the capture of Babylon: "Cyrus, then, marched

against Nitocris' son, who inherited the name of his father

Labynetus, and the sovereignty of Assyria IHerodotus's usual

name for Babylonia]i' Regarding the name Labynetus, Patl-

Alain Beaulieu writes, "There is no problem in assuming that

the form 'Labynetus' goes back to the Akkadian name Nab0-

na'id, since Herodotus refers twice to Nabonidus the king by

the same name."'So, according to Herodotus, there were two

rulers of Babylon, father and son, who bore the same name,

usually assumed to be the name Labynetus (i.e., Nabonidus).

One of the two was definitely Nabonidus, father of Belshazzar,

but is Nabonidus the first or the second Labynetus in the

Herodotus passage?

Many authorities believe that he is the second (i.e., Labynetus

II) in this passage, and that Labynetus I is Nebuchadnezzar;

this view came about because of an earlier reference to

Labynetus (Nabonidus) in Herodotus. Zocklere and others

who held to this interpretation relied on Histories 1.74, where

Labynetus is the mediator of a peace settlement between the

warring Medes and Lydians after both sides in the conflict had

been alarmed by the solar eclipse of May 28, 585 BC. Since

this event was during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (605 to

562 BC), Nebuchadnezzar was assumed to be the monarch

that Herodotus identifies as the first Labynetus. Taking this

view would mean that Herodotus was mistaken in saying that

Nabonidus / Labynetus II was the son of Nebuchadnezzar I

Labynetus I, because it is known from Herodotus's own writings

that Nabonidus was not a son or grandson of Nebuchadnezzal

Raymond Dougherty provides a better solution in his

excellent monograph Nabonidus and Belshazzar: Labynetts

I was Nabonidus and Labynetus II was his son, Belshazzar.I0

Dougherty presents documentation showing that Nabonidus,

Bible and Spode 35.2 (2022)

in 585 BC, was of high standing in the government under

Nebuchadnezzar, and that, due to his high standing,

Nebuchadnezzar appointed him as his representative who

would mediate between the warring Medes and Lydians.

ln Histories 1.74 he is not called "king" during this time of

mediation, but "Labynetus of Babylonl'This would be a highly

unusual designation if the Labynetus in this passage were

Nebuchadnezzar, in which case we should instead expect the

title "Labynetus, king of Babylon." Therefore the Labynetus

of 1.74 is Nabonidus, the official of high standing chosen

by Nebuchadnezzar to mediate the peace treaty. At a later

time, after Nebuchadnezzar died and Nabonidus/Labynetus

had begun to reign, Herodotus called him the "sovereign'

of Babylon (1.77), and he is the Labynetus I of 1.188, with

Labynetus II being his son Belshazzar.

Once this understanding of the father-and-son passage in

Herodotus is accepted, additional information can be gleaned

from the first sentence of Histories 1.188: that both father and

son were called kings, that the son was reigning after Cyrus

defeated the Lydians in 547 BC and was the one against

whom Cyrus marched, and that his mother (Nabonidus's

wife) was named Nitocris. Nitocris was an Egyptian name

common at the time in Egypt; as an example, it was the name

of the sister of Necho II (reigned 610-595 BC). Dougherty

has much more to say about the other Nitocris (not Necho's

sister), the queen that Herodotus (1.185-87) says was active

in fortifying Babylon shortly before its capture by Cyrus the

Great. Dougherty, in addressing the issue of her Egyptian

name, explains that it is reasonable to assume that she was a

daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, with an Egyptian princess as her

mother. Perhaps Dougherty's insights regarding Nitocris will

be explained, and defended, in a future article explaining also

why she is the queen mother of Daniel chapter 5.

