How To Pronounce Belshazzar In The Bible

BELSHAZZAR.

Past: Morris Jastrow, Jr., Ira Maurice Price, Marcus Jastrow, H. M. Speaker

Table of Contents

—Biblical Information:
Belshazzar's Festival.
—In Rabbinical Literature:
The Name "Belshazzar."
—Critical View:
Contrast with History.
Illustrations from Cuneiform Documents.
Aim of Daniel v.

—Biblical Data:

King of Babylon mentioned in Dan. v. and 8. as the son of Nebuchadnezzar and as the final king before the advent of the Medes and Persians. The Greek form Βαλτάζαρ is used both for the Hebrew "Belshasar," or less accurately, (ib. vii. 1), and for "Belteshazzar" (, Dan. i. 7). The name appears too in Baruch i. 11 every bit "Balthasar" (R. V. "Baltasar"). There can exist no doubt, still, that the allusions to this personage in Baruch and elsewhere in extracanonical literature are all based on the data given by Dan. v. and viii.

Belshazzar's Festival.

It is stated in Dan. v. that Belshazzar gave a banquet to the lords and ladies of his court, at which the sacred vessels of the Jerusalem Temple, which had been brought to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar at the time of the Judean captivity in 586 B.C., were profaned by the ribald company. In issue of this, during the turmoil of the festivities, a hand was seen writing on the wall of the chamber a mysterious sentence which defied all attempts at estimation until the Hebrew sage Daniel was called in. He read and translated the unknown words, which proved to be a divine menace against the dissolute Belshazzar, whose kingdom was to exist divided between the Medes and Persians. In the concluding poetry we are told that Belshazzar was slain in that same nighttime, and that his ability passed to Darius the Mede.

J. Jr. I. M. P.

—In Rabbinical Literature:

The chronology of the three Babylonian kings is given in the Talmud every bit follows: Nebuchadnezzar reigned forty-5 years, Evil-merodach twenty-iii, and Belshazzar was monarch of Babylonia for two years, being killed at the beginning of the third yr on the fatal nighttime of the autumn of Babylon (Meg. xib).

The references in the Talmud and the Midrash to Belshazzar all emphasize his tyrannous oppression of his Jewish subjects. Several passages in the Prophets are interpreted every bit though referring to him and his predecessors. In the passage, "Equally if a man did abscond from a king of beasts, and a bear met him" (Amos 5. 19), the panthera leo represents Nebuchadnezzar, and the bear, equally ferocious if non equally courageous, is Belshazzar (Esther R., Introduction). The three Babylonian kings are often mentioned together as forming a succession of impious and tyrannous monarchs who oppressed State of israel and were therefore foredoomed to disgrace and devastation. The poesy in Isa. xiv. 22, "And I will rise upwardly against them, saith the Lord of hosts, and cutting off from Babylon name and remnant and son and grandchild, saith the Lord," is practical to the trio. "Name" refers to Nebuchadnezzar, "remnant" to Evil-merodach, "son" is Belshazzar, and "grandchild" Vashti (ib.). The control given to Abraham to cut in pieces three heifers as a part of the covenant established between him and his God, is thus elucidated, "And he said unto him, take unto me three heifers" (Gen. xv. nine [A. Five. "a heifer of three years old"]). This symbolizes Babylonia, which gave rise to three kings, Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach, and Belshazzar, whose doom is prefigured by this act of "cutting to pieces" (Gen. R. xliv.).

Belshazzar's feast, in the grade of which the sacred vessels of the Temple in Jerusalem were put to sacrilegious use (Dan. v.), is traced by the Rabbis to his miscalculation in chronology. He well knew that the period of Jewish exile in Babylonia, according to Jeremiah's prophecy, was non to exceed seventy years (Jer. xxix. ten). Belshazzar'south starting-indicate was the accretion of Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned twoscore-five years. To this he added the reign of Evil-merodach, which, according to tradition, continued for twenty-three years, and his own reign of two years, making in all seventy. "Jeremiah must be incorrect," argued Belshazzar, "for the limit has been reached, and since the Jews have not all the same returned to their land, they probably volition not return any more than." Emboldened past this erroneous adding, he made impious use of the sacred vessels at the imperial banquet, where the sound of carousal mingled with hymns to the heathen gods. The miraculous handwriting on the wall, the autumn of Babylon, and the king's violent expiry on that fatal dark before long followed. Ahasuerus also erred in his adding as to the menstruum of the Babylonian exile, though his starting-point is shifted to a subsequently date than that of Belshazzar. The Rabbis assert that the truthful basis for this reckoning is the devastation of Jerusalem. For the famous prophecy of Jeremiah is properly understood by Daniel when he says (Dan. ix. ii), "In the start year of his [Darius'] reign, I Daniel understood past books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem" (Meg. xib et seq.).

