539 BCE

by Zico 142 Replies latest jw friends

Alleymom

The cunieform tablets presently as understood assign two years for Evil-Merodach but the historian Josephus contradicts such testimony. I and the celebrated WT scholars cannot be held responsible for this contradiction ...

But the 1965 WT scholars presented it as a FACT that Amel Marduk reigned two years.

If this is just "shonky" chronology, and if the 1965 WT scholars "simply repeated current knowledge of the Babylonian period," as you said in your previous post, then I certainly do think we must hold them responsible for the "shonki-ness" of their scholarship.

What if someone had read that 1965 WT article and believed it?! After all, some people read WT articles and believe the material presented as FACT is trustworthy and should be accepted.
Surely the 1965 WT scholars must have known that Josephus contradicted the testimony of the cuneiform tablets. So why did they ignore this information and present it as a FACT that Amel Marduk reigned for two years?
Don't you think it is possible that they did this because they regarded Josephus's number as inaccurate?
Regards,
Marjorie
Jeffro

The reason why celebrated WT scholars prefer the Persian chronology over the Neo-Babylonian chronology is because the pagan Babylonians ignore the biblical 'seventy years' which creates a twenty year gap between biblical chronology and secular chronology.

Whatever their reasons, they're still wrong.
Why are the "pagan" Babylonians more pagan than the pagan Persians? More ad hominem! I reconciled the bibilical seventy years before even looking at the secular data in my tabulation, so it is only the Society who comes up with the 20 year gap. Of course, you can't indicate any reason whatsoever for why the Babylonian chronology would just happen to omit a contiguous 20 years of historical records that destroy the Society's interpretation, can you? What motivation would there have been for every individual in Babylon to deliberately falsify records because of events that they didn't know were going to happen?
Also, Neo-Babylonian chronology has poor history omitting significant biblical events and the regnal data for some of the Babylonian monarchs is unreliable.
Which biblical events? The regnal data is available from literally thousands of extant business records. It is impossible to be missing a contiguous 20-year period when the rest of the period is so well attested.
Finally, as I have repeatedly informed you that chronology is dependent upon methodology and interpretation as so it is that the 'ceelbrated' have simply chosen a different methodology from other scholars. The same 'celebrated' have expained the fact of the Return in 537 BCE which is not explained to the same degree by other wordly scholars who simply fuse the Decree of Cyrus and the Return in c. 538 BCE. Such scholars have no interest in the precise time of the Return of the Exiles.
Now you're just waffling. Why not give specifics on the order of events and when they occurred? And be prepared to back it up with facts.
Alleymom

The regnal data is available from literally thousands of extant business records. It is impossible to be missing a contiguous 20-year period when the rest of the period is so well attested.

Jeffro ---
You are correct.
It's also impossible because there is a cuneiform record, NBC 4897, which gives accounting records for several years, spanning the reigns of several kings.

I don't have a link handy, but in the past I have posted a message giving a list of all the scholars who have published articles on NBC 4897.
The last article I have was by Stefan Zawadzki in the Journal of Cuneiform Studies.
Regards,
Marjorie
Jeffro

586/587 cannot be a well established date because it fits nothing, it is a 'sleight of hand' or a conjurer's trick' to deceive the foolish and ignorant. If it is supposed to refer to the Fall of Jerusalem then precisely what year was it? If the claim of its well-establishment is correct then what year was it? Is it 586 or is it 587 for it cannot be both?