XrruoPHoN's

IUpTRFECT RTvTMBRANcE oF BELSHAzzAR

Another Greek author, Xenophon, also preserves some

pertinent information about Belshazzar without giving his

name. Xenophois Cyropaedia (Education of Cyrus) was written

around 3708C. Xenophon's information in this regard, though

sparse, is consistent with various details about Belshazzar as

related in the book of Daniel, chapter 5. Xenophon relates the

attempts of Cyrus the Great to gain allies for the impending

attack on the city of Babylon. Among those he gained to

his side were two governors who had been wronged by the

(unnamed) king who was reigning in Babylon. These allies that

Cyrus gained to his side were Gadatas, governor of a territory

that is not named, and Gobryas (Akkadian Gubaru),governor

of the Gutians, who some scholars think may be ancestors of

the modern-day Kurds." Cyrus describes the Babylonian king

who had wronged Gadatas and Gobryas as "this young fellow

who has just come to the throne" (Cyr. 5.2.27). He is repeatedly

given the title of "king" in the Cyropaedia, in agreement with

Bible ond Spade 35.2 (2022)

Herodotus, ca. 484 to

ca. 425 BC. He wrote his

Histories around 430 BC,

preserving a rather clouded

memory of Belshazzar.

ln Histories 1.188 he said

that the final two kings of

Babylon were father and

son, naming one of them

as Labynetus (Nabonidus).

He also named the wife of

Labynetus/Nabonidus (and

mother of the younger king)

as "Nitocris," an Egyptian

na me. Herodotus's Histories

agrees with Daniel 5 in

saying that Babylon fell to

the armies under Cyrus at the time of a festival, and that the

younger king was reigning in Babylon at the time. Herodotus

said the younger king had the same name as his father;this is

found in no other source, although kings at that time usually

had a given name and a throne name. Apparently all memory

of the name Belshozzor had been wiped out before 430 BC,

except as found in the book of Daniel, which therefore must

have been written before the time of Herodotus.

the book of Daniel and with the Verse Account of Nabonidus

(cited above). In spite of this, various critics continue in

their opinion that the book of Daniel is mistaken in calling

Belshazzar a king; among them is Iohn I. Collins, who writes,

"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."12

By the time that Xenophon wrote the Cyropaedia, either

he or his Persian informants (he had spent time as a Greek

mercenary in Persia) had apparently forgotten the name of the

king who was reigning in Babylon in 539 BC. Also, Xenophon

definitely had wrong information about Belshazzar's father,

saying he had been slain before the attack on Babylon.

Dougherty writes the following regarding this error in

Xenophon: "With limited data at his [Xenophons] disposal,

he would naturally look upon the father of Belshazzar as no

longer living when the latter was exercising the powers of a

ruler in Babylonial"3 Nevertheless, Xenophon is correct in

having the "young fellow" reigning in Babylon when it was

besieged by the forces under Cyrus.

Cyrus was fighting elsewhere and did not enter the city until

17 days after it fell.la He had committed the leadership of the

invading forces to Gadatas and Gobryas/Gubaru. According

to the Cyropaedia, the invading army took advantage of

the fact that "a certain festival had come round in Babylon,

during which all Babylon was accustomed to drink and revel

all night long" (Cyr.7.5.15). Herodotus affirms that it was the

time of a festival (Hisf. 1.191). In this regard both accounts

A modern statue of Xenophon in Vienna, Austria. Xenophon

(ca. 428 to 354 BC) was a Greek general and author who

obtained his information related to the fall of Babylon during

the time he served as a mercenary to Cyrus the Younger (great-

great grandson of Darius l) in an unsuccessful effort to capture

the throne of Persia from Cyrus's brother Artaxerxes ll. The

struggle is described in Xenophon's most famous work, the

Anobasis. His Cyropoedia (Educotion of Cyrusl, written around

370 BC, is an ldealized portrait of Cyrus the Great, but many

of its historical details are verlfied from other sources. The

Cyropoedio relates that Babylon was taken on the night of a

festival, agreeing with Herodotus and Daniel 5:1. lt further

relates that the "young fellow" who was reigning in Babylon at

that time was slain on that very night, agreeing with Daniel 5.

But Xenophon, like Herodotus, did not know the name of the

young man, showing again that the name Belshozzor was lost

to classical authors but was preserved in the sixth-century

BC book of Daniel, Herodotus, Xenophon,

and Daniel all give the title of "king"

to this ruler. Skeptical scholarship,

however, repeatedly says that the

*.lD book of Daniel is in error when it

calls Belshazzar a king; this shows

-, the strange reasoning of those

IU who desire to discredit the biblical

' \B account in order to support their

"-fr t \ theory that the book of Daniel

\ is a second-century BC

pious fraud, at least in

l.s, its prophetic parts.

