THE FALL OP BABYLON AND DANIEL V, 80. 



29 



The great merit of the paper presented to us is that, hy one 

 simple and natural suggestion, all the evidence relating to the 

 taking of Babylon by Cyrus, supplied by the classical historians, by 

 the Scriptures, and by the various cuneiform inscriptions, are brought 

 together into a coherent, intelligible and accordant narrative. 



Lecturer's Eeply. 

 In reply to Archdeacon Potter — 



(1) Nebuchadnezzar was called Belshazzar's father, probably as 

 being his predecessor in the Babylonian kingdom, just as Shal- 

 maneser on the Black Obelisk calls Jehu the son of Omri. Nabo- 

 nidus was, of course, not mentioned by ohe Babylonian queen, 

 because it was at the court of Nebuchadnezzar that Daniel was 

 distinguished. (2) Belshazzar was probably associated with his 

 father Nabonidus in the kingdom. (3) The mysterious writing on 

 the wall surely shows that Daniel knew the desperate state in which 

 the Babylonian kingdom stood that night, l)ut to Belshazzar's 

 thoughtless court, all things seemed to be the same as they had 

 been for three months past. (4) Was Darius Hystaspes the first 

 king who ever divided his kingdom into subordinate governments ? 

 (5) With regard to the Greek words in the Book of Daniel, I 

 must refer to a book of mine, " What about the Old Testament V 

 If Jesus, the son of Sirach, omits any mention of the Book of 

 Daniel, the prophet Ezekiel mentions Daniel himself. 



In reply to Mr. Schwartz — 



Mr. Schwartz is perfectly correct in saying that the Euphrates is 

 at its lowest in November, the month in which the strategy of Cyrus 

 was carried out. He doubts whether a very rapid stream, like the 

 Euphrates, could be rendered fordable even by a stupendous diversion 

 of water. But it must be remembered that in this case there was no 

 question of crossing the river by fording : the Persians were already 

 on the eastern side of the river, besieging the city ; all they 

 required, in order to reach the river gates of Babylon, was that the 

 river should be rendered shallower close to the eastern bank. The 

 Euphrates appears to have had at all times a facility for wandering 

 from its bed ; and Cyrus had already, at a point higher up, turned 

 a great quantity of the water into a marshy lake. Now he- 



