Baltasar

On comparing the inscriptions with the other accounts we find that they substantially agree with the statement by Berosus, but that they considerably differ from what is recorded by Herodotus, Xenophon, and in the Book of Daniel. (1) The inscriptions do not mention the siege of Babylon recorded by Herodotus and Xenophon. Cyrus says Gobryas his general took the town "without fighting". (2) Nabonidus (555-538 B.C.), and not Baltasar, as is stated in Daniel, was the last King of Babylon. Baltasar, or Bel-sarra-usur, was the son of Nabonidus. Nor was Nabonidus or Baltasar a son or descendant of Nabuchodonosor. Nabonidus was the son of Nebo-baladhsu-ik-bi, and was a usurper of the throne. The family of Nabuchodonosor had come to an end in the person of Evil-Merodach, who had been murdered by Nergal-sharezer, his sister's husband. The controversy occasioned by these differences between the conservative and modern schools of thought has not yet reached a conclusion. Scholars of the former school still maintain the historical accuracy of the Book of Daniel, and explain the alleged discrepancies with great ingenuity. They assume that Baltasar had been associated with his father in the government, and that as prince-regent, or co-regent, he could be described in authority and rank as king. For this conjecture they seek support in the promise of Baltasar to make Daniel "third ruler" (Douay Version, "third prince") in the kingdom, from which they infer that he himself was the second. Professor R. D. Wilson, of Princeton, claims that the bearing of the title "King" by Baltasar was in harmony with the usage of the time (Princeton Theol. Rev., 1904, April, July; 1905, January, April). The other discrepancy, namely, that Nabuchodonosor is called the father of Baltasar (Daniel 5:2, 11, 18) they account for either by taking the word "father" in the wider sense of predecessor, or by the conjecture that Baltasar was his descendant on the mother's side.

On the other hand, the school of critics declines to accept these explanations. They argue that Baltasar not less than Nabuchodonosor appears in Daniel as sole and supreme ruler of the State. While fully admitting the possibility that Baltasar acted as prince-regent, they can find no proof for this either in the classical authors or in the inscriptions. The inference drawn from the promise of Baltasar to raise Daniel to the rank of a "third ruler" in the kingdom they regard as doubtful and uncertain. The Hebrew phrase may be rendered "ruler of a third part of the kingdom". Thus the phrase would be parallel to the Greek term "tetrarch", i.e. ruler of a fourth part, or of a small portion of territory. For this rendering they have the authority of the Septuagint, Josephus, and, as Dr. Adler informs us, of Jewish commentators of repute (see Daniel in the Critics' Den, p. 26). Furthermore, they argue that the emphatic way in which Nabuchodonosor is designated as father of the king leads the reader to infer that the writer meant his words to be understood in the literal and obvious sense. Thus the queen, addressing Baltasar, thrice repeats the designation "the king thy father", meaning Nabuchodonosor: "And in the days of thy father light, knowledge and wisdom were found in him [Daniel]: for King Nabuchodonosor thy father appointed him prince of the wise men, enchanters, Chaldeans, soothsayers, thy father, O King."