by VM44 6 Replies latest watchtower bible
This book has been referenced by The Watchtower when discussing the Neo-Babylonian period.
Nabonidus and Belshazzar: A Study of the Closing Events of the Neo-Babylonian Empire
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/155635956X/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=
Price: $20.00
How many times has this book been referenced by The Watchtower?
Could someone please search the Watchtower CD-Library for the name "Dougherty"?
The WT rarely cites references. If they did, it would easily be found out how they misquote.
Did Professor Dougherty really say this in his book?
*** hp chap. 3 p. 27 par. 16 Where Can You Find Guidance? ***
For a long time critics claimed that Belshazzar never existed, but was invented by Daniel. In recent years, however, clay-tablet records have been unearthed and translated that agree with the details in Daniel’s account.For this reason, Professor R. P. Dougherty (Yale University) wrote that the Bible is more accurate than other writings and proves that the book of Daniel was written when the Bible indicates it was.—Nabonidus and Belshazzar
VM44 > How many times has this book been referenced by The Watchtower?
*** w59 5/1 p. 280 par. 18 Part 13—“Your Will Be Done on Earth” ***
18 He is the head of gold as he is the head of a dynasty of rulers over the Babylonian Empire. So the golden head in fact symbolizes the dynasty of the Babylonian world power beginning with Nebuchadnezzar. The Bible itself mentions two others in that dynasty, namely, Evil-meródach and Belshazzar. (2 Ki. 25:27; Jer. 52:31; Dan. 5:1-30, RS) Nebuchadnezzar is reported to have reigned forty-three years from his enthronement in 625 B.C., or for twenty-five years after he destroyed Jerusalem and its sanctuary in 607 B.C. Evil-meródach began to reign in 582 B.C. as immediate successor to Nebuchadnezzar. Belshazzar* brought to an end the dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar in 539 B.C., when he was put to death violently. (Dan. 5:30, 31, AV) Thus the golden head of the symbolic image really came into existence when Nebuchadnezzar became world ruler at Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C., after which event the “seven times” began.
[Footnotes]
*It is Daniel who has introduced Belshazzar to this modern world long before modern archaeology routed the “higher critics” of the Bible and gave worldly proof of his historicalness. For example, in 1929 the Yale Oriental Series . Researches . Volume XV, said:
“Cuneiform allusions to Belshazzar have thrown so much light upon the role which he played that his place in history stands clearly revealed. There are many texts which indicate that Belshazzar almost equalled Nabonidus in position and prestige. Dual rulership during most of the last Neo-Babylonian reign is an established fact. Nabonidus exercised supreme authority from his court at Têmâ in Arabia, while Belshazzar acted as co-regent in the homeland with Babylon as his center of influence. It is evident that Belshazzar was not a feeble viceroy; he was entrusted with ‘the kingship.’”—See page 186 of Chapter XIV, entitled “The Meaning of Non-Cuneiform Allusions to Belshazzar,” of Volume XV of the above series under the title “Nabonidus and Belshazzar—A Study of the Closing Events of the Neo-Babylonian Empire,” by Raymond Philip Dougherty, William M. Laffan Professor of Assyriology and Babylonian Literature and Curator of the Babylonian Collection, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.
*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***
BABYLON’S LAST DYNASTY OF SEMITE KINGS
Nebuchadnezzar was now growing old, and eyes began to turn toward a successor for him. By his Median queen Amytis Nebuchadnezzar had his first son, Evil-merodach. He had two sons-in-law, Neriglissar and Nabonidus. The latter was the husband of Nitocris, Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter by his wife of the same name. This marriage produced Belshazzar, who was therefore a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar and a great-grandson of Nabopolassar, the founder of the last dynasty of Semite kings of Babylon.*
[Footnotes]
*Nabonidus and Belshazzar, by R. P. Dougherty, page 79.
*** w65 1/1 pp. 29-30 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***
Nabonidus set up a second capital for Babylonia at the oasis of Tema in Arabia. In the third year of his reign he made Belshazzar coregent. While Nabonidus was absent from Babylon and down south in Tema, Belshazzar officiated in Babylon as second ruler of the land. Belshazzar was also very religious, a thing required by the Babylonians of their kings. He reverenced the Babylonian gods greatly, but insulted and blasphemed Jehovah, rejoicing over the supposed victory of his gods in the fact that the Jews were in captivity to Babylon. (Dan. 5:1-4) He built sanctuaries, making offerings of gold and silver and sacrificial animals. There are six cuneiform texts that have been discovered that run from the fifth year to the thirteenth year of the reign of his father Nabonidus that prove this fact. Belshazzar even paid the Babylonian religious tithe. He was a devotee of the gods.*
*See Nabonidus and Belshazzar, chapter VIII, entitled “Belshazzar’s Devotion to Babylonian Deities.”
