THE FALL OP BABYLON AND DANIEL V, 30. 



2?> 



The Venerable Archdeacon Potter said that he had listened with 

 great pleasure to Mr. Craig Kobinson ; the more so as he came from 

 his own old university. 



Notwithstanding the undoubted contribution make by the author 

 towards the reconciliation of the conflicting accounts of the taking 

 of Babylon, several difficulties in the narrative still, in his view, 

 remained unexplained. (1) The Book of Daniel called Belshazzar 

 the son of Xebuchadnezzar, whereas there were three kings with short 

 reigns between Xebuchadnezzar and Xabonidus. This could be ex- 

 plained away by assuming that the latter married a daughter of the 

 former, and that the word "father " stood for the word " grandfather," 

 or possibly for " predecessor," but it seemed somewhat strange to omit 

 the name of the real father, Xabonidus, who was apparently a man 

 of some literary distinction. (2) Then the Book of Daniel called 

 Belshazzar the king, whereas he was the son of the king. 

 (3) Moreover the account in this book of Belshazzar's feast gave no 

 hint that at that time the city of Babylon was partly in the hands 

 of the conqueror. Xor was it easy to reconcile with this fact the 

 promise, made to the interpreter of the writing, that he should be 

 the third ruler in the kingdom; or the words of the interpretation, 

 " Th}' kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians." 

 (4:) It looked, too, as though the writer of the book had confused 

 Darius the Mecle (Dan. v, 31) with Darius Hystaspes, as the latter 

 did divide the empire into satrapies {see Dan. vi, 1). (5) Moreover 

 the late origin of the book seemed to be demanded by the use of 

 Persian and of Greek words, and by the fact that Jesus, the son of 

 Sirach (b.c. 200), while he mentions all the other prophets, omits 

 Daniel. 



Rev. John Tuckwell, M.R.A.S., felt deeply indebted to the Eev. 

 Craig Robinson for his paper. He thought that, among modern 

 Biblical critics, there was a danger of placing too much reliance 

 upon the Greek historians and upon the tablets. Might the}" not 

 give equal credit to Scripture ? Why, if a statement in Scripture 

 seemed opposed to some Greek writer, or to a Babylonian tablet, 



of Babylon " (melck Babel) in the Old Testament when his title is given. 

 Belshaza-ir, however, is called " King of the Chaldeans " {malhd Kasdaija 

 or KasdCiCih. Dan, v, 30). Whether this is owing to the text being in 

 Chaldee, and not in Hebrew, is uncertain. 



