DANIEL IN THE CRITICS DEN
APPENDIX II
THE DEATH OF BELSHAZZAR
THE following is Professor Sayce's
rendering of the concluding (decipherable) portion of the Annalistic tablet of
Cyrus "On the fourteenth day of the month Sippara was taken without
fighting; Nabonidos fled. On the sixteenth day Gobryas (Ugbaru), the Governor
of the country of Kurdistan (Gutium), and the soldiers of Cyrus, entered
Babylon without fighting. Afterwards Nabonidos was captured, after being bound
in Babylon. At the end of the month Tammuz the javelin-throwers of the country
of Kurdistan guarded the gates of E-Saggil; no cessation of services took place
in E-Saggil and the other temples, but no special festival was observed. The third
day of the month Marchesvan (October) Cyrus entered Babylon. Dissensions were
allayed before him. Peace to the city did Cyrus establish, peace to all the
province of Babylon did Gobryas his governor proclaim. Governors in Babylon he
appointed. From the month Chisleu to the month Adar (November to February) the
gods of the country of Accad, whom Nabonidos had transferred to Babylon,
returned to their own cities. The eleventh day of the month Marchesvan, during
the night, Gobryas was on the bank of the river.
The wife of the king died. From the twenty- seventh day of Adar to the third
day of Nisan there was lamentation in the country of Accad; all the people
smote their heads. On the fourth day Kambyses the son of Cyrus conducted the
burial at the temple of the Sceptre of the world. The priest of the temple of
the Sceptre of Nebo, who upbears the sceptre [of Nebo in the temple of the
god], in an Elamite robe took the hands of Nebo, . . . the son of the king
(Kambyses) [offered] free-will offerings in full to ten times [the usual
amount]. He confined to E-Saggil the [image] of Nebo. Victims before Bel to ten
times [the usual amount he sacrificed]." The reader’s surprise will
naturally be excited on learning that the tablet is so mutilated and defective that
the text has here and there to be reconstructed, and that the above, while
purporting to be merely a translation is, in fact, also a reconstruction. I
will here confine myself, however, to one point of principal importance.
1 wish to acknowledge my obligation to the Rev. John Uquhart, the author of
The Inspiration and Accuracy of the Holy Scriptures, for placing this letter at
my disposal.
Mr. Theo. G. Pinches, by whom this very tablet was first brought to light, is
perfectly clear that the reading "the wjfe of the king died" cannot
be sustained. He writes as follows 1 (I omit the cuneiform characters)
"Professor Sayce has adopted a suggestion of Professor Schrader. The
characters cannot be . ‘and the wife of,’ but must be either . . . ‘and ‘(as I
read it at first) or . . . ‘and the son of.’ This last improved reading I
suggested about four years ago, and the Rev. C. J. Ball and Dr. Hagen, who
examined the text with me, adopted this view. Dr. Hagen wrote upon the subject
in Delitzsch’s Beitrage, vol. i. Of course, whether we read ‘and the king
died,’ or ‘and the son of the king died,’ it comes to the same thing, as either
expression could refer to Belshazzar, who, after his father’s flight, would
naturally be at the head of affairs."
The following extract is from Mr. Pinches’s article "Belshazzar" in
the new edition of Smith’s Bible Dictionary
"As is well known, Beishazzar was, according to Daniel v., killed in the
night, and Xenophon (Cyrop., vii. 5, 3) tells us that Babylon was taken by
Cyrus during the night, whilst the inhabitants were engaged in feasting and
revelry, and that the king was killed. So in the Babylonian Chronicle, lines
22—24, we have the statement that ‘On the night of the 11th of Marchesvan,
Ugbaru (Gobryas) [descended?] against [Babylon?] and the king died. From the
27th of Adar until the 3rd of Nisan there was weeping in Akkad. All the people
bowed their head.’ The most doubtful character in the above extract is that
which stands for the word ‘and,’ the character in question having been regarded
as the large group which stands for that word. A close examination of the
original, however, shows that it is possible that there are two characters
instead of one—namely, the small character for ‘and,’ and the character tur,
which in this connection would stand for u mar, ‘and the son of’ in
which case the line would read, ‘and the son of the king died.’ Weeping
in Akkad for Belshazzar is just what would be expected, when we take into
consideration that he was for many years with the army there, and that he must
have made himself a favourite by his liberality to the Akkadian temples. Even
supposing, however, that the old reading is the right one, it is nevertheless
possible that the passage refers to Belshazzar; for Berosus relates that
Nabonidos, on surrendering to Cyrus, had his life spared, and that a
principality or estate was given to him in Carmania, where he died. It is
therefore at least probable that Beishazzar was regarded even by the
Babylonians as king, especially after his father’s surrender. With this
improved reading of the Babylonian text, it is impossible to do otherwise than
identify Gobryas with Darius the Mede (if we suppose that the last verse of the
5th chapter of Daniel really belongs to that chapter, and does not form part, as
in the Hebrew text, of chap. vi.), he being mentioned, in the Babylonian
Chronicle, in direct connection with the death of the king’s son (or the king,
as the case may be). This identification, though not without its difficulties,
receives a certain amount of support from Daniel vi. I, where it is stated that
‘it pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes,’
&c.—an act which finds parallel in the Babylonian Chronicle, which states
‘that, after Cyrus promised peace to Babylon, Gobryas, his governor, appointed
governors in Babylon."
