Daniele 5:10 Commento

The destruction of the kingdom of Babylon had been long and often foretold when it was at a distance; in this chapter we have it accomplished, and a prediction of it the very same night that it was accomplished. Belshazzar now reigned in Babylon; some compute he had reigned seventeen years, others but three; we have here the story of his exit and the period of his kingdom. We must know that about two years before this Cyrus king of Persia, a growing monarch, came against Babylon with a great army; Belshazzar met him, fought him, and was routed by him in a pitched battle. He and his scattered forces retired into the city, where Cyrus besieged them. They were very secure, because the river Euphrates was their bulwark, and they had twenty years; provision in the city; but in the second year of the siege he took it, as is here related. We have in this chapter, I. The riotous, idolatrous, sacrilegious feast which Belshazzar made, in which he filled up the measure of his iniquity (Dan 5:1-4). II. The alarm given him in the midst of his jollity by a hand-writing on the wall, which none of his wise men could read or tell him the meaning of (Dan 5:5-9). III. The interpretation of the mystical characters by Daniel, who was at length brought in to him, and dealt plainly with him, and showed him his doom written (v. 10-28). IV. The immediate accomplishment of the interpretation in the slaying of the king and seizing of the kingdom (Dan 5:30, Dan 5:31).

Here is, I. The information given to the king, by the queen-mother, concerning Daniel, how fit he was to be consulted in this difficult case. It is supposed that this queen was the widow of Evil-Merodach, and was that famous Nitocris whom Herodotus mentions as a woman of extraordinary prudence. She was not present at the feast, as the king's wives and concubines were (Dan 5:2); it was not agreeable to her age and gravity to keep a merry night. But, tidings of the fright which the king and his lords were put into being brought to her apartment, she came herself to the banqueting-house, to recommend to the king a physician for his melancholy. She entreated him not to be discouraged by the insufficiency of his wise men to solve this riddle, for that there was a man in his kingdom that had more than once helped his grandfather at such a dead lift, and, no doubt, could help him, Dan 5:11, Dan 5:12. She could not undertake to read the writing herself, but directed him to one that could; let Daniel be called now, who should have been called first. Now observe, 1. The high character she gives of Daniel: He is a man in whom is the spirit of the holy gods, who has something in him more than human, not only the spirit of a man, which, in all, is the candle of the Lord, but a divine spirit. According to the language of her country and religion, she could not give a higher encomium of any man; she speaks honourably of him as a man that had, (1.) An admirably good head: Light, and understanding, and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, were found in him. Such an insight had he into things secret, and such a foresight of things to come, that it was evident he was divinely inspired; he had knowledge and understanding beyond all the other wise men for interpreting dreams, explaining enigmas or hard sentences, untying knots, and resolving doubts. Solomon had a wonderful sagacity of this kind; but it should seem that in these things Daniel had more of an immediate divine direction. Behold, a greater than Solomon himself is here. Yet what was the wisdom of them both compared with the treasures of wisdom hidden in Christ? (2.) He had an admirably good heart: An excellent spirit was found in him, which was a great ornament to his wisdom and knowledge, and qualified him to receive that gift; for God gives to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy. He was of a humble, holy, heavenly spirit, had a devout and gracious spirit, a spirit of zeal for the glory of God and the good of men. This was indeed an excellent spirit. 2. The account she gives of the respect that Nebuchadnezzar had for him; he was much in his favour, and was preferred by him: "The king thy father" (that is, thy grandfather, but even to many generations Nebuchadnezzar might well be called the father of that royal family, for he it was that raised it to such a pitch of grandeur), "the king, I say, thy father, made him master of the magicians." Perhaps Belshazzar had sometimes, in his pride, spoken slightly of Nebuchadnezzar, and his politics, and the methods of his government, and the ministers he employed, and thought himself wiser than he; and therefore his mother harps upon that. "The king, I say, thy father, to whose good management all thou hast owing, he pronounced him chief of, and gave him dominion over, all the wise men of Babylon, and named him Belteshazzar, according to the name of his god, thinking thereby to put honour upon him;" but Daniel, by constantly making use of his Jewish name himself (which he resolved to keep, in token of his faithful adherence to his religion), had worn out that name; only the queen-dowager remembered it, otherwise he was generally called Daniel. Note, It is a very good office to revive the remembrance of the good services of worthy men, who are themselves modest, and willing that they should be forgotten. 3. The motion she makes concerning him: Let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation. By this it appears that Daniel was now forgotten at court. Belshazzar was a stranger to him, knew not that he had such a jewel in his kingdom. With the new king there came in a new ministry, and the old one was laid aside. Note, There are a great many valuable men, and such as might be made very useful, that lie long buried in obscurity, and some that have done eminent services that live to be overlooked and taken no notice of; but, whatever men are, God is not unrighteous to forget the services done to his kingdom. Daniel, being turned out of his place, lived privately, and sought not any opportunity to come into notice again; yet he lived near the court and within call, though Babylon was now besieged, that he might be ready, if there were occasion, to do any good office, by what interest he had among the great ones, for the children of his people. But Providence so ordered it that now, just at the fall of that monarchy, he should by the queen's means be brought to court again, that he might lie there ready for preferment in the ensuing government. Thus do the righteous shine forth out of obscurity, and before honour is humility. II. The introducing of Daniel to the king, and his request to him to read and expound the writing. Daniel was brought in before the king, Dan 5:13. He was now nearly ninety years of age, so that his years, and honours, and former preferments, might have entitled him to a free admission into the king's presence; yet he was willing to be conducted in, as a stranger, by the master of the ceremonies. Note, 1. The king asks, with an air of haughtiness: Art thou that Daniel who art of the children of the captivity? Being a Jew, and a captive, he was loth to be beholden to him if he could help it. 2. He tells him what an encomium he had heard of him (Dan 5:14), that the spirit of the gods was in him; and he had sent for him to try whether he deserved so high a character or no. 3. He acknowledges that all the wise men of Babylon were baffled; they could not read this writing, nor show the interpretation, Dan 5:16. But, 4. He promises him the same rewards that he had promised them if he would do it, Dan 5:16. It was strange that the magicians, when now, and in Nebuchadnezzar's time, once and again, they were nonplussed, did not attempt something to save their credit; if they had with a good assurance said, "This is the meaning of such a dream, such a writing," who could disprove them? But God so ordered it that they had nothing at all to say, as, when Christ was born, the heathen oracles were struck dumb. III. The interpretation which Daniel gave of these mystic characters, which was so far from easing the king of his fears that we may suppose it increased them rather. Daniel was now in years, and Belshazzar was young; and therefore he seems to take a greater liberty of dealing plainly and roundly with him than he had done upon the like occasions with Nebuchadnezzar. In reproving any man, especially great men, there is need of wisdom to consider all circumstances; for they are the reproofs of instruction that are the way of life. In Daniel's discourse here, 1. He undertakes to read the writing which gave them this alarm, and to show them the interpretation of it, Dan 5:17. He slights the offer he made him of rewards, is not pleased that it was mentioned, for he is not one of those that divine for money; what gratuities Nebuchadnezzar gave him afterwards he gladly accepted, but he scorned to bargain for them, or to read the writing to the king for and in consideration of such and such honours promised him. No: "Let thy gifts be to thyself, for they will not be long thine, and give thy fee to another, to any of the wise men whom thou wouldst have most wished to earn it; I value it not." Daniel sees his kingdom now at its last gasp, and therefore looks with contempt upon his gifts and rewards. And thus should we despise all the gifts and rewards that this world can give did we see, as we may by faith, its final period hastening on. Let it give its perishing gifts to another; there are better gifts which we have our eyes and hearts upon; but let us do our duty in the world, do it all the real service we can, read God's writing to it in a profession of religion, and by an agreeable conversation make known the interpretation of it, and then trust God for his gifts, his rewards, in comparison with which all the world can give is mere trash and trifles. 