Chapter 5

1 Belshazzar’s impious feast. 5 A handwriting, unknown to the magicians, troubleth the king. 10 At the commendation of the queen Daniel is brought. 17 He, reproving the king of pride and idolatry, 25 readeth and interpreteth the writing. 30 The monarchy is translated to the Medes.

1. Belshazzar. The Babylonian name BeЖlРsharРus\ur means “Bel, protect the king!” Belshazzar was the first-born son of Nabonidus, the last king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. See Additional Note at the end of this chapter.

The king. When Nabonidus was in Lebanon recuperating from an illness, just before setting out on a campaign against Tema in western Arabia, he summoned his eldest son (Belshazzar), and “entrusted the kingship to him” (see Additional Note at end of this chapter). This was in “the third year.” If this was the third regnal year, it was in the winter of 553/552. Some scholars think it was in the third year after the completion of a temple at Haran; if so, Belshazzar’s appointment as coregent occurred two or three years later, but some time before Nabonidus’ seventh regnal year, in which Nabonidus was in Tema. From that time on Belshazzar controlled the affairs of Babylonia as his father’s coruler, while Nabonidus resided in Tema for many years. According to the “Verse Account of Nabonidus,” Belshazzar held the “kingship.” Daniel therefore made no mistake when he called Belshazzar “king,” though critics formerly declared that Daniel here erred.

A great feast. From vs. 28 and 30 it can be concluded that the feast took place during the night that Babylon fell to Cyrus’ forces. Xenophon preserved the tradition that at the time of Babylon’s fall “a certain festival had come round in Babylon, during which all Babylon was accustomed to drink and revel all night long” (Cyropaedia vii. 5. 15). It is inexplicable that Belshazzar should have made a feast immediately after the fall of Sippar, and only a few days after the lost battle at Opis (see Vol. III, p. 49). Apparently, he felt recklessly secure in his capital, protected by strong walls and a system of canals which could, in case of danger, put the surrounding country under water and so make it difficult for an invader to reach the city (see PK 523).

It is a well-known fact that it was common for ancient monarchs to give feasts for their courtiers. A stele discovered recently at Nimrud, the ancient Calah, makes mention of the fact that King Ashurnasirpal II made a great festival at the opening of a new palace. He is stated to have fed, wined, and housed 69,574 people for 10 days. The Greek historian Ctesias states that the Persian kings fed 15,000 people every day, and that Alexander the Great had 10,000 guests take part in his wedding feast. A similar feast is also described in Esther 1:3–12.

Before the thousand. That a certain emphasis is placed on the fact that Belshazzar drank before his guests, seems to indicate that the same court custom existed at Babylon as at the Persian court, where the king usually ate in a separate hall, and only on exceptional occasions, with his guests. The feast of Belshazzar seems to have been such an occasion. For a description of the hall in which the feast probably took place, see p. 798.

2. Tasted the wine. Some understand these words to imply that Belshazzar was drunk when he gave the order to bring in the sacred vessels from Jerusalem. Others explain the phrase to mean that this command was given after the meal, at the moment the wine began to circulate. They point to classical Greek statements which declare that the Persians had the custom of drinking wine after the meal. However, it was uncommon for an Oriental to desecrate holy objects of other religions; hence it would appear unnatural that Belshazzar would have given the order as long as he was in command of his reason (see PK 523).

Vessels. The Temple vessels had been carried away from Jerusalem on three occasions: (1) a portion of them at the time Nebuchadnezzar took captives from Jerusalem in 605 (Dan. 1:1, 2); (2) most of the remaining vessels of precious metal when King Jehoiachin went into captivity in 597 (2 Kings 24:12, 13); and (3) the rest of the metal objects, mostly of bronze, when the Temple was destroyed in 586 (2 Kings 25:13–17).

His father. It seems that Belshazzar was a grandson of the great king (see PK 522); his mother was probably a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar (see p. 806). The word “father” must be understood to mean “grandfather” or “ancestor,” as in many other passages of the Bible (see on 1 Chron. 2:7). For the descent of Belshazzar from Nebuchadnezzar, see Additional Note at the end of this chapter. Of itself, the expression “his father” could also be understood in the sense of “his predecessor.” An example of such usage is found in an Assyrian inscription which calls the Israelite king, Jehu, “a son of Omri,” although the two had no blood relationship whatsoever. Actually Jehu was the exterminator of the whole house of Omri (2 Kings 9; 10).

