Shattering the Belshazzar myth

by Damien F. Mackey “… Cäsar von Lengerke described it as “pure fiction” and “a palpable forgery” going on to say that, “the whole story is disfigured and falsified by the author, who was neither an eye-witness of the occurrences, nor accurately acquainted with the history of them”.” Bryan Windle Today (4th December, 2024), at Mass, the Marist priest - a former sheep farmer who is now a shepherd of souls - asked for prayers for a deceased fellow priest, Fr. Bell, confiding to the congregation that he was known amongst his confrères as Ding Dong. I sat bolt upright because I had been preparing this present article on King Belshazzar and was hoping to hit on a title that was a little bit engaging. Maybe, this was a kind of providential prompt. Try as I may, however, I could not think of a juxtaposition of Ding Dong and Bel-shazzar that was anything other than ridiculous. Perhaps a clever reader may be able to suggest something snappy, for future reference. What the Marist priest’s Ding Dong recollection does enable me to do, at least, is to segué here into wishing readers a very happy and a blessed Christmas: Ding Dong! merrily on high In heav’n the bells are ringing Ding, dong! verily the sky Is riv’n with angel singing Gloria, Hosanna in excelsis The Belshazzar Problem This is spelled out in Bryan Windle’s (2024) article, “Belshazzar: An Archaeological Biography”, where he writes: For many years Belshazzar was unknown to history, as ancient writers like Berossus (ca. 250 BC), seem to name Nabonidus as the final king of Babylon. …. This caused some 19th-century critics to doubt the veracity of the account of Belshazzar in the Book of Daniel. For example, Cäsar von Lengerke described it as “pure fiction” and “a palpable forgery” going on to say that, “the whole story is disfigured and falsified by the author, who was neither an eye-witness of the occurrences, nor accurately acquainted with the history of them.” His summary was based on three factors: the last king of Babylon was not named Belshazzar, he was not a son of Nebuchadnezzar, and he was not slain on the night Babylon fell to the Persians. …. Other scholars who accepted the historicity of Daniel’s account generally assumed that Belshazzar was an alternate name for another Babylonian king: Josephus equated him with Nabonidus … while Zöckler thought he was Evil-Merodach (Awil-Marduk). …. [End of quote] Before we consider Otto Zöckler’s view, that Belshazzar was Evil-Merodach (Awil-Marduk), who was the known son and successor of Nebuchednezzar, let us read what is Bryan Windle’s own proposed solution to the Belshazzar problem. He writes towards the end of his article: …. How then do we make sense of Daniel’s statement to Belshazzar that “the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father kingship and greatness and glory and majesty” (Dn 5:18) since Nabonidus was not a descendent of Nebuchadnezzar? Some have pointed out that in the ancient Near East, the terms father and son could be used in a broader way to mean predecessor/ successor, even when there is not direct family link. …. For example, on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, the Assyrian king records that he received the tribute of “Jehu, son of Omri” … even though Jehu was not related to Omri and had actually destroyed the Omride line. Daniel could be using the phrase “Nebuchadnezzar your father” in the sense that he was Belshazzar’s predecessor. Other scholars believe Belshazzar was related to Nebuchadnezzar through his mother. According to Herodotus, Nabonidus (called Labynetus in the Greek text) … had a wife named Nitocris. …. Dougherty has presented an extensive list of plausible circumstantial evidence suggesting that Nitocris was likely the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar by an Egyptian wife (the name Nitocris is of Egyptian origin). …. If this is the case, Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter was Belshazzar’s mother and Daniel’s phrase “Nebuchadnezzar your father” was used in a familial sense. If Belshazzar was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, one might expect him to have been given an important role in the Babylonian courts when he came of age. Indeed, there is a Babylonian text from ca. 560 BC that names a “Belshazzar, the chief officer of the king.” …. His plausible relation to Nebuchadnezzar may also explain why Belshazzar’s ascension as co-regent in Nabonidus’ third year seems to have been readily supported by those in Babylon. …. [End of quotes] The reference to Jehu here is irrelevant, I believe, since I do not think that Jehu was the King of Israel to whom Shalmaneser of Assyria was referring in the Black Obelisk. Apart from that, Bryan Windle’s argument is quite valid at least regarding the broader use in the ancient Near East of terms such as father and son. However, I think that there is a solution far better to the Belshazzar problem than that presented here by Bryan Windle, whose effort I applaud, nonetheless, and that it pertains to the notion of Otto Zöckler, that ‘Belshazzar was Evil-Merodach (Awil-Marduk)’. The Biblical scenario The Chaldean to Median succession is clearly given in Daniel 5-6, and spelled out by the prophet Daniel himself. It was simply this: Nebuchednezzar followed by his son, Belshazzar, followed by Darius the Mede This sequence is, I have pointed out in other articles, such as: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (3) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu incompatible with the dupli- tripli-cated ancient king lists. For example: https://bible-history.com/old-testament/babylonian-kings List of Babylonian Kings from 625 BC to 542 BC King of Babylon Period of Reign (Approx) Nabopolassar 625-605 BC Nabu-kudurri-usur II (Nebuchadnezzar) 605-562 BC Amel-Marduk (Evil-merodach) 561-560 BC Nergal-shar-usur (Neriglissar) 559-556 BC Labashi-Marduk 556-556 BC Nabu-naid (Nabonidus) 555-539 BC Bel-sharra-usur (Belshazzar) 552-542 BC which needs to be stripped down to this, perfectly in conformity with the Bible: Nabopolassar = Sennacherib; Nebuchednezzar = Nabonidus; Evil-merodach = (Labashi-Marduk) = Belshazzar Neriglissar = Darius the Mede Seven royal persons reduced to four. Any attempt by scholars to square off the biblical sequence with the standard list of Babylonian kings as tabled above will not work. Yet it seems that they all attempt this - Bryan Windle, for instance. And even Otto Zöckler, who took a big step closer to reality by identifying Belshazzar with Evil-Merodach, will hang on to Nabonidus as an individual separate from Nebuchednezzar. Consequently, he is forced to distinguish between a King Belshazzar, who is Evil-Merodach, and the non-king (as he thought) Belshazzar, known to have been the son of Nabonidus. At least, this is the impression that I get from a quick scanning through read of his 1901 book on the subject, The book of the prophet Daniel. The Solution There is just enough archaeological evidence to verify the little known Evil-Merodach (qua Evil-Merodach) as being an historical ruler of Babylon. And it is from this genuine (in the historical sense) king, in his relationship to his father, Nebuchednezzar, that we are able to find a situation that parallels the unusual relationship between Belshazzar and his father, Nabonidus. Otto Zöckler, whilst correctly identifying Belshazzar as Evil-Merodach (Awil-Marduk), but, because he had not also identified Nebuchednezzar with Nabonidus, did not have in mind the latter’s son, Belshazzar, as Evil-Merodach. So, what looked at first glance like a promising step in the right direction, turned out to be no solution at all to the Belshazzar problem. Paralleling Evil-Merodach and Belshazzar I wrote about this vitally important connection in my article: Not able to shake the hand of Bel (1) Nabonidus and Belshazzar: A Historical Parallel to Nebuchadnezzar There I wrote: …. In the case of … King Nabonidus, I have been able to identify … a perfectly parallel situation between Nebuchednezzar, alienated from his kingdom, with his son Evil-Merodach temporarily left in charge, and Nabonidus, away from his kingdom, with his son Belshazzar temporarily left in charge: Nebuchednezzar’s madness historically identified (6) Nebuchednezzar's madness historically identified | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And we know from Baruch 1: 11, 12, that Nebuchednezzar’s son was called Belshazzar. That means that Evil-Merodach was the same person as Belshazzar. During this time of the Great King’s sickness and alienation, the Crown Prince was not authorized to take the hand of Bel at the New Year’s feast in Babylon. And we find this situation repeated again with Nebuchednezzar’s alter ego, Ashurbanipal, who, for many years did not take the hand of Bel. …. And, more relevantly, I wrote in my article: Nebuchednezzar’s madness historically identified (4) Nebuchednezzar's madness historically identified | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu “… officials … bewildered by the king's behavior, counseled Evilmerodach to assume responsibility for affairs of state so long as his father was unable to carry out his duties. Lines 6 and on would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar's behavior as described to Evilmerodach”. British Museum tablet No. BM 34113 Tradition has King Nabonidus going through a period of sickness, or alienation, during which time he was absent from his kingdom. For example we read this somewhat inaccurate account at: https://www.archaeology.org/issues/458-2203/features/10334-babylon-nabonidus-last-king …. Nabonidus, who is mistakenly identified as his predecessor Nebuchadnezzar II (r. 605–562 B.C.), is described as a mad king obsessed with dreams. According to the Book of Daniel, the king leaves Babylon to live