are in agreement with chapter 5 of Daniel, which describes

Belshazzar as participating in a banquet when the city was

taken. However, only Xenophon records that Babylon's king

was slain on that very night. He relates that, while the forces

under Gadatas and Gobryas were "dealing blows right and

left they came into the presence of the king; and they found

him already risen with his dagger in his hand. And Gadatas

and Gobryas and their followers overpowered him; and those

about the king perished also" (Cyr. 7.5.29-31). Xenophon's

reference to the importance of Gobryas (Gubaru) is borne

out by the Babylonian Chronicle (ANET, 306b), which relates

that Gobryas commanded the army that entered the city on 16

Tishri (October 12),539 BC, but then he died on the l tth day

of the next month, Heshvan-i.e., November 6.

Consequently, Xenophon agrees with the book of Daniel on

these key points: the city was involved in a festival when it was

invaded by the besieging army, the one ruling in Babylon at

that time was called a king, and the king was slain on the night

of the feast. Xenophon's account is obviously not the source of

Daniel chapter 5, and, conversely, no one would contend that

Xenophon derived his history from the book of Daniel. Because

these sources are independent, the agreement on these details

shows that Persian sources (Xenophont Persian informants)

add credibility to the Bibles account. This should be seriously

weighed by those who are unwilling to accept anything in the

Bible unless it can be verified from other sources.

Wuo Is RTSPONSIBLE FoR EXPUNGING

BrtsHAzzAR FRoM Hrsrony?

As was mentioned above, the finding and translating of

cuneiform texts from the time of Nabonidus confirmed not

only the existence of Belshazzar as Nabonidus's firstborn son,

but that he had appointed Belshazzar as ruler in Babylon

while he himself stayed in Tema. But by the time of Herodotus,

apparently the name Belshazzar was no longer known, except

among the Hebrews who had the book of Daniel in their

possession. This removal of Belshazzar from accounts relating

to the closing days of the Neo-Babylonian Empire is so

definite that it had to have been a deliberate policy, enacted by

a person or persons who had the authority to rewrite history.

So who was responsible for this early propaganda effort that

changed the written history by deleting any mention of such

an important figure?

First, the government of the Persian Empire that succeeded

Nabonidus and Belshazzar had to have been complicit in the

erasure of Belshazzar, because Claudius Ptolemy derived his list of

kings of the time ultimately from official state records of Persia.

It follows that those responsible for the state records must have

been involved in a deliberate attempt to erase the remembrance

of Belshazzar. That is, the highest o{ficials of the Persian Empire

were complicit in this early example of fake news.

Further light on what happened has come from various

studies in recent years that have led to the conclusion that,

soon after the fateful events of 539 BC, there was a massive and

deliberate campaign by the victorious Persians to write their

explanation of recent history, an explanation that would make

it appear that it was the will of Marduk (the chief Babylonian

god) that the Persians should rule in Babylon. The campaign was

widespread, again indicating that it was the product of official

Persian policy. Documents from the Persian period that reflect

this policy include the Verse Account of Nabonidus (ANEI,

312b-15a), the Nabonidus Chronicle (ANET, 305b-307a), the

Dream Text of Nabonidus,rs and the Cyrus Cylinder (AI{ET,

315b-16b). AII these texts name Nabonidus and present him

in an unfavorable light; none of them names Belshazzar. The

charge against Nabonidus was that he abandoned the worship

of Marduk in favor of worshipping the moon god Sin. This

accusation against Nabonidus because of his neglect of the

worship of Marduk seems justified from what Nabonidus

himself wrote (or commissioned) in documents from his time

such as the Harran Stela (ANEI 562a-63b).

Besides their omission of Belshazzar,the purpose of which

will be explained shortly, there was another propaganda

technique utilized by the Persian authorities. In some of the

texts, such as the Dream Text, the account was written as if

it were commissioned by Nabonidus. In order to accomplish

Bible ond Spade 35.2 (2022)

&a-

this deceit, the starting place of the texts was a genuine

inscription from Nabonidus, written in the first person. An

example of this is in the Verse Account, where Nabonidus tells

of his building a temple for his god and then "entrust[ing]

the kingship" of Babylon to his son Belshazzar. But then the

Verse Account goes on to praise Cyrus, "the king of the world

whose tri[umph(s) are true] And [whose yoke] the kings of all

the countries are pulli[ng]"16 To the modern reader this may

seem like a fairly crude attempt to rewrite history-to do so

by producing a document that pretends to come from a hostile

source (Nabonidus) but that presents the propagandist's

(Cyrus's) viewpoint.

