Why does the Book of Daniel misidentify Belshazzar as a king when he was only a prince?

Historical Context of Belshazzar

Belshazzar appears in Daniel 5 at the close of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. He is referred to as “king” in the text, though outside historical records initially described him as a prince, son of Nabonidus. The once-perceived discrepancy fueled criticism from scholars who doubted Daniel’s historicity. However, tablets and cylinders unearthed long after such criticisms arose have provided evidence that Belshazzar functioned with kingly authority in Babylon, effectively explaining why Daniel rightly applies the royal title to him.

Archaeological Evidence of Belshazzar’s Status

Discoveries such as the Nabonidus Cylinder, housed in the British Museum, and other cuneiform tablets indicate that Nabonidus, the final recognized king of Babylon (556–539 BC), installed Belshazzar as co-regent. In practice, Belshazzar was serving as “king” in Babylon, while Nabonidus was often away—particularly in Teima (in present-day Saudi Arabia). These historical records refer to Belshazzar in terms suggesting he carried the duties and privileges of royal power. The arrangement allowed Belshazzar to make major decisions, command the armies, and manage palace affairs.

The Terminology of “King” in Daniel

In ancient Near Eastern contexts, a co-regent could bear the title “king” because he ruled as the acting head in the monarch’s place. Scriptural language often uses “king” for any person who functioned as ruler—even if another king formally held the throne. Daniel 5:1 states: “Later, King Belshazzar gave a great banquet for a thousand of his nobles,” making clear that publicly he operated as sovereign. Furthermore, Daniel 5:29 reads, “Then at Belshazzar’s command, Daniel was clothed in purple,” highlighting Belshazzar’s direct authority. His ability to grant Daniel the position of “third ruler” (Daniel 5:16, 29) implies that Belshazzar himself was the second ruler under Nabonidus, aligning both Scripture and historical documents.

Criticisms and the Relevance of Later Discoveries

For centuries, Belshazzar was known exclusively through the Book of Daniel, leading critics to label him a fictional character or an erroneous invention. However, when cuneiform archives were deciphered in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, they revealed Belshazzar in inscriptions. This discovery led many skeptical historians to reevaluate their assumptions. The once-enigmatic mention of him as “king” in Daniel 5 was found consistent with the Babylonian practice of co-regency.

Addressing the “Misidentification” Concern

1. Co-Regency and Practical Rule

Belshazzar was co-regent with Nabonidus. Though Nabonidus was the official king, Belshazzar exercised kingly rights in Babylon’s capital. Daniel’s narrative reflects the day-to-day reality: Belshazzar could issue royal decrees, which is why Daniel identifies him as “king.”

2. Ancient Usage of Royal Titles

The Book of Daniel reflects the custom of referring to a reigning authority in a city or region as “king,” even if someone else also held the full imperial title. This usage is not unique to Daniel or Babylon; records show such title-sharing in other Mesopotamian and ancient Near Eastern cultures.

3. Evidence from Daniel’s Own Text

Daniel 5 presents Belshazzar hosting lavish feasts, commanding wise men, and elevating Daniel—actions affiliated with supreme rulership. The biblical account emphasizes his sovereignty within Babylon, rather than listing final legalities of who sat on the throne in a broader empire. Such a portrayal is neither mistaken nor contradictory.

Legitimacy of Daniel’s Account

Daniel’s identification of Belshazzar as king has proven to be not an error but a reflection of the historical situation in mid-sixth-century BC Babylon. Modern findings—including cuneiform tablets citing Belshazzar’s authority—reinforce that the Book of Daniel stands on reliable historical ground. This coherence showcases the consistency often found when biblical statements are examined in light of fuller archaeological and historical contexts.

Scriptural Cohesion and Reliability

Biblical manuscripts overall demonstrate remarkable consistency when compared with other ancient texts. Archeological work supporting the accuracy of individuals such as Belshazzar is one of many examples of external confirmation. Historical synchronizations like this strengthen readers’ confidence in the documented events. Far from misidentifying a historical figure, Daniel offers a faithful window into the final days of Babylonian dominance.

Conclusion

Belshazzar’s role as co-regent with Nabonidus readily accounts for Daniel calling him “king,” despite his status as the son of Nabonidus. Recent archaeological and historical research confirms Belshazzar’s practical rule, vindicating Daniel’s account. For generations, critics alleged Daniel erred by using the royal designation—but the interplay between biblical text and external evidence demonstrates that, once examined thoroughly, Scripture again aligns with the historical record.