← Research & Evidence
Contested claim
Was Belshazzar a real Babylonian ruler?
SupportedAs a historical co-regent. The remaining nuances (his father; his title) are stated openly, not hidden.
Daniel 5
The claim
Belshazzar, named in Daniel 5, was a real figure exercising royal authority in Babylon.
Evidence presented
Once dismissed as an error (unknown outside the Bible), Belshazzar is now attested in cuneiform: the Nabonidus Cylinder (his father Nabonidus’s inscription naming him), the Nabonidus Chronicle, and the Verse Account of Nabonidus.
Alternative explanation
The evidence shows he was son of Nabonidus (not Nebuchadnezzar, whom Daniel calls his “father” — read as predecessor/ancestor) and functioned as co-regent while Nabonidus was at Tema; he was never formally titled “king.”
Peer-review status
Supported by primary cuneiform sources and standard scholarship.
Archaeological status
A genuine case where later evidence confirmed a once-doubted biblical name — down to the odd detail of the “third” place in the kingdom (Nabonidus first, Belshazzar second).
Sources & further reading
- Nabonidus Chronicle (ABC 7) — cuneiform chronicle, English translation primary ancient text (translation)
- Verse Account of Nabonidus — cuneiform text, English translation (ANET) primary ancient text (translation)
- W. H. Shea, “Nabonidus, Belshazzar, and the Book of Daniel: An Update,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 20/2 (1982): 133–149 peer-reviewed article (confessional journal)
- Belshazzar — background overview tertiary reference
This verdict is about the specific historical or scientific claim — not a judgment about faith or the meaning of the text.
← Research & Evidence