*** w65 3/1 pp. 153-154 Basis for Reliance on Prophecy ***
It was not the prowess of Cyrus, but it was Jehovah, who, as He says, unknown to Cyrus, strengthened him to carry out God’s delight against Babylon and for his people, giving Cyrus “a name of honor.” Only because Jehovah God selected and strengthened him could he say afterward, in the Cyrus Cylinder: “I am Cyrus, the king of totality, the great king, the mighty king, the king of Babylon, the king of Sumer and Akkad, the king of the four quarters (of the world).”*
*See page 177 of Nabonidus and Belshazzar, by R. P. Dougherty.
*** w65 3/15 p. 183 A War Between Gods ***
His widespread troops, whose number like the waters of a river is not known, put on their weapons and advanced at his side. Without encounter and battle he caused him to enter into the midst of Babylon, his city. He saved Babylon from need. . . .*
*See the same, page 41; also Nabonidus and Belshazzar, by R. P. Dougherty, page 176 of 1929 edition.
*** w65 4/1 p. 214 Four Words That Changed World Empire ***
A NIGHT THAT MADE HISTORY
For the account we go back to the year 539 B.C.E., to the sixteenth day of the lunar month Tishri, the seventh month of the Jewish sacred year.* This had been the God-ordained time for the Israelites back in their homeland to celebrate the festival of booths or tabernacles (the festival of ingathering) at the temple in Jerusalem. (Lev. 23:33-36)
[Footnotes]
*The date given in this paragraph is according to pages 170, 171 of the book Nabonidus and Belshazzar, by R. P. Dougherty, which sets out data according to the famous Nabonidus Chronicle dealing with the fall of Babylon. According to the book Darius the Mede, by J. C. Whitcomb, on page 70, ¶4, page 22 top and page 17, ¶1-4, the night of Tishri (Ethanim) 16 corresponds with the night of October 11-12, Julian Calendar, or October 5-6, Gregorian Calendar, the time we use today. See also page 14, ¶1, under “Cyrus,” of Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75, by Parker and Dubberstein, 1956 Edition.
*** w65 4/15 p. 250 Babylon’s Fall Turns the Tide of History ***
YOU may wonder why the Bible has so much to say about the fall of Babylon, especially its fall in 539 B.C.E. to Cyrus, though the city was not destroyed at that time but continued for some centuries afterward. Readers of history have similarly asked why historians have said so much about this particular overthrow of the city. An excerpt from history gives us the answer:
Military conquest affected the fortunes of Babylon at many critical stages in its history. It is all the more remarkable, therefore, that the capitulation to Cyrus in 539 B.C., should be designated ‘The Fall of Babylon,’ as if no other like event had occurred in the city’s history. Even the submission of Babylon to Alexander [the Great] in 331 B.C. pales in importance when compared with the disaster which brought the Neo-Babylonian empire to a close.
A reasonable explanation of this phenomenon commends itself to the inquirer. Cyrus, capture of Babylon brought about far-reaching consequences. Its subjugation by Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal had not removed the balance of power from Semitic control, but the triumph of Persia in 539 B.C. introduced a new predominating influence in ancient Oriental developments. That date marks the turning-point in favor of Aryan leadership, a directing force which has maintained itself at the forefront of civilization down to the present day.—Nabonidus and Belshazzar, by R. P. Dougherty, page 167.
*** w65 4/15 p. 252 Babylon’s Fall Turns the Tide of History ***
Now the runners began to reach Belshazzar, one with the breathless report that the invaders had entered the end of the city from which he had come; on his heels another, saying the city had been taken at the other extremity. Paralyzed with fear, what would Belshazzar do? Would he commit suicide? About this time a noise is heard at the palace gates. We leave it for a historian to describe the cause of the disturbance and what ensued:
And Gobryas [Ugbaru the governor of Gutium] and Gadatas and their troops found the gates leading to the palace locked, and those who had been appointed to attack the guard fell upon them as they were drinking by a blazing fire, and without waiting they dealt with them as with foes.
But, as a noise and tumult ensued, those within heard the uproar, and at the king’s command to see what the matter was, some of them opened the gates and ran out.
