By: Daniel Sloan, Ph.D., July 21, 2024
When we open the pages of Daniel chapter five, we run into a figure named Belshazzar. In this chapter, he was serving as the king of Babylon during the time of the Medio-Persian invasion under King Cyrus the Great. If one is simply reading the Book of Daniel and moved from chapter four to chapter five, one immediately would say, “who is this guy and what happened to Nebuchadnezzar?” The answer is that a time jump has occurred from Daniel four to Daniel five, probably around 30-40 years. Belshazzar, who was a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar, was now on the throne at this time.
The Problem of Belshazzar
The problem that arose in the text, however, was that this figure Belshazzar had been forgotten by history. Therefore, when critical scholarship began in the early 18th century, scholars immediately began to question if this was an error in the Bible. Up to that point in history, archaeology had only provided a list of Babylonian kings that ended with a man named Nabonidus, who was the last king of Babylon. Miller writes, “Until the last half of the nineteenth century the name Belshazzar was unattested except for the Book of Daniel and works dependent upon it, such as Baruch and Josephus’s writings. From other sources Nabonidus was known to have been the last king of Babylon, and some commentators declared Belshazzar to be a fictional character invented by the author of the book.”[1] This argument became one of the major arguments that critical scholars used to not only attack the historical nature of chapter five, but also of the entire book. After all, if the author of the book did not even know who the right king was at this time, then the book must have been written much later, they argue around 150 BC, by someone who simply got the history wrong, not by someone who was an eyewitness to these events. Not only did this eliminate the eyewitness accounts found in the book, but it also eliminated much of the predictive prophecy also present.
The Solution
However, all of this changed beginning in 1879 once archaeologists started to find a plethora of ancient documents and artifacts. Smith cites evidence from the Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus to show that Nabonidus had also entrusted the rule of Babylon to Belshazzar in his absence: “He freed his hand; he entrusted the kingship (ip-ta-kid-su sharru-tam) to him. Then he himself undertook a distant campaign.”[2] There are now at least 37 findings that identify Belshazzar that have been found since 1879.
Thus, Paul Tanner argues there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the father and son shared a joint-regime in which Belshazzar occupied the subordinate position. As a result, official documents would be dated according to Nabonidus, but the book of Daniel made reference to Belshazzar, because this was the man in Babylon that the Jews actually had to deal with and whose royal word could affect them.[3] This can even be seen in a close reading of the text. In Daniel 5:7, Belshazzar said, “Whoever reads this writing, and tells me its interpretation, shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around his neck; and he shall be the third ruler in the kingdom” (NKJV). Belshazzar could only make the interpreter the third ruler in the kingdom because he himself was only the second ruler, with his father Nabonidus still technically the first ruler. Daniel knew this information even though history had forgotten about this individual because he was present for these events and interacted with Belshazzar personally.
The Limits of Archaeology
One of the major limits of archaeology is simply access to ancient documents and artifacts. Unfortunately, many of the documents and artifacts throughout history were destroyed through the process of time. Dr. Randall Price stated, “Only a fraction of material culture has survived. Most of the great civilizations of the past were destroyed in antiquity through wars, looters, erosion, natural disasters, or simply the ravages of time.”[4] Others have yet to be discoved and may very well be discovered at some time in the future. While archaeology can and does play a huge role in helping us to verify some of the historical nature of the Bible, it will never be able to completely verify everything stated in the Bible. Critics argued that the Bible was wrong for over a century, only to find out that they were wrong, and the Word of God was correct the entire time. While archaeology can help us in understanding the Bible and help us in apologetics to defend the Bible, it must never take priority over the Word of God.
About the Author
Daniel Sloan is an Adjunct Professor at Liberty University. He was mentored by the late Dr. Ed Hindson. After Dr. Hindson’s untimely passing, Dr. Sloan was allowed to teach some of Dr. Hindson’s classes. In addition to his teaching duties, Dr. Sloan serves as an Associate Pastor at Safe Harbor Community Church in Lynchburg, Virginia. Daniel graduated with his PhD in Theology and Apologetics from Liberty University. His research and expertise is in Old Testament studies. He and his wife, Natalie, live in Lynchburg, Virginia. Along with his extensive knowledge of the Bible, Daniel is an avid sports fan.
Notes
[1] Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 147.
[2] Cf. S. Smith, Babylonian Historical Texts, Relating to the Downfall of Babylon, (London: Mathuen & Co., Ltd., 1924), 83–91; and M. J. Gruenthaner, “The Last King of Babylon,” CBQ 11 (1949): 416–19.
[3] J. Paul Tanner, Daniel, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), 323–324.
[4] Randall Price and H. Wayne House, Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 22.
