How can the timing (Daniel 8:1-2) align with known historical dates for Belshazzar’s reign, given conflicting evidence from Babylonian records?

Definition of the Issue

One challenge often raised by historians involves reconciling Daniel 8:1–2 with Babylonian records about Belshazzar’s reign. While many Babylonian texts identify Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon, Daniel presents Belshazzar with the royal title, referring to the “third year of Belshazzar’s reign.” Some claim this poses a chronological conflict between biblical and non-biblical accounts.

Yet archaeological discoveries and a careful reading of primary sources have shed light on this issue. Rather than undermining Daniel’s reliability, new evidence confirms that Belshazzar did hold considerable authority—enough for Daniel to regard him as “king” under the conventions of his time.

Scriptural Context

“Daniel 8:1–2 reads: ‘In the third year of King Belshazzar’s reign, I, Daniel, had a vision, after the one that had already appeared to me. In my vision I looked up and saw myself in the citadel of Susa, in the province of Elam; in the vision I was beside the Ulai Canal.’

Daniel identifies distinct periods tied to Belshazzar in chapters 7, 8, and 5. In these texts, Belshazzar is referenced as king from Daniel’s standpoint, even though the Babylonian throne officially belonged to Nabonidus, Belshazzar’s father. The Book of Daniel’s consistent usage of “in the first year” or “in the third year” highlights the internal coherence of Daniel’s historical framework.

Background on Belshazzar’s Position

Babylonian sources once seemed silent regarding Belshazzar’s “kingship,” leading some scholars to doubt Daniel’s account. However, later discoveries, including cuneiform tablets and the Nabonidus Chronicle, demonstrate Belshazzar’s high position as coregent.

In Babylonian practice, a crown prince who held practical control—especially when the official king was absent—could be regarded as functionally reigning. Nabonidus spent a significant portion of his rule away from Babylon (reports indicate he was in Teima in Arabia for some years), leaving his son Belshazzar in charge of the empire’s vital center. During that period, people living under Belshazzar’s administration would naturally speak of him as “king,” even if a titular monarch (Nabonidus) still lived.

Archaeological and Historical Evidence

1. Cuneiform Inscriptions and Contracts: Tablets from the British Museum and other collections attest to Belshazzar’s active rule, indicating legal documents were indeed dated according to Belshazzar in some instances. Though he was not the sole king in the formal sense, references to Belshazzar’s authority appear in official documents.

2. The Nabonidus Chronicle: Though fragmentary, it shows Nabonidus left Babylon, entrusting leadership to his son. This scenario explains why Daniel would refer to Belshazzar as king or treat his rule in regnal years.

3. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fragments of Daniel (such as 4QDanie and 4QDanh) demonstrate that the text of Daniel has remarkably stable wording—even from as early as the second century BC. These ancient manuscripts reflect precisely the same references to Belshazzar’s kingship found in modern Bibles, affirming that Daniel 8:1–2 has been transmitted accurately.

4. Outside Historical Corroborations: The Greek historian Xenophon references a figure called “Belshazzar” (as Gobryas or Belshazzar in some interpretations) who held a prominent administrative function under Nabonidus. While the identification is debated, the mention of a ruler under Nabonidus in Babylon also underscores the presence of a subordinate authority figure during Nabonidus’s reign.

Possible Explanations for Chronological Questions

1. Co-regency vs. Sole Reign: Belshazzar’s regnal dating could count from the time he was dispatched to rule in Babylon while Nabonidus was away. If Belshazzar acted as king during that period, Daniel would naturally reckon Belshazzar’s regnal years in Babylon according to local practice.

2. Differing Dating Systems: The Babylonians sometimes counted partial years as a “first” year, or they employed an “accession year” system. Daniel’s reference to Belshazzar’s third year could align with this convention in Babylon, even if official inscriptions label Nabonidus as the monarch.

3. Historical Recognition of Authority: Given Belshazzar’s operational governance of Babylon, local residents like Daniel could rightly speak of “King Belshazzar,” matching the ground-level reality. This usage was not unusual in ancient near-eastern cultures when a crown prince effectively functioned as a king.

Textual Confirmation and Reliability

Ongoing manuscript discoveries support Daniel’s historical framework. For instance:

• Dead Sea Scrolls Consistency: The Daniel scrolls within the Dead Sea corpus match the Masoretic Text in describing Belshazzar as “king,” which supports the notion that Daniel’s references have been transmitted faithfully for centuries.

• Early Church Acknowledgments: Early Christian writings (e.g., from Jerome) voiced no confusion over Belshazzar’s role; interpreters in the early centuries recognized that Belshazzar was widely understood as functionally ruling Babylon, even if the official title of king was still assigned to Nabonidus.

• Ancient Historians: Some classical historians and later chroniclers show an awareness of Belshazzar’s leadership in Babylon near the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Though the specifics in secular sources may differ, they do not negate the possibility of shared rule.

Resolving Alleged Conflicts

By noting Belshazzar’s documented position as co-regent, historians can reconcile Daniel’s reference to Belshazzar’s “third year” with the official records naming Nabonidus as the last king. There is no inherent contradiction once the co-regency model and Babylonian dating customs are recognized. Belshazzar held practical authority over Babylon proper, fulfilling precisely the role Daniel attributes to him.

Furthermore, scholars who once used Belshazzar’s omission from certain records as evidence against Daniel’s historicity have now had to reconsider those views in light of recovered cuneiform texts. In this way, modern archaeology has increasingly confirmed details once questioned, demonstrating consistency between the Bible’s portrayal and ancient Babylonian sources.

Conclusion

Although Babylonian records initially seemed to conflict with Daniel 8:1–2, later historical discoveries and a deeper understanding of Babylonian governance reveal that Belshazzar was indeed recognized as a de facto king during his father’s protracted absence. Daniel’s reference to the “third year of King Belshazzar” reflects a legitimate reckoning from Daniel’s perspective in Babylon’s royal court.

The data from cuneiform inscriptions, the Nabonidus Chronicle, and the Dead Sea Scrolls collectively support the biblical presentation, illustrating the historical plausibility of Daniel’s mention of Belshazzar. Far from discrediting the scriptural claims, the totality of evidence corroborates Daniel’s written testimony, underscoring the reliability of the biblical record for this pivotal epoch in Babylon’s history.