2. He largely recounts to the king God's dealings with his father Nebuchadnezzar, which were intended for instruction and warning to him, Dan 5:18, Dan 5:21. This is not intended for a flourish or an amusement, but is a necessary preliminary to the interpretation of the writing. Note, That we may understand aright what God is doing with us, it is of use to us to review what he has done with others. (1.) He describes the great dignity and power to which the divine Providence had advanced Nebuchadnezzar, Dan 5:18, Dan 5:19. He had a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour, for aught we know, above what any heathen prince ever had before him; he thought that he got his glory by his own extraordinary conduct and courage, and ascribed his successes to a projecting active genius of his own; but Daniel tells him who now enjoyed what he had laboured for that it was the most high God, the God of gods and Lord of kings (as Nebuchadnezzar himself had called him), that gave him that kingdom, that vast dominion, that majesty wherewith he presided in the affairs of it, and that glory and honour which by his prosperous management he acquired. Note, Whatever degree of outward prosperity any arrive at, they must own that it is of God's giving, not their own getting. Let it never be said, My might, and the power of my hand, have gotten me this wealth, this preferment; but let it always be remembered that it is God that gives men power to get wealth, and gives success to their endeavours. Now the power which God gave to Nebuchadnezzar is here described to be very great in respect both of ability and of authority. [1.] His ability was so strong that it was irresistible; such was the majesty that God gave him, so numerous were the forces he had at command, and such an admirable dexterity he had at commanding them, that, which way soever his sword turned, it prospered. He could captivate and subdue nations by threatening them, without striking a stroke, for all people trembled and feared before him, and would compound with him for their lives upon any terms. See what force is, and what the fear of it does. It is that by which the brutal part of the world, even of the world of mankind, both governs and is governed. [2.] His authority was so absolute that it was uncontrollable. The power which was allowed him, which descended upon him, or which, at least, he assumed, was without contradiction, was absolute and despotic, none shared with him either in the legislative or in the executive part of it. In dispensing punishments he condemned or acquitted at pleasure: Whom he would he slew, and whom he would he saved alive, though both were equally innocent or equally guilty. The jus vitae et necis - the power of life and death was entirely in his hand. In dispensing rewards he granted or denied preferment at pleasure: Whom he would he set up, and whom he would he put down, merely for a humour, and without giving a reason so much as to himself; but it is all ex mero motu - of his own good pleasure, and stat pro ratione voluntas - his will stands for a reason. Such was the constitution of the eastern monarchies, such the manner of their kings. (2.) He sets before him the sins which Nebuchadnezzar had been guilty of, whereby he had provoked God against him. [1.] He behaved insultingly towards those that were under him, and grew tyrannical and oppressive. The description given of his power intimates his abuse of his power, and that he was directed in what he did by humour and passion, not by reason and equity; so that he often condemned the innocent and acquitted the guilty, both which are an abomination to the Lord. He deposed men of merit and preferred unworthy men, to the great detriment of the public, and for this he was accountable to the most high God, that gave him his power. Note, It is a very hard and rare thing for men to have an absolute arbitrary power, and not to make an ill use of it. Camden has a distich of Giraldus, wherein he speaks of it as a rare instance, concerning our king Henry II of England, that never any man had so much power and did so little hurt with it. Glorior hoc uno, quod nunquam vidimus unum, Nec potuisse magis, nec nocuisse minus - Of him I can say, exulting, that with the same power to do harm no one was ever more inoffensive. But that was not all. [2.] He behaved insolently towards the God above him, and grew proud and haughty (Dan 5:20): His heart was lifted up, and there his sin and ruin began; his mind was hardened in pride, hardened against the commands of God and his judgments; he was willful and obstinate, and neither the word of God nor his rod made any lasting impression upon him. Note, Pride is a sin that hardens the heart in all other sin and renders the means of repentance and reformation ineffectual. (3.) He reminds him of the judgments of God that were brought upon him for his pride and obstinacy, how he was deprived of his reason, and so deposed from his kingly throne (Dan 5:20), driven from among men, to dwell with the wild asses, Dan 5:21. He that would not govern his subjects by rules of reason had not reason sufficient for the government himself. Note, Justly does God deprive men of their reason when they become unreasonable and will not use it, and of their power when they become oppressive and use it ill. He continued like a brute till he knew and embraced that first principle of religion, That the most high God rules. And it is rather by religion than reason that man is distinguished from, and dignified above, the beasts; and it is more his honour to be a subject to the supreme Creator than to be lord of the inferior creatures. Note, Kings must know, or shall be made to know, that the most high God rules in their kingdoms (that is an imperium in imperio - an empire within an empire, not to be excepted against), and that he appoints over them whomsoever he will. As he makes heirs, so he makes princes. 3. In God's name, he exhibits articles of impeachment against Belshazzar. Before he reads him his doom, from the hand-writing on the wall, he shows him his crime, that God may be justified when he speaks, and clear when he judges. Now that which he lays to his charge is, (1.) That he had not taken warning by the judgments of God upon his father (Dan 5:22): Thou his son, O Belshazzar! hast not humbled thy heart, though thou knewest all this. Note, It is a great offence to God if our hearts be not humbled before him to comply both with his precepts and with his providences, humbled by repentance, obedience, and patience; nay, he expects from the greatest of men that their hearts should be humbled before him, by an acknowledgment that, great as they are, to him they are accountable. And it is a great aggravation of the unhumbledness of our hearts when we know enough to humble them but do not consider and improve it, particularly when we know how others have been broken that would not bend, how others have fallen that would not stoop, and yet we continue stiff and inflexible. It makes the sin of children the more heinous if they tread in the steps of their parents' wickedness, though they have seen how dearly it has cost them, and how pernicious the consequences of it have been. Do we know this, do we know all this, and yet are we not humbled? (2.) That he had affronted God more impudently than Nebuchadnezzar himself had done, witness the revels of this very night, in the midst of which he was seized with this horror (Dan 5:23): "Thou hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven, hast swelled with rage against him, and taken up arms against his crown and dignity, in this particular instance, that thou hast profaned the vessels of his house, and made the utensils of his sanctuary instruments of thy iniquity, and, in an actual designed contempt of him, hast praised the gods of silver and gold, which see not, nor hear, nor know anything, as if they were to be preferred before