BALTHAZAR
227
BALTHAZAR
entered it by the bed of the Euphrates, having
drained off its waters, and that the capture took
place whilst the Babylonians were feasting (Herod.,
I, lSS-191). Xenophon also mentions the siege,
the draining of the Euphrates, and the feast. He
does not state the name of the king, but fastens
on him the epithet "impious", dviirios. According
to him, the king made a brave stand, defending
himself with his sword, but was overpowered and
slain by Gobrj'as and Gadatas, the two generals of
CjTus (Cyrop., \-ii, 5). The Chaldean priest Berosus
names Nabonidus as the last King of Babylon and
says that the city was taken in the seventeenth year
of his reign. We are further informed by him that
Nabonidus went forth at the head of an army to
oppose Cj'rus, that he gave battle, lost, and fled to
Borsippa. In this town he was besieged and forced
to surrender. His Ufe was spared, and an abode
assigned to him in Karmania. (Prof. C. P. Tiele,
Babylonisch-Assyrische Gesch., 479; Euseb., Prtep.
Ev., ix. 41; Idem, Chron., i, 10. 3.) Josephus follows
the Bibhcal account. He remarks that Baltasar
was called by the Babylonians Naboandelus, evi-
dently a corruption of Xabonidus, and calls the queen,
grandmother (^ ^mmi) of the king. He adheres to
the Septuagint rendering in making the reward held
out to Daniel to have been a third portion of the
kingdom instead of the title, third ruler ia the king-
dom. Rabbinical tradition has preser\-ed nothing of
historical value.
The cuneiform inscriptions have thrown a new light on the person of Baltasar and the capture of Babylon. There is in the first place the inscription of Nabonidus containing a prayer for his son: "And as for Bel-sarra-usur my eldest son, the offspring of my body, the awe of thy great divinity fbc thou firmly in his heart that he may never fall into sin" (Records of the Past, V, 148). It is commonly ad- mitted that Bel-sarra-usur is the same as Belshazzar, or Baltasar. Dr. Strassmaier has published three inscriptions which mention certain business transac- tions of Bel-sarra-usur. Thej' are the leasing of a house, the purchase of wool, and the loan of a sum of money. They are dated respectively the fifth, eleventh, and twelfth year of Nabonidus. Of greater importance is the analytical tablet on which is en- graved an inscription by Cjtus summarizing the more memorable events of the reign of Nabonidus and the causes leading up to the conquest of Babylon. The first portion of the tablet states that in the sixth year of Nabonidus. Astyages (Istuvegu) was defeated by Cyrus, and that from the seventh till the eleventh year Nabonidus resided in Tema (a western sul)urb of Babylon) whilst the king's son was with the army in .\ccad, or Northern Babylonia. After this a lacuna occurs, owing to the tablet being broken. In the second portion of the inscription we find Nabonidus himself at the head of his army in Accad near Sippar. The events narrated occur in the seventeenth, or last, year of the king's reign. — "In the month of Tammuz [June] Cjtus gave battle to the army of Accad. The men of Accad broke into revolt. On the 14th day the garrison of Sippar was taken with- out fighting. Nabonidus flics. On the 16th day Gobrj'as the governor of Gutium [Kurdistan] and the anny of Cyrus entered Babylon without a battle. Afterwards he takes Nabonidus and puts him into fetters in Babylon. On the 3rd day of Marchesvan [October] Cyrus entered Babylon" (Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments; Pinches, Cap- ture of Babylon). In addition to this tablet we have the Cjtus cylinder published by Sir Henry Rawlinson in ISSO. Cjtus pronounces a eulogj' upon his militarj' exploits and as.signs his triumph to the intervention of the gods. Nabonidus had incurred their wrath bj' removing their images from the local shrines and bringing them to Babj'lon.
On comparing the inscriptions with the other
accounts we find that they substantially agree with
the statement bj' Berosus, but that thej- considerablj'
differ from what is recorded bj' Herodotus, Xenophon.
and in the Book of Daniel. (1) The inscriptions do
not mention the siege of Babj-lon recorded by He-
rodotus antl Xenophon. Cjtus saj's Gobryas his
general took the to^n "without fighting". (2) Na-
bonidus (555-538 B. c), and not Baltasar, as is stated
in Daniel, was the last King of Babylon. Baltasar,
or Bel-sarra-usur, was the son of Nabonidus. Nor
was Nabonidus or Baltasar a son or descendant of
Nabuchodonosor. Nabonidus was the son of Nebo-
baladhsu-ik-bi, and was a usurper of the throne. The
family of Nabuchodonosor had come to an end in
the person of Evil-Merodach, who had been mur-
dered by Nergal-sharezer, his sister's husband. The
controversy occasioned by these differences between
the conservative and modern schools of thought has
not yet reached a conclusion. Scholars of the former
school still maintain the historical accuracy of the
Book of Daniel, and explain the alleged discrepancies
with great ingenuity. Thej' a.ssume that Baltasar
had been associated with his father in the government,
and that as prince-regent, or co-regent, he could be
described in authority and rank as king. For this
conjecture thej' seek support in the promise of
Baltasar to make Daniel "third ruler" (D. V., "third
Crince") in the kingdom, from which thej' infer that e himself was the second. Professor R. D. Wilson, of Princeton, claims that the bearing of the title "King" by Baltasar was in harmonj' with the usage of the time (Princeton Theol. Rev., 1904, April, July; 1905, Januarj", .April). The other discrepancj', namely, that Nabuchodonosor is called the father of Baltasar (Dan., v, 2, 11, 18) thej' account for either by taking the word "father" in the wider sense of predecessor, or bj' the conjecture that Baltasar was his descendant on the mother's side.
On the other hand, the school of critics declines to accept these explanations. Thej' argue that Bal- tasar not less than Nabuchodonosor appears in Daniel as sole and supreme ruler of the State. While fully admitting the possibilitj' that Baltasar acted as prince-regent, thej' can find no proof for this either in the classical authors or in the inscriptions. The inference drawn from the promise of Baltasar to raise Daniel to the rank of a "third ruler" in the kingdom thej' regard as doubtful and uncertain. The Hebrew phrase maj' be rendered " ruler of a third part of the kingdom". Thus the phrase would be parallel to the Greek term "tetrarch", i. e. ruler of a fourth part, or of a small portion of territory. For this rendering thej' have the authoritj' of the Sep- tuagint, Josephus, and, as Dr. Adler informs us, of Jewish commentators of repute (see Daniel in the Critics' Den. p. 26). Furthermore, they argue that the emphatic way in which Nabuchodonosor is designated as father of the king leads the reader to infer that the writer meant his words to be under- stood in the literal and obvious sense. Thus the queen, addressing Baltasar, thrice repeats the designation "the king thy father", meaning Nabuchodonosor: "And in the daj's of thj' father light, knowledge and wisdom were found in liim [Daniel]: for King Na- buchodonosor thj' father appointed him prince of the wise men, enchanters, Chaldeans, sootlisayers, thy father, O King."
Sayce. The Higher Criticism and the Monuments (London, 1894); Kennedy. The Book of Daniel from the Christian Stand- point (London. 1898): Farrar, Daniel (London); -\nderson*, Daniel in the Crities' Den (London); Orb, The Problem cf the O. T. (London, 190G); Gigot, Special Introduction to the Study of the O. T.. pt. n. 366, 367, 369; Rogers, A History of Baby- lonia and Assyria (New York, 1902); Tiele, Babylonisch- Assyrische Gesch. (Gotha, 1886).
C. VAli DEN BlESEN.
Balthazar. See Magi.