His wives, and his concubines. The two Aramaic words translated “wives” and “concubines” are synonyms, both meaning “concubines.” One may have represented a higher class than the other. It has been suggested that the one class of concubines may have consisted of women from respectable homes, or even the homes of nobility, and the other, women bought for money or captured in war. Although women took part in the banquet, as we learn from this passage, it appears that the “queen” was not found among the riotous drinkers. After the appearance of the handwriting on the wall she is described as entering the banqueting hall (v. 10). The LXX makes no reference to the participation of women in the sacrilegious rioting. Some think this is because, according to the custom of the Greeks, wives took no part in such festivals.

4. Praised the gods. The songs of the drunken heathen were in honor of their Babylonian gods, whose images adorned the various temples of the city.

5. Upon the plaister. If the large throne hall excavated by Koldewey in the Southern Palace of Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon (see p. 798) was the scene of this feast, it is not difficult to visualize what took place at the fateful moment described here. The hall was 56 by 171 ft. (17 by 52 m.). In the center of one of the long sides, opposite the entrance, was a niche, in which the throne may have stood. The walls were covered with white plaster made of fine plaster of Paris. We may imagine that the candlestick, or lampstand, was near the king’s seat. Lampstands with numerous oil lamps were in use at that time. Across the room from this lampstand the mysterious hand appeared and wrote on the plaster so that Belshazzar saw it. It is not explained whether the writing took the form of painted letters or was incised in the plaster.

Part of the hand. It is not stated how much of the hand was visible. The Aramaic pas, translated “part,” has sometimes been interpreted to mean “palm,” at other times to designate the hand proper below the wrist, as opposed to the lower part of the arm.

6. Were loosed. Compare Isa. 21:3. The terror was heightened by an accusing conscience, which roused itself and filled the king with dark forebodings. The gloom of his thoughts must have been deepened as he realized the mortal danger into which the empire had been thrown through past political blunders, his own immoral life and acts, the recent disastrous defeat of his army and the sacrilegious acts in which he was engaged. No wonder “his thoughts troubled him”!

7. Astrologers. See on ch. 1:20.

Chaldeans. See on ch. 1:4.

Soothsayers. See on ch. 2:27.

Scarlet. Aramaic Хargewan, better, “purple.” Ancient royal purple was deep purplish red in color, more nearly like crimson. That purple was the royal color of antiquity is attested by documentary evidence from the time of the Persians (Esther 8:15; Xenophon Anabasis i. 5. 8), the Medes (Xenophon Cyropaedia i. 3. 2; ii. 4. 6), and later periods. Daniel attests the existence of this custom for the Neo-Babylonian period, which preceded the Persian.

Chain of gold. The custom of honoring favorite public servants of the crown by the granting of gold chains, decorations, or collars existed in Egypt many centuries earlier (see on Gen. 41:42). The custom was common among ancient nations.

The third ruler. Prior to the time that Belshazzar’s place in the kingdom and his relationship to Nabonidus were fully understood (see Additional Note at the end of this chapter), commentators could only conjecture as to the identity of the second ruler in the kingdom. The existence of such a ruler was implied by the promise to make the reader of the mysterious script on the wall “the third ruler in the kingdom.” The queen mother, Belshazzar’s wife, or a son had all been suggested. It was, of course, thought that Belshazzar himself was the first ruler over the empire. Now that it is known that Belshazzar was only a coruler with his father, and hence the second ruler in the kingdom, it is clear why he could bestow no higher position in the realm than that of “third ruler.”

8. Then came in all. Some have seen a contradiction between this statement and the account of the preceding verse that records an address of the king to the wise men. The most natural explanation is that the king’s address recorded in v. 7 was spoken to the wise men who were already present at the banquet when the handwriting appeared on the wall. Verse 8 would then apply to “all the king’s wise men,” including those who came into the banquet hall in response to Belshazzar’s command.

