We are familiar with the account given in Daniel 5 about Belshazzar and his great feast. He used the vessels that Nebuchadnezzar took from the temple in Jerusalem to drink wine. During this feast, the people "praised the gods" of gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone. As this was happening, a hand emerged to begin writing on the wall the famous inscription: "MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN." Only Daniel could explain this. Basically, it meant that the kingdom of Babylon was over. That night, Belshazzar was slain and the Medo-Persian empire took over.

The problem in archaeology was that Belshazzar’s name was for a long time not found anywhere outside of the book of Daniel. This led many to say that the whole story was just made up to encourage the Jews. They went on to claim that Daniel had no historical foundation at all. But then things changed.

In 1854 a British consul was exploring ancient ruins in southern Irag. He dug into the great tower built there and found several clay cylinders inscribed with Babylonian writing. Sir Henry Rawlinson, one of the ones who had deciphered the Babylonian cuneiform script, was able to read the inscriptions. These clay cylinders were, in fact, very significant.

The inscriptions were written at the time of Nabonidus, king of Babylon from 555-539 B.C. The cylinders commemorated the repairs that the king had made to the tower. They included a prayer for the long life of Nabonidus ... and his oldest son. This name of this son was clearly inscribed: Belshazzar. This proved that there was an important man at this time called Belshazzar; he was not just an imaginary character. The problem in relating this to Daniel, however, was that Belshazzar was only referred to as the crown-prince, not the king. Daniel clearly calls Belshazzar the king.

Other records indicate that Nabonidus was the last native king of Babylon, and that Belshazzar never completely came to the throne. Once again, skeptics concluded that Daniel made a historical blunder in calling Belshazzar the king (though it wasn’t as bad as they first thought). But there is more.

Remember what Belshazzar told Daniel if he could interpret the writing on the wall? "You will have authority as the third ruler in the kingdom." Why third? This points to the fact that Belshazzar himself was not the first ruler of the kingdom, but that he was in a secondary position. Belshazzar offered to Daniel only what he could offer: third position. Babylonian texts support this point. Nabonidus was eccentric, and for several years during his reign he did not live in Babylon, but in a distant oasis in northern Arabia called Teima. While he was gone, he entrusted the kingship to Belshazzar. Keep in mind that the book of Daniel was not an official document of Babylon, so it would be in order for him to be called "king," since he was acting as the king in his father’s place.

These old findings in archaeology show that Daniel was telling about a real man. These were no fables. And as one pointed out, "if he got these odd details right, perhaps we should listen to his message, too: God was in control. And even with kings, God knew the end from the beginning" (Alan Millard, Treasures from Bible Times, p. 140).

Doy Moyer