More on the last night of Belshashar

Koot van Wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint Lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

28 December 2010

An article was published by F. R. Weisbach dealing with the Babylonian Calendar in 1909 (F. R. Weisbach, "Zum babylonischen Kalendar" in Assyrologische und Archaeologische Studien to Hermann Hilprecht [Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1909], 281-291). Weisbach dealt with the Babylonian Calendar and one observation of his was that the Julian Calendar that we are using is operating a day from midnight to midnight, whereas in the Babylonian calendar the day started at sunset (289 where he stated that the civilian day of the Babyloniens started at sunset "Der bürgerliche Tag der Babylonier begann nach Sonnenuntergang, der Tag der Astronomen wird aber bereits vom vorhergehenden Mittag gerechnet, während der julianische Kalendertag sogar schon um die vorhergehende Mitternacht einsetzt"). For Seventh-day Adventists this information is very valuable since they are following, like modern Judaism, the biblical instruction to count a day from sunset and thus, the Sabbath starts at sunset Friday evening already. If Weisbach is correct and if history is consistent in Babylonian annals, then they did it that way without a Bible for many centuries. Of course Adam and Noah lived before the Babylonian empires and their systems, so that derivation from Adam and his ancestors for their counting of a day is not impossible, despite the fact that proof of this link lacks. It is a case of which came first the chicken or the egg? What is of further importance in the article by Weisbach is that certain Julian connections were made by him to Babylonian cuneiform dates that helps us to link it to the book of Daniel and its history. Our focus here is especially on Daniel chapter 5 with the history of Belshashar and his last night.

We all know what happened with Belshashar, the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar feasting in the palace of Babylon and drinking heavily. A hand appeared on the wall writing Mene Mene Tekal Ufarsin and the king of Babylon was pale. He could not understand the writing. Daniel was called in and Daniel explained for him the writing on the wall. His kingdom would fall. The interesting thing is that when Daniel spoke about the meaning of and Parsin, he indicated that the kingdom of Belshashar was already divided by the Medes and Persians. The form of the Hebrew word is not futuristic but in the past Peil perfect 3rd person feminine singular. The action was already completed = perishat = is divided.

Weisbach's conclusion is quite revealing on the dates regarding the taking of Babylon by the Medes and Persians. We all know that it was in the year 539 BCE that Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians. What is not always clear, is the exact dates surrounding these events.

Weisbach found that the cuneiform sources reveal the following about the dates:

a. Ugabaru, or Gobryas or Darius the Mede came to Sippar and took it on 14th of the 7th Babylonian month. This corresponds to the 10th of October 539 BCE. Two days later, on the 16th of the 7th Babylonian month, Ugabaru or Gobryas or Darius the Mede, entered Babylon [district] on the 12th of October 539 BCE.

b. Cyrus, the Persian king also came but did not enter the district of Babylon until the 3rd of the 8th Babylonian month or 29th of October 539 BCE.

c. The night Belshasar died [Bel-šarru-uṣur] it was the same night the angel wrote on the wall Mene, Mene Tekel, Ufarsin. It is also the same night that Daniel interpreted these words for the king. It was also the same night Belshashar offered Daniel to be the third in his kingdom. The same night Daniel rejected the offer and said he could keep all his gifts and give it to another. That night of the death of Belshashar was on the 11th of the 8th Babylonian month or 5th of November 539 BCE.

To wrap it up, this is very remarkable since it means that when the angel wrote Mene Mene Tekel Ufarsin on the wall, and when Daniel was interpreting it, Ugbaru or Gobryas and Cyrus were already in the [district?]. They may not have been in the city until that night of the 5th of November but they apparently were definitely in the district of Babylon, as the cuneiform sources are indicating.

The book of Daniel supports this view since Daniel is using the past tense to refer to the take over of the kingdom of Belshashar by the Medes and Persians.

In fact, Daniel pointed out to Belshashar that God has numbered his kingdom and brought it (Haphel perfect 3rd person) to an end. He has also weighed Belshashar (Peil perfect) and found him wanting (Hithpeal perfect). The language indicate that the takeover is already history. And it was.

Belshashar was an alcoholic and also secular and a spender of his father and grandfather's riches. He was not even aware of the takeover that night and had to be informed of it as well as his death.

William Shea did a study on the titularies of the period 667-481 BCE and found the following results: that during the period of almost 130 years between 667-539 BCE the standard titulary for the kings, Assyrian and Babylonian were, "king of Babylon". In 539 BCE Cyrus entered Babylon as we have seen above in the study of Weisbach, but Shea pointed out that it is only in the 2nd year of Cyrus in 537 to the 5th year of Xerxes, 481 BCE, that the standard titulary used in economic texts was "King of Babylon, King of the lands" (W. Shea, "Un unrecognized vassal king of Babylon in the early Achaemenid period," AUSS IX/1 [January 1971], 51-67, especially page 66). Who was "King of Babylon" between 539 until 537 BCE? Was it Darius the Mede?