A similar ploy was used in the Dream Text (also called the

Sippar Cylinder) where, in the midst of text that reads as if it

represents the original words of Nabonidus, there appears the

statement "when the third year arrived, he (Marduk) aroused

Cyrus, king of Anshan, his young servant..."r7 The propaganda

obviously had the people of Babylon as its intended audience.

Not only is Cyrus praised instead of being presented as a feared

and hated enemy (as we would expect from any genuine text

of Nabonidus), but Cyrus is also shown as favored by Marduk,

the chief god of the Babylonians. In the legible portions of

the Dream Text there is no mention of Belshazzar, despite his

inclusion in many inscriptions that, unlike the Dream Text,

are genuinely from the time of Nabonidus.

It is generally accepted that the Nabonidus Chronicle is

the most objective of these texts from the Persian records of

539 BC and later. Belshazzar is not named in the Chronicle,

although there is reference to him by the title "the crown

prince." But evidence that this text also reflects the Persian

party line is shown in its repeated relating of how Nabonidus

neglected ceremonies related to the worship of Marduk-

ceremonies that, according to the rewrite of history contained

in the Cyrus Cylinder, were restored when Cyrus entered

Babylon "without any battle...as a friend."l8 The Cylinder is,

rather obviously, a propagandistic effort to manipulate public

opinion and give legitimacy to Cyrus's conquest of Babylon

and his subsequent rule. There is general agreement that the

Cylinder was commissioned by Cyrus himself in the period

between the capture of Babylon and his death in 530 BC. That

being the case, the Cylinder provides the earliest example of

the expunging of Belshazzar, whom we would expect to find

playing a prominent role in the momentous events related to

the taking of the city. Yet Belshazzar is not mentioned by name

in either of the two exemplars of the Cylinder that have been

found, and the only possible allusion to him is found in the

opening lines that speak of a "weakling" or "low and unworthy

man." Some scholars think the reference is to Nabonidus,

others to Belshazzar.le Whether or not the person who is

vilified at the beginning of the text is Belshazzar,the failure to

recognize Belshazzar as reigning in Babylon when the city was

taken, or even to give his name, must be taken as a deliberate

strategy to remove him from this and the subsequent Persian

narrative of the history of the time. The Cyrus Cylinder shows

Bible ond Spode 35.2 (2022)

that the initiator of this expunging of Belshazzar from history

was Cyrus himself.

But why? The answer is given in Steven Andersont

breakthrough PhD dissertation dealing with the Medes and

Persians at the time of, and just preceding, the fall of Babylon

in 539 8C.20 Anderson points out that in all the Persian

propaganda, Nabonidus is presented in an unfavorable light

because of his abandonment of the worship of Marduk. But

such a charge could not have been leveled against Belshazzar,

who was a faithful devotee of Babylon's chief god. The

solution of the Persian propagandists: expunge Belshazzar

from history. The instigator of this historical rewrite was

Cyrus the Great himsell as evidenced in the Cyrus Cylinder

that he commissioned. The Cylinder apparently was copied

and distributed in various places, since two exemplars have

been found and archaeology only recovers a small portion of

ancient inscriptions; most of them are permanently lost or not

yet found. The efforts of Cyrus and his successors to eliminate

any remembrance of the Marduk-worshipping Belshazzar

from history are responsible for the conundrum described at

the beginning of the present article: For over two millennia

either the existence of Belshazzar, as given in Daniel 5, was

disputed, or he was incorrectly identified with someone else,

usually his father, Nabonidus. The only source that was known

that correctly gave the name of who was reigning in Babylon

when it fell to the Medes and Persians was the biblical book of

Daniel (and works derived from it).

Critical scholarship has not been able to explain how their

second-century BC pseudo-Daniel could have obtained his

information about specific personalities and incidents that

happened in the sixth century BC. Instead there is surmising

about "sometimes distorted memories of events" as the source

of what turns out to be historically accurate data. No tangible

evidence is supplied for the existence of documents that could

have been the basis for these distorted memories. But such

documents must be postulated in order to maintain the critics'

anti-supernatural interpretation of the book of Daniel, an

interpretation that a priori rules out the possibility of truly

predictive prophecy.

