A paragraph from the author's preface to "Nabonidus and Belshazzar,"* will briefly suggest that this book is based upon extensive research and study in the field of archeology:
"The impulse to prepare this monograph originated a little more than ten years ago from the study of NeoBabylonian contract tablets under the direction of Prof. A. T. Clay, whose inspiring instruction and contagious enthusiasm engendered a liking for the field of Assyriological research. Afterwards the privilege of devoting personal attention to the decipherment of Nabonidus texts in the Yale Babylonian Collection led to an investigation of all available Neo-Babylonian source material for the purpose of discovering Belshazzar's role in history. Publication of cuneiform tablets of the same reign belonging to Goucher College widened the range of pertinent data, and contributed an important 'clue to the political situation which was a prelude to the close of the NeoBabylonian empire."—Page vii.
The central purpose of this valuable contribution to the large and growing list of books in the archeological field is to establish upon an incontrovertible basis the historicity of the fifth chapter of the book of Daniel. That Belshazzar was a historical person, the son of Nabonidus, and that he was actually associated with his father in the closing years of the Neo-BabyIonian empire; that he was the leading factor in the scene depicted in the fifth chapter of Daniel; that the festival there described was in harmony with the customs of the times; and that Belshazzar was really slain on that fatal night,—that these facts have been established by documentary evidence made available through the diligent researches of archeologists, is of great interest even to those Bible students who have already accepted the inspired testimony of the Scriptures as sufficient authority. It is reassuring to have a firm faith in the eternal word of God confirmed by the undisputed evidence furnished by contemporaries of the events described.
From the time of Philo in the third century, but notably within the last century, the higher critics have seemed to take great satisfaction in impugning the reliability of the historical portions of the book of Daniel. The story of the three young men in the fiery furnace was the product of a. vivid imagination, they have averred; the report of that strange madness on the part of Nebuchadnezzar was a mere Eastern fable; and inasmuch as no secular history contained any mention of Belshazzar, it was asserted with the positive air of certainty that he existed only in the mind of the prophet. Even some conservative expositors did not claim that the name Belshazzar represented a distinct historical person.
In the introduction to the book which we are reviewing, there is a statement of interest concerning the contemporaneous documents discov (8) ered in recent years which furnish material for determining the historicity of the fifth chapter of Daniel:
"During three quarters of a century of advance in cuneiform decipherment the contents of numerous inscriptions dated in the reign of Nabonidus have been made available to the world. More than five hundred tablets of this type have been published in the last decade. This accumulation of records contemporaneous with the closing years of the Neo-Babylonian empire is of inestimable value to the philologist, the archeologist, and the historian. Certain documents coming from the time of Cyrus belong to the source material which should be studied. All these texts furnish linguistic, social, industrial, commercial, legal, and religious data the authenticity and veracity of which cannot be questioned." —Id., pp. 1, 2.
A list of the sources available from which testimony as to the reliability of the fifth chapter of Daniel includes: Cuneiform sources, six in number; Greek sources, seven in number; Jewish sources, three in number; and ecclesiastical sources, three in number.
As indicating the ground which will be covered in his investigation of the historical character of both Nabonidus and Belshazzar the author submits this outline:
"The following topics indicate the scope of the inquiry which will be pursued:
(1) The exalted and noble ancestry of Nabonidus.
(2) The high position of Nabonidus before he came to the throne.
(3) The prominence of Belshazzar before his father became king.
(4) The manner of Nabbnidus' accession to the throne.
(5) The character of Belshazzar as a man of affairs.
(6) The devotion of Belshazzar to the worship of the gods.
(7) The association of Belshazzar with Nabonidus in the kingship.
(8) The administrative power of Belshazzar in Babylonia during Nabonidus' absence in Arabia.
(9) The events which took place in connection with the fall of Babylon.
(10) The meaning of non-cuneiform allusions to Belshazzar." Page 15.
It is manifestly impossible, within the proper limits of this review, to deal in detail with all these divisions of the subject, although they are all of deep interest and importance in reaching authentic conclusion. Therefore attention will be largely, if not wholly, confined to the topics numbered (7), (8), and (9), which are invaluable for every worker.
Under six different heads the author classifies the evidence that Belshazzar was associated with his father Nabonidus during the closing years of the Neo-Babylonian empire. First he cites the fact that upon four cylinders found in the ziggurat (temple tower) of Ur there is recorded a prayer of Nabonidus in which a petition is offered in behalf of "Belshazzar, the first son proceeding from my loins." As emphasizing the value of this testimony, it is stated that "such association of a royal father and his son in religious entreaty is rare in cuneiform literature. One other instance can be mentioned. This is the association of Cambyses with Cyrus, his father, in the inscription of the latter known as the 'Cyrus Cylinder.' "—Page 94. The bearing of the Cyrus Cylinder inscription upon the relation of Belshazzar to Nabonidus is thus stated:
"It is not impossible that the kingship of Cambyses in Babylon during the reign of his father may have been a continuance of the situation which obtained in the time of Nabonidus, when, as will appear, Belshazzar ruled in Babylon during his father's absence in Arabia. Assyrian history furnishes striking precedents for this political procedure. In 699 a. c. Sennacherib placed his son Ashur-N9.din-shum upon the throne in Babylon, and Esarhaddon in 668 a. c. not only made his son Shamash-shum-ukin king of Babylon, but crowned his firstborn son Ashurbanipal king of Assyria."—Page 95.
It is next shown that Belshazzar was associated with Nabonidus in oaths:
"Cuneiform texts dated in the twelfth year of Nabonidus record oath formulas which are unusual in that Belshazzar is associated with his father on terms of approximate equality. . . . Two texts in the Yale Babylonian Collection, also dated in the twelth year of Nabonidus' reign, contain similar oaths. . . . These three passages show conclusively that the Babylwitan oath formula in the twelfth year of the reign of Nabonidus placed Belshazzar on an equality with his father."—Page 96.
The third piece of testimony is found in an astrological report from which this brief extract is taken:
"In the month Tebet, the fifteenth day, the seventh year of Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, Shum-ukin says as follows: 'The great star Venus, the star Kak-si-di, the moon and the sun, in my dream I saw; and for the favor of Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, my lord, and for the favor of Belshazzar, the son of the king, my lord, may my ear attend them."—Page 98.
The fourth piece of testimony consists of an expression in a letter in which "the personal, names mentioned indicate that it was written at Erech, probably in the time of Nabonidus." The significant words are, "the king and the son of the king."—Pages 98, 99.
The fifth source of testimony is texts in the Goucher College Babylonian Collection in which Belshazzar is associated with Nabonidus in the delivery of royal tribute. Pages 99, 100.
The last source of evidence cited is number 227 of Tablets Belonging to Lord Amherst, published by Theophilus G. Pinches. From this tablet it appears that "Belshazzar was high enough in the kingdom to have subordinate officials equal to those of the king," and that "Belshazzar, in the performance of his administrative duties, went about from place to place, and that the important officials of his court accompanied him, which is exactly what we would expect if Belshazzar was intrusted with political responsibility." Furthermore, inasmuch as the contract recorded in the text was agreed upon in "the city of the house of the king of Babylon," it is clear that "Belshazzar's officials were attending to affairs in a royal residence."—Pages 102, 103,
Washington, D, C
* "Nabonidus and Belshazzar," by Raymond Philip Dougherty, William M. Laff an Professor of Assyriology and Babylonian Literature and Curator of the Babylonian Collection, Yale University, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1929. 216 + xii pages, including Index.
