When Nebuchadnezzar’s armies stormed Jerusalem in 605 BC, the Babylonian king didn’t just take treasures from the temple—he took people. Among the captives were four young men from Judah’s nobility: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. But before they could begin their service in the king’s court, something significant happened. The Babylonian officials gave them new names.

This name change wasn’t merely administrative. It was the first step in a comprehensive programme designed to transform these Hebrew youths into loyal Babylonian courtiers. Yet this minor detail in Scripture provides compelling evidence for the historical accuracy of the Book of Daniel—evidence that becomes clear as we examine the meaning and historical context of these names.

 

THE BABYLONIAN ASSIMILATION PROGRAMME

Daniel 1 describes how Nebuchadnezzar commanded Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to select promising young men from among the Judean captives. These weren’t ordinary prisoners—they were “youths without blemish, of good appearance and skilful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning” (Daniel 1:4). The king’s intention was clear: to reshape these bright young Judeans into Babylonians through a three-year immersion in “the literature and language of the Chaldeans.”

The educational programme included three key components:

• Cultural re-education through Babylonian literature and language
• Dietary changes to Babylonian royal food
• And critically, new Babylonian names

Changing someone’s name may seem superficial to us today, but in the ancient Near East, names carried profound theological and identity implications. By replacing Hebrew names that honoured Yahweh with names dedicated to Babylonian gods, the officials were attempting nothing less than a spiritual reorientation.

 

THE HEBREW NAMES AND THEIR MEANINGS

To appreciate the significance of this change, we must first understand what the original Hebrew names meant:

• Daniel means “God is my judge” or “God has judged”
• Hananiah means “Yahweh has been gracious”
• Mishael means “Who is what God is?”
• Azariah means “Yahweh has helped”

Each name contains elements referring to God—either the generic “El” or the specific covenant name “Yahweh”. These theophoric names (names containing divine elements) were common in ancient Israel and served as constant reminders of the bearer’s relationship with God. These weren’t just labels—they were declarations of faith and identity.

 

THE BABYLONIAN NAMES AND THEIR MEANINGS

Now, consider the new names assigned by the Babylonian officials:

• Belteshazzar likely means “Bel/Marduk protect his life”
• Shadrach possibly means “Command of Aku” or “I am fearful of god”
• Meshach may mean “Who is what Aku is?”
• Abednego means “Servant of Nego/Nebo”

Each new name referenced Babylonian deities: Bel (Marduk, chief god of Babylon), Aku (the moon god), and Nebo (god of wisdom and writing). The pattern is unmistakable—Hebrew names honouring Yahweh were replaced with names honoring Babylonian gods. (Daniel 4:8).

The theological implications were clear: every utterance of these new names was meant to be an acknowledgment of Babylonian deities and a step away from the God of Israel.

 

ONOMASTIC CONGRUENCE: HOW NAMES BACK BIBLE VERACITY

Here’s where the historical evidence becomes particularly compelling. The study of historical names (onomastics) provides strong support for the authenticity of Daniel’s account.

Onomastic congruence refers to the appropriate matching of names to their historical and cultural context. For the Book of Daniel to demonstrate such congruence, the Babylonian names described should accurately reflect actual naming patterns from 6th century BC Babylon—not patterns from some later period when critics claim the book was written.

And that’s indeed what we find. Archaeological discoveries have uncovered numerous Neo-Babylonian names with structures matching those in Daniel:

• Belteshazzar follows the pattern of Neo-Babylonian names invoking divine protection, similar to names found in Babylonian administrative texts from the 6th century BC.
• The elements in Shadrach and Meshach that likely refer to the moon god Aku align with the prominence of lunar deity worship during the Neo-Babylonian period.
• Abednego (“servant of Nebo”) parallels other “servant of [deity]” constructions common in Babylonian names of the period.

If Daniel were written in the 2nd century BC, as some critical scholars suggest, it would be highly unlikely for the author to correctly reproduce authentic Neo-Babylonian naming patterns from four centuries earlier. The accurate representation of these name forms provides compelling evidence for the book’s 6th century BC origin.

HOW NAMES BACK BIBLE VERACITY: Old Testament scholar Kenneth Kitchen notes, “The personal names in Daniel are impeccable for the Neo-Babylonian and early Persian periods.” This onomastic evidence directly contradicts theories of late authorship and strongly supports the historical reliability of Daniel’s account.

 

THEOLOGICAL BIG PICTURE

From a theological perspective, the attempt at identity erasure and the young men’s response reveals several important truths:

• God’s sovereignty transcends human schemes: Despite Nebuchadnezzar’s efforts to remake these young men in Babylon’s image, God remained sovereign. The king could change their names but not their hearts.
• The perseverance of the saints. Despite immense pressure to conform, these young men remained faithful. This illustrates the Reformed doctrine that God preserves His elect even through trials and temptations.
• God’s covenant faithfulness: Even in exile, God maintained His covenant relationship with His people, fulfilling His promise to preserve a remnant.

