12 



1{EV. ANDREW CRAIG ROBINSON, M.A., ON 



rejoiced at his sovereignty, their countenances shone — and when 

 the same inscription says, that " without fighting and battle 

 ('Merodach) caused him to enter into Babylon," this is in reality 

 not a contradiction of the classical account, but a confirmation 

 of it, because that account represents Babylon as having been 

 taken practically without fighting, since the siege was conducted 

 without any attempt on the part of the Babylonians to oppose 

 it — and on the night in which the city was captured only 

 Belshazzar and those immediately around him were slain. 



This would seem to be clearly the case — yet Professor Sayce^ 

 strange to say, took up the idea — which he put forward, first in 

 his edition of Herodotus, published in 1883, and afterwards in 

 his celebrated book. The Higher Criticism and the Monuments 

 (1894), that the classical account of the Fall of Babylon, and 

 the 5th chapter of Daniel, verse 30 — which seemed to agree 

 with it — were contradicted by the account of that event 

 implied by the inscriptions — the special point being, that the 

 classical account related how there was a siege of Babylon 

 lasting for some months — whereas the cuneiform inscriptions 

 declare that the city fell " without fighting." 



Professor Sayce wrote — ' 



" There was no siege and capture of Babylon ; the capital of the 

 Babylonian Empire opened its gates to his general, as Sippara had 

 done before. Gobryas and his soldiers entered the city ' without 

 fighting.' . . . Three months later Cyrus himself arrived, and 

 made his peaceful entry into the new capital of his empire. We 

 gather from the contract tablets that even the ordinary business of 

 the place had not been affected by the war." — Higher Criticism and 

 the Monuments, p. 522. 



And in a note on the same page he adds — 



"Even after the entry of Gobryas into Babylon on the 16th of 

 Tammuz, the contracts made there and at Sippara continued to be 

 dated in the reign of Nabonidos." 



And then he gives the dates of certain tablets, published by 

 Dr. Strassmaier, which shall be referred to presently. He 

 adds — 



" It is clear that the transference of power from Nahonidos to 

 Cyrus must have been a peaceful one, so far as the commercial 

 community was concerned." 



And he writes, p. 527 — 



" It is clear that the editor of the fifth chapter of the Book of 

 Daniel could have been as little a contemporary of the events which 

 he professes to record, as Herodotus." 



