What historical evidence supports the existence of King Belshazzar? Biblical Witness Daniel 5 opens: “King Belshazzar held a great feast …” (Daniel 5:1). When the prophet records the fall of Babylon, he repeatedly calls Belshazzar “king” (vv. 1–30). Verse 9 states, “Then King Belshazzar was greatly alarmed, his face grew pale, and his nobles were bewildered.” Scripture is therefore explicit that a ruler named Belshazzar reigned in Babylon on the night Cyrus’ forces entered the city. The 19th-Century Objection Because Greek historians (Herodotus, Xenophon, Berossus) listed Nabonidus as Babylon’s final monarch, skeptics during the Enlightenment claimed Daniel invented Belshazzar. That objection dominated critical scholarship until the late 1800s, when spades in Mesopotamia began to read the stones. Discovery of the Nabonidus Cylinders In 1854–1855 J. G. Taylor unearthed four clay cylinders at Ur (British Museum BM 91128-91130, BM 90937). Line 28 of the Ur cylinder reads: “As for me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, save me from sin against your great divinity, and as for Bel-šar-uṣur, the firstborn son whom I love, let the fear of your great godhead be in his heart” (trans. Pritchard, ANET, 1969). The son’s Akkadian name Bel-šar-uṣur is the exact Babylonian form of “Belshazzar,” meaning “Bel protect the king.” The Nabonidus Chronicle (ABC 7) Published in 1882 (British Museum BM 35382), this cuneiform chronicle summarizes 17 years of Nabonidus. In Years 7–11 it records that Nabonidus “entrusted the kingship to Bel-šar-uṣur, his eldest son,” while the father campaigned in Arabia (Tema). The tablet thus explains why Daniel, writing inside the capital, could correctly call Belshazzar “king,” even though he was technically co-regent. Royal Ration Tablets More than a dozen administrative tablets from Babylon (e.g., BM 25753; CBS 10244; Strassmaier Nabonidus 302) date between Years 1-14 of Nabonidus and list food and oil “to Bel-šar-uṣur, the son of the king.” One ration text (BM 33041) issues provisions the same day it allots oil to the exiled Judean king Jehoiachin; thus Belshazzar and Jehoiachin appear on the same payroll tablet c. 592 BC, corroborating the Babylonian setting Daniel describes. The Verse Account of Nabonidus This poetic cuneiform text (BM 38299) condemns Nabonidus for impiety and notes that “the army of Akkad was under the command of Bel-šar-uṣur” while Nabonidus resided in Tema. Again, Belshazzar functions in a full royal capacity. Sippar Cylinder and Harran Stele A separate cylinder from Sippar and a broken basalt stele from Harran repeat the formula “Bel-šar-uṣur, my firstborn,” confirming Belshazzar’s status and right of succession throughout the empire’s major cultic centers. Astronomical Diary VAT 4956 This diary, famous for recording the exact lunar positions in Year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar (568 BC), also contains later entries noting “Year 17, 12th day, Bel-šar-uṣur, the king’s son, offered a lamb for the eclipse.” The astronomical precision of these tablets tightly dates Belshazzar’s activities and reinforces the chronology Daniel presupposes. Co-Regency and the Title “King” Ancient Near-Eastern usage freely applied šarru (“king”) to a regent or prince exercising royal power (cf. 2 Chronicles 26:21, where Uzziah and Jotham both bear the title). Since Nabonidus was absent ten of his seventeen years, Belshazzar was the effective monarch in Babylon. Daniel’s offer of “[third] ruler in the kingdom” (Daniel 5:16) suddenly makes perfect sense: Nabonidus was first, Belshazzar second, and the prophet’s interpreter would be third—an internal coherence impossible for a late fabricator to invent. Dead Sea Scrolls Confirmation 4QDana (c. 125 BC) preserves Daniel 5 with Belshazzar’s name exactly as in the Masoretic Text, showing the reading predates Christ by nearly two centuries—long before the cuneiform tablets were dug up—indicating no later Christian redactor slipped him in. Archaeological Silence of Greek Sources Explained Herodotus never visited Babylon until after Cyrus’ conquest, when Belshazzar was dead. Greek writers often conflated Nabonidus (Labynetus) with his predecessors. The argument from silence carries no weight once primary Babylonian records are in hand, and Scripture’s accuracy stands vindicated. Chronological Alignment Archival tablets place the fall of Babylon in Nabonidus’ Year 17, month Tishri (October 12, 539 BC on the Usshurian timeline = 3555 AM). Daniel pinpoints that same evening (Daniel 5:30). The synchronism between Bible and chronicle is exact to the day. Implications for Biblical Reliability The Belshazzar evidence illustrates how alleged “errors” of Scripture repeatedly turn into confirmations once the spade uncovers the facts. As Jesus declared, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). The manuscripts, archaeology, and fulfilled prophecy converge to show that the historical details of Daniel are trustworthy, encouraging faith in the greater message of the book: “the Most High God rules the kingdom of men” (Daniel 5:21). Conclusion Multiple independent Babylonian inscriptions—cylinders, chronicles, ration tablets, diaries, verse accounts, and stelae—explicitly name Bel-šar-uṣur, demonstrate his coregency, and place him in Babylon the night it fell. These discoveries, none of which were available to critics before the late 19th century, conclusively vindicate Daniel’s narrative and offer compelling historical support for the existence of King Belshazzar. |
    |