And when Gadatas and his men saw the gates open they dashed in in pursuit of the others as they fled back into the palace, and dealing blows right and left they came into the presence of the king, and they found him already risen with his dagger in his hand.
And Gadatas and Gobryas [Ugbaru] and their followers overpowered him; and those about the king perished also, one where he had sought some shelter, another while running away, another while actually trying to defend himself with whatever he could.*
*Quoted from the translation of the Cyropaedia (or, The Education of Cyrus), by the ancient Greek historian and general, Xenophon (VII, 5:27-30). It is believed that the Gobryas mentioned by Xenophon may refer to Ugbaru the governor of Gutium, whom the Nabonidus Chronicle mentions as having conquered Babylon for Cyrus the Persian and who is not the same as Gubaru who appointed governors in Babylon for Cyrus.—See Darius the Mede (page 75, footnote), by J. C. Whitcomb, Jr.
Concerning Gobryas as Ugbaru, see also Nabonidus and Belshazzar, by R. P. Dougherty, pages 170-173, 175, 180, 184, 185, 187, 188, 192, 195, 196, 198, 199.
*** w68 8/15 p. 491 pars. 17-18 The Book of Truthful Historical Dates ***
17 Other investigators say this: “The Nabunaid Chronicle . . . states that Sippar fell to Persian forces VII/14/17 (Oct. 10, 539), that Babylon fell VII/16/17 (Oct. 12), and that Cyrus entered Babylon VIII/3/17 (Oct. 29). This fixes the end of Nabunaid’s reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus. Interestingly enough, the last tablet dated to Nabunaid from Uruk is dated the day after Babylon fell to Cyrus. News of its capture had not yet reached the southern city some 125 miles distant.”—Brown University Studies, Vol. XIX, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75, Parker and Dubberstein, 1956, p. 13.
18 Recognized authorities of today accept 539 B.C.E. without any question as the year Babylon was overthrown by Cyrus the Great. In addition to the above quotations the following gives a small sampling from books of history representing a cross section of both general reference works and elementary textbooks. These brief quotations also show that this is not a date recently suggested, but one thoroughly investigated and generally accepted for the past sixty years.
“Cyrus entered Babylon in 539 B.C.” (Encyclopœdia Britannica, 1946, Vol. 2, p. 852) “When Cyrus defeated the army of Nabonidus, Babylon itself surrendered, in Oct. 539, to the Persian general Gobryas.”—Ibid., Vol. 6, p. 930.
“In 539 B.C. Babylon fell without a struggle to the Achaemenid Persian, Cyrus the Great.”—The Encyclopedia Americana, 1956, Vol. III, p. 9.
“Babylon was captured by Cyrus in 539 B.C.”—Yale Oriental Series · Researches · Vol. XV, 1929, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, Dougherty, p. 46.
*** hp chap. 3 pp. 26-27 par. 16 Where Can You Find Guidance? ***
16 What the Bible writers penned is different in many respects from most ancient records. As any student of ancient history knows, the records from Egypt, Persia, Babylon and other ancient nations included mythology and gross exaggerations about the rulers and their exploits. The Bible, in contrast, is marked by truth and accuracy. It is filled with specific names and details that can be confirmed, even dated. For example, Daniel chapter five has information about a Babylonian ruler named Belshazzar. For a long time critics claimed that Belshazzar never existed, but was invented by Daniel. In recent years, however, clay-tablet records have been unearthed and translated that agree with the details in Daniel’s account. For this reason, Professor R. P. Dougherty (Yale University) wrote that the Bible is more accurate than other writings and proves that the book of Daniel was written when the Bible indicates it was.—Nabonidus and Belshazzar.
*** ce chap. 17 pp. 210-211 par. 28 Can You Trust the Bible? ***
28 At one time all known ancient sources also differed with the Bible regarding Belshazzar. The Bible presents Belshazzar as the king of Babylon when it fell. (Daniel 5:1-31) However, secular writings did not even mention Belshazzar, saying that Nabonidus was king at the time. So critics claimed that Belshazzar never existed. More recently, however, ancient writings were found that identified Belshazzar as a son of Nabonidus and coruler with his father in Babylon. For this reason, evidently, the Bible says Belshazzar offered to make Daniel “the third ruler in the kingdom,” since Belshazzar himself was the second. (Daniel 5:16, 29) Thus the Yale University professor, R. P. Dougherty, when comparing the Bible book of Daniel with other ancient writings, said: “The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling because it employs the name Belshazzar, because it attributes royal power to Belshazzar, and because it recognizes that a dual rulership existed in the kingdom.”27
27. Nabonidus and Belshazzar, by Raymond Philip Dougherty, 1929, p. 200.
*** it-1 pp. 282-283 Belshazzar ***
BELSHAZZAR
(Bel·shaz′zar) [from Akkadian, meaning “Protect His Life”; or, possibly, “[May] Bel Protect the King”].
