14 



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



Thiidly, that although his general Gobryas had obtained 

 full possession of r)al)ylon on the 16th of Tammuz 

 (June-July), it was not until three months after — on 

 the 3rd Marchesvan (Oct.-Nov.) — that Cyrus " entered 

 Babylon." 



To the present lecturer it seems that it would be passing 

 strange, that when the capital of the Babylonian empue, and 

 by far the most famous city in Western Asia, had come into his 

 power, Cyrus should treat the matter with such cool disdain, 

 as not to condescend to visit it until three months bad passed 

 away. It was not li is iraij to treat the conquered peoples with 

 discourtesy. The sentiment also in ancient times in a case like 

 this, as between a king and his lieutenant, may be well illus- 

 trated by the message that Joab, captain of his host, sent to 

 King David, when he found that the city of Eabbah was 

 practically in his hands, and by David's action on receiving the 

 message : " I have fought against Eabbah," Joab announces, 

 " and have taken the city of waters. jSTow therefore gather the 

 rest of the people together and encamp against the city and 

 take it, lest I take the city and it be called by my name. And 

 David gathered all the people together, and went to Eabbah, 

 and fouoht against it, and took it." — ii Sam. xii, 27-29. 



And then, too, in regard to the second point asserted — 

 namely : that after Gobryas had gained complete possession of 

 Babylon for his master Cyrus, the merchants of Babylon 

 continued to date their contract tablets in " the 17th year of 

 Nabonidus, King of Babylon," as if nothing had happened, and 

 as if the conqueror Cyrus w^as not then the reigning king — one 

 may well ask, " Is this likely ? Is it likely that the merchants of 

 Babylon would be so foolish as to flout their new master by 

 thus ignoring his sovereignty ? and if they ivcre so silly would 

 Gobryas have stood such nonsense ? " 



And then there is a further point which, on the supposition 

 that Gobryas in the month of Tammuz (July) obtamed full 

 possession of Babylon, would have to be explained, and that 

 is : What does that mysterious passage in the Annalistic Tablet 

 mean, where it is said, "On the 11th day of Marchesvan" — 

 that is to say, 8 days after Cyrus had entered Babylon — 

 " during the night Gubaru (Gobryas) made an assault (?) and 

 slew the king's son (?)." Does not this look very like what 

 the Book of Daniel says in the 5th chapter, "In that night 

 was Belshazzar the King of the Chaldeans slain." For do 

 not the inscriptions say that Belshazzar was the king's sc-n ? 