They could not read. The reason is not stated, and any explanation that may be offered is only conjecture. The words were apparently in Aramaic (see on vs. 26–28). But the words were so few and so cryptic that even a knowledge of their individual meanings would not reveal the message concealed in them. Whether the king himself could not read because of excessive use of wine, or whether the letters themselves were indistinguishable because of their dazzling brilliance (see EGW, Supplementary Material, on vs. 5–9), or whether the script was singular, decipherable only by divine illumination, is not stated. The conjecture that the characters were in the ancient Hebrew script and consequently illegible to the Babylonians does not appear plausible. It is extremely unlikely that the wise men of Babylon should not have known these old Semitic characters, which had been used not only by the Hebrews but also by the Phoenicians and other peoples of Western Asia.

10. The queen. From the time of Josephus (Antiquities x. 11. 2) commentators have usually taken this “queen” to be the king’s mother or grandmother (see PK 527). According to Oriental custom none but a ruling monarch’s mother would dare to enter the presence of the king without being summoned. Even the wife of a king endangered her life by so doing (see Esther 4:11, 16). Babylonian cuneiform letters written by kings to their mothers show a remarkably respectful tone and clearly reveal the exalted position in which royal mothers were held by their sons. This high position of a queen mother can also be deduced from the fact that when, in 547, Nabonidus’ mother, Belshazzar’s grandmother, died at Dur KaraЖshu on the Euphrates above Sippar, there was an extensive official court mourning. The fact of her death prior to the events of this chapter was unknown to commentators who identified the “queen” as Belshazzar’s grandmother.

O king, live for ever. For this common salutation see on ch. 2:4.

11. There is a man. It need not be thought strange that Daniel was not among the group of wise men summoned by the king. His term of public service had doubtless closed some time before, perhaps with Nebuchadnezzar’s death or earlier (see p. 746). Yet he would be well known to a representative of the earlier generation, to which the king’s mother belonged. On the possible reasons for his retirement see on v. 13.

Spirit of the holy gods. Compare Nebuchadnezzar’s statement (chs. 4:8, 9). The similarity supports the probability, suggested also by other evidence, that the queen was a close relative, probably a daughter, of Nebuchadnezzar (see p. 806). The information she imparts concerning Daniel’s distinguished service in the past and concerning the prophet’s elevated position under Nebuchadnezzar is apparently new to Belshazzar. This suggests that Daniel had not held office for some time prior to the event narrated here. Hence probably few men, if any, in the king’s entourage, who had grown up with him, were well acquainted with Daniel.

Nebuchadnezzar thy father. See on v. 2.

Magicians. See on ch. 1:20; cf. ch. 2:2, 27.

12. Doubts. Aramaic qit\rin, literally, “knots.” The word was later used as a magical term in Syria and Arabia. Here the meaning seems to be “difficult tasks,” or “problems” (RSV).

13. Art thou that Daniel? This clause may also be translated, “You are that Daniel” (RSV). If this is the correct rendering, the salutation suggests that Belshazzar was acquainted with Daniel’s origin, but that he had had no official intercourse with him. This much seems clear, Daniel was no longer the president of the magicians at the king’s court (ch. 2:48, 49).

It seems that with the passing of Nebuchadnezzar, the policy for which Daniel had stood had come into disfavor at the court of Babylon, and that, as a result, he was retired from public service. Belshazzar and his predecessors evidently knew all about God’s dealings with Nebuchadnezzar (ch. 5:22), but had deliberately rejected the latter’s policy of acknowledging the true God and cooperating with His will (chs. 4:28–37; 5:23). The fact that Daniel later entered the service of Persia (ch. 6:1–3) implies that his retirement during the closing years of the Babylonian Empire was not due to ill-health or old age. His bitter censure of Belshazzar (ch. 5:22, 23) is evidence of the king’s hostility toward the principles and state policy that Daniel represented. Daniel’s disapproval of official Babylonian policy may have been one of the factors that led the first rulers of the Persian Empire to favor him.

14. Spirit of the gods. In contrast with the words of the queen (v. 11) and of Nebuchadnezzar (ch. 4:8), Belshazzar omits the adjective “holy” in connection with “gods.”