Daniel lived long enough to see Godt mercy to His people

when Cyrus, in his first year of rule, issued a decree for the

rebuilding of the Temple in )erusalem (Ezr 1:1; Dn 6:28).

Subsequent Persian kings also showed kindness to those who

returned from the Babylonian Exile. Thus, during the reign of

Darius I (522-486 BC), the actual construction of the Temple

was begun and completed (Hg 1:14, 1:15; Ezr 3:8, 6:15).

Darius's grandson Artaxerxes must have granted permission

for Ezra to start rebuilding the wall in |erusalem in 458 BC, as

this is demonstrated by the complaints to Artaxerxes by fudah's

enemies that |erusalem's wall was being restored (Ezr 4:13,

4:16). Because of the complaints, the work was interrupted

until Artaxerxes's twentieth year, 445 BC, at which time

Nehemiah, who turned out to be a very capable administratot

received permission to finish the wall (Neh 2:1-8). I

But the troubles of these times under Persian rule pale in

comparison with what happened when the Persian Empire

was succeeded by the Grecian. After the death of Alexander

(323 BC), his dominion was divided among four of his

generals. This is described in Daniel 7:6, where the third

beast (third kingdom) is represented as a leopard-a swift

beast-with four wings, representing the fourfold division of

the empire after Alexander's death. This fourfold division of

the Grecian empire in Daniel's prophecies is also portrayed

in chapter 8, verse 8, where after the death of Alexander (the

prominent horn of 8:5), this third kingdom is depicted as

being divided among four prominent horns. The horns were

General Cassander, over Macedonia and Greece; Lysimachus,

over Thrace and Asia Minor; Seleucus, over Syria and

Mesopotamia; and Ptolemy, over Egypt.

The latter two ofthese and their successors are the "kings

of the north" and the "kings of the south" that figure

prominently in the prophecies of Daniel 11. Conservative

and nonconservative commentators alike recognize that the

conflicts of these factions, and their adverse effect on fudea,

are described in meticulous detail in chapter 11. Throughout

the third century BC and until the victories of |udah under

the Maccabees ("Hammers") in 164 BC, God's people suffered

much as they were caught in the middle of the conflict between

these warring kingdoms. The strife lasted throughout the

third century BC and into the first four decades ofthe second,

during which time the inhabitants of fudah could well ask,

with |ob, why God would allow such suffering for His people.

But God showed His grace in the midst of the suffering

in the following way: The book of Daniel was available, and

those who had faith instead of skepticism about what God

had revealed in His Word could examine chapter 11 and see

that, although at the latter end of the strife there would be

a desecration of the Temple (Dn 11:31), nevertheless at that

time "the people who know their God shall stand firm and

take action" (the Maccabean Revolt), "and the wise among

the people shall make many understand" (Dn ll:32b, ll:33a).

What could better accomplish imparting understanding to

the people than reading to them the prophecy ofthese things

in the book of Daniel?

WHy AruTI.SUPERNATURAL Cn Ics

Rr.lrcr Arr TH rs

None of this is allowed by those who approach the Bible

from an anti-supernatural viewpoint. To them, the fact that

the prophecies of chapter 7 jtmp from the desecration of the

Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes to an end-times period of

tribulation and the final judgment (Dn 7:9-t7) means that

they, with great confidence, can assert that this division point

gives us the time that the prophetic parts of Daniel, including

chapter 11 with its painstaking detail, must have been

composed. All is vaticinium ex eventu-a carefully crafted

pseudo-prophecy that was written after, not before, the events

described. The book of Daniel, say the critics, was composed

in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes for a second-century

audience by a deceiver who had the supposedly noble goal of

encouraging his people during the dark days of Antiochus's

desecrations. He accomplished this goal by producing a work

that the critics can praise for its teaching of an ahistorical

spiritual truth-but to produce this truth, the critics' pseudo-

Daniel used lies as his chief technique.

