https://catalog.obitel-minsk.com/blog/2021/06/nabonidus-cylinder-and-how-it-proves-the-historicity-of-the-old-testament-events Sat, 03 Jun 2023 19:26:37 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.2 https://catalog.obitel-minsk.com/blog/2021/06/nabonidus-cylinder-and-how-it-proves-the-historicity-of-the-old-testament-events#comment-7357 Sat, 03 Jun 2023 19:26:37 +0000 https://catalog.obitel-minsk.com/blog/?p=35264#comment-7357 The Nabonidus cylinder confirms the existence of belshazzar but does not say he was king. There is no evidence from babylonian or Persian sources that he was ever more than the crown prince/prince regent. Likewise there is no indication that he was related to nebuchadnezzar, as the Bible claims, though some have posited that his father nabonidus may have married a daughter of nebuchadnezzar (bur this is pure speculation). And finally the idea that a man named Darius succeeded belshazzar as king of babylon is completely without historical support. Our inscriptions, our later historians, and the book of Isaiah, all support that it was cyrus the great who came to power after the overthrow of nabonidus. Some have posited that Darius was a satrap, a minor king ruling underneath cyrus, but it this is not what the book of Daniel suggests, as it states that cyrus ruled after Darius. The author of Daniel also said that Darius was son of xerxes (ahaseurus). There was later a Persian king named Darius with a son named zeroes (ahaseurus). The author of Daniel quite likely confused his Persian rulers. Neither this hypothetical earlier Darius nor his father xerxes are mentioned anywhere in inscriptions from the time, nor do such inscriptions seem to allow for the possibility of his rule. Clearly we would be wisest to admit the book of Daniel is in error.

]]>