in the wilderness for seven years. This depiction overlaps somewhat with Nabonidus’ own inscriptions, in which he emphasizes that he was an especially pious man who paid heed to dreams as the divine messages of the gods. Nabonidus was also infamous in antiquity for abandoning Babylon for 10 years to live in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, where he established a kind of shadow capital at the oasis of Tayma. This was a strange and unprecedented move for a Mesopotamian ruler. …. As I see it, though, King Nabonidus was not “mistakenly identified as his predecessor Nebuchednezzar”, but he was Nebuchednezzar: Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus (4) Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu It is known that Nabonidus’s son, Belshazzar, looked after the affairs of state during the absence of the legitimate king, his father. William H. Shea, for instance, has written on this unconventional situation (Andrews University Seminary Studies, Summer 1982, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 135-136): NABONIDUS, BELSHAZZAR, AND THE BOOK OF DANIEL: AN UPDATE https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/1982-2/1982-2-05.pdf …. Entrusting the kingship to Belshazzar, as mentioned in the Verse Account, is not the same as making him king. The Verse Account refers to Belshazzar as the king's eldest son when the kingship was "entrusted" to him, and the Nabonidus Chronicle refers to him as the "crown prince" through the years that Nabonidus spent in Tema [Tayma]. Moreover, the New Year's festival was not celebrated during the years of Nabonidus' absence because the king was not in Babylon. This would suggest that the crown prince, who was caretaker of the kingship at this time, was not considered an adequate substitute for the king in those ceremonies. Oaths were taken in Belshazzar's name and jointly in his name and his father's name, which fact indicates Belshazzar's importance, but this is not the equivalent of calling him king. There is no doubt about Belshazzar's importance while he governed Babylonia during his father's absence, but the question remains - did he govern the country as its king? So far, we have no explicit contemporary textual evidence to indicate that either Nabonidus or the Babylonians appointed Belshazzar as king at this time. …. Given the pre-eminence of the name Nebuchednezzar over the less familiar one of his alter ego, Nabonidus, I would be extremely pleased to find evidence in the historical records of an illness and alienation of Nebuchednezzar qua Nebuchednezzar. And so I have, thanks to A. K. Grayson. For, as I wrote in my article: Cyrus as ‘Darius the Mede’ who succeeded Belshazzar (4) Cyrus as ‘Darius the Mede’ who succeeded Belshazzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I was gratified to learn of certain documentary evidence attesting to some apparent mad, or erratic, behaviour on the part of King Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean, to complement the well-attested “Madness of Nabonidus”. This led me to conclude - based on a strikingly parallel situation - that Evil-Merodach, son and successor of Nebuchednezzar, was Belshazzar. I reproduce that information here (with ref. to British Museum tablet No. BM 34113 (sp 213), published by A. K. Grayson in 1975): Read lines 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, and Mas referring to strange behavior by Nebuchadnezzar, which has been brought to the attention of Evilmerodach by state officials. Life had lost all value to Nebuchadnezzar, who gave contradictory orders, refused to accept the counsel of his courtiers, showed love neither to son nor daughter, neglected his family, and no longer performed his duties as head of state with regard to the Babylonian state religion and its principal temple. Line 5, then, can refer to officials who, bewildered by the king's behavior, counseled Evilmerodach to assume responsibility for affairs of state so long as his father was unable to carry out his duties. Lines 6 and on would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar's behavior as described to Evilmerodach. Since Nebuchadnezzar later recovered (Dan. 4:36), the counsel of the king's courtiers to Evil-merodach may later have been considered "bad" (line 5), though at the time it seemed the best way out of a national crisis. Since Daniel records that Nebuchadnezzar was "driven from men" (Dan. 4:33) but later reinstated as king by his officials (verse 36), Evilmerodach, Nebuchadnezzar's eldest son, may have served as regent during his father's incapacity. Official records, however, show Nebuchadnezzar as king during his lifetime. Comment: Now, is this not the very same situation that we have found with regard to King Nabonidus’ acting strangely, and defying the prognosticators, whilst the rule at Babylon - though not the kingship - lay in the hands of his eldest son, Belshazzar?