On this same subject I am indebted to Mr. St. Chad Boscawen for the following
note :— "Owing to the mutilated state of the latter part of the tablet, it
is extremely difficult to arrange the events, and also in some cases to clearly
understand the exact meanings of the sentences. As far as I can see, the course
of events seems to have been as follows. Sippara was taken on the 14th of
Tammuz, and two days later Babylon. Nabonidos had fled, but he was still
recognised as king by the majority of the people, especially by rich trading
communities such as the Egibi firm, who continued to date their contracts in
his regnal years. At Sippara the people seem to have recognised Cyrus as king
earlier than at Babylon, as the tablets of his accession year are all, with one
exception, the source of which is not known, from Sippara. On the 3rd of
Marchesvan Cyrus entered Babylon and appointed Gobryas (the prefect of Gutium)
‘prefect of the prefects’ (pikhat-pikhate) of Babylon; and he (Gobryas)
appointed the other prefects. That reading of the sentence is perfectly
legitimate. Cyrus seems only to have occupied himself with the restoration of
religious order, and on restoring the gods to their temples who had been transported
to Babylon. We have then a remarkable passage. Sayce reads ‘the wife of the
king died’; but Hagen reads the son of the king, and I have examined this
tablet, and find that although the tablet is here broken, the most probable
reading is the son, not the wife."
"In Dan. v. we read, and ‘Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about
threescore and two years.’ In a second passage, however, this is modified. We
read, ‘In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the
Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans, (ix. I); and again,
‘It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty princes’ (vi.
I). Here we have an exact parallel to the case of Gobryas. Gobryas was a
Manda—among whom were embraced the Medes, for Astyages, an undoubted Median
king, ruler of the Median capital of Ecbatana, is called . . . a soldier of the
Manda, or barbarians. He is appointed on the 3rd Marchesvan B.C. 538— after
taking the kingdom on 16th Tammuz—'prefect of the prefects’; and he appoints
other prefects over the kingdom. His reign did not last more than one year,
terminating in either Adar 538 or early in B.C. 537. The end is rendered
obscure by the fractures in the tablet. .
"If, then, Gubaru or Gobryas was prefect of Gutium before his conquest of
Babylon in B.C. 538, there is nothing whatever against his being a Mede; and as
Astyages was deposed by a revolt, when ‘he was taken by the hands of the rebels
and given to Cyrus’ (Chronicle Inscr.), it is very probable that Gobryas was
the leader of the conspiracy. Indeed he seems to me to fulfil in every way the
required conditions to be Darius the Mede. . . . The appointment of the satraps
does not seem exorbitantly large, nor are these to be confounded with the
satrapies of the Persian empire."
And finally, in his Book of Daniel (p. xxx) Professor Driver, in citing the
foregoing extract from the tablet, reads the crucial sentence thus :—" On
the 11th day of Marchesvan, during the night, Gubaru made an assault and slew
the king’s son." And at pp. 60, 6i he writes: "After Gubaru and Cyrus
had entered Babylon he (Belshazzar) is said (according to the most probable
reading) to have been slain by Gubaru ‘during the night,’ i.e. (apparently) in
some assault made by night upon the fortress or palace to which he had
withdrawn."
I will only add that, in view of the testimony of these witnesses, so
thoroughly competent and impartial, it is not easy to restrain a feeling of
indignation at the effrontery (not to use a stronger word) of Professor Sayce’s
language in pp. 525, 526 of his book.