Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Daniel

[Cryptographer]

Why is Daniel's account of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar Belshazzar historically inaccurate?

Nebuchadnezzar was never mad. Belshazzar, whom he says was king, was never king, but only regent. Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, but of Nabo-nidus.

[jimwalton]

> Nebuchadnezzar was never mad.

In 1975 A. K. Grayson published a fragment of a tablet in which the king becomes extremely disoriented. His orders are contradictory, and he does not even heed the mention of his name. He does not show concern for son or daughter and ceases his care for worship centers. Even his own life is of no value to him. The text is not certain, but the Daniel account could possibly be true.

> Belshazzar, whom he says was king, was never king, but only regent.

Belshazzar was a co-regent with his father, Nabonidus, when Nab set up his royal residency in Teima in 552 BC. We don't exactly when Belshazzar assumed that role because the records are incomplete. The Nabonidus chronicle does make a note of Belshazzar's coregency in 549, making his title "king" an acceptable title (just as Herod was never truly king of Palestine and yet he was referred to with that title) since Belshazzar was carrying out royal duties. Belshazzar was the ruler of Babylon in c. 539-536.

> Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, but of Nabo-nidus.

It's very common in ancient times to name a descendant to a famous ancestor, as Jesus is called "the son of David".