by cultswatter 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
In 1963, the WTS published "Babylon the Great has Fallen" and "All Scripture is Inspired".
I recall writing to the Australian Branch at the time (1963 or 1964), pointing out the inconsistencies between the neo-Babylonian king lists that are given in each book. If I stumble across it at some time, I will provide their evasive answer.
In the meantime, if anyone has those 1963 books, maybe they could locate those lists.
Doug
Doug:
See if this list is what your looking for Doug and if not then let me know and I'll keep looking for you.
All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial Chart Of Outstanding Historical Dates (pages 294-297) http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?141fs469834.jpg http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?141fs470060.jpg http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?141fs470229.jpg http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?141fs470391.jpg Babylon The Great Has Fallen God's Kingdom Rules Chart Of Dates From Creation To Current Date (A.D. 1963) Of Babylon The Great (pages 682-690) http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?141fs487749.jpg http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?141fs487860.jpg http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?141fs487971.jpg http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?141fs488162.jpg http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?141fs488248.jpg http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?141fs488498.jpg http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?141fs488589.jpg http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?141fs488633.jpg http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?141fs488888.jpg Cheers! Atlantis-
Atlantis,
Wow! and "thank you".
I will look carefully through these.
Doug
a lot of info here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/55372/1.ashx
it is to be noted that lately the WTS, tends to avoid mentioning the length of rule of certain Babylonian kings, or to cast doubts on the reliability of the info available. For example, the insight book under evil merodach states:
(E´vil-mer´o·dach) [from Babylonian, meaning "Worshiper of Marduk"].
The Babylonian king who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar to the throne in 581 B.C.E. In the year of his becoming king, Evil-merodach extended kindness to Jehoiachin the king of Judah by releasing him from the house of detention. That was in the 37th year of Jehoiachin’s exile in Babylon. Evil-merodach granted him a position of favor above all the other kings who were in captivity in Babylon. (2Ki 25:27-30; Jer 52:31-34) Josephus claims that Evil-merodach viewed Jehoiachin as one of his most intimate friends.
There is also archaeological testimony concerning Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk, Amil-Marduk). For example, an inscription on a vase found near Susa reads: "Palace of Amil-Marduk, King of Babylon, son of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon." (MémoiresdelamissionarchéologiquedeSusiane, by V. Scheil, Paris, 1913, Vol. XIV) Berossus, quoted by Josephus, attributes to him a reign of two years. Josephus himself assigns him 18 years. Supposedly slain as the result of a plot, Evil-merodach was replaced by Neriglissar (Nergal-sharezer). Reliable confirmation of these details is lacking.
I post here I comment I wanted to make in the other thread concerning Josephus. As Dandamaev in his book, Slavery in Babylonia, Josephus can only be considered as a secondary source when examining the Neo-Babylonian era. In general the works of Josephus are full of mistakes: http://www.allabouthistory.org/how-reliable-is-josephus-work-faq.htm
Insight on the Scriptures page 425 under "Chaldea""
"Particularly was this domination manifest during the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E. when Nabopolassar, a native of Chaldea, and his successors, Nebuchadnezzar II, Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk), Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk, Nabonidus, and Belshazzar, ruled the Third World Power, Babylon."
Insight on the Scriptures published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in volume 2 on page 480 under "Nebuchadnezzar" tells us that he ruled as king for 43 years:
Second ruler of the Neo-Babylonian Empire; son of Nabopolassar and father of Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach), who succeeded him to the throne. Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years...
Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules, page 184:
"After reigning but two years King Evil-Merodach was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar. According to the inscriptions that have been found, this usurper of the throne spent most of his time in building operations and reigned four years. When he died, his son Labashi-Marduk, though not yet of age, succeeded him. He was a vicious boy, and within nine months he had his throat cut by an assassin. Nabonidus, who had served as Governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar's favorite son-in-law, now took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign till Babylon fell in 539 B.C."
*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***
Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.
2nd Kings 25:8-10 tells us that Jerusalem was destroyed in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzer's reign.
The list of Babylonian kings in the book “Babylon the Great Has Fallen” (BF) agrees with the secular records. (This might have been the material I queried the WTS about in 1963/64, but at the moment I am not certain.)
“Amel-Marduk (Evil-merodach) … succeeded Nebuchadnezzar. … After reigning but two years King Evil-merodach was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar. According to the inscriptions that have been found, this usurper of the throne … reigned four years. When he died, his son Labashi-Marduk … succeeded him … and within nine months he had his throat cut by an assassin. Nabonidus … now took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign till Babylon fell in 539 BCE.” (BF, pages 183, 184).