17. To thyself. Some have thought that, as a divinely enlightened seer, Daniel declined the distinction and the place of honor promised the interpreter in order to avoid every appearance of self-interest in the presence of such a king. This may be true. It is also possible that Daniel, knowing that Belshazzar’s reign was about to end, had no interest in receiving any favors from the man who that very night had, by acts and words, blasphemed the God of heaven and earth. That even now. in his old age, Daniel was not in principle opposed to accepting a high government position can be demonstrated from the fact that a short time later he was once more in high office (ch. 6:21). The office was doubtless accepted because Daniel felt that he could exercise a wholesome influence upon the king and be an instrument in the hand of God to bring about the release of his people from exile. But perhaps Daniel felt that to accept any honors or dignities from Belshazzar not only was useless but could even be harmful and dangerous.

Nebuchadnezzar. Before Daniel read and interpreted the writing he reminded the king of what Nebuchadnezzar had experienced as a result of his refusal to fulfill the divine destiny with regard to himself and his nation. Besides, Nebuchadnezzar had been mightier and more prudent than the wretched Belshazzar. The prophet showed Belshazzar how he, the (grand)son, had acted wickedly toward God, the Lord of his life, and had learned nothing from the experience of Nebuchadnezzar.

24. Then. A reference to the recent moment when, in drunken revelry, Belshazzar had praised his gods and drunk wine out of the consecrated vessels from the Temple of Jerusalem, as described in v. 23.

Part of the hand. See on v. 5.

This writing. The inscription was still visible upon the wall.

25. This is the writing. Daniel proceeds to read the words written on the wall, apparently four words in Aramaic. It is futile to speculate concerning the nature of this script and its relationship to any other known script (see on v. 8). But, even after the words had been read, they could not be understood except by divine illumination. A whole truth was expressed in each key word; hence the need for an interpretation.

26. Mene. The Aramaic meneХ is a passive participle of the verb “to number,” or “to count,” and, if taken alone, simply means “numbered,” or “counted.” By divine illumination Daniel drew from this word the interpretation, “God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.”

27. Tekel. The Jewish scholars called Masoretes, who somewhere between the 7th and 9th centuries of the Christian Era added vowel signs to the Bible manuscripts (see Vol. I, pp. 34, 35), pointed the Aramaic word teqel as a noun. Like meneХ (see on v. 26), it should obviously be pointed as a passive participle (teqil). The form teqel was probably chosen by the Masoretes on account of its greater similarity of sound with meneХ.Teqil comes from the verb “to weigh.” Daniel at once informed the king as to the import of this divine weighing. Belshazzar was found lacking in moral worth.

Found wanting. These fearful words of doom, addressed to the profligate king of Babylon, condemn all who, like Belshazzar, neglect their God-given opportunities. In the investigative judgment now in progress (see on ch. 7:10) men are weighed in the balances of the sanctuary to see whether their moral character and spiritual state correspond with the benefits and blessings God has conferred upon them. There is no appeal from the decisions of that court. In view of the solemnity of the hour, all must watch lest the decisive moment that forever fixes every man’s destiny finds them unprepared and “wanting.” Compare 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 22:11, 12.

28. Peres. This word is not a passive participle like the two words meneХ and teqil, although the vocalization indicates that the Masoretes considered it a verb form. It is a noun, here singular in form. The plural form appeared on the inscription (v. 25). There it is also connected to the preceding words by the conjunction we, “and.” The we appears as u in the word upharsin. This accounts for the difference between upharsin and peres. Peres means “share,” or “portion,” and if the plural form upharsin (v. 25) is adopted, may be translated, “pieces.” Daniel’s interpretation, “Thy kingdom is divided,” could also be rendered, “Thy kingdom is broken into pieces.” The emphasis is not necessarily that the kingdom was to be divided into two equal parts, the one part given to the Medes and the other to the Persians. The kingdom was to be divided into pieces, destroyed, and dissolved. This was to be effected by the Medes and the Persians. Significantly, the Aramaic form peres contains the consonants of the Aramaic words (see Vol. I, pp. 25, 26) for Persia and Persians, who were even then at the gates of Babylon.

