Alleymom, thank you for your hard work in providing those scans, etc. May I ask you for just one more?
p. 24 says,
As mentioned earlier, gaps in the history documented by the Babylonian chronicles suggest that we may not have a continuous chronological record. 10 Could others have ruled between the reigns of these kings? If so, additional years would have to be added to the Neo-Babylonian period.
[Endnote] 10. Consider the example of Neriglissar. A royal inscription regarding him states that he was "the son of Bel-shum-ishkun," the "king of Babylon." (Italics ours.) Another inscription calls Bel-shum-ishkun the "wise prince." The original word rendered "prince," rubû, is a title also meaning "king, ruler." Since there is an obvious discrepancy between the reign of Neriglissar and his predecessor, Amel-Marduk, could this "king of Babylon," Bel-shum-ishkun, have ruled for a time between the two? Professor R. P. Dougherty acknowledged that "the evidence of Neriglissar's noble ancestry cannot be disregarded."-Nabonidus and Belshazzar-A Study of the Closing Events of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, by Raymond P. Dougherty, published 1929, page 61.
This supposed unknown king, Bel-shum-ishkun, has already been discussed by Jonsson HERE (scroll a third of the way down), but please could we have a scan of p. 61 where Dougherty comments about Bel-shum-ishkun and his son's 'noble ancestry' that shouldn't be disregarded? Only a snippet view is available on the net which says,
"However, the evidence of Neriglissar's noble ancestry cannot be disregarded, as it furnishes a basis for his importance as a man of affairs before he became king and explains his ability to make a marital alliance with the house of Nebuchadnezzar. The similarity of Nabonidus' rôle is striking." (p. 61, n. 115)
It would be nice to see the whole thing in context, as it appears that this is yet another quote the WT has lifted to give the impression there is possible support for the issue it raises ... and yet it does nothing of the kind.