(The words that I removed in the above quotation do not affect the meaning of any sentence, nor the overall meaning. I removed them to make the chronological information clearer.)
In 1988, the WTS again provided this sequence of kings: “Nabopolassar, a native of Chaldea, and his successors, Nebuchadnezzar II, Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk), Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk, Nabonidus, and Belshazzar, ruled the Third World Power, Babylon.” (“Insight on the Scriptures”, Vol 1, page 425, art.: “Chaldea”).
The WTS thus does not add any monarch to the accepted list, so their extra 19 or 20 years must be taken care of by stretching the reign of a king or two.
The WTS consistently agrees that Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years. So the only way they could stretch the length of the neo-Babylonian dynasty would be to lengthen the reign of one or more of Nebuchadnezzar’s successors. The WTS writes that Evil-merodach reigned for two years and Labashi-Marduk for less than a year. This leaves Neriglissar and Nabonidus.
The WTS tries to cast doubt on the 4 years assigned to Neriglissar and it never assigns a length to the reign of Nabonidus.
The accepted chronology is supported by absolutely tens of thousands of dated clay tablets. Each tablet is dated according to the year of the monarch’s reign. Not one tablet has been found that is dated beyond the 4th year of Neriglissar or the 17th year of Nabonidus, let alone assigning an extra 20 years to either or in combination.
In 1956, an undamaged tomb inscription to the Mother of Nabonidus was uncovered that confirms the secular neo-Babylonian chronology starting with Nabopolassar (predecessor of Nebuchadnezzar) down to the 9th year of Nabonidus:
“From the 20th year of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, when I was born, until the 42nd year of Ashurbanipal, the 3rd year of his son Ashur-etil-ili, the 21st year of Nabopolassar, the 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, the 2nd year of Awel-Merodach, the 4th year of Neriglissar, during (all) these 95 years …
“From the time of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, to the 9th year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the son whom I bore, (i.e.) one hundred and four happy years …
“The 21 years in which Nabopolassar, the king- of Babylon, the 43 years in which Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nabopolassar, and the four years in which Neriglissar, the king of Babylon, exercised their kingship, (altogether) 68 years.” (ANET, Pritchard, page 561). The WTS has known about this undamaged tomb inscription for over 50 years.
This inscription shows that Neriglissar reigned for 4 years. So the WTS’s only explanation would be to extend the reign of Nabonidus by 20 years. But this is denied by authorities the WTS relies on, such as Parker and Dubberstein’s “Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75” and others.
The existence of the Egibi business tablets (thousands of them) puts an end to any speculation that there are somehow an extra 20 years unaccounted for in the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings.
There are no missing years, unless one wants to claim that during the reign of King Neverwuzza no business was conducted by the Egibi bankers!
The Watchtower claims concerning the Neo-Babylonian king list are bankrupt!
--VM44
Well, yes and no.
They have published dates regarding those kings that are known, however they contend that the dates of the reigns of those kings are speculative. They have not published the dates of the supposed intervening kings, because they never existed.
cultswatter
post 191
The reason why celebrated WT scholars have not seen to the publishing of the regnal years for the Neo-Babylonian pweriod is because the data is unreliable. Dr. Rolf Furuli presents a table showing the wide variation between reigns presented by different authorities. I refer to his Persian Chronology And The Length Of The Babylonian Exile Of The Jews, 2003, Vol.1,p.74, Table 11 The New Babylonian Kings. Enjoy!
In addition, regardless of how secular chronologists evaluate this period there remains the problem of the Babylonian Gap, a term first coined by the said scholar of some twenty years when secular chronology and biblical chronology are compared. This 'gap' is caused because the secular chronology with its reliance upon Babylonian history which fails to account for the seventy year period of the Jews and Judah wherein there was a fixed historic period of Exile-Servitude-Desolation from the Fall (607 BCE) until the Return (537 BCE).
scholar JW
The reason why celebrated WT scholars have not seen to the publishing of the regnal years for the Neo-Babylonian pweriod is because the data is unreliable. Dr. Rolf Furuli presents a table showing the wide variation between reigns presented by different authorities. I refer to his Persian Chronology And The Length Of The Babylonian Exile Of The Jews, 2003, Vol.1,p.74, Table 11 The New Babylonian Kings. Enjoy!
Furuli's table of secondary sources is of interest, but there is plenty of first hand archeological evidence contemporary to the neo-Babylonian period to establish the true chronology.
To add: The main reason why the chronologies of 'celebrated WT scholars' and history do not match up is due to flawed interpretations by 'celebrated WT scholars' of certain key biblical texts.