This approach to Daniel is governed 'not by evidence

such as that which is presented in the present article and

by numerous conservative commentators, but by the

critics' starting presupposition that predictive prophecy is

impossible. Impossible because either (1) God does not exist,

(2) He may exist, but He does not know the future, or (3) He

may know the future, but He is either unwilling to impart or

incapable of imparting such knowledge to His servants. Those

who continue to hold to these presuppositions will never be

convinced by evidence-whether produced by archaeology

or any other source-that contradicts their unfalsifiable

position, a position not based on evidence, as in the scientific

worldview, but based on a sub-Christian (and sub-faithful-

Jewish) view of God and His providence.

The present study is written for those not committed to this

anti-supernatural worldview, and also for those who hold it

but are open to considering the reasons they should become

more philosophically sound in their thinking. For reasonable

people like this, it is important that good archaeology be

carried out to continue to add to the evidence supporting

the sixth-century date for the composition of Daniel, as well

as to reinforce the credibility of other historical parts of the

Bible. Those involved in this work are an important part of

God's plan in demonstrating the truthfulness of His Word to

anyone of an open mind. The purpose of the present article

has been to show how archaeological findings related to

the career of Belshazzar have added to that goal. The next

article in this series will use the same approach in showing

how archaeological findings, and the proper interpretation

of ancient texts, do the same in corroborating the existence

and identity of Darius the Mede, whom the critics regard as a

figment of their pseudo-Daniel's imagination or as a mistaken

remembrance of Darius I (reigned 522to 486P,C).

Rodger C. Young received a BA in

physics from Reed College, Portland,

OR, and BA and MA degrees in

mathematics from Oxford U n iversity,

where he was a Rhodes Scholar,

He also has done graduate work

in theology and biblical languages

at Nazarene Theological Seminary,

Kansas City, MO. Mr. Young's articles

can be accessed at www.rcyoung.

org or https://oxford.academia.

edu/RodgerYoung.

Bible ond Spode j5.2 (2022)

-.4fr

'PE*':'

Addendum

(Footnotes and bibliography follow)

Notes

Edgar J. Banks, “A Nebuchadnezzar Cylinder,” Open Court 29, no. 12 (December 1915); Raymond Philip

Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar: A Study of the Closing Events of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, Yale Oriental

Series, Researches 15 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1929), 194 n. 642.

2 Andrew E. Steinmann, Daniel, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia, 2008), 261–62.

3 J. Paul Tanner, Daniel, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, ed. H. Wayne House and William D. Barrick

(Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2020), 337 n. 475.

4 Otto Zöckler, The Book of the Prophet Daniel, Theologically and Homiletically Expounded, trans. James Strong,

in Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical, vol. 7, Ezekiel, Daniel and the Minor

Prophets (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), 34.

5 Verse Account of Nabonidus, from James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old

Testament, third edition with supplement (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 313b (final brackets

original). Hereafter ANET.

6 Steinmann, Daniel, 260.

7 Carol A. Newsom with Brennan W. Breed, Daniel: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Louisville:

Westminster John Knox, 2014), 163.

8 Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C., Yale Near Eastern Researches 10

(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 80.

9 Zöckler, Book of the Prophet Daniel, 33 (Note 3). I myself mistakenly held this view that the first Labynetus

was Nebuchadnezzar II; see Rodger C. Young, “Xenophon’s Cyaxares: Uncle of Cyrus, Friend of Daniel,” Journal

of the Evangelical Theological Society 64, no. 2 (2021): 276, http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/Cyaxares.html, where

I wrote, “Neither does Herodotus have any mention of Belshazzar.” Although Herodotus does not mention the name

Belshazzar, the proper understanding of Histories 1.188, as expounded by Dougherty (see below), shows that

Belshazzar is referred to there under the name Labynetus (II).

10 Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, 34–37.

11 Jamie Stokes, ed., Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East (New York: Facts On File, 2009),

380; D. P. Erdbrink, review of Türken, Kurden und Iraner seit dem Altertum, by Egon von Eickstedt, Central Asiatic

Journal 12, no. 1 (1968): 64–65; A. M. Prokhorov, “Guti,” in Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 31 vols. (New York:

Macmillan, 1973), 7:498.

2 John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, ed. Frank Moore Cross (Minneapolis: Fortress,

1993), 32, 33.

13 Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, 188.

14 ANET, 306b.

5 For a translation of the Dream Text, see Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 107–108, 210–11, 214, or https://en

.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinders_of_Nabonidus.

16 ANET, 314a (all brackets original).

7 Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 108.

