BELSHAZZAR (-iyNtv?;, Dan. v. x ; n4VN, vii. 1, BaX7-dcap), the last king of the Chaldees, under whose rule Babylon was taken by Cyrus, according to Daniel. The narrative of this event given by Daniel tallies in its main points with that given by profane historians (see Hengstem berg, Beitnige, p. 321 ff.) ; but there is an ap parent difference between them and Daniel as to the person during whose reign this took place. From the narrative of Daniel, taken by itself simply, it would appear as if Belshazzar was the immediate successor of Nebuchadnezzar on the throne of Babylon ; whereas profane histori ans make no mention of Belshazzar, and name several princes as occupying the throne between Nebuchadnezzar and the close of the Chaldean dynasty. Of these, two are elsewhere mentioned in Scripture, viz., Evil-merodach (2 Kings, xxv. 27 ; Jer. lii. 31) ; and Nergal-shar-ezer (Jer. xxxix. 3, 13), called Neriglissor, by Berosus ; Neriglissar, by Abyducus ; Nerigassolassar, by Ptolemy ; but properly Nergal-shar.uzur, as given by Rawlinson from the monuments. The other names mentioned by the historians are Labrosoarchad and Nabon nedus or Labynetus; the former of whom was slain when a mere child in a conspiracy. As Daniel does not profess to record the history of the Baby lonish empire, but only notices such facts as concern his nation and his prophecies, it is easy to reconcile his narrative with that of the others so far, by inter polating between the names of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar those of Evil-merodach (son of Nebu thadrtezzar), Nergal-shar-ezer, Labrosoarchad, and Nabonnedus (Nabu-nahit). The real difficulty emerges when we come to the last of these. Was Ile the same as Belshazzar? If not, then Daniel and the profane historians are entirely at variance in their statements, for while he says that Babylon was taken in Belshazzar's reign, they declare it was taken in that of Nabonnedus. But it is impossible to regard them as the same. The two names
have no affinity or resemblance, nor can the one be regarded as the Hebrew representative of the other. Besides, the historians not only make Nabonnedus the reigning monarch when Babylon was taken, but they declare that he was not himself at Babylon, but at Borsippa, when that event took place, and that he was not slain by the Persians. It is clear, therefore, that he cannot be identified with the Belshazzar of Daniel. Happily, the discovery of certain inscriptions by Col. Rawlinson in 1854 at Mugheir, the ancient Ur, has enabled him com pletely to reconcile these conflicting accounts. From these it appears that Nabonnedus associated with him on the throne, during the later years of his reign, his son Bil-shar-uzur, and allowed him the title of king. To effect a perfect agreement, then, between the sacred and the profane narra tives, we have only to suppose that this is the King Belshazzar of Daniel ; that he was at Babylon, and was slain there when the city was sacked by the Persians, while King Nahonnedus was shut up in Borsippa, and on the taking of his capital surren dered, and was suffered by the conqueror to live. There still remains, however, it is true, the diffi culty that Daniel calls Belshazzar the son of Nebu chadnezzar ; but this may be easily removed by supposing that, according to Hebrew usage, son stands here for grandson, in which relation Bel shazzar might stand to Nebuchadnezzar, through Nabonnedus having married the daughter of that king. As it would appear that Nabonnedus or Labynetus was an usurper (Megasthenes, ap. Euseb. Chron. Arm. p. 60), nothing is more probable than that he would seek to strengthen his position by a marriage with one of the princesses of the family whose honours he had usurped. (See Rev. George Rawlinson, Translation of Herodotus, i. 525 ; Bampon Lecture for 5839, p. i66, ff.)—W. L. A.