the God that sees, and hears, and knows every thing." Sinners that are resolved to go on in sin are well enough pleased with gods that neither see, nor hear, nor know, for then they may sin securely; but they will find, to their confusion, that though those are the gods they choose those are not the gods they must be judged by, but one to whom all things are naked and open. (3.) That he had not answered the end of his creation and maintenance: The God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified. This is a general charge, which stands good against us all; let us consider how we shall answer it. Observe, [1.] Our dependence upon God as our creator, preserver, benefactor, owner, and ruler; not only from his hand our breath was at first, but in his hand our breath is still; it is he that holds our souls in life, and, if he take away our breath, we die. Our times being in his hand, so is our breath, by which our times are measured. In him we live, and move, and have our being; we live by him, live upon him, and cannot live without him. The way of man is not in himself, not at his own command, at his own disposal, but his are all our ways; for our hearts are in his hand, and so are the hearts of all men, even of kings, who seem to act most as free-agents. [2.] Our duty to God, in consideration of this dependence; we ought to glorify him, to devote ourselves to his honour and employ ourselves in his service, to make it our care to please him and our business to praise him. [3.] Our default in this duty, notwithstanding that dependence; we have not done it; for we have all sinned, and come short of the glory of God. This is the indictment against Belshazzar; there needs no proof, it is made good by the notorious evidence of the fact, and his own conscience cannot but plead guilty to it. And therefore, 4. He now proceeds to read the sentence, as he found it written upon the wall: "Then" (says Daniel) "when thou hast come to such a height of impiety as thus to trample upon the most sacred things, then when thou wast in the midst of thy sacrilegious idolatrous feast, then was the part of the hand, the writing fingers, sent from him, from that God whom thou didst so daringly affront, and who had borne so long with thee, but would bear no longer; he sent them, and this writing, thou now seest, was written, Dan 5:24. It is he that now writes bitter things against thee, and makes thee to possess thy iniquities," Job 13:26. Note, As the sin of sinners is written in the book of God's omniscience, so the doom of sinners is written in the book of God's law; and the day is coming when those books shall be opened, and they shall be judged by them. Now the writing was, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin, Dan 5:25. It is well that we have an authentic exposition of these words annexed, else we could make little of them, so concise are they; the signification of them is, He has numbered, he has weighed, and they divide. The Chaldean wise men, because they knew not that there is but one God only, could not understand who this He should be, and for that reason (some think) the writing puzzled them. (1.) Mene; that is repeated, for the thing is certain - Mene, mene; that signifies, both in Hebrew and Chaldee, He has numbered and finished, which Daniel explains thus (Dan 5:26): "God has numbered thy kingdom, the years and days of the continuance of it; these were numbered in the counsel of God, and now they are finished; the term has expired for and during which thou wast to hold it, and now it must be surrendered. Here is an end of thy kingdom." (2.) Tekel; that signifies, in Chaldee, Thou art weighed, and, in Hebrew, Thou art too light. So Dr. Lightfoot. For this king and his actions are weighed in the just and unerring balances of divine equity. God does as perfectly know his true character as the goldsmith knows the weight of that which he has weighed in the nicest scales. God does not give judgment against him till he has first pondered his actions, and considered the merits of his case. "But thou art found wanting, unworthy to have such a trust lodged in thee, a vain, light, empty man, a man of no weight or consideration." (3.) Upharsin, which should be rendered, and Pharsin, or Peres. Parsin, in Hebrew, signifies the Persians; Paresin, in Chaldee, signifies dividing; Daniel puts both together (Dan 5:28): "Thy kingdom is divided, is rent from thee, and given to the Medes and Persians, as a prey to be divided among them." Now this may, without any force, be applied to the doom of sinners. Mene, Tekel, Peres, may easily be made to signify death, judgment, and hell. At death, the sinner's days are numbered and finished; after death the judgment, when he will be weighed in the balance and found wanting; and after judgment the sinner will be cut asunder, and given as a prey to the devil and his angels. Daniel does not here give Belshazzar such advice and encouragement to repent as he had given Nebuchadnezzar, because he saw the decree had gone forth and he would not be allowed any space to repent. One would have thought that Belshazzar would be exasperated against Daniel, and, seeing his own case desperate, would be in a rage against him. But he was so far convicted by his own conscience of the reasonableness of all he said that he objected nothing against it; but, on the contrary, gave Daniel the reward he promised him, put on him the scarlet gown and the gold chain, and proclaimed him the third ruler in the kingdom (Dan 5:29), because he would be as good as his word, and because it was not Daniel's fault if the exposition of the hand-writing was not such as he desired. Note, Many show great respect to God's prophets who yet have no regard to his word. Daniel did not value these titles and ensigns of honour, yet would not refuse them, because they were tokens of his prince's good-will: but we have reason to think that he received them with a smile, foreseeing how soon they would all wither with him that bestowed them. They were like Jonah's gourd, which came up in a night and perished in a night, and therefore it was folly for him to be exceedingly glad of them.

INTRODUCTION TO DANIEL 5 This chapter gives an account of a feast made by King Belshazzar, attended with drunkenness, idolatry, and profanation of the vessels taken out of the temple at Jerusalem, Dan 5:1, and of the displeasure of God, signified by a handwriting on the wall, which terrified the king, and caused him to send in haste for the astrologers, &c. to read and interpret it, but they could not, Dan 5:5, in this distress, which appeared in the countenances of him and his nobles, the queen mother advises him to send for Daniel, of whom she gives a great encomium, Dan 5:9, upon which he was brought in to the king, and promised a great reward to read and interpret the writing; the reward he slighted, but promised to read and interpret the writing, Dan 5:13 and after putting him in mind of what had befallen his grandfather Nebuchadnezzar, and charging him with pride, idolatry, and profanation of the vessels of the Lord, Dan 5:18 reads and interprets the writing to him Dan 5:24, when he had honour done him, and was preferred in the government, Dan 5:29 and the chapter is concluded with an account of the immediate accomplishment of ancient prophecies, and of this handwriting, in the slaying of the king of Babylon, in the dissolution of the Babylonish monarchy, and the possession of it by Darius the Mede, Dan 5:30.

Now the queen, by reason of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banquet house,.... Not the wife of Belshazzar, as Porphyry would have it; but rather the queen mother, as Jacchiades, the widow of Evilmerodach his father, whose name was Nitocris; and is spoken of, by Herodotus (q), as a very prudent woman; and as this seems to be by her words and conduct: though Josephus (r) says it was his grandmother, she who had been the wife of Nebuchadnezzar; and of this opinion were some mentioned by Aben Ezra; whose name was Amyitis; and it appears, by what she says afterwards, that she was well acquainted with affairs in his time; and, being an ancient woman, might be the reason why she was not among the ladies at the feast in the banqueting house; but came into it, without being sent for, on hearing the consternation and distress the king and his lords were in, and the moanful despairing words they expressed on this occasion: and the queen spake and said, O king, live for ever; the usual salutation given to the kings of Babylon, and other eastern monarchs; see Dan 2:4, let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed; at this affair, as if it could never be understood, and the true meaning of it be given; but be of good: cheer, and put on a good countenance; there is hope yet that it may be cleared up to satisfaction. (q) Clio, sive l. 1. c. 185, 188. (r) Antiqu. l. 10. c. 11. sect. 2.