In another article by Shea, he indicated that Babylon was conquered after the fall of the New Year of 1 Tishri in 539 BCE and that Cyrus' 1st year did not start until the fall of 538 BCE. Thus, the reference to the 3rd year of Cyrus according to Daniel 10:1 started in the fall of 536 BCE. The first month of the 3rd year is mentioned in Daniel 10:4. According to the Babylonian spring calendar, the first month of Cyrus' 3rd year (in verse 4) would have been Nisan in the spring of 536 BCE whereas according to the Judahite fall calendar, it would have been Nisan in 535 BCE. Shea is raising the question whether the scribe or Daniel of Daniel 10:1 is and 4, is using a Babylonian reckoning or a Judahite reckoning in each case have a different Julian year as a result.

Shea came to the conclusion that Daniel 10 is using the Judahite Nisan calculation here and that the 24th of Nisan 535 BCE would have been the equivalent of 11 May 535 BCE using the scientific tables of Parker-and-Duberstein (W. Shea, "Wrestling with the Prince of Persia: A study on Daniel 10," AUSS 21/3 [1983]: 225-250). The Aramaic Grammarian Alger F. Johns was also a Seventh-day Adventist and teacher of Andrews University and he studied military strategy of Sabbath attacks on Jews and it was published in Vetus Testamentum 13 (1963): 482-486. His conclusion was that this attack in 535 on the 11th of May was on a Sabbath just like the attack by Nebuchadnezzar on the 29th of July 587 BCE, was also on a Sabbath (Shea 1983: 231). Shea indicated that since the text in Daniel 10 indicated that Michael came to fight the kings of Persia, (plural) that it refers to Cyrus and Cambyses (his son). The were coregents and some cuneiform texts read: "Year 1, Cyrus, king of the lands, Cambyses, king of Babylon". Shea thinks that it would fit in well with year 4 of Cyrus in Babylonian reckoning since a 3rd year in Jewish reckoning would have had the period between the fall of 536 until the fall of 535 BCE. The coregency tablets would then fit in well with Daniel 10:13 "kings of Persia" and in Cyrus' 4th year in the spring of 535 BCE according to Babylonian reckoning (Shea 1983: 243).

Cambyses the son of Cyrus was a problem child and disrupted religious traditions of those nations he ruled and on the 4th of Nisan in 535 BCE according to Babylonian reckoning which is Cyrus' 3rd year according to the Jewish fall to fall reckoning. ON the 4th of Nisan Cambyses entered the temple and that is the day, according to Shea, that we should see the start of the three weeks mourning of Daniel until Daniel 10:2-3 compared to Daniel 10:13, on the 24th when Daniel was on the shore of the river, thus the mourning was over. Daniel was concerned about the character of this king and his weird attitudes and actions.

About Gubaru or Ugbaru the general of the Nabonidus Chronicle who entered Babylon on the 10th of October 539 BCE, as Weisbach indicated, Shea pointed out that he is a candidate for Darius the Mede. He was an elderly person, Daniel stating that he was 62 years old, and furthermore, he died soon after Babylon fell.

An interesting point that we need to consider here is the following: There are two years in which Cyrus is not called the king of Babylon, since it is only in Cyrus' 2nd year in 537 BCE that he is called "King of Babylon". Was Darius the Mede the king of Babylon and was this person the general Gobryas or Ugbaru? Many facts point to this situation. Shea discusses some evidence and this writer [van wyk] also wrote on other evidence regarding the name of Gobryas and cuneiform and Egyptian formulas in linguistic comparisons of simulations. Gubaru died on the 11th day of the 8th month in the year 538 BCE (W. Shea, "Darius the Mede: An Update," AUSS 20/3 [Autumn 1982]: 229-247, especially page 243). This writer fully endorse the theory of Shea that Gobryas was Darius the Mede and that he reign for a couple of months until his death mentioned supra.

Another point that has not been looked at before is the question whether the many references in Zechariah, Haggai and other passages, to the second year of Darius refers to the second year of Darius the Persian (518 BCE) or does it refer to the second year of Darius the Mede in 538 BCE? Was the Darius who placed Daniel in the lion's den Darius the Mede or Darius the Persian who came later? One can say that Darius the Mede ruled for two years since it spans inclusively over two years although exclusively not. These are unanswered questions at this point and further study is necessary to ascertain these options.