The firstborn son of Nabonidus, and coregent of Nabonidus in the last years of the Babylonian Empire. He is mentioned in the Bible account only by the prophet Daniel, and for long his position as “king of Babylon” was denied by Bible critics. (Da 5:1, 9; 7:1; 8:1) However, archaeological evidence in the form of ancient texts has since demonstrated the historicity of the Bible account.
At Daniel 5:2, 11, 18, 22, Nebuchadnezzar is referred to as the “father” of Belshazzar, and Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar’s “son.” The book Nabonidus and Belshazzar (by R. P. Dougherty, 1929) reasons that it is probable that Belshazzar’s mother was Nitocris and that she was a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar (II). If so, Nebuchadnezzar was the grandfather of Belshazzar. (See Ge 28:10, 13 for a comparable use of “father.”) However, not all scholars find the evidence for such a relationship completely satisfying. It may be that Nebuchadnezzar was simply the “father” of Belshazzar as to the throne, Nebuchadnezzar being a royal predecessor. In a similar manner, the Assyrians used the expression “son of Omri” to denote a successor of Omri.—See OMRI No. 3.
*** it-2 pp. 457-458 Nabonidus ***
In a book of the Yale Oriental Series entitled Nabonidus and Belshazzar, Professor R. P. Dougherty advances the supposition that Nitocris was the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar and that therefore Nabonidus (Labynetus) was Nebuchadnezzar’s son-in-law. (1929, p. 63; see also pp. 17, 30.) In turn, the “son” of Nitocris and Nabonidus (Labynetus), mentioned by Herodotus, is thought to be Belshazzar, against whom Cyrus did indeed fight. Although based on much deductive and inductive reasoning, this argument might explain the reason for Nabonidus’ ascension to the Babylonian throne. It would also harmonize with the Biblical fact that Nebuchadnezzar is referred to as the “father” of Nabonidus’ son Belshazzar (Da 5:11, 18, 22), the term “father” at times having the meaning of grandfather or ancestor. This view would make Belshazzar a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar.
*** it-2 p. 458 Nabonidus ***
As to the absence of any direct mention of Nabonidus in chapter 5 of Daniel, it may be noted that Daniel’s description deals with only a very few events prior to the fall of Babylon, and the actual collapse of the empire is set forth in but a few words. However, his rulership is apparently indicated at Daniel 5:7, 16, 29, where Belshazzar offers to make Daniel the third ruler in the kingdom, implying that Nabonidus was the first and Belshazzar the second. Thus, Professor Dougherty comments: “The fifth chapter of Daniel may be regarded as comporting with fact in not giving any place to Nabonidus in the narrative, for he seems to have had no share in the events which transpired when Gobryas [at the head of Cyrus’ army] entered the city.”—Nabonidus and Belshazzar, pp. 195, 196; see also pp. 73, 170, 181; see Da 5:1, ftn.
*** gm chap. 9 pp. 124-125 par. 18 Prophecies That Came True ***
18 In this way the city fell, as Jeremiah and Isaiah had warned. But notice the detailed fulfillment of prophecy. There was literally ‘a devastation upon her waters, and they were dried up.’ It was the lowering of the waters of the Euphrates that enabled Cyrus to gain access to the city. Did ‘the mighty men of Babylon cease to fight,’ as Jeremiah had warned? The Bible—as well as the Greek historians Herodotus and Xenophon—records that the Babylonians were actually feasting when the Persian assault occurred.5 The Nabonidus Chronicle, an official cuneiform inscription, says that Cyrus’ troops entered Babylon “without battle,” likely meaning without a major pitched battle.6 Evidently, Babylon’s mighty men did not do much to protect her.
5. Nabonidus and Belshazzar, by Raymond Philip Dougherty, 1929, p. 179.
*** gm chap. 9 pp. 129-130 par. 28 Prophecies That Came True ***
28 Further, Daniel contains historical details that would have been unknown to a second-century writer. Outstanding is the case of Belshazzar, the ruler of Babylon who was killed when Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E. The major non-Biblical sources of our knowledge of the fall of Babylon are Herodotus (fifth century), Xenophon (fifth and fourth centuries), and Berossus (third century). None of these knew about Belshazzar.11 How unlikely that a second-century writer would have had information that had been unavailable to these earlier authors! The record concerning Belshazzar in Daniel chapter 5 is a strong argument that Daniel wrote his book before these other writers wrote theirs.
11. Nabonidus and Belshazzar, pp. 183-185.
*** w98 9/15 p. 8 A Proud Regent Loses an Empire ***
Coregent or King?
Daniel refers to Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzar. (Daniel 5:2, 11, 18, 22) However, this relationship is not literal. The book Nabonidus and Belshazzar, by Raymond P. Dougherty, suggests that perhaps Nebuchadnezzar was his grandfather through his mother, Nitocris. It may also be that Nebuchadnezzar, being a royal predecessor, was simply the “father” of Belshazzar as to the throne. (Compare Genesis 28:10, 13.) In any case, the cuneiform inscriptions on several clay cylinders discovered in southern Iraq during the 19th century identify Belshazzar as the eldest son of Nabonidus, king of Babylon.
*** ip-2 chap. 8 p. 112 par. 14 False Religion—Its Dramatic End Foreseen ***
14 What will result to Babylon? Jehovah continues: “But to you these two things will come suddenly, in one day: loss of children and widowhood. In their complete measure they must come upon you, for the abundance of your sorceries, for the full might of your spells—exceedingly.” (Isaiah 47:9) Yes, Babylon’s supremacy as a world power will suddenly come to an end. In the ancient Eastern lands, becoming a widow and losing children were the most calamitous experiences that a woman could undergo. We do not know how many “children” Babylon loses on the night of her fall.* In due time, though, that city will be abandoned entirely. (Jeremiah 51:29) She will also suffer widowhood in that her kings will be dethroned.
*The book Nabonidus and Belshazzar, by Raymond Philip Dougherty, notes that while the Nabonidus Chronicle claims that Babylon’s invaders entered “without fighting,” Greek historian Xenophon indicates that there may have been considerable bloodshed.
*** Rbi8 Daniel 5:1 ***
As regards Bel·shaz′zar* the king, he made a big feast for a thousand of his grandees, and in front of the thousand he was drinking wine.
*“Belshazzar.” Aram., Bel·sha'ts·tsar′; Gr., Bal·ta′sar; Syr., Belit·sha·tsar; Vgc(Lat.), Bal·tas′sar. In the Babylonian tablet No. 38,299, in the British Museum, the name appears as “Bel-sharusur.” Says Nabonidus and Belshazzar, by R. P. Dougherty, New Haven, 1929, p. 186: “Cuneiform allusions to Belshazzar have thrown so much light upon the rôle which he played that his place in history stands clearly revealed. There are many texts which indicate that Belshazzar almost equalled Nabonidus in position and prestige.”
Bats in the Belfry -- Wow, thanks for posting all of those references and taking the time to highlight them!
VM44, post 6459: Did Professor Dougherty really say this in his book? *** hp chap. 3 p. 27 par. 16 Where Can You Find Guidance? *** For a long time critics claimed that Belshazzar never existed, but was invented by Daniel. In recent years, however, clay-tablet records have been unearthed and translated that agree with the details in Daniel’s account.For this reason, Professor R. P. Dougherty (Yale University) wrote that the Bible is more accurate than other writings and proves that the book of Daniel was written when the Bible indicates it was.—Nabonidus and Belshazzar
Look on page 199-200 of Dougherty's Nabonidus and Belshazzar, starting with section (i) on page 199. The WTS paraphrased Dougherty's words. He was talking about non-Babylonian records, and he says:
"...of all non-Babylonian records dealing with the situation at the close of the Neo-Babylonian empire the fifth chapter of Daniel ranks next to cuneiform literature in accuracy so far as outstanding events are concerned. The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling because it employs the name of Belshazzar, because it attributes royal power to Belshazzar, and because it recognizes that a dual rulership existed in the kingdom. Babylonian documents of the sixth century B.C. furnish clear-cut evidence of the correctness of these three basic historical nuclei contained in the Biblical narrative dealing with the fall of Babylon." [italics are Dougherty's]
See footnote 671 on p. 200 regarding the dating of the fifth chapter of Daniel.
*Wince* - not another example of misrepresentation!
