erib's tragic end was but the slightly delayed culmination
of the punishment inflicted for his attack upon the "chosen people." On
the other hand, the ambiguity may be quite unintentional, for the Hebrew
writers were notoriously lacking in the true historical sense, which
shows itself in a full appreciation of the value of chronology.

One of the most striking instances of the way in which mistakes of
chronology may lead to the perversion of historical records is shown in
the Book of Daniel in connexion with the familiar account of the capture
of Babylon by Cyrus. Within the past generation records of Cyrus have
been brought to light, as well as records of the conquered Babylonian
king himself, which show that the Hebrew writers of the later day had a
peculiarly befogged impression of a great historical event--their
misconception being shared, it may be added, by the Greek historian
Herodotus. When the annalistic tablet of Cyrus was translated, it was
made to appear, to the consternation of Bible scholars, that the city of
Babylon had capitulated to the Persian--or more properly to the
Elamite--conqueror without a struggle. It appeared, further, that the
king ruling in Babylon at the time of the capitulation was named not
Belshazzar, but Nabonidos. This king, as appears from his own records,
had a son named Belshazzar, who commanded Babylonian armies in outlying
provinces, but who never came to the throne. Nothing could well be more
disconcerting than such a revelation as this. It is held, however, that
the startling discrepancies are not so difficult to explain as may
appear at first sight. The explanation is found, so the Assyriologist
assures us, in the fact that both Hebrew and Greek historians, writing
at a considerable interval after the events, and apparently lacking
authentic sources, confused the peaceful occupation of Babylon by Cyrus
with its siege and capture by a successor to that monarch, Darius
Hystaspes. As to the confusion of Babylonian names--in which, by the
way, the Hebrew and Greek authors do not agree--it is explained that the
general, Belshazzar, was perhaps more directly known in Palestine than
his father the king. But the vagueness of the Hebrew knowledge is
further shown by the fact that Belshazzar, alleged king, is announced as
the son of Nebuchadrezzar (misspelled Nebuchadnezzar in the Hebrew
writings), while the three kings that reigned after Nebuchadrezzar, and
before Nabonidos usurped the t