18 ANET, 315b, 316a.

9 Hanspeter Schaudig and Mordechai Cogan think the reference is to Nabonidus, while R. J. van der Spek and

Irving Finkel interpret it as a reference to Belshazzar. Hanspeter Schaudig, “The Text of the Cyrus Cylinder,” in

Cyrus the Great: Life and Lore, ed. M. Rahim Shayegan, Ilex Foundation Series 21 (Boston: Ilex Foundation,

2018), 21; Mordechai Cogan, “Achaemenid Inscriptions: Cyrus; Cyrus Cylinder (2.124)” in The Context of

Scripture, ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr., vol. 2, Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical

World (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 315; R. J. van der Spek, “Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of

Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations,” in Extraction and Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W.

Stolper, ed. Michael Kozuh et al., Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 68 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the

Endnotes for How Belshazzar Was

Deleted from History and Who Did It

Spring 2022 Bible and Spade

University of Chicago, 2014), 252; Irving Finkel, “The Cyrus Cylinder: The Babylonian Perspective,” in The Cyrus

Cylinder: The King of Persia’s Proclamation from Ancient Babylon, ed. Irving Finkel (New York: I.B. Tauris,

2013), 4.

20 Steven D. Anderson, Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal (PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2014). The

dissertation was expanded by Anderson into a self-published book that is available at Amazon.com and also at

Anderson’s Academia.edu page, https://independent.academia.edu/StevenAnderson10.

Bibliography

Anderson, Steven D. 2014. Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal. PhD Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary.

Banks, Edgar J. 1915. A Nebuchadnezzar Cylinder. Open Court 29, no. 12 (December): 746–51.

Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. 1989. The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. Yale Near Eastern Researches

10. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Cogan, Mordechai. 2003. Achaemenid Inscriptions: Cyrus; Cyrus Cylinder (2.124). Pp. 314–16 in Monumental

Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Vol. 2 of The Context of Scripture, ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson

Younger Jr. Leiden: Brill.

Collins, John J. 1993. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, ed. Frank Moore Cross. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Dougherty, Raymond Philip. 1929. Nabonidus and Belshazzar: A Study of the Closing Events of the Neo-Babylonian

Empire. Yale Oriental Series, Researches 15. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Erdbrink, D. P. 1968. Review of Türken, Kurden und Iraner seit dem Altertum, by Egon von Eickstedt. Central

Asiatic Journal 12, no. 1: 64–65.

Finkel, Irving. 2013. The Cyrus Cylinder: The Babylonian Perspective. Pp. 4–34 in The Cyrus Cylinder: The King of

Persia’s Proclamation from Ancient Babylon, ed. Irving Finkel. New York: I.B. Tauris.

Newsom, Carol A. 2014. Daniel: A Commentary. With Brennan W. Breed. The Old Testament Library. Louisville:

Westminster John Knox.

Pritchard, James B., ed. 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Third edition with

supplement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Prokhorov, A. M. 1973. Guti. In Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Vol. 7 of 31. New York: Macmillan.

Schaudig, Hanspeter. 2018. The Text of the Cyrus Cylinder. Pp. 16–25 in Cyrus the Great: Life and Lore, ed. M.

Rahim Shayegan. Ilex Foundation Series 21. Boston: Ilex Foundation.

Steinmann, Andrew E. 2008. Daniel. Concordia Commentary. St. Louis: Concordia.

Stokes, Jamie, ed. 2009. Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East. New York: Facts On File.

Tanner, J. Paul. 2020. Daniel. Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, ed. H. Wayne House and William D. Barrick.

Bellingham, WA: Lexham.

van der Spek, R. J. 2014. Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian

Policies on Subject Nations. Pp. 233–64 in Extraction and Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper, ed.

Michael Kozuh, Wouter F. M. Henkelman, Charles E. Jones, and Christopher Woods. Studies in Ancient Oriental

Civilization 68. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Young, Rodger C. 2021. Xenophon’s Cyaxares: Uncle of Cyrus, Friend of Daniel. Journal of the Evangelical

Theological Society 64, no. 2: 265–85. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/Cyaxares.html.

Zöckler, Otto. 1960. The Book of the Prophet Daniel, Theologically and Homiletically Expounded. Trans. James

Strong. In Ezekiel, Daniel and the Minor Prophets. Vol. 7 of Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical,

Doctrinal and Homiletical. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.