The Midrash enters into the details of Belshazzar's death. It is stated that Cyrus and Darius were employed as doorkeepers of the regal palace. Belshazzar, beingness profoundly alarmed at the mysterious handwriting on the wall, and apprehending that some one in disguise might enter the palace with murderous intent, ordered his doorkeepers to behead every one who attempted to force an entrance that night, even though such person should claim to bethe king himself. Belshazzar, overcome past sickness, left the palace unobserved during the night through a rear go out. On his return the doorkeepers refused to admit him. In vain did he plead that he was the king. They said, "Has not the king ordered united states of america to put to decease any one who attempts to enter the palace, though he claim to be the king himself?" Suiting the action to the word, Cyrus and Darius grasped a heavy ornamentation forming role of a candelabrum, and with it shattered the skull of their royal main (Deceit. R. iii. 4). Run into Daniel, and Nebuchadnezzar in Rabbinical Literature.

J. Sr. H. M. Due south.

The Name "Belshazzar." —Critical View:

The name "Belshazzar" was previously held to have been invented by the writer of the Volume of Daniel, which has long been recognized as a Maccabean production (run across Daniel). Since the discovery and decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions, nevertheless, "Belshazzar" is at present more often than not admitted to be the Hebrew-Aramaic equivalent of the Babylonian form "Belsharuṣur" (Bel preserve the male monarch), which has been found in the cuneiform documents as the name of the eldest son of Nabonidus (Nabuna'id), the last native male monarch of Babylon (555-538 B.C.). The near important allusions to Belsharuṣur in Babylonian literature are conspicuously those in the 2 inscriptions of Ur (Nabonidus) (see Prince, "Daniel," p. 36), and in the so-chosen "Annals of Nabonidus" (encounter Mene), which is the main document relating to the fall of Babylon at the hands of the Persians. In the Ur records Nabonidus prays that his son may live long and piously, although it is non stated why special mention should be made of the prince here. Information technology may exist conjectured, with Tiele ("Gesch. Assyriens," p. 463), that Belshazzar was governor of Ur; or it is possible that the rex, who was noted for his strictness in religious matters, may have fastened some special importance to the cult of the moon-god practised in Ur. The petition that the king's son may not incline to sin may also imply that Belshazzar had in some way offended the religious classes, who, equally is well known, supervised the preparation of the inscriptions. The allusion to the prince in the "Annals of Nabonidus" shows plainly that he remained with the regular army in northern Babylonia, well-nigh probably in the chapters of commander-in-chief, while his begetter was living in Tema apparently free from the cares of authorities and applying himself to his favorite written report of religious archeology.

Contrast with History.

In the "Register" the name "Belsharuṣur" does not occur, the reference being only to the son of the king; but at that place can exist no doubt that the first-built-in is meant. The references in the contract literature to Belshazzar throw no further historical light on his career (see Prince, ib. pp. 263, 264). That the name was not an unusual 1 is seen from the fact that certainly ii other persons are chosen by it in the Babylonian inscriptions (Prince, ib., pp. 11, 29, 35).

The following of import differences between Belsharusur and the Belshazzar of Daniel are patent. The former was the son of the final king of Babylon, but never reigned, except possibly as coregent with his begetter; while the latter is distinctly called the final male monarch and the son of Nebuchadnezzar, both of which statements are undoubtedly made in perfectly good faith by the writer of Daniel.