Verse 10. "Now the queen, by reason of what had happened to the king and his nobles, entered into the banquet-hall..." Josephus says she was Belshazzar's grandmother, whereas Origen says she was his mother. She therefore knew about previous events of which the king was ignorant. So much for Porphyry's far-fetched objection, who fancies that she was the king's wife, and makes fun of the fact that she knows more than her husband does.

“Amid the king’s and his nobles’ words the queen entered the banqueting hall,” that is, with them pondering what should be done and various people making various suggestions under pressure of fear, the queen entered. Now, in my view, this lady was his mother: the wives were attending the banquet along with the concubines, and drinking from the gold and silver vessels was himself and his nobles, his wives—that is, his spouses—and his concubines, partners of his not by law but in lust. Now, this lady entered after the hubbub, and being old she probably was not a party at that stage to the drunkenness and antics or dancing.

This was probably an introduction offered at that time to kings by their subjects; even to this day this custom prevails.

In the commencement of this chapter we are informed how Belshazzar, the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, when rioting in his palace, and profaning the severed vessels of the temple, Dan 5:1-4, was suddenly terrified with the appearance of the fingers of a man's hand, which wrote a few words on the wall before him, Dan 5:5, Dan 5:6. The wise men and astrologers were immediately called in to show the king the interpretation; but they could not so much as read the writing, because (as Houbigant and others have conjectured) though the words are in the Chaldee tongue, yet they were written in the Samaritan or ancient Hebrew characters, with which the wise men of Babylon were very probably unacquainted, as the Jews were at that time a despised people, and the knowledge of their language not a fashionable attainment, Dan 5:7-9. Daniel, who had been so highly esteemed by Nebuchadnezzar for his superior wisdom, appears to have been altogether unknown to Belshazzar, till the queen (the same who had been the wife of Nebuchadnezzar according to the general opinion, or the queen consort according to others) had informed him, Dan 5:10-12. Upon the queen's recommendation, Daniel is called in, Dan 5:13-16; who boldly tells this despotic king, that as he had not benefited by the judgments inflicted on his grandfather, but gave himself up to pride and profanity, and had added to his other sins an utter contempt for the God of the Jews by drinking wine out of the sacred vessels of Jehovah in honor of his idols, Dan 5:17-23; the Supreme Being, the Ruler of heaven and earth, had written his condemnation in three words, Mene, Tekel, Peres, Dan 5:24, Dan 5:25; the first of which is repeated in the copies containing the Chaldean original; but all the ancient Versions, except the Syriac, are without this repetition. Daniel then gives the king and his lords the fearful import of the writing, viz., that the period allotted for the duration of the Chaldean empire was now completed, (see Jer 25:12-14), and that the kingdom was about to be transferred to the Medes and Persians, Dan 5:26-28. However unwelcome such an interpretation must have been to Belshazzar, yet the monarch, overwhelmed with its clearness and certainty, commanded the prophet to be honored, Dan 5:29. And that very night the prediction was fulfilled, for the king was slain, Dan 5:30, and the city taken by the Medes and Persians, Dan 5:31. This great event was also predicted by Isaiah and Jeremiah; and the manner in which it was accomplished is recorded by Herodotus and Xenophon.

The queen - came - This is generally allowed to have been the widow of Nebuchadnezzar; if so, she was the queen Amiyt, daughter of Astyages, sister of Darius the Mede, and aunt of Cyrus, according to Polyhistor, cited by Cedrenus. See Calmet. Others think that Nitocris was the person who is said to be queen when Cyrus took the city; and is stated to have been a lady of eminent wisdom and discretion, and to have had the chief direction of the public affairs. She was the mother of Labynithus; and, if this be the same as Belshazzar, she must be the person here introduced.

BELSHAZZAR'S IMPIOUS FEAST; THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL INTERPRETED BY DANIEL OF THE DOOM OF BABYLON AND ITS KING. (Dan. 5:1-31) Belshazzar--RAWLINSON, from the Assyrian inscriptions, has explained the seeming discrepancy between Daniel and the heathen historians of Babylon, BEROSUS and ABYDENUS, who say the last king (Nabonidus) surrendered in Borsippa, after Babylon was taken, and had an honorable abode in Caramania assigned to him. Belshazzar was joint king with his father (called Minus in the inscriptions), but subordinate to him; hence the Babylonian account suppresses the facts which cast discredit on Babylon, namely, that Belshazzar shut himself up in that city and fell at its capture; while it records the surrender of the principal king in Borsippa (see my Introduction to Daniel). The heathen XENOPHON'S description of Belshazzar accords with Daniel's; he calls him "impious," and illustrates his cruelty by mentioning that he killed one of his nobles, merely because, in hunting, the noble struck down the game before him; and unmanned a courtier, Gadates, at a banquet, because one of the king's concubines praised him as handsome. Daniel shows none of the sympathy for him which he had for Nebuchadnezzar. XENOPHON confirms Daniel as to Belshazzar's end. WINER explains the "shazzar" in the name as meaning "fire." made . . . feast--heaven-sent infatuation when his city was at the time being besieged by Cyrus. The fortifications and abundant provisions in the city made the king despise the besiegers. It was a festival day among the Babylonians [XENOPHON]. drank . . . before the thousand--The king, on this extraordinary occasion, departed from his usual way of feasting apart from his nobles (compare Est 1:3).

queen--the queen mother, or grandmother, Nitocris, had not been present till now. She was wife either of Nebuchadnezzar or of Evil merodach; hence her acquaintance with the services of Daniel. She completed the great works which the former had begun. Hence HERODOTUS attributes them to her alone. This accounts for the deference paid to her by Belshazzar. (See on Dan 4:36). Compare similar rank given to the queen mother among the Hebrews (Kg1 15:13).