You don't listen do you! It was 587. Refer to previous post. You cannot actually indicate any specific errors in my post can you?
Your explanation of 587 as the preferred date is nonsense as it is simply the minority view. The majority of scholars advocate 586 and if you have solved this problem which has bewailed scholars for decades then publish your findings in a journal. Further, your hypothesis claims that Jeremiah employed a different mode of reckoning the regnal data from that of Daniel in order to synchronize Jeremiah 25:1 with Daniel 1:1. The third year of Jehoiakim and his fourth year are simply two distinct regnal years marked by distinctive historical events: Jehoiakim made a vassal to Nebuchadnezzer and Nebuchadnezzer becoming King.
It does indeed seem that I have solved it. The minority view is not necessarily wrong if it fits all of the facts.
A comparison of Jeremiah 52:28-29 (an interpolation referring to exiles in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th and 18th years) with 2 Kings 24:12-14 (8th year) and 2 Kings 25:8-11 (19th year) indicates that Jeremiah did indeed count the accession-year as a regnal year. (The close of Jeremiah 51 indicates that chapter 52 was not originally part of that document. Most of chapter 52 is lifted straight from 2 Kings, but 52:28-30 are not. To claim that Jeremiah did not count the accession-year would mean that 2 Kings 24:12 and 2 Kings 25:8 contradict Jeremiah 52:28-29. Would you rather say that the bible is wrong than that the Society is wrong??) Jeremiah's referring to the 4th year of Jehoiakim's reign is completely consistent with his reckoning of the 8th and 19th years.
Jeffro

The reference in the Insight volume is correct and provides a reasonable account of an histoical event which could only have been realized in 537 BCE. Your only objection to this account is the faulty premise that somehow the seventy years began with nations serving under Babylon from 609 BCE followed by the exile beginning in 598, the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 or 586[?] and the return in 538 BCE. Such proposed dates are open to serious challenges on all fronts, celebrated WT scholars have determined different dates for these principal events derived from the recogntion of the historicity of the seventy years.

The "reference in the Insight volume" is clearly speculative. Why could the return "only have been realized in 537" Why could it not be in 538? In what way is 537 consistent with Ezra and Josephus.
I didn't express any doubt about 587. Why have you mentioned 586 in summarizing my post?
Okay... present these "challenges"...
AuldSoul

scholar,
I would first like to remind you that you have promised to answer me in the past and failed to do so. However, being the sort of person I am I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you simply mistakenly overlooked them. I will gladly address each of your points:
1. Seven missing years of Nebuchadnezzer's madness.
They aren't missing. They are included in the 43 regnal years of Nebuchadrezzar, if in fact they were years at all. The word used leaves room for any period of time and could have meant season or month just as easily as year, it doesn't have to mean years. Broad ambiguity on the part of a Bible writer is no basis for challenging Babylonian chronology.
2. Twenty year gap between biblical and Neo-Babylonian chronology.
There is no 20 year gap between Biblical and neo-Babylonian chronology. Contemporary Biblical chronology (as opposed to retrospective narrative from a copyist some time later) confirms Babylonian chronology at every step, they are not in conflict.
3. Egypt's missing forty years of desolation.
Once again, you are showing a lack of knowledge of the terms used. There is no missing 40 years, nor does 40 years of desolation for Egypt appear in the Bible except as a prophecy. The Bible does not state when or if the prophecy was fulfilled, although it is the source of the prophecy. So why should Babylonian historians make a record of the fulfillment of a prophecy originating among an obscure and troublesome group of goatherds. More to the point, why should neo-Babylonian chronology be called into question simply because the Ancient Babylonians didn't care about an insignificant nation's prophecies?
4. The difference of sixteen years in the reign of Amel-Marduk.
There is no difference of 16 years in the reign of Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach). I have asked you repeatedly to demonstrate your proofs to that effect and am still waiting. You seem to assume that such proof must exist because without it your celebrated scholar's chronology falls on its face, but the fact is there is no proof of Amel-Marduk having a reign any longer than two years. PLEASE prove me wrong.
5. Seventy years of Judean captivity missing from the Babylonian Annals.
(1) The exile was not a complete removal of all humans according to 2 Kings 25:12 — "And some of the lowly people of the land the chief of the bodyguard let remain as vinedressers and compulsory laborers."
(2) Many of the same thoughts from my answer to point 3 apply to this one equally well. Your assumption continues to be flawed in that Israel was insignificant to the superpowers of the time, a minor nuissance at best. They didn't record particulars of Judean captivity to your satisfaction because neo-Babylonian historians were logging things considered of import from a neo-Babylonian perspective, the Jews were not important to them. This is not very unusual, many of the superpower nations did not record their skirmishes with the Israelites opting to note only events they considered substantial and relevant. That doesn't mean these didn't occur, it simply means such battles were much more significant to tribal shepherds who had taken up arms than to battle-hardened troops or their world-reknowned generals/kings.
The other reason that 70 years of captivity would be "missing" is that only 50 years of captivity occurred, for reasons that have been made clear to you in more threads than I can count on fingers and toes. The fact that Ezra wrote otherwise cannot change the events as related by Jeremiah; unless you think Ezra knew better what happened than did Jeremiah who is presented as a contemporary eyewitness.
It remains that 607 BC could NOT POSSIBLY have been the year Solomon's Temple was destroyed unless you can either demonstrate why we should push 20 unrecorded years (missing from the Egibi banking family documents and every other contemporary document) between Amel-Marduk's accession year and Nabonidus' accession year or admit that the celebrated WT scholars screwed up royally in establishing the year for Jehoiachin's exile as 617 BC.
I have responded directly to every one of your points.
And still, you haven't offered any explanation of the gap of 12 years between the WTS timing of Nebuchadrezzar's final regnal year and the completely independent dating of Amasis' accession year, when there is unquestionable documentation that has Nebuchadrezzar fighting a campaign against Amasis of Egypt in Nebuchadrezzar's 37th year.
And still, you haven't offered any reason for ignoring Uruk's dating of Evil-Marduk's reign.
And still, you haven't mounted any assault against the Egibi banking family documents.
And still, you haven't explained whether Adda-Guppi lived 104/106 years or 124/126 years.
Jeffro

