In Daniel 5:1, why does the text present Belshazzar as king of Babylon when historical records identify Nabonidus as the last king?

Historical and Literary Context

Daniel 5:1 states, “Later, King Belshazzar held a great feast for a thousand of his nobles, and he drank wine with them.” Ancient records outside the Bible often note that Nabonidus was the last official monarch of Babylon (r. 556–539 BC). This has caused some to question why Daniel portrays Belshazzar as “king.” However, extensive archaeological and historical findings now demonstrate that Belshazzar served as co-regent under his father Nabonidus, effectively ruling Babylon in his father’s absence.

Cuneiform Evidence and Belshazzar’s Role

Archaeologists have unearthed cuneiform texts, including the Nabonidus Chronicle (housed in the British Museum) and various economic tablets, that reference Belshazzar (known in Akkadian as “Bēl-šar-uṣur”). These inscriptions identify him as the son of Nabonidus, mark him as having royal authority, and note that he performed kingly duties—including the oversight of the kingdom—especially when Nabonidus departed the city of Babylon for extended periods (likely to the oasis of Tayma).

One significant discovery is the so-called “Persian Verse Account” of Nabonidus, which indicates that Nabonidus spent years away from Babylon on building projects and religious endeavors. During that time, Belshazzar acted with regal authority, signing official documents, presiding over the palace, and commanding the troops. This status of a co-regent, or stand-in ruler, would allow contemporaries—and the biblical text itself—to address him legitimately as “king.”

Daniel’s Use of Royal Terminology

The Book of Daniel uses royal titles in a direct and functional sense. Belshazzar is depicted hosting a royal feast, exercising authority, and rewarding Daniel (Daniel 5:29: “Then at Belshazzar’s command, Daniel was clothed in purple, a gold chain was placed around his neck…”). These kingly actions align with the documented prerogatives of a co-regent in Babylon, providing internal consistency with the historical data that identifies Belshazzar as second-in-command under Nabonidus.

Furthermore, Daniel 5 repeatedly depicts Belshazzar making decisions that only a sovereign ruler could make in Babylonian custom. He promises to elevate Daniel to “third in the kingdom” (Daniel 5:16–17). It is widely understood that positions of authority in that kingdom would have been (1) Nabonidus himself, (2) Belshazzar, and (3) Daniel—hence the offered title “third.” The biblical narrative thus reflects a precise awareness of the actual political structure.

Father-Son Terminology

Daniel 5:2 refers to Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar’s “father.” In Babylonian and other ancient Near Eastern contexts, “father” could mean a direct ancestor or predecessor. Since Nabonidus appears to have married into Nebuchadnezzar’s extended family, Belshazzar would be considered a descendant—potentially a grandson through marriage—of Nebuchadnezzar. Ancient Semitic languages commonly use “father” to mean “ancestor,” reinforcing a cultural pattern rather than indicating an error.

Alignment with Archaeological Discoveries

Critics once pointed to the absence of Belshazzar in Greek and Roman records as evidence that Daniel’s account was unreliable. However, with the ongoing decipherment of Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions in the 19th century and beyond (including the Nabonidus Cylinder discovered in the mid-1800s), Belshazzar’s historical role was firmly established.

Anecdotal references from dig sites in ancient Mesopotamia, along with thousands of recovered tablets documenting mercantile and governmental transactions, converge to show that Belshazzar acted with kingly authority. These findings illustrate that the biblical narrative aligns with extra-biblical data, reinforcing Daniel’s reliability as a credible historical document.

Co-Regency as the Key Explanation

The best explanation for Daniel calling Belshazzar “king” is that Nabonidus made him co-regent, granting him practical rulership over Babylon while Nabonidus was absent. Belshazzar thus functioned de facto as king in Babylon, rendering Daniel’s description factually accurate. Far from contradicting known history, the Book of Daniel actually provides detail that was confirmed by later archaeological discovery.

Conclusion

The reference to “King Belshazzar” in Daniel 5:1 meshes with external evidence revealing his status as co-regent under Nabonidus. Ancient Babylonian sources confirm his royal authority, showing that Scripture’s description is consistent with historical reality. Rather than presenting a historical conflict, Daniel offers indispensable insight into this transitional phase of the Babylonian Empire, affirming its accuracy both textually and archaeologically.