29. Then commanded Belshazzar. The king fulfilled the promise he had made to Daniel, although Daniel clearly indicated that he was not interested in the proffered honors. Because of Belshazzar’s drunken condition it may not have been possible to deter him from his course. Some have objected that the dignity of being third ruler was not possible, because, according to v. 30, Belshazzar was slain that very night. The objection is based on the supposition that the proclamation was publicly made in the streets of the city. But the words do not necessitate such a supposition. The proclamation may have been made only before the notables assembled in the palace. It could not become effective because of succeeding events.

30. In that night. Although Belshazzar is not mentioned in the cuneiform sources describing the fall of Babylon, Xenophon declares that “the impious king” of Babylon, whose name is not mentioned in the account, was slain when Cyrus’ army commander Gobryas entered the palace (Cyropaedia vii. 5. 30). Although it must be recognized that Xenophon’s narrative is not historically reliable in all details, many of his statements are based on fact. According to cuneiform sources Nabonidus was absent from Babylon at the time of its capture. When Nabonidus surrendered, Cyrus sent him to distant Carmania. Therefore the king who was slain during the capture of Babylon could have been none other than Belshazzar. For a summary of the history of Belshazzar see Additional Note at the end of this chapter.

31. Darius the Median. The ruler mentioned in this verse and throughout the 6th chapter is still an obscure figure as far as secular history is concerned. The Additional Note at the end of ch. 6 presents a brief survey of the various identifications proposed by commentators, as well as a possible solution of the various historical problems involved.

The conjunction “and,” with which the verse begins, shows that the author of the book closely connected the death of Belshazzar, recorded in the preceding verse, with the accession of “Darius the Median” to the throne. In the printed editions of the Hebrew Bible this verse is counted as the first verse of ch. 6. However, most modern versions, following the LXX, connect v. 31 with ch. 5. This is preferable.

There is no difference between the spelling of the name of the Darius mentioned here and that of “Darius [I] king of Pesia” in Ezra 4:24 (see comments there) and elsewhere, in Aramaic and Hebrew as in English.

Threescore and two years. Darius’ advanced age was probably responsible for the brevity of his reign. The book of Daniel mentions only the first regnal year of Darius (chs. 9:1, 2; 11:1). The king’s death occurred “within about two years of the fall of Babylon” (PK 556).

additional note on chapter 5

One of the great puzzles to Bible commentators through the centuries has been the identity of Belshazzar. Until fairly recently no reference in ancient records to such a king had been discovered. The name Belshazzar was known only from the book of Daniel and from works that borrowed the name from Daniel—as, for example, the Apocryphal Baruch and Josephus’ writings. Many attempts were made to harmonize secular history with the Biblical records. The difficulty was accentuated by the fact that several ancient sources gave lists of the kings of Babylon to the end of the history of that nation, all of which mentioned Nabonidus, in different spellings, as the last king before Cyrus, who was the first king of Persia. Since Cyrus conquered Babylon and succeeded its last Babylonian king, there seemed to be no place for Belshazzar in the royal line. The book of Daniel, on the other hand, puts the events immediately preceding the fall of Babylon in the reign of Belshazzar, a “son” of Nebuchadnezzar (see on ch. 5:2), who lost his life during the night of the conquest of Babylon by the invading Medes and Persians (ch. 5:30).

Of the numerous interpretations formerly set forth to explain the apparent discrepancies between the Biblical records and other ancient sources the following are listed (according to Raymond P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, pp. 13, 14):

Belshazzar was (1) another name of Nebuchadnezzar’s son known as Evil-Merodach, (2) a brother of Evil-Merodach, (3) a son of Evil-Merodach, hence Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson, (4) another name for Nergal-shar-usur, Nebuchadnezzar’s son-in-law, (5) another name for Labashi-Marduk, Nergal-shar-usur’s son, (6) another name for Nabonidus, and (7) the son of Nabonidus and a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar.

According to another view, held by the majority of critical scholars prior to the discovery of Belshazzar’s name in cuneiform sources toward the close of the 19th century, the name Belshazzar was an invention of the writer of Daniel, who, these critics assert, lived in the time of the Maccabees in the 2d century b.c.