1. Seven missing years of Nebuchadnezzer's madness.

This red herring again? What is it you are actually suggesting? That there were 50 years between the start and end of Nebuchadnezzar's reign? If you are, it introduces a contradiction to 2 Kings 25:27. If you are not, then it has no effect on the accepted chronology.
2. Twenty year gap between biblical and Neo-Babylonian chronology
As I have indicated many times, there is no 20-year discrepancy between the bible and secular chronology. It is only the Society's interpretation which introduces this anomaly.
3. Egypt's missing forty years of desolation
What about Tyre's seventy years? There is no reason to apply a literal period to either. Additionally, the reign of Amasis was too long (64 years by the Society's reckoning) to have been marred by a 40-year calamity.
4. The difference of sixteen years in the reign of Amel -Marduk
If this were one of the biblical 'inconsistencies' of reigns, you would accept that he may have been co-regent for part of that time. (Compare 2 Kings 1:17, 3:1)
5. Seventy years of Judean captivity missing from the Babylonian Annals
The Babylonians conquered a lot of people. Conqering the Jews was not some special pinnacle of achievement as far as they were concerned.
Alleymom

4. The difference of sixteen years in the reign of Amel-Marduk.

AuldSoul to Scholar: There is no difference of 16 years in the reign of Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach). I have asked you repeatedly to demonstrate your proofs to that effect and am still waiting. You seem to assume that such proof must exist because without it your celebrated scholar's chronology falls on its face, but the fact is there is no proof of Amel-Marduk having a reign any longer than two years. PLEASE prove me wrong.
AuldSoul ---

Not only is there no proof of Amel-Marduk having a reign longer than two years, there is actually cuneiform evidence that he reigned only two years.

