Yes, a notable find indeed.
Although “scientific biblical criticism” could be traced back earlier, it really took off in Germany about 1870. There was a political push behind it: Bismark funded positions in German universities as one aspect of his campaign of persecution against the Catholic Church, which he thought necessary to turn Germany into a modern state.
On no particular scientific evidence, most of the Bible was declared to be fictional, or to have been pieced together from various unreliable sources.
Since then, however, archaeological discoveries have consistently confirmed the truth of the biblical narrative. This discovery is fascinating precisely because it confirms the existence of a minor figure, thus confirming that the author of Jeremiah knew what he was talking about, and was not some scribe working hundreds of years after the fact and inventing details on his whim.
Some parts of the Bible, of course, are stories, and so indicate themselves to be. But things like the Exodus from Egypt or the Babylonian exile and Persian restoration are historical facts, constantly being confirmed by small pieces of archaeological evidence.
Don't forget other evidence of Prussian persecution of the Catholics. They funded completion of the Cathedral in Colonge, which the Catholics had been building for about 500 years.
Nabonides is considered the last great king of Babylon. His relationship with the previous Kings of Babylon is unclear, perhaps he was once a great general, but he came to the throne by overthrowing a young king named Labashi-Marduk.
It is likely Nabonides substantiated his claim to the throne by marrying Nitocris, a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, since he was not a blood relative to Nebuchadnezzar.
Being a religious eccentric, in 549 BC Nabonides left Babylon to live at Teyma (Tema) located in what is now Saudi Arabia northeast of Hijaz, where the ancient trade route between Medina and Dumah crosses the Nefud desert.
While on religious sojourn Nabonides left his son behind to rule in Babylon, but Belshazzar never fully came to the throne. Skeptics believed that the writer of Daniel made an historical error in calling Belshazzar king, but when Belshazzar told Daniel that if he could interpret the strange writing on the wall he (Daniel) would be granted authority in the kingdom as third ruler, the scriptures show a detail which lends credence to the account.
Belshazzar was not the first ruler of the kingdom, but he was in a secondary position, appointed to reign in Babylon while his father was away. By Babylonian tradition, all in the city with the secondary ruler would call him king. Belshazzar offered to Daniel third position, so the writer of the Book faithfully related the fact as a minor detail, and then much later archaeological evidence substantiated the trivia.
These findings in archaeology show that the writer of Daniel was telling of a real man named Belshazzar, thus the other details are likely true, also. These were no fables.
Of course, the way the name of Belshazzar became an accept actual person of Babylonian ruling household is a story in itself, how a discovered chit in a tower foundation named him.
#13 - Well said.
What you described, known as the “higher criticisms”, while not of the purest intent, did make a lot of interesting discoveries along with the dross. All told, they really opened the door to several new ways of examining religious history and doctrines, especially what this article is talking about: looking for non-Biblical sources to confirm Biblical writings and events.
They also went beyond “lower criticisms”, which was the study of translation errors and textual changes over time, to actual linguistic analysis. This resulted in all sorts of interesting discoveries about differences in writing style between different authors.
Even today, profound discoveries are being made along these lines, such as the agonizingly slow reformation of the original Hebrew Pentateuch being done in Israel with some of the world’s top Hebraic language scholars, which revealed that it was written in an archaic poetic form. With each small phrase needing books of footnotes to justify.
So in a manner of speaking, the higher criticisms never really ended, forcing Judeo-Christian religions to question arguable interpretations, and changing or not changing their doctrines accordingly.
Of course, the higher criticisms did produce a lot of whoppers, such as trying to rationalize supernatural events with natural causes.