scholar: 2. Celebrated WT scholars are quite happy to accept that scholarship endorses by means of cunieform tablets and other documents that EM' s reign was of two years but it also must be recognized that Berossus gives differing figures for the Neo-Babylonian period and so does Josephus. Josephus does provide primary evidence for Josephus and however you view Josephus does give conflicting data for the NB period.
I have no qualms whatsoever about dismissing every thought you post on the issue of period chronology after reading this inane and doctrine-serving attempt to make opaque an issue that is actually crystal clear. Let's engage in a little WT scholarly exercise, shall we? Just to stretch your brain a bit.
First, let's briefly examine order of precedence in historical research:
"Primary": A document which is primary is contemporary to the events described. An example would be the original Declaration of Independence, the original Declaration Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, or a contemporary record of Parick Henry's famous "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech.
"Secondary": A document which derives from a primary document. An example would be a book on the benefits and necessity of freedom from tyranny that quotes liberally from the two sources used as examples of primary documents.
"Tertiary": A document which derives from a secondary document. An example would be a book that cites as an authority the primary documents but uses as its source the secondary example given.
"Quaternary": A document which derives from a tertiary document.
et ceteras
The balance of evidence is always weighted in favor of the works nearest to primary.
Berossus:
Wrote Babyloniaca circa 290-278 BCE. Was an agenda driven Hellenistic Babylonian writer. Was used as an authority by such notables as Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Seneca the Younger, and Eusebius, of whom it is very likely NONE had access to Berossus writings, but relied on the derivative works of Polyhistor or Poseidonius. In the case of Eusebius, his references do not even rate tertiary connection to Berossus' texts. None of Berossus' texts related to Babylonian history have survived. Zero. Only possible secondary or definite tertiary examples of Berossus are extant. Berossus' work, itself, is at best a secondary document and at worst is derived from several tertiary or quaternary sources. Anything derived from Berossus would be at best tertiary relative to primary documents Berossus presumably worked from, and at worst quaternary or even farther removed from those primary documents if Berossus' history was also based on derived works.
Josephus:
Unquestionably agenda driven historian who provides the only possible extant secondary link to Berossus' works. In every other case there is no possibility of nearer than tertiary reference to Berossus' texts. Josephus is obviously further removed in the stream of time from the events about which he writes and he infers that Berossus was direct source (in which case, his writings would be secondary), despite the greater likelihood that his works derive from Alexander Polyhistor (in which case, another tertiary example). Additionally, it must be remembered that at very best Josephus is a tertiary account relative to any primary documents from which Berossus' work was derived.
Adad-Guppi (Adda-Guppi) Stele (Nabon. H1 B):
A contemporary document, i.e. a primary document. A period piece, if you will. Scratch that, a period piece even if you won't. It chronicles the life of the Queen Mother, the mother of Nabonidus, from the reign of Assurbanipal II all the way down to her death during Nabonidus' reign. It puts her age at either 102 or 104 years old.
Now you might call that "ambiguous" but the same "ambiguity" of two years would remain under WTS chronology yet the woman would have to have been either 122 or 124 years old when she died. At 102 she was already remarkably long lived for the period in this region, but nothing we know of the people of this region can possibly account for her telomeres being long enough for an additional two cellular reproduction cycles.
The Kingdom Come Appendix notation on this stele states that the kings mentioned in the stele correspond to Ptolemy's canon (courtesy of Berossus) is incidental to the overwhelming evidence it represents that the ENTIRE period of time from Assurbanipal II to sometime during Nabonidus' reign fit within one very long-lived person's life span. That this person was famous enough to have her life chronicled is merely a happy accident of history for historians and a death blow to celebrated WT scholars.
Hillah Stele:
A contemporary document, i.e. a primary document. It was written in 555 BC. It contains an unusually specific astronomical observation which narrows down the timing to within five days, between May 31 and June 4, 555 BC. The document records an order to restore a temple in Harran destroyed by Umman-manda 54 years earlier. This "sack of Harran" by Umman-manda is known from BM 21901 (another primary document). The Hillah Stele specifies that this sack occurred during the 16th year of Nabopolassar. 555 BC + 54 years = 609 BC. The 16th year of Nabopolassar = 609 BC.
The celebrated WT scholars don't mention the existence of this primary document at all, anywhere. This primary document almost single-handedly eliminates any possibility of 607 BC as the date for the destruction of Solomon's Temple. If not for that fact, I might wonder why the celebrated WT scholars never mention it at all, despite the fact that it is the only reason for fixing 555 BC as Nabonidus' first regnal year. In other words, they know of its existence and are fully aware of its significance but do not mention it simply because it is destructive to their doctrine.
Egibi banking family documents:
A collection of primary documents of the sort that any historian of any period only dreams of actually finding. A vault of banking documents was discovered that contains simple transaction records covering the entire neo-Babylonian period. The transactions are dated to the regnal years of the kings. Unless we assume that someone so badly wanted to erase all memory of a neo-Babylonian king(s) that they dug up a bank vault and fabricated transaction tablets to eliminate the existence of the king(s), then primary examples exist for all neo-Babylonian kings spanning the entire period in question.
Herd Record from the Temple at Eanna (Uruk):
A primary document that is notable for its complete isolation from "official history" and would therefore be free of any possibility of politically motivated agenda. It notes the years of Evil-Merodach's reign AT THE TIME of his reign, and (like the Egibi banking family documents and probably the Hillah Stele) would not have been available to Berossus.
But, scholar, you call neo-Babylonian chronology into question based on Berossus (of whose writings none are extant) and on secondary and tertiary references to Berossus when PRIMARY documents are readily available that answer EVERY SINGLE ONE of your "concerns". In many cases the answer to your concerns is quite bluntly, "Where primary sources disagree with Berossus, Berossus is wrong. Any works derived from Berossus that do not agree with primary sources are also wrong."
Also, your celebrated WT scholars call into question the veracity and reliability of Berossus and references derived from Berossus. Since this is the case, WHY would anyone credit what Berossus has to say about ANYTHING unless it just happened to agreed with primary documents? I find it interesting that you wrote "Berossus assigns..." I find this incredibly interesting. Unless you are a singularly remarkable human, you have never encountered Berossus' works. As far as I know, there are no extant primary examples of Berossus' work. You have only encountered derivations from his works. Care to address this anomalous stance you have taken?
In short, where neo-Babylonian chronology does not agree with Berossus it is because Berossus is wrong. Where Josephus is wrong, it is usually due an error published by Berossus or Polyhistor, but sometimes due to his own error. It makes sense that those who lived centuries after the events chronicled would be more likely to make mistakes than would people who lived during the recording of the events themselves.
For this reason, primary documents take precedence over secondary, tertiary, and quaternary documents. Where the others agree with primary documents, these derive credibility from the primary documents, they cannot lend credibility to primary docuemts or take credibility away from primary documents. Where these differ, the primary documents are correct and the others are in error.
I really hope you consider this carefully as you frame whatever response you intend to make (as promised) to my previous post.
AuldSoul