Belshazzar's Feast and the Handwriting of God The Chaldean king Belshazzar made a feast to his chief officers, at which in drunken arrogance, by a desecration of the sacred vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from the temple at Jerusalem, he derided the God of Israel (Dan 5:1-4). Then he suddenly saw the finger of a hand writing on the wall of the guest-chamber, at which he was agitated by violent terror, and commanded that the wise men should be sent for, that they might read and interpret to him the writing; and when they were not able to do this, he became pale with alarm (Dan 5:5-9). Then the queen informed him of Daniel, who would be able to interpret the writing (Dan 5:10-12). Daniel, being immediately brought in, declared himself ready to read and interpret the writing; but first he reminded the king of his sin in that he did not take warning from the divine chastisement which had visited king Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4), but offended the Most High God by desecrating the holy vessels of His temple (Dan 5:13, Dan 5:14). He then interpreted to him the writing, showing the king that God had announced to him by means of it the end of his reign, and the transference of the kingdom to the Medes and Persians (Dan 5:25-28). Daniel was thereupon raised to honour by Belshazzar, who was, however, in that same night put to death (Dan 5:29, Dan 5:30). This narrative presents historical difficulties, for a Chaldean king by the name of Belshazzar is nowhere else mentioned, except in the passage in Baruch 1:11f., which is dependent on this chapter of Daniel; and the judgment here announced to him, the occurrence of which is in part mentioned in Dan 5:30, and in part set forth in Dan 6:1 (Dan 5:31), does not appear to harmonize with the extra-biblical information which we have regarding the destruction of the Chaldean kingdom. If we consider closely the contents of this chapter, it appears that Belshazzar, designated in Dan 5:30 as king of the Chaldeans, is not only in Dan 5:22 addressed by Daniel as Nebuchadnezzar's son, but in Dan 5:11, Dan 5:13, and Dan 5:18 is also manifestly represented in the same character, for the queen-mother (Dan 5:11), Belshazzar himself (Dan 5:13), and Daniel (Dan 5:18) call Nebuchadnezzar his אב, father. If now אב and בּר do not always express the special relation of father and son, but אב is used in a wider sense of a grandfather and of yet more remote ancestors, and בּר of grandsons and other descendants, yet this wider interpretation and conception of the words is from the matter of the statements here made highly improbable, or indeed directly excluded, inasmuch as the queen-mother speaks of things which she had experience, and Daniel said to Belshazzar (Dan 5:22) that he knew the chastisement which Nebuchadnezzar had suffered from God in the madness that had come upon him, but had not regarded it. In that case the announcement of the judgment threatening Belshazzar and his kingdom (Dan 5:24-28), when compared with its partial fulfilment in Belshazzar's death (Dan 5:30), appears to indicate that his death, together with the destruction of the Chaldean kingdom and its transference to the Medes and Persians (Dan 6:1[5:31]), occurred at the same time. Nevertheless this indication, as has already been remarked, appears to have more plausibility than truth, since neither the combination of the two events in their announcement, nor their union in the statement of their fulfilment, by means of the copula וin Dan 6:1, affords conclusive proof of their being contemporaneous. Since only the time of Belshazzar's death is given (Dan 5:30), but the transference of the Chaldean kingdom to the Median Darius (Dan 6:1) is not chronologically defined, then we may without hesitation grant that the latter event did not happen till some considerable time after the death of Belshazzar, in case other reasons demand this supposition. For, leaving out of view the announcement of the judgment, the narrative contains not the least hint that, at the time when Belshazzar revelled with his lords and his concubines, the city of Babylon was besieged by enemies. "Belshazzar (Dan 5:1-4) is altogether without care, which he could not have been if the enemy had gathered before the gates. The handwriting announcing evil appears out of harmony with the circumstances (Dan 5:5), while it would have had a connection with them if the city had been beleaguered. Belshazzar did not believe (Dan 5:29) that the threatened end was near, which would not have been in harmony with a state of siege. All these circumstances are not to be explained from the light-mindedness of Belshazzar, but they may be by the supposition that his death was the result of an insurrection, unexpected by himself and by all." Kliefoth, p. 148. Now let us compare with this review of the chapter the non-biblical reports regarding the end of the Babylonian monarchy. Berosus, in a fragment preserved by Josephus, c. Ap. i. 20, says that "Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded in the kingdom by his son Evilmerodach, who reigned badly (προστὰς τῶν πραγμάτων ἀνόμως καὶ ἀσελγῶς), and was put to death (ἀνηρέθη) by Neriglissor, the husband of his sister, after he had reigned two years. This Neriglissor succeeded him, and reigned four years. His son Laborosoarchod, being still a child (παῖς ὤν), reigned after him nine months, and was murdered by his friends (διὰ τὸ πολλὰ ἐμφαίνειν κακόηθη ὑπὸ τῶν φίλων ἀπετυμπανίσθη), because he gave many proofs of a bad character. His murderers by a general resolution transferred the government to Nabonnedus, one of the Babylonians who belonged to the conspirators. Under him the walls of Babylon along the river-banks were better built. But in the seventeenth year of his reign Cyrus came from Persia with a great army and took Babylon, after he had subjugated all the rest of Asia. Nabonnedus went out to encounter him, but was vanquished in battle, and fled with a few followers and shut himself up in Borsippa. But Cyrus, after he had taken Babylon and demolished its walls, marched against Borsippa and besieged Nabonnedus. But Nabonnedus would not hold out, and therefore surrendered himself. He was at first treated humanely by Cyrus, who removed him from Babylon, and gave him Carmania as a place of residence (δοὺς οἰκητήριον αὐτῷ Καρμανίαν), where he spent the remainder of his days and died." Abydenus, in a shorter fragment preserved by Eusebius in the Praepar. Ev. ix. 41, and in the Chron. Armen. p. 60f., makes the same statements. Petermann's translation of the fragment found in Niebuhr's Gesch. Assurs, p. 504, is as follows: - "There now reigned (after Nebuchodrossor) his son Amilmarodokos, whom his son-in-law Niglisaris immediately murdered, whose only son Labossorakos remained yet alive; but it happened to him also that he met a violent death. He commanded that Nabonedokhos should be placed on the throne of the kingdom, a person who was altogether unfit to occupy it." (In the Praepar. Evang. this passage is given in these words: Ναβοννίδοχον ἀποδείκνυσι βασιλέα προσήκοντα οἱ οὐδέν). "Cyrus, after he had taken possession of Babylon, appointed him margrave of the country of Carmania. Darius the king removed him out of the land." (This last passage is wanting in the Praep. Ev.) (Note: With these statements that of Alexander Polyhistor, in Euseb. Chron. Armen. ed. Aucher, i. p. 45, in the main agrees. His report, according to Petermann's translation (as above, p. 497), is as follows: - "After Nebuchodrossor, his son Amilmarudokhos reigned 12 years, whom the Hebr. hist. calls Ilmarudokhos. After him there reigned over the Chaldeans Neglisaros 4 years, and then Nabodenus 17 years, under whom Cyrus (son) of Cambyses assembled an army against the land of the Babylonians. Nabodenus opposed him, but was overcome and put to flight. Cyrus now reigned over Babylon 9 years," etc. The 12 years of Amilmarudokhos are without doubt an error of the Armenian translator or of some transcriber; and the omission of Loborosoarchod is explained by the circumstance that he did not reign a full year. The correctness of the statement of Berosus is confirmed by the Canon of Ptolemy, who names as successors of Nabokolassar (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned 43 years), Illoarudmos 2 years, Nerigassolassaros 4 years, and Nabonadius 17 years; thus omitting Laborosoarchod on the grounds previously mentioned. The number of the years of the reigns mentioned by Berosus agrees with the biblical statements regarding the duration of the exile. From the first taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the fourth year of Jehoiakim are mentioned - Jehoiakim 7 years, Jehoiachin 3 months, and his imprisonment 37 years (Jer 52:31), Evilmerodach 2 years, Neriglissar 4 years, Laborosoarchod 9 months, and Nabonnedus 17 years - in all 68 years, to which, if the 2 years of the reign of Darius the Mede are added, we shall have 70 years. The years of the reigns of the Babylonian kings amount in all to the same number; viz., Nebuchadnezzar 44 1/4 years, - since he did not become king till one year after the destruction of Jerusalem, he reigned 43 years, - Evilmerodach 2 years, Neriglissar 4 years, Laborosoarchod 9 months, Nabonnedus 17 years, and Darius the Mede 2 years - in all 70 years.) According to these reports, there reigned in Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar four other kings, among whom there was no one called Belshazzar, and only one son of Nebuchadnezzar, viz., Evilmerodach; for Neriglissar is son-in-law and Laborosoarchod is grandson (daughter's son) of Nebuchadnezzar, and Nabonnedus was not at all related to him, nor of royal descent. Of these kings, only Evilmerodach and Laborosoarchod were put to death, while on the contrary Neriglissar and Nabonnedus died a natural death, and the Babylonian dominion passed by conquest to the Medes, without Nabonnedus thereby losing his life. Hence it follows, (1) that Belshazzar cannot be the last king of Babylon, nor is identical with Nabonnedus, who was neither a son nor descendant of Nebuchadnezzar, and was not put to death by Cyrus at the destruction of Babylon and the overthrow of the Chaldean kingdom; (2) that Belshazzar could neither be Evilmerodach nor Laborosoarchod, since only these two were put to death - the former after he had reigned only two years, and the latter after he had reigned only nine months, while the third year of Belshazzar's reign is mentioned in Dan 8:1; and (3) that the death of Belshazzar cannot have been at the same time as the destruction of Babylon by the Medes and Persians. If we now compare with these facts, gathered from Oriental sources, those narrated by the Greek historians Herodotus and Xenophon, we find that the former speaks of several Babylonian kings, but says nothing particular regarding them, but, on the other hand, reports many sayings and fabulous stories of two Babylonian queens, Semiramis and Nitocris, to whom he attributes (i. 184f.) many exploits, and the erection of buildings which Berosus has attributed to Nebuchadnezzar. Of Babylonian kings he names (i. 188) only Labynetos as the son of Nitocris, with the remark, that he had the same name as his father, and that Cyrus waged war against this second Labynetos, and by diverting the Euphrates from its course at the time of a nocturnal festival of its inhabitants, stormed the city of Babylon (i. 191), after he had gained a battle before laying siege to the capital of the Babylonians (i. 190). Xenophon (Cyrop. vii. 5, 15ff.), agreeing with Herodotus, relates that Cyrus entered the city by damming off the Euphrates during a festival of its inhabitants, and that the king was put to death, whose name he does not mention, but whom he describes (v. 2. 27, iv. 6. 3) as a youth, and (iv. 6. 3, v. 2. 27f., v. 3. 6, vii. 5. 32) as a riotous, voluptuous, cruel, godless man. The preceding king, the father of the last, he says, was a good man, but his youngest son, who succeeded to the government, was a wicked man. Herodotus and Xenophon appear, then, to agree in this, that both of them connect the destruction of Babylon and the downfall of the Chaldean kingdom by Cyrus with a riotous festival of the Babylonians, and both describe the last king as of royal descent. They agree with the narrative of Daniel as to the death of Belshazzar, that it took place during or immediately after a festival, and regarding the transference of the Chaldean kingdom to the Medes and Persians; and they confirm the prevalent interpretation of this chapter, that Belshazzar was the last Chaldean king, and was put to death on the occasion of the taking of Babylon. But in their statements concerning the last king of Babylon they both stand in opposition to the accounts of Berosus and Abydenus. Herodotus and Xenophon describe him as the king's son, while Nabonnedus, according to both of these Chaldean historians, was not of royal descent. Besides this, Xenophon states that the king lost his life at the taking of Babylon, while according to Berosus, on the contrary, he was not in Babylon at all, but was besieged in Borsippa, surrendered to Cyrus, and was banished to Carmania, or according to Abydenus, was made deputy of that province. Shall we then decide for Herodotus and Xenophon, and against Berosus and Abydenus? Against such a decision the great imperfection and indefiniteness of the Grecian account must awaken doubts. If, as is generally supposed, the elder Labynetus of Herodotus is the husband of Nitocris, who was the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, then his son of the same name cannot be identical with the Nabonnedus of Berosus and Abydenus; for according to the testimonies of biblical and Oriental authorities, which are clear on this point, the Chaldean kingdom did not fall under the son of Nebuchadnezzar, and then the statement of Herodotus regarding the two Labynetuses is certainly incorrect, and is fabricated from very obscure traditions. Xenophon also shows himself to be not well informed regarding the history of the Chaldean kings. Although his description of the last of these kings appears to indicate an intimate knowledge of his character, and accords with the character of Belshazzar, yet he does not even know the name of this king, and still less the duration of his reign. Accordingly these scanty and indefinite Grecian reports cannot counterbalance the extended and minute statements of Berosus and Abydenus, and cannot be taken as regulating the historical interpretation of Daniel 5. Josephus, it is true, understands the narrative in such a way that he identifies Belshazzar with Nabonedus, and connects his death with the destruction of the Babylonish kingdom, for (Ant. x. 11, 2f.) he states that, after Nebuchadnezzar, his son Evilmerodach reigned eighteen years. But when he died, his son Neriglissar succeeded to the government, and died after he had reigned forty years. After him the succession in the kingdom came to his son Labosordacus, who continued in it but nine months; and when he was dead (τελευτήσαντος αὐτοῦ), it came to Baltasar, who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelus (Nabonnedus), against whom Cyrus the king of Persian and Darius the king of Media made war. While they besieged Babylon a wonderful event occurred at a feast which the king gave to his magnates and his wives, as described by Daniel 5. Not long after Cyrus took the city and made Baltasar prisoner. "For it was," he continues, "under Baltasar, after he had reigned seventeen years, that Babylon was taken. This was, as has been handed down to us, the end of the descendants of Nebuchadnezzar." But it is clear that in these reports which Josephus has given he has not drawn his information from sources no longer accessible to us, but has merely attempted in them to combine the reports of Berosus, and perhaps also those of the Greek historians, with his own exposition of the narrative of Daniel 5. The deviations from Berosus and the Canon of Ptolemy in regard to the number of the years of the reign of Evilmerodach and of Neriglissar are to be attributed to the transcriber of Josephus, since he himself, in his work contra Apion, gives the number in harmony with those stated by those authors without making any further remark. The names of the four kings are derived from Berosus, as well as the nine months' reign of Labosordacus and the seventeen years of Naboandelus; but the deviations from Berosus with respect to the death of Evilmerodach, and the descent of Neriglissar and Nabonnedus from Nebuchadnezzar, Josephus has certainly derived only from Jer 27:7 and Daniel 5; for the statement by Jeremiah, that all the nations would serve Nebuchadnezzar, his son and his son's