Page:Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 2.pdf/718

668 Belshazzar

the king himself. Belshazzar, overcome by sickness, left the palace unobserved during the night through a rear exit. On his return the doorkeepers refused In vain did he plead that he was the to admit him. They said, " Has not the king ordered us to king. put to death any one who attempts to enter the palace, though he claim to be the king himself V" Suiting the action to the word, Cyrus and Darius grasped a heavy ornament forming part of a candelabrum, and with it shattered the skull of their See Daniel, and royal master (Cant. R. iii. 4).

Nebuchadnezzar in Rabbinical Literature, j.

H. M.

sr.

S.

Critical View The name " Belshazzar " was previously held to have been invented by the author of the Book of Daniel, which has long been recognized as a Maccabean production (see Daniel). Since the discovery and decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions, however, " Belshazzar " is now generally admitted to be the Hebrew-Aramaic equivalent of the Babylonian form "Belsharusur" (Bel preserve the king), which has been found in the cuneiform documents as the name of the eldest son of Nabonidus (Nabuna'id), the last native king of Babylon (555538 B.C.). The most important allusions to Belsharusur in Babylonian literature are clearly those in the two inscriptions of Ur (Nabonidus) (see Prince, "Daniel," p. 36), and in the so-called "Annals of

Nabonidus

Mene), which is the chief document Babylon at the hands of the Persians. In the Ur records Nabonidus prays that his son may live long and piously, although it is not stated why special mention should be made

" (see

relating to the fall of

The Name "Belshazzar."

of the prince here.

It

may



the king, who was noted for his strictness in religious matters, may have attached some special importance to the cult of the moon-god practised in Ur. The petition that the king's son may not incline to sin may also imply that Belshazzar had in some way offended the religious classes, who, as is well known, supervised the preparation of the inscriptions. The allusion to the prince in the " Annals of Nabonidus " shows plainly that lie remained with the army in northern Babylonia, most probably in the capacity of commander-in-chief, while his father was living in Tema apparently free from the cares of government and applying himself to his favorite study of religious archeology. In the " Annals " the name " Belsharusur " does not occur, the reference being merely to the son of the king but there can be no doubt that the first-born is meant. The references in the contract literature to Belshazzar throw no further historical light on his career (see Prince, ib. pp. 263, 264). That the name was not an unusual one is seen from the fact that certainly two other persons are called by it in the Contrast Babylonian inscriptions (Prince, ib., with. pp. 11, 29, 35).

The following important

except possibly as coregent with his father; while the latter is distinctly called the last king and the son of Nebuchadnezzar, both of which statements are undoubtedly made in perfectly good faith by the author of Daniel. It can not be shown that the Belshazzar of Daniel was intended, as some scholars have supposed, for

Evil-merodach, son of Nebuchadnezzar, and was used by the Biblical author as a secondary name. Had the author meant this, he would never have made Daniel declare to the Babylonian monarch that his kingdom was about to pass to the Medes and The prophecy was evidently intended for Persians. the last king, as there would have been no point in such a warning delivered a generation before its fulBesides this, had the author regarded his filment. Belshazzar as Evil-merodach, he would have deliberately passed over in silence the reigns of several Babylonian kings between the death of Evil-merodach and the foreign supremacy. This will appear plainly from an examination of the list of the last kings of Babylon: Nebuchadnezzar, 604-561; AmeWIarduk (Evil-merodach), 561-559 Nergalsharusur (Neriglissar), 559-555; Labashi-Marduk, 555, reigned only nine months Nabonidus, 555-538 CyThere can be no doubt rus captures Babylon, 538. then that the author of Daniel regarded Belshazzar as the last native king of Babylon. While it is historically possible that Belsharusur may have been coregent, it is clear that the writer of Daniel could not have thought this, as he would hardly have given him the unqualified title " king compare of Babylon " without further elucidation chap, viii., where there is no mention of any over;



differences

between Belsharusur and the Belshazzar of Daniel are patent. The former was the son of the last king of Babylon, but never reigned,





ruler.

be conjec-

tured, with Tiele ("Gesch. Assyriens," p. 463), that Belshazzar was governor of Ur or it is possible that

History.

668

THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

Bemidbar Eabbah

of

Finally, the statement that Belshazzar was the son Nebuchadnezzar shows conclusively that the his-

torical data of the Biblical is

author were at

impossible

fault.

also to reconcile

It

this

assertion with the facts by supposing Illustrations from that " son " here is to be translated Cuneiform "descendant" or "grandson" (so Pu-

Documents.

"Daniel," p. 346), which is of permissible. course grammatically sey,

in which Nebureferred to in chap. v. shows conclusively that the author could have had no knowledge of the intervening kings, but that he really considered Nebuchadnezzar to be the actual father of Belshazzar. The narrative of the fifth chapter follows

The way, however,

chadnezzar

is

on the chapters about Nebuchadnezzar, and begins with the statement that Belshazzar was the son of that king; and, furthermore, the remark of Belshazzar in verse 13, "Art thou that Daniel directly

.

whom

.

my

father brought from Jewry?" would have had no force if the king were referring to an ancestor. Had such been the author's meaning, the name " Nebuchadnezzar " would certainly have been repeated in order to show to which " father the king was alluding. In addition to all this, there

the king

no evidence that Belsharusur was in any way related to Nebuchadnezzar. Nabonidus, his father, is

was the son of. a nobleman, Nabu-balatsu-ikbl, and was probably a usurper against the older house of Nebuchadnezzar. There is nothing to show that he was connected by blood or marriage with any of the