Daniel’s supposedly flawed historical record is one of the main reasons critics reject its traditional date (Longman 375). The numerous historical errors contained within the work are thought to be impossible for any respectable sixth-century B.C. author (Harrison 1112). One alleged problem is the dating of Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem in B.C. 605 (Walton 526). Critics assert that Jeremiah’s record of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and Daniel’s are contradictory (Dan. 1:1; Jer. 46:2; Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 364). Jeremiah claims Nebuchadnezzar’s reign began in Jehoiakim’s fourth year, whereas Daniel says it was Jehoiakim’s third. Furthermore, some critics point to the lack of historical verification for the siege of Jerusalem
…show more content…
The story says Nabonidus was afflicted with severe inflammation, confessed his sin to God, and a Jewish priest sent from the captives went to him and interpreted the significance of the issue (1117). Despite any similarities, there are several discrepancies between the accounts. First, the names of the kings are different, and both fall ill in different locations (Yamauchi 164). Second, Nebuchadnezzar was afflicted with a mental disease called boanthropy, not with a skin ailment (164). And third, Nabonidus was angry because he believed the people offended Sin, his preferred god, so he went to Arabia (164). He was not, however, insane …show more content…
5:1, 30). Secular history from this period says Nabonidus was Babylon’s king when the nation fell to Persia (Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 365). In addition, Daniel’s note that Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar’s son is deemed unhistorical because Nabonidus was his father (365). Both claims led critics to conclude Belshazzar was a legendary figure because he was never mentioned anywhere outside of Daniel (Archer, New Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 286). Recent archaeological discoveries have demonstrated the falsity of this conclusion (McDowell 62). These findings show that Belshazzar reigned as a co-regent with his father Nabonidus (Harrison 1120). Nabonidus became alienated from the Babylonian people, so he appointed Belshazzar as king over the city so he could flee to Arabia (Yamauchi 163). Daniel was aware of this fact because Belshazzar could only offer him the “third place” in the kingdom rather than the second, which is only explainable by co-regency (Dan. 5:16, 29; Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction,
The story says Nabonidus was afflicted with severe inflammation, confessed his sin to God, and a Jewish priest sent from the captives went to him and interpreted the significance of the issue (1117). Despite any similarities, there are several discrepancies between the accounts. First, the names of the kings are different, and both fall ill in different locations (Yamauchi 164). Second, Nebuchadnezzar was afflicted with a mental disease called boanthropy, not with a skin ailment (164). And third, Nabonidus was angry because he believed the people offended Sin, his preferred god, so he went to Arabia (164). He was not, however, insane …show more content…
5:1, 30). Secular history from this period says Nabonidus was Babylon’s king when the nation fell to Persia (Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 365). In addition, Daniel’s note that Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar’s son is deemed unhistorical because Nabonidus was his father (365). Both claims led critics to conclude Belshazzar was a legendary figure because he was never mentioned anywhere outside of Daniel (Archer, New Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 286). Recent archaeological discoveries have demonstrated the falsity of this conclusion (McDowell 62). These findings show that Belshazzar reigned as a co-regent with his father Nabonidus (Harrison 1120). Nabonidus became alienated from the Babylonian people, so he appointed Belshazzar as king over the city so he could flee to Arabia (Yamauchi 163). Daniel was aware of this fact because Belshazzar could only offer him the “third place” in the kingdom rather than the second, which is only explainable by co-regency (Dan. 5:16, 29; Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction,