If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd?

by Damien F. Mackey Question: I have a question concerning Belshazzar and the Babylonian kingdom. Daniel was offered to be the third ruler of the kingdom if he could tell the interpretation of the writing on the wall. The question was asked, Was [sic] there two rulers in the kingdom at that time or was there only one king? http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2007/10-08c.html That is a perfectly legitimate question to ask, and it is one that I have attempted to answer, and will do so again here, by modifying what I previously wrote about it under the same title: If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd? But, firstly, here is the answer given to this question at La Vista Church of Christ: ________________________________________ Answer: "Then Belshazzar gave the command, and they clothed Daniel with purple and put a chain of gold around his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom" (Daniel 5:29). In most kingdoms there would be the current king, the heir apparent, and then the chief counselor. After Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 B.C., Babylon had a series of short-lived kings. Nebuchadnezzar's son, Evil-Merodach, succeeded his father, but was assassinated two years later. His brother-in-law, Neriglissar, came to the throne, but he died four years later. His infant son, Labashi-Marduk, was next in line, but was assassinated. He was followed by the last king of Babylon, Nabonidus. Babylonian kings were required [to] attend a yearly new year ceremony and pledge their loyalty to the Babylonian god, Marduk. Nabonidus, however, chose to give loyalty to another god, the moon god Sin. This caused such an uproar in Babylon that Nabonidus left the city and put his son, the crown prince Belshazzar, in charge. This explains the third in line offer. Belshazzar was second after his father, Nabonidus, and offered to put Daniel directly under himself. …. [End of quote] This “Answer”, doggedly following the textbook succession of neo-Babylonian kings, which contains duplicates, is doomed to be wrong. It does succeed, however, in identifying the correct historical person as the “King Belshazzar” of the Book of Daniel, namely, Belshazzar son of Nabonidus. The latter, though, Nabonidus, who was the same as King Nebuchednezzar, was, by now, dead. Here follows the modified version of my original article: Introduction According to my new arrangement of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty, which - arguing for certain duplications in the sequence - involves an approximate halving of the number of kings conventionally listed: Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel (5) Aligning Neo-Babylonia with the Book of Daniel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Some of the benefits of this restructuring, are that: • Nabonidus, considered by various scholars to have been the true paradigm for Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar”, is now to be identified with Nebuchednezzar; • Belshazzar (= Amel-Marduk) is the last king of the dynasty, as according to Daniel; and • Belshazzar is immediately followed by the Medo-Persians. How it all works out in relation to Daniel King Belshazzar is now the Amel-Marduk (Awel-Marduk or Evil Merodach) who raised up the captive Judaean king, Jehoiachin (Coniah) (2 Kings 25:27-30): And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evilmerodach king of Babylon in the year that he began to reign did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison; And he spake kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon; And changed his prison garments: and he did eat bread continually before him all the days of his life. And his allowance was a continual allowance given him of the king, a daily rate for every day, all the days of his life. Clearly, King Belshazzar (as Amel-Marduk) had made Jehoiachin second to himself, having “set [Jehoiachin’s] throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon”. Considering the short reign of Belshazzar as Amel-Marduk (c. 562-560 BC, conventional dates), and as Daniel’s Belshazzar (8:1): “In the third year of King Belshazzar’s reign, I, Daniel, had a vision, after the one that had already appeared to me”, a mere 2-4 years, Jehoiachin would presumably still have been second in the kingdom at the time of “Belshazzar’s Feast” (Daniel 5:1-29). The best that Daniel could be given, therefore, was “the third highest ruler in the kingdom”. First: King Belshazzar; Second: Jehoiachin; Third: Daniel. But the blasphemous numero uno would promptly lose his place at the top, for we read (5:30): “That very night Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, was slain …”. His replacement at the top? V. 31: “And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old”. Presumably Jehoiachin retained a high place: He was the conspiratorial Haman of the Book of Esther, according to my: Haman un-masked (10) Haman un-masked | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Darius the Mede, though, appears to have employed a different system of government (Daniel 6:1-3): It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom, with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel. The satraps were made accountable to them so that the king might not suffer loss. Now Daniel so distinguished himself among the administrators and the satraps by his exceptional qualities that the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom. The fierce revolt of the Babylonians against the king in support of Daniel (Daniel 14:27-30) may have opened the door for the advancement, again, of Jehoiachin, now as Haman. And so Darius the Mede, the “Ahasuerus” of the Book of Esther (3:1): “… promoted Haman … the son of Hammedatha, and advanced him and set his throne above all the officials who were with him”.