This list of divergent views demonstrates the nature and extent of the historical problems confronting interpreters of the book of Daniel, one that seems to abound in more problems than any other OT book of its size. That the identity and office of Belshazzar have now been fully established from contemporary sources, thus vindicating the reliability of ch. 5, is one of the great triumphs of Biblical archeology of the last century. The extreme importance of this achievement calls for a brief review of the subject.

In 1861 H. F. Talbot published certain texts found in the Moon Temple at Ur, in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (vol. 19, p. 195). The texts contained a prayer of Nabonidus pronounced in favor of BelРsharРus\ur, his eldest son. Several writers, among them George Rawlinson, brother of the famous decipherer of the cuneiform script, identified this BelРsharРus\ur with the Biblical Belshazzar. Others rejected this identification, among them Talbot himself, who, in 1875, listed his arguments with a new translation of the text mentioning Belshazzar (Records of the Past, vol. 5, pp. 143–148). Seven years later (1882) Theophilus G. Pinches published a text brought to light in the preceding year, which is now called the Nabonidus Chronicle. This text describes the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, and states also that Nabonidus stayed in Tema for several years while his son was in Babylonia. Although at the time Pinches did not completely understand the text, and incorrectly identified Tema, which lies in western Arabia, he made several accurate deductions concerning Belshazzar. He observed, for example, that Belshazzar “seems to have been commander-in-chief of the army, probably had greater influence in the kingdom than his father, and so was regarded as king” (Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, vol. 7 [1882], p. 150).

In the succeeding years more texts were discovered that shed light on the various functions and important positions that Belshazzar, Nabonidus’ son, held before and during his father’s reign. However, none of these texts called Belshazzar king as the Bible does. Nevertheless a number of scholars, on the basis of the accumulating evidence, suggested the view—later proved to be correct—that the two men may have been coregents. In 1916 Pinches published a text in which Nabonidus and Belshazzar were jointly invoked in an oath. He claimed that texts like this indicated that Bleshazzar’ must have held a “regal [viceregal] position,” although he stated that “we have yet to learn what was Belshazzar’s exact position in Babylonia” (Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, vol. 38 [1916], p. 30).

Confirmation of the conclusion that a coregency between Nabonidus and Belshazzar had existed finally came in 1924, when Sidney Smith published the so-called “Verse Account of Nabonidus” of the British Museum, in which the clear statement is made that Nabonidus “entrusted the kingship” to his eldest son (Babylonian Historical Texts [London, 1924], p. 88; see translation by Oppenheim in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ed. by Pritchard [Princeton, 1950], p. 313). This text, which settled all doubts about a kingship for Belshazzar, was a severe blow to scholars of the higher-critical schools who claimed that Daniel was a product of the 2d century b.c. Their dilemma is reflected in the words of R. H. Pfeiffer of Harvard University, who states:

“We shall presumably never know how our author learned … that Belshazzar, mentioned only in Babylonian records, in Daniel, and in Bar. 1:11, which is based on Daniel, was functioning as king when Cyrus took Babylon”

(Introduction to the Old Testament [New York, 1941], pp. 758, 759).

The discovery of so many cuneiform texts that shed light on the reign of Nabonidus and Belshazzar led Raymond P. Dougherty of Yale University to collect all source material, cuneiform and classical, in one monograph, which appeared in 1929 under the title Nabonidus and Belshazzar (New Haven, 1929, 216 pp.).

Cuneiform inscriptions indicate that Nabonidus was the son of the prince of Haran, NabuЖРbalaЖt\suРiqbi, and of the priestess of the Moon Temple at Haran. After the Medes and Babylonians captured Haran in 610b.c. the mother of Nabonidus was possibly taken as a distinguished prisoner to Nebuchadnezzar’s harem, so that Nabonidus grew up in the court under the eyes of the great king. He was most likely the “Labynetus” of Herodotus (i. 74), who acted as peace mediator between the Lydians and Persians in 585 b.c. This appears evident from the following observations: Herodotus calls the king of Babylon who reigned at the time of the fall of Sardis, in 546, Labynetus (i. 77). Later he identifies the father of the ruler of Babylon at the time of its fall in 539 by the same name (i. 188). We know that Nabonidus was king of Babylon in 546, also that he was Belshazzar’s father. That, in 585, Nabonidus was chosen to act as diplomatic representative of Nebuchadnezzar was a high honor, and shows that the young man must have been a favorite of the king at that time. It is possible, as Dougherty thinks, that his wife Nitocris, whom Herodotus describes as a wise woman (i. 185, 188), was a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar by an Egyptian princess.

