What historical evidence supports the events described in Daniel 5:11? Daniel 5:11 “There is a man in your kingdom who has a spirit of the holy gods. In the days of your father he was found to have insight, intelligence, and wisdom like that of the gods. Your father, King Nebuchadnezzar, appointed him chief of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers, and diviners.” Immediate Literary Setting The verse records the queen-mother reminding Belshazzar of Daniel’s past service. The statement presupposes three historical realities: 1. A historical Belshazzar reigning in Babylon. 2. Daniel’s earlier promotion under Nebuchadnezzar. 3. Babylon’s imminent fall to a foreign power that night (5:30-31). Existence of Belshazzar Confirmed by Cuneiform Tablets For centuries critics claimed Daniel erred because classical writers listed Nabonidus as Babylon’s last king. In 1854 J. G. Taylor unearthed the Nabonidus Cylinder at Ur; it repeatedly calls Bel-shar-uṣur (Belshazzar) “my firstborn son.” More than thirty administrative tablets from Babylon (published in the British Museum’s Tablet Series, e.g., BM 8292, BM 91100) date between 556 – 539 BC and record rations, silver payments, and estate transfers “for the king’s son Bel-shar-uṣur.” These independent documents place Belshazzar precisely where Daniel does—inside the Neo-Babylonian court in the empire’s closing years. Co-Regency and the Offer of “Third Place” Daniel 5:7, 16, 29 notes Belshazzar could elevate Daniel only to “third ruler in the kingdom.” The Verse Account of Nabonidus (tablet VAT 4956) confirms Nabonidus spent long years at Teima in Arabia, entrusting day-to-day rule to his son. Hence Nabonidus was first, Belshazzar second, any honoree third. No writer could have invented so specific a detail centuries later without direct knowledge of sixth-century court protocol. Chronicles of Babylon’s Fall Align with Daniel 5 The Babylonian Chronicle (BM 33041) states that on the night of 16 Tishri, Year 17 of Nabonidus (October 12, 539 BC), “the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle.” Daniel 5:30-31 records that “that very night” Belshazzar was slain and Darius the Mede (Cyrus’s governor, cf. Xenophon’s Cyaxares II) received the kingdom. Herodotus (Histories 1.191) and Xenophon (Cyropaedia 7.5) echo the chronicle: the Persians diverted the Euphrates, slipped under Babylon’s gates, and captured the city during a festival—consonant with the revelry described in Daniel 5:1-4. Aramaic Loan-Words and Authentic Court Vocabulary “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin” (5:25) use weights attested only in sixth-century Babylonian Aramaic. The term “upharsin” employs the plural active participle of the verb “to break/divide,” paralleling contemporary commercial notations (Aramaic Papyri of Elephantine, Cowley 21). Such linguistic precision reinforces the writer’s firsthand competence. Daniel’s Reputation Remembered by the Queen-Mother Administrative lists from Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (e.g., BM 76837) catalog court officials bearing West-Semitic names identical in form to “Daniel.” While no tablet yet names Daniel explicitly, the presence of Judean captives in high office is well documented (cf. Jehoiachin ration tablet, BM 30279). The queen’s recollection reflects normal Mesopotamian practice of retaining seasoned counselors across reigns; Jeremiah 39:3 likewise shows continuity in Babylonian bureaucracy. Dead Sea Scrolls Validate Textual Stability Copies of Daniel (4QDanᵇ, 4QDanᵈ) dated c. 150 BC contain the full Aramaic of chapter 5 virtually identical to the Masoretic text underlying the. The 400-year gap between autograph and oldest extant manuscript is remarkably small for ancient literature, underscoring the providential preservation of the narrative. Josephus Interlocks with Biblical Account Josephus, Antiquities 10.11.2, recounts that “Baltasar” held a feast, saw handwriting on the wall, and perished the same night. Josephus, writing from now-lost sources, confirms Jewish memory of Daniel 5 independent of canonical transmission. Archaeological Corroborations of Banqueting Halls Excavations led by R. Koldewey (1899-1917) uncovered Babylon’s Southern Palace banquet hall: a 56 × 17 m chamber with thick plastered walls suitable for torch-lit festivities and large enough for the thousand nobles mentioned in 5:1. The walls show fire-reddening, consistent with Cyrus’s siege-entry disturbances. The “Queen” as Nabonidus’s Wife or Daughter Daniel’s Aramaic uses the honorific malkatā—“queen mother.” Cuneiform stelae (Hillah Stele, British Museum) reference Nabonidus’s wife Naqid-Adadguppi, a revered matriarch who would fit the respectful tone of 5:10-12. Her advanced age explains her awareness of events “in the days of your father [grandfather].” Integrated Prophetic Consistency Isaiah 13:17-22 and 44:27-45:1 had earlier foretold Babylon’s sudden fall and Cyrus’s role, centuries before Daniel. The alignment of Isaiah’s prophecy, Daniel’s real-time interpretation, and the Babylonian Chronicle’s record displays unified biblical testimony corroborated by external data. Answering Skeptical Objections 1. “Belshazzar is absent from Greek sources.” – True, yet he is firmly present in primary Babylonian texts older than those Greek histories. 2. “Daniel misnames Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar’s father.” – Aramaic ’ab can denote ancestor; contemporary inscriptions likewise call Nabonidus “son” of Nebuchadnezzar to legitimize rule. 3. “No miracle could occur.” – The inscription’s fulfillment that very night parallels authenticated modern healings and answers to prayer that science itself recognizes as anomalous, reinforcing that the God who intervened then still intervenes now. Theological Implication If the historical frame is rock-solid, then the theological heart stands unshaken: “the Most High God is sovereign over the kingdom of men” (Daniel 5:21). The same God who judged Babylon would later raise Jesus bodily from the tomb—certified by over five hundred eyewitnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)—offering sure salvation to all who repent and believe. Conclusion: Converging Streams of Evidence • Contemporary tablets confirm Belshazzar’s existence and status. • Inscriptions explain the unique offer of “third ruler.” • Babylonian and Persian chronicles verify the city’s overnight capture during a feast. • Linguistic features anchor the narrative in sixth-century Aramaic. • Archaeology uncovers the very hall that could host the banquet. • Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate textual fidelity. Together these strands weave an unbreakable cord attesting that Daniel 5—and by extension the whole of Scripture—is historically accurate and divinely inspired, calling every reader to heed the God who still writes on the walls of history. |
    |