The name changes represent more than cultural assimilation—they symbolise the spiritual warfare that took place in Babylon. The pagan world attempted to absorb God’s people, but God’s purposes prevailed.

 

THE YOUNG MEN’S RESPONSE: FAITHFUL LIFESTYLES

What’s remarkable is how Daniel and his friends navigated the situation. They accepted their new names—we don’t read of any protest against the change. Yet they drew a clear line when it came to food that would defile them (Daniel 1:8).

This demonstrates a nuanced approach to living faithfully in a pagan culture. They accommodated where possible (accepting new names) but resisted where necessary (refusing defiling food). Their external identities changed, but their internal commitments remained steadfast.

The result? God blessed their faithfulness. “God gave them learning and skill in all literature and wisdom” (Daniel 1:17), and they proved ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in Nebuchadnezzar’s realm.

 

CONCLUSION: NAMES BACK BIBLE VERACITY

The name changes in Daniel 1 tell a story within a story. On the surface, they represent Babylon’s attempt to erase Israelite identity. But on a deeper level, they now serve as evidence for the historical reliability of Scripture.

The very names intended to disconnect these young men from their God now connect modern readers to the historical truth of God’s Word. What Babylon meant for assimilation, God has used for authentication.

These four young men remind us that while the world may attempt to relabel us, our true identity remains secure in the God who calls each of us by name.

 

NAMES BACK BIBLE VERACITY: RELATED FAQs

What is onomastics, and why is it important for biblical studies? Onomastics is the study of names and naming systems, including their origins, meanings, and historical development. In biblical studies, onomastics helps scholars authenticate historical accounts, understand cultural contexts, and identify patterns that reveal information about ancient societies and their theological beliefs. Names in Scripture often serve as time stamps that connect biblical narratives to specific historical periods.

• Do other ancient Near Eastern cultures show similar patterns of renaming captives? Yes, the practice of renaming captives was common throughout the ancient Near East, particularly for royal or noble captives being integrated into court life. Egyptian records show Pharaohs renaming Canaanite princes, while Assyrian and Persian documents reveal similar practices with captive elites. This cross-cultural pattern confirms that Daniel’s experience reflects authentic ancient practices rather than literary invention.
• How do linguistic changes in names help scholars date biblical texts? Names follow linguistic conventions that evolve over time, making them useful for dating texts. Elements like pronunciation patterns, theophoric components (divine elements in names), and syntactical structures change across centuries and regions. When a text contains names with linguistic features matching a specific historical period, it provides evidence for dating the composition to that era.

Why don’t the Babylonian names in Daniel appear exactly the same in other Babylonian records? Biblical Hebrew transliterated foreign names according to its own phonetic system, often simplifying sounds not present in Hebrew. Additionally, scribal traditions over centuries may have introduced minor variations in spelling. Despite these variations, the structural patterns and theological components of the Babylonian names in Daniel retain their authentic Neo-Babylonian characteristics.

• Are there other examples of theophoric name changes in the Bible besides Daniel and his friends? Yes, Joseph received the Egyptian name Zaphenath-paneah in Genesis, while Esther’s Hebrew name Hadassah was changed to a Persian name possibly honouring the goddess Ishtar. Moses bears an Egyptian name despite his Hebrew heritage, and several Judean kings took throne names different from their birth names. These patterns demonstrate that name changes often marked significant transitions in identity, status, or cultural affiliation throughout biblical history.
• How do naming patterns differ between the Babylonian and Persian periods in Daniel? Babylonian names frequently honoured specific deities like Marduk, Nebo, and Aku through explicit theophoric elements. Persian period names in Daniel show different patterns, often incorporating Persian linguistic elements and sometimes referencing Zoroastrian concepts. This accurate transition in naming conventions between chapters 1-4 (Babylonian) and 5-12 (Persian) provides additional evidence for the book’s historical reliability.

How does modern scholarly onomastic research differ from traditional approaches to biblical names? Traditional approaches often focused primarily on etymological meanings of individual names, whereas modern onomastic research examines statistical patterns, cultural contexts, and comparative linguistic features across multiple ancient languages. Today’s scholars use computational analysis of name databases from archaeological findings, comparative studies of naming patterns across cultures, and sociolinguistic approaches that reveal how names functioned within ancient societies.

 

NAMES BACK BIBLE VERACITY: OUR RELATED POSTS

• The Study of Names: Surprising Support for Bible Reliability
• Historical Accuracy of Daniel: Validation from Archaeology