son, "until the very time of his land come," is literally so understood by him as meaning that Evilmerodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, was succeeded by his own son, who again was succeeded by his son, and so on down to Belshazzar, whom Daniel (Dan 5:22) had called the son of Nebuchadnezzar, and whom Josephus regarded as the last king of Babylon, the Nabonnedus of the Babylonians. Josephus did not know how to harmonize with this view the fact of the murder of Evilmerodach by his brother-in-law, and therefore he speaks of Evilmerodach as dying in peace, and of his son as succeeding him on the throne, while he passes by in silence the death of Labosordacus and the descent of Baltasar, and only in the closing sentence reckons him also among the successors of Nebuchadnezzar. But if in the passages quoted Josephus gives only his own view regarding the Chaldean rulers down to the time of the overthrow of the kingdom, and in that contradicts on several points the statements of Berosus, without supporting these contradictions by authorities, we cannot make use of his narrative as historical evidence for the exposition of this chapter, and the question, Which Babylonian king is to be understood by Belshazzar? must be decided on the ground of existing independent authorities. Since, then, the extra-biblical authorities contradict one another in this, that the Chaldean historians describe Nabonnedus, the last king of the Chaldean kingdom, as a Babylonian not of royal descent who, after putting to death the last descendant of the royal family, usurped the throne, which, according to their account, he occupied till Babylon was destroyed by Cyrus, when he was banished to Carmania, where he died a natural death; while, on the other hand, Herodotus and Xenophon represent the last Babylonian king, whom Herodotus calls Labynetus = Nabonedos = Nabonned = Nabonid, as of royal descent, and the successor of his father on the throne, and connect the taking of Babylon with a riotous festival held in the palace and in the city generally, during which, Xenophon says, the king was put to death; - therefore the determination regarding the historical contents of Daniel 5 hinges on this point: whether Belshazzar is to be identified, on the authority of Greek authors, with Nabonnedus; or, on the authority of the Chaldean historians, is to be regarded as different from him, and is identical with one of the two Babylonian kings who were dethroned by a conspiracy. The decision in favour of the former I have in my Lehrb. der Einl., along with many interpreters, contended for. By this view the statements of Berosus and Abydenus regarding Nabonned's descent and the end of his life must be set aside as unhistorical, and explained only as traditions intended for the glorification of the royal house of Nebuchadnezzar, by which the Babylonians sought to lessen the undeniable disgrace attending the downfall of their monarchy, and to roll away the dishonour of the siege at least from the royal family of the famed Nebuchadnezzar. But although in the statements of Berosus, but particularly in those of Abydenus regarding Nebuchadnezzar, their laudatory character cannot be denied, yet Hvernick (N. Krit. Unterss. p. 70f.) and Kranichfeld, p. 30ff., have with justice replied that this national partiality in giving colour to his narrative is not apparent in Berosus generally, for he speaks very condemnatorily of the son of Nebuchadnezzar, saying that he administered the affairs of government ἀνόμως καὶ ἀσελγῶς; he also blames the predecessor of Nabonnedus, and assigns as the reason of the murder of the former as well as of the latter their own evil conduct. Nor does it appear that Berosus depreciated Nabonnedus in order to benefit his predecessors, rather he thought of him as worthy of distinction, and placed him on the throne in honour among his predecessors. "What Herodotus says (i. 186) of the wife of Nebuchadnezzar is expressly stated by Berosus to the honour of the government of Nabonnedus, namely, that under his reign a great part of the city wall was furnished with fortifications (τὰ περὶ τὸν ποταμὸν τείχη τῆς Βαβυλωνίων πόλεως ἐχ ὀπτῆς πλίνθου καὶ ἀσφάλτου κατεκοσμήθη); and it is obviously with reference to this statement that in the course of the narrative mention is made of the strong fortifications of the city which defied the assault of Cyrus. Moreover, in the narrative Nabonnedus appears neither as a traitor nor as a coward. On the contrary, he goes out well armed against the enemy and offers him battle (ἀπαντήσας μετὰ τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ παραταξάμενος); and the circumstance that he surrendered to Cyrus in Borsippa is to be accounted for from this, that he only succeeded in fleeing thither with a very small band. Finally, it is specially mentioned that Cyrus made war against Babylon after he had conquered the rest of Asia. From this it is manifest that the fame of the strength of Babylon was in no respect weakened by Nabonnedus' seventeen years' reign." (Kranichfeld.) All these circumstances stand in opposition to the opinion that there is a tendency in Berosus to roll the disgrace of the overthrow of the kingdom from off the family of Nebuchadnezzar, and to attribute it to an incapable upstart. What Berosus, moreover, says regarding the treatment of Nabonnedus on the part of Cyrus shows no trace of a desire to depreciate the dethroned monarch. That Cyrus assigned him a residence during life in Carmania is in accordance with the noble conduct of Cyrus in other cases, e.g., toward Astyages the Mede, and toward the Lydian king Croesus (Herod. i. 130; Justin. i. 6, 7). In addition to all this, not only is the statement of Berosus regarding the battle which preceded the overthrow of Babylon confirmed by Herodotus, i. 190, but his report also of the descent of Nabonnedus and of his buildings is established by inscriptions reported on by Oppert in his Expdit. Scient. i. p. 182ff.; for the ruins of Babylon on both banks of the Euphrates preserve to this day the foundations on which were built the walls of Nabonnedus, consisting of hard bricks almost wholly covered with asphalt, bearing the name of Nabonetos, who is not described as a king's son, but is only called the son of Nabobalatirib. Cf. Duncker, Gesch. des Alterth. ii. p. 719, 3rd ed. After all that has been said, Berosus, as a native historian, framing his narratives after Chaldean tradition, certainly merits a preference not only to Herodotus, who, according to his own statement, i. 95, followed the Persian tradition in regard to Cyrus, and is not well informed concerning the Babylonian kings, but also to Xenophon, who in his Cyropaedia, however favourably we may judge of its historical value, follows no pure historical aim, but seeks to set forth Cyrus as the pattern of a hero-king, and reveals no intimate acquaintance with the history of the Chaldean kings. But if, in all his principal statements regarding Nabonnedus, Berosus deserves full credit, we must give up the identification of Belshazzar with Nabonnedus, since the narrative of Daniel 5, as above remarked, connects the death of Belshazzar, in point of fact indeed, but no in point of time, with the destruction of the Babylonian kingdom; and the narratives of Herodotus and Xenophon with respect to the destruction of Babylon during a nocturnal revelry of its inhabitants, may rest also only on some tradition that had been transmitted to their time. (Note: Kranichfeld, p. 84ff., has so clearly shown this origin of the reports given by Herodotus and Xenophon regarding the circumstances attending the taking of Babylon by Cyrus, that we cannot refrain from here communicating the principal points of his proof. Proceeding from the Augenschein (appearance), on which Hitzig argues, that, according to Dan 5:26., the death of Belshazzar coincided with the destruction of the Chaldean kingdom, since both events are announced together in God's writing, Kranichfeld assumes that this appearance (although it presents itself as an optical illusion, on a fuller acquaintance with the manner of prophetic announcement in which the near and the more remote futures are immediately placed together) has misled the uncritical popular traditions which Herodotus and Xenophon record, and that not from first and native sources. "The noteworthy factum of the mysterious writing