What are the views of theologians on Belshazzar?

Answer 1

Archaeology has now shown that Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar's grandson, in contrast to some who believe The Bible was wrong about Belshazzar: Google "Belshazzar " for more details.

Belshazzar was the last king of Babylon. Discovery of Babylonian banker records in an earthenware vessel confirmed that Belshazzar was indeed Nabonidus' son and a co-regent.

Theologically, there is no problem with the reference to Belshazzar as son since it was a common practice to give the term a wider mean than modern critics narrowly do. A person was often referred to as the 'son' of a much better known ancestor, and this is still practised in the East.

Theologians understand that 19th century skeptical views on Belshazzar are no longer credible due to the discoveries of archaeology, including ancient literature. Such discoveries clearly establish that:

1. Belshazzar began to reign as co-regent with his father Nabonidus, King of Babylon, in the third year of Nabonidus' reign.

2. The Babylonian document the Nabonaid Chronicle indicates that Nabonidus was away from Babylon in Tema in the 7th, 9th, 10th, and 11th years of his reign and thus Belshazzar reigned alone in Babylon during his absence.

3. This knowledge both supplements and confirms the accuracy of the bible record in the book of Daniel- including the fact that Belshazzar offered and then bestowed upon Daniel ther honor of being the ''third ruler in the kingdom.'' This was of course the highest honor he could bestow since Nabonidus was first and he was the second ruler. see Daniel 5:8,16,29.

4. Theologians resolve the issue of Cyrus and not Darius capturing Bablyon by the simple identification of the general Gobryas with the Darius and not Darius the Great. This Gobryas was appasrrently one the leading generals of Cyrus' army and might have been awarded ruling authority over the region of Babylon as his reward. there is thus no issue about a mis-identification, nor any possible suggestion that this occurred due to Daniel having been written later, rather the reverse is true.

5. Non-conservative Theologians may ignore the evidence of contemporaneity in Daniel and maintain an assertion of errors on the part of the author of Daniel due tio his being distant from the events. Both the Nabonaid Chronicle and the Dead Sea Scrolls point to an early date for Daniel and make this assertion much more difficult to maintain given the ''perfect fit'' with Babylonian history and semitic usage (described above) as it relates to Belshazzar.

Answer 2

Belshazzar is identified in the Book of Daniel (:5:1-2) as the son of Nebuchadrezzar and is called "king". However, Belshazzar was never a king, only a regent, and his father was Nabonidus, so he was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. This places some conservative theologians in a difficult position, and it is usually explained that the author of Daniel was really only using the word 'son' to mean descendant.

A greater problem is that Daniel 5:30-31 states that King Darius captured the kingdom from Belshazzar. In fact, the kingdom was captured by Cyrus the Great, a predecessor of Darius, and not from Belshazzar but instead from Nabonidus. There is no easy theological explanation for this error, other than to concede that the author of the Book of Daniel was not really certain regarding what by then was already ancient history.

Answer 3

Many theologians view Belshazzar as a historical figure mentioned in the Bible, specifically in the Book of Daniel. They interpret his story as a cautionary tale about the consequences of arrogance and disrespect toward God. Some scholars debate the historicity of Belshazzar, suggesting that he may have been a secondary ruler or a literary device to convey a moral lesson.