The first contract dated to Amel Marduk is from 8 October 562, and the last is August 7, 560. Within 4 days of the last contract dated to Amel-Marduk, there were contracts dated to Neriglissar, his successor.
The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume III, Part 2, second edition, 1991, pp. 242-243.
... the last contract dated by Nebuchadrezzar’s forty-third regnal year was written at Uruk (8 October 562) and the first to be dated by his son and successor Amel-Marduk was written that same day

... Any hiatus was of short duration, for the same contract datings show that Amel-Marduk was acknowledged as king in all the major Babylonian cities by mid-October. ... The latest contract dated to Amel-Marduk in Babylon was written on 7 August 560,and within four days other texts recognized Neriglissar as king there, at Uruk, and elsewhere.
Furthermore, there have now been four different scholars, Ronald H. Sack, G. Van Driel, K. R. Nemet-Nejat, and Stefan Zawadzki, who have published articles on cuneiform tablet NBC 4897, which is an accounting text showing records of a herd from the temple at Eanna. The accounts run from year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to year 1 of Neriglissar.
Here is a link and an excerpt from a previous message I wrote about NBC 4897:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/85117/1402144/post.ashx#1402144
The Journal of Cuneiform Studies recently had another article on tablet NBC 4897 (this is a text which has records of a herd from the temple at Eanna, with accounts running from year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to year 1 of Neriglissar).

Text NBC 4897 covers the following years: Nebuchadnezzar 37

Nebuchadnezzar 38

Nebuchadnezzar 39

Nebuchadnezzar 40

Nebuchadnezzar 41

Nebuchadnezzar 42

Nebuchadnezzar 43

Amel Marduk 1

Amel Marduk 2

Neriglissar 1
It has lines of information on:
Rams, ewes, male lambs, female lambs, total animals;

He-goats, she-goats, male kids, female kids, total animals;

Grand total: sheep and goats, the property of the Lady of Uruk and Nanaya

Hides, wages, wool, goat hair

"Balanced account which Enlil-sar-usur, the resident of Eanna and Zeriya, the administrator of Eanna, settled with the herdsmen. The month of Simanu, the 28th day, the 1st year of Nergal-sar-usur, king of Babylon."
Stefan Zawadzki, "Bookkeeping Practices at the Eanna Temple in Uruk in the Light of the Text NBC 4897," Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Volume 55, 2003, pp. 99 - 123.
Several things to note:

Articles on this text have now been published by four scholars: R. H. Sack, G. Van Driel, K. R. Nemet-Nejat, and Stefan Zawadzki. While there has been some discussion regarding the method of reckoning used by the accountant, no one has questioned the sequence of kings' years (Nebuchadnezzar 37 - 43, Amel Marduk 1- 2, Neriglissar 1).

This text is important because it shows an unbroken chain of kings with no room between Nebuchadnezzar/Amel-Marduk or between Amel-Marduk/Neriglissar for an unknown king.
Regards,
Marjorie
Jeffro

'scholar' said:
"The majority of scholars advocate 586 and if you have solved this problem which has bewailed scholars for decades then publish your findings in a journal."
So... have I solved this supposedly great mystery of the ages? Are there are any errors in what I have said? I invite anyone to let me know...
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/117184/2056627/post.ashx#2056627
Jeffro

'scholar' agrees with the Society's specularion that the Jews returned in 537, yet he cannot give any supporting evidence to indicate how this can be the case in view of Ezra and Josephus. I will again present the diagram showing the order of events from 539 to 537 and invite 'scholar' to 1) indicate specifically where there are any errors in what I have presented, and 2) provide his order of events with supporting documentation.
| 538 | 537 | 536 |
JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND|
|-----------|-----------|-----------|
#-----*-----|^----------|-----------|
|Cyrus’ 1st |Cyrus’ 2nd |Cyrus’ 3rd |
# Ezra 1:1 - Decree by Cyrus to rebuild temple
( #-----* - Several months of fine weather allowing plenty of time for Jews to go home - about 4 months were needed for the trip)
* Ezra 3:1 – Jews home in 7th month of Cyrus’ 1st year
^ Ezra 3:8 – Temple foundation laid in 2nd month of Cyrus’ 2nd year
*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.
*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. [which cannot be reconciled with the 7th month being Tishri of 537] However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.
Against Apion, Book 1, Chapter 21:These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius.

539 BCE

Share this