which raised Daniel to the rank of third ruler in the kingdom, and certainly, besides, made him to be spoken of as a conspicuous personage, and the interpretation which placed together two facta, and made them apparently contemporaneous, as well as the factum of one part of the announcement of the mysterious writing being actually accomplished that very night, could in the course of time, even among natives, and so much the sooner in the dim form which the tradition very naturally assumed in foreign countries, e.g., in the Persian tradition, easily give occasion to the tradition that the factum mentioned in the mysterious writing occurred, as interpreted, in that same night." In this way might the Persian or Median popular tradition easily think of the king who was put to death that night, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, as also the last Babylonian king, with whom the kingdom perished, and attribute to him the name Labynetus, i.e., the Nabonnedus of Berosus, which is confirmed by the agreement of Herodotus with Berosus in regard to the battle preceding the overthrow of Babylon, as well as the absence of the king from Babylon at the taking of the city. - "The historical facts with respect to the end of the Chaldean kingdom, as they are preserved by Berosus, were thrown together and confused along the dim course of the tradition with a narrative, preserved to us in its original form by Daniel, of the contents of the mysterious writing, connecting the death of the king with the end of the kingdom, corresponding with which, and indeed in that very night in which it was interpreted, the murder of the king took place; and this dim tradition we have in the reports given by Herodotus and Xenophon. But the fact, as related by Daniel 5, forms the middle member between the statement given by Berosus and the form which the tradition has assumed in Herodotus and Xenophon." "This seems to me," as Kran., in conclusion, remarks, "to be the very simple and natural state of the matter, in view of the open contradiction, on the one side, in which the Greek authors stand to Berosus and Abydenus, without, however (cf. Herodotus), in all points differing from the former; and, on the other side, in view of the manifest harmony in which they stand with Daniel, without, however, agreeing with him in all points. In such circumstances the Greek authors, as well as Berosus and Abydenus on the other side, serve to establish the statements in the book of Daniel." Against this view of the origin of the tradition transmitted by Herodotus and Xenophon, that Cyrus took Babylon during a riotous festival of its inhabitants, the prophecies of Isa 21:5, and of Jer 51:39, cannot be adduced as historical evidence in support of the historical truth of this tradition; for these prophecies contain only the thought that Babylon shall suddenly be destroyed amid the tumult of its revelry and drunkenness, and would only be available as valid evidence if they were either vaticinia ex eventu, or were literally delivered as predictions.) But if Belshazzar is not the same person as Nabonnedus, nor the last Babylonian king, then he can only be either Evilmerodach of Laborosoarchod, since of Nebuchadnezzar's successors only these two were murdered. Both suppositions have found their advocates. Following the example of Scaliger and Calvisius, Ebrard (Comm. zur Offb. Johannes, p. 45) and Delitzsch (Herz.'s Realencykl. iii. p. 277) regard Belshazzar as Laborosoarchod or Labosordacus (as Josephus writes the name in the Antt.), i.e., Nebo-Sadrach, and Bel = Nebo; for the appearance of the queen leads us to think of a very youthful king, and Belshazzar (Dan 5:13) speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as if all he knew regarding him was derived from hearsay alone. In v. 6:1 (Jer 5:31) it is indicated that a man of advanced age came in the room of a mere youth. If Daniel reckons the years of Belshazzar from the death of Evilmerodach (cf. Jer 27:7), for Belshazzar's father Neriglissar (Nergal-Sar), since he was only the husband of a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, could only rule in the name of his son, then Belshazzar (Nebo-Sadrach) was murdered after a reign of four years and nine months, of which his father Nergal-Sar reigned four years in his stead, and he himself nine months. With Belshazzar the house of Nebuchadnezzar had ceased to reign. Astyages, the Median king, regarded himself as heir to the Chaldean throne, and held as his vassal Nabonnedus, who was made king by the conspirators who had murdered Belshazzar; but Nabonnedus endeavoured to maintain his independence by means of a treaty with the king of Lydia, and thus there began the war which was directed first against the Lydian king, and then against Nabonnedus himself. But of these conjectures and combinations there is no special probability, for proof is wanting. For the alleged origin of the war against the Lydian king and against Nabonnedus there is no historical foundation, since the supposition that Astyages regarded himself, after the extinction of the house of Nebuchadnezzar, as the heir to the Chaldean throne is a mere conjecture. Neither of these conjectures finds any support either in the fact that Nabonnedus remained quiet during the Lydian war instead of rendering help to the Lydian king, or from that which we find on inscriptons regarding the buildings of Nabonnedus. According to the researches of Oppert and Duncker (Gesch. d. Alterthums, ii. p. 719), Nabonetus (Nabunahid) not merely completed the walls left unfinished by Nebuchadnezzar, which were designed to shut in Babylon from the Euphrates along both sides of the river; but he designates himself, in inscriptions found on bricks, as the preserver and the restorer of the pyramid and the tower, and he boasts of having built a temple at Mugheir to the honour of his deities, the goddess Belit and the god Sin (god of the Moon). The restoration of the pyramid and the tower, as well as the building of the temple, does not agree with the supposition that Nabonnedus ascended the throne as vassal of the Median king with the thought of setting himself free as soon as possible from the Median rule. Moreover the supposition that Neriglissar, as the husband of Nebuchadnezzar' daughter, could have conducted the government only in the name of his son, is opposed to the statements of Berosus and to the Canon of Ptolemy, which reckon Neriglissar as really king, and his reign as distinct from that of his son. Thus the appearance of the queen in Daniel 5 by no means indicates that Belshazzar was yet a boy; much rather does the participation of the wives and concubines of Belshazzar in the feast point to the age of the king as beyond that of a boy. Finally, it does not follow from Dan 5:13 that Belshazzar knew about Nebuchadnezzar only from hearsay. In the verse referred to, Belshazzar merely says that he had heard regarding Daniel that he was one of the Jews who had been carried captive by his father Nebuchadnezzar. But the carrying away of Daniel and of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar took place, as to its beginning, before he had ascended the throne, and as to its end (under Zedekiah), during the first half of his reign, when his eldest son might be yet a mere youth. That Belshazzar knew about Nebuchadnezzar not from hearsay merely, but that he knew from personal knowledge about his madness, Daniel tells him to his face, Dan 5:22. Finally, the identification of Labosordacus, = Nebo-Sadrach, with Belshazzar has more appearance than truth. Bel is not like Nebo in the sense that both names denote one and the same god; but Bel is the Jupiter of th

By מלכּתא interpreters rightly understand the mother of the reigning king, the widow of his father Nebuchadnezzar, since according to Dan 5:2. The wives of the king were present at the festival, and the queen came before the king as only a mother could do. Among the Israelites also the mother of the reigning king was held in high respect; cf. Kg1 15:13; Kg2 24:12, Kg2 24:15; Jer 13:18; Jer 29:2. מלּין לקבל, by reason of the words, not: because of the affair, to which neither the plur. מלּי nor the gen. רברבנוהי agrees. Instead of the Kethiv עללת the Keri has עלּת, the later form. The queen-mother begins in an assuring manner, since she can give an advice which is fitted to allay the embarrassment.