22 



REV. ANDREW CRAIG ROBINSON, M.A., ON 



was son of the latter. According to Xenophon, the Babylonians 

 came and welcomed Cyrus, and this is supported by the Annalistic 

 Tablet, which states that the crowds before him were great 

 (or the deputations were numerous), and that they proposed peace 

 for the city, saying : " Cyrus, grant peace to Babylon, all of it." 



Fried. Delitzsch, in his description of Babylon, says that the area 

 within the walls was no greater than that covered by Munich or 

 Dresden. The plate accompanying the paper shows the plan of the 

 old wall, but there was a greater Babylon outside this wall, just as 

 there is a greater London outside the old City of London. Gobryas 

 of Gutiu"\ that is to say of Media, took all Babylon outside the 

 walls at his first approach, 1)ut the contract tablets, which cannot 

 lead us astray, as they are contemporar}^ documents, bear dates, as 

 has been stated by the lecturer, right up to the eve of the taking of 

 Babylon (that is, the old city) on the night of the 11th of Mar- 

 chesvan, in the seventeenth year of Nabonidus. One tablet, 

 found in Sippar, is dated in Chisleu in this year, and I think points 

 to an error in the Annalistic Tablet ; for if the Persians had taken 

 possession of Sippar {see p. 12) before they took Babylon, this 

 contract tablet would not exist. Moreover, Berosus says that 

 Nabonidus was captured in Borsippa. 



The passage in the Annalistic Tablet that refers to the events of 

 the 11th day of Marchesvan cannot, I think, have stated that the 

 king's wife was killed, for where the tablet is damaged there is not 

 room enough for the character for " wife," and the verb, to all 

 appearance, is not in the feminine. The Kev. C. J. Ball and 

 Dr. Hagen, examining the text in my room in the British Museum, 

 many years ago, agreed with me that the traces pointed to u mdVy 

 " and the son of " (King Nabonidus)."^ 



I do not think that there is any doubt that the narrative in 

 Daniel is as correct as it can be. With regard to Daniel being 

 appointed third ruler, it was pointed out long ago that Nabonidus 

 was, of course, the first, his son Belshazzar the second, and the third 

 place was open for Daniel. Belshazzar was not officially king, 

 unless perhaps he l)ore some subordinate title, and the title " King 

 of the Chaldeans " may have been such.f 



* This reading was adopted by Dr. Pinches in liis address delivered 

 at Rhyl Church Congress, October 1891. 



+ Nebuchadrezzar (NebucliadnezzMr) seems always to be called '• King 



