thirdwitness and other pseudo-scholars,
Firstly, I offer this disclaimer: I am not a scholar. But I can add and subtract. I knew how to do that two years before I stepped foot into kindergarten.
Secondly, the reason for challenging you lot to this discussion is that it will test your scholarly mettle in an environment untouched by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. While some of the documents supporting the Hillah Stele (Nabon. No. 8) are mentioned by the WTS, the Hillah Stele itself is never mentioned. With very good reason, as it turns out.
Thirdly, we need to set out terms and stipulations to which we can all agree regarding reference to Ancient Near East (ANE) data. I suggest, as a minimal framework, the following:
- "Primary document/evidence" refers to a document/piece of evidence contemporary to the events to which it relates. "Secondary document/evidence" refers to derivations from primary, and so on.
- Berossus was NOT contemporary to the historical events he described and was therefore, at best, a secondary source of evidenciary information. Josephus works are either tertiary or even more greatly removed from primary sources and, at very best, are a secondary source of Berossus works (therefore, automatically at least a tertiary source of the works Berossus used).
- Babylon fell to Cyrus in 539 BC, and both Belshazzar and Nabonidus were killed within this year.
- Seleucid period and later ANE documents/evidences are, at best, suspect because of temporal displacement from the actual occurrences. Not being contemporary, they are more prone to error.
If we cannot agree to any/all of these, please explain clearly why not.
The Hillah Stele (Nabon. No. 8)
Noteworthy Features:
- Bears an astronomical observation so precise that with several thousand years it could only have been made between May 31 and June 4, 555 BC.
- Specifies that it is made in the 1st regnal year of Nabonidus.
- Specifies an order to repair a temple at Harran that was destroyed by "Manda" of the Medes.
- Specifies that the temple's destruction occurred 54 years earlier.
- A primary document that supercedes anything from the Seleucid period or later in evidenciary weight.
Supporting/corroborating documents:
- Adda-Guppi Stele (Nabon. H1, A & B and Nabon. H2, A & B): Adda-Guppi (a.k.a. Adad-Guppi, Adad-Gruppi) was the daughter of Assurbanipal II, King of Assyria. She was a priestess of Sin serving at the temple of Sin at Harran. She was the mother of Nabonidus. Her life spanned the entire period from the downfall of the Assyrian empire into the reign of Nabonidus. She was famous enough to have her auto-biography published (as it were) and apparently displayed post-mortem at the entrance to the temple of Sin. This primary document confirms that the attack on the temple of Sin at Harran by Umman-Manda of the Medes occurred during Nabopolassar's 16th regnal year, and is delivered as an eyewitness account. Adda-Guppi was an extraordinarily long-lived woman, among ANE peoples.
- B.M. 21901: This primary document confirms that the "sack of Harran" by Umman-Manda of the Medes occurred during Nabopolassar's 16th regnal year.
Conclusive Reasoning:
- 555 BC (per Feature #1) + 54 years (per Feature #4) = 609 BC;
- Therefore, 609 BC = Nabopolassar's 16th regnal year (per two independent primary supporting documents, one of which was an eyewitness account);
- Therefore, the entire period from Nabopolassar's 16th regnal year to 539 BC covers no more than 71 years, in toto, regardless how you assign the reigns or the years you attribute to various rulers;
- The last year of Nabonidus was 539 BC and 1st regnal year of Nabonidus is fixed absolutely by the Hillah Stele as 555 BC; the 16th year of Nabopolassar being 54 years prior to Nabonidus' first regnal year (according to the Hillah Stele and two unassailably reliable, independent, primary documents.
- Therefore, no matter how many extra kings you stick in the list between Nabopolassar's 16th regnal year and 539 BC the sum total of years of reign remains constant, it cannot exceed 71 years.
None of this has anything to do with a Watchtower Society viewpoint, as they have chosen to never publicly acknowledge the existence of the Hillah Stele (with very good reason). Without getting sidetracked from the secular data available regarding the Hillah Stele, why should I not credit the conclusion I reached as a valid one absent direct primary evidences to the contrary?
I don't expect a direct answer, but I remain hopeful that one of you will surprise me.
AuldSoul