Information technology can not be shown that the Belshazzar of Daniel was intended, every bit some scholars have supposed, for Evil-merodach, son of Nebuchadnezzar, and was used by the Biblical author as a secondary name. Had the author meant this, he would never have made Daniel declare to the Babylonian monarch that his kingdom was almost to pass to the Medes and Persians. The prophecy was patently intended for the concluding king, as there would have been no bespeak in such a alarm delivered a generation earlier its fulfilment. Besides this, had the writer regarded his Belshazzar as Evil-merodach, he would have deliberately passed over in silence the reigns of several Babylonian kings between the expiry of Evil-merodach and the foreign supremacy. This will appear plainly from an examination of the listing of the concluding kings of Babylon: Nebuchadnezzar, 604-561; Amel-Marduk (Evil-merodach), 561-559; Nergalsharuṣur (Neriglissar), 559-555; Labashi-Marduk, 555, reigned only nine months; Nabonidus, 555-538; Cyrus captures Babylon, 538. There tin can be no doubt so that the author of Daniel regarded Belshazzar every bit the terminal native male monarch of Babylon.

While it is historically possible that Belsharuṣur may take been coregent, it is articulate that the writer of Daniel could non accept thought this, as he would hardly take given him the unqualified title "rex of Babylon" without further elucidation; compare chap. viii., where in that location is no mention of any overruler.

Illustrations from Cuneiform Documents.

Finally, the statement that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar shows conclusively that the historical data of the Biblical writer were at mistake. It is impossible too to reconcile this assertion with the facts by supposing that "son" here is to exist translated "descendant" or "grandson" (and then Pusey, "Daniel," p. 346), which is of form grammatically permissible. The way, however, in which Nebuchadnezzar is referred to in chap. v. shows conclusively that the author could have had no cognition of the intervening kings, but that he really considered Nebuchadnezzar to exist the actual begetter of Belshazzar. The narrative of the 5th affiliate follows direct on the chapters most Nebuchadnezzar, and begins with the statement that Belshazzar was the son of that king; and, furthermore, the remark of Belshazzar in verse 13, "Fine art thou that Daniel . . . whom the king my male parent brought from Jewry?" would have had no forcefulness if the king were referring to an antecedent. Had such been the author's meaning, the proper noun "Nebuchadnezzar" would certainly have been repeated in gild to show to which "father" the male monarch was alluding. In addition to all this, in that location is no evidence that Belsharuṣur was in any way related to Nebuchadnezzar. Nabonidus, his male parent, was the son of a nobleman, Nabu-balaṭsu-iḳbî, and was probably a usurper confronting the older firm of Nebuchadnezzar. There is nothing to show that he was connected past blood or marriage with whatsoever of thepreceding kings. It is interesting to observe in this connectedness that in the Chaldean fable given by Abȳdēnus, of doubtful date, the last king of Babylon is spoken of as a son of Nebuchadnezzar (compare Schrader, in "Jahrbücher für Protest. Theologie," 1881, pp. 618-629).

Aim of Daniel v.

It should be remarked that the force of the narrative of the fifth affiliate of Daniel would accept been materially weakened had the author known and fabricated use of the names of the kings intervening between Nebuchadnezzar and the last king. The whole bespeak of the fifth chapter is a comparing between the great Nebuchadnezzar, the real founder of the Babylonian monarchy, and the insignificant last male monarch who suffered the reins of government to sideslip from his feeble hands, with a prophetic accent on the coming stranger people who should divide amidst them the empire of Nebuchadnezzar.

In that location tin can be no doubtfulness that the son of Nabonidus was the prototype of the Biblical Belshazzar. The author of Daniel simply did not have correct data at hand. Nosotros must not be surprised at the incongruity between the historical inscriptions and the Volume of Daniel in this case, merely should rather note the very evident points of agreement: first, that while the Belshazzar of Daniel is represented as being the last king, the original of the tradition—whose name is etymologically equivalent to "Belshazzar"—was actually the son of the terminal rex; and secondly, that the son of Nabonidus probably met his decease at the time of the capture of Babylon, equally has recently been established (compare Prince, ib. p. 103), in partial agreement with the Biblical account of the last feast of Belshazzar.

That such a festival really took identify on the eve of the capture of Babylon is not improbable. Although at that place is no parallel business relationship in the inscriptions, it certainly seems significant that both Herodotus and Xenophon insinuate to a feast at this time. Thus, according to Herodotus, i. 191, Babylon was captured while the besieged were off their guard during a festival; and Xenophon, alluding to the capture of Babylon, states that Cyrus had heard that a feast was going forward ("Cyropædia," 8. five, xv). Run across Daniel, Mene, Nebuchadnezzar.

J. Jr. I. One thousand. P.

Source: https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2846-belshazzar