However, the family relationship between Belshazzar, Nabonidus’ son, and Nebuchadnezzar is not yet definitely established from contemporary records.

For lack of more complete information it is impossible at present to determine precisely how the repeated statements of ch. 5, that Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar’s father, are to be understood. As far as Biblical usage is concerned “father” may mean also “grandfather” or “ancestor” (see on 1 Chron. 2:7). Three interpretations have been offered: (1) Nabonidus was a son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar, and Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson through his mother. (2) Nabonidus was called son because his mother belonged to Nebuchadnezzar’s harem and was therefore his stepson. (3) Belshazzar was son only in the sense of the analogous case of Jehu, king of Israel, whom the Assyrian contemporary inscriptions call the “son of Omri.” Jehu was not related by blood to the house of Omri, but Jehu extinguished the dynasty that Omri had founded and became the next king of Israel.

Cuneiform records have thrown an abundant stream of light on Belshazzar, his office and activities during the years he was coregent with his father. After conferring the kingship upon Belshazzar in 553/552 b.c., or shortly thereafter (see on ch. 5:1), Nabonidus conducted a successful expedition against the Arabian Tema, and made it his residence for many years. During this time Belshazzar was the acting king in Babylon and functioned as commander in chief of the army. Although legal documents continued to be dated according to the regnal years of Nabonidus, the fact that the names of both father and son were pronounced together in oaths, whereas under other kings’ reigns only one name was used, clearly reveals the dual rulership of Nabonidus and Belshazzar.

Information from the secular sources, briefly sketched above, has, in a positive way, vindicated the historical accuracy of ch. 5. At the conclusion of his monograph on Belshazzar and Nabonidus, Dougherty has forcefully expressed this conviction:

“Of all non-Babylonian records dealing with the situation at the close of the Neo-Babylonian empire the fifth chapter of Daniel ranks next to cuneiform literature in accuracy so far as outstanding events are concerned. The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling because it employs the name Belshazzar, because it attributes royal power to Belshazzar, and because it recognizes that a dual rulership existed in the kingdom. Babylonian cuneiform documents of the sixth century b.c. furnish clear-cut evidence of the correctness of these three basic historical nuclei contained in the Biblical narrative dealing with the fall of Babylon. Cuneiform texts written under Persian influence in the sixth century b.c. have not preserved the name Belshazzar, but his role as a crown prince entrusted with royal power during Nabonidus’ stay in Arabia is depicted convincingly. Two famous Greek historians of the fifth and fourth centuries b.c. do not mention Belshazzar by name and hint only vaguely at the actual political situation which existed in the time of Nabonidus. Annals in the Greek language ranging from about the beginning of the third century b.c. to the first century b.c. are absolutely silent concerning Belshazzar and the prominence which he had during the last reign of the Neo-Babylonian empire. The total information found in all available chronologically-fixed documents later than the cuneiform texts of the sixth century b.c. and prior to the writings of Josephus of the first century a.d. could not have provided the necessary material for the historical framework of the fifth chapter of Daniel”

(op cit., pp. 199, 200).

Ellen G. White comments

1–31PK 522–538; TM 434–436

1, 2 PK 523

3–5PK 524

4 COL 259

6 TM 436

6–8PK 527

10–16PK 528

17–24PK 529

23, 24 MM 151; 5T 244

24–284T 14

25–29PK 530

25 TM 436

27 CG 155, 569; COL 267; CS 142; CT 348; EW 37, 246; FE 228, 468; GC 491; LS 117; MM 151, 164, 195; MYP 229; PK 219; TM 237, 286, 440, 450; 1T 126, 152, 260, 263, 317, 406; 2T 43, 54, 58, 83, 266, 409, 439, 452; 3T 185, 370, 522, 538; 4T 311, 339, 385, 386, 470; 5T 83, 116, 154, 279, 397, 411, 420, 435; 6T 230, 405; 7T 120; 8T 14, 247

27–31Te 49

30 COL 259; PK 531