Quick and easy 607 question

breakfast of champions

Really, this should be easy if you have the CD Rom (I don't).

Somewhere in the societies publications, they try to denigrate the reliability of an ancient tablet by citing a source which shows big gaps in the translation (lots of [] and . . . .'s) evidently because this tablet was so beat up and broken, half the words are missing, thus secular historical records are worthless, trust the bible.

If I remember this correctly, the actual source of the quote goes on to say something to the effect of 'fortunately the obverse side of the tablet contains all the information in tact' - a fact the WT conveniently leaves out.

I had thought this quote was either from Insight or the All Scripture book, but I can't find it in either. Anyone know what publication this is from? And if so, which secular source were they misquoting?

Thanks,

BOC

AnnOMaly

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is the Adad Guppi reference in the Aid book under 'Chronology.' Too fragmentary, lots of gaps in the info., practically useless. HOWEVER, there was another copy of the tablet found (and was known about by the time the piece in the Aid book was written but it isn't mentioned) which was better preserved with the regnal years complete.

Is that the one?

Anony Mous

I think they say the Babylonian Chronicles are incorrect which would mean they're ALL incorrect. There are also some archeologists that dispute 587 in favor for 589 but that's one or two years, not 20.

It would also dispute the Bible's own records because King Josiah reigned, the Assyrians were leaving and the Babylonians didn't even show up yet in world history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(587_BC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_Chronicles

The Babylonian Chronicle dates the battle at Harran between the Assyrians and their Egyptian allies against the Babylonians from Tammuz (July–August) to Elul (August–September) 609 BC. On that basis, Josiah was killed in the month of Tammuz (July–August) 609 BC, when the Egyptians were on their way to Harran.

Comparing Babylonian records with date references found in Hebrew biblical texts, the length of Jeconiah's captivity can accurately be determined. To some extent, even the dating of the Fall of Jerusalem can be established to 597 BCE.

StoneWall

Is it the Nabonidus Tablet you're referring to?

Insight on the Scriptures Volume 2:

What does the Nabonidus Chronicle actually contain?

Also called “Cyrus-Nabonidus Chronicle” and “The Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus,” this is a clay tablet fragment now kept in the British Museum. It primarily depicts the main events of the reign of Nabonidus, the last supreme monarch of Babylon, including a terse account of the fall of Babylon to the troops of Cyrus. Though it was no doubt originally from Babylon and written in Babylonian cuneiform script, scholars who have examined its script style say it may date from some time in the Seleucid period (312-65 B.C.E.), hence two centuries or more after Nabonidus’ day. It is considered almost certainly to be a copy of an earlier document. The tone of this chronicle so strongly glorifies Cyrus while presenting Nabonidus in a disparaging way that it is thought to have been the work of a Persian scribe, and in fact, it has been referred to as “Persian propaganda.” However, while such may be the case, historians feel that the circumstantial data it contains is nonetheless reliable.

In spite of the brevity of the Nabonidus Chronicle—the tablet measures about 14 cm (5.5 in.) in breadth at the widest point and about the same in length—it remains the most complete cuneiform record of the fall of Babylon available. In the third of its four columns, beginning with line 5, pertinent sections read: “[Seventeenth year:] . . . In the month of Tashritu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Nabonidus) massacred the confused inhabitants. The 14th day, Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The 16th day, Gobryas (Ugbaru), the governor of Gutium and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned (there). . . . In the month of Arahshamnu, the 3rd day, Cyrus entered Babylon, green twigs were spread in front of him—the state of ‘Peace’ (sulmu) was imposed upon the city.”—Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 306.

It may be noted that the phrase “Seventeenth year” does not appear on the tablet, that portion of the text being damaged. This phrase is inserted by the translators because they believe that Nabonidus’ 17th regnal year was his last. So they assume that the fall of Babylon came in that year of his reign and that, if the tablet were not damaged, those words would appear in the space now damaged. Even if Nabonidus’ reign was of greater length than is generally supposed, this would not change the accepted date of 539 B.C.E. as the year of Babylon’s fall, for there are other sources pointing to that year. This factor, however, does lessen to some extent the value of the Nabonidus Chronicle.

While the year is missing, the month and day of the city’s fall, nevertheless, are on the remaining text. Using these, secular chronologers calculate the 16th day of Tashritu (Tishri) as falling on October 11, Julian calendar, and October 5, Gregorian calendar, in the year 539 B.C.E. Since this date is an accepted one, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is usable as a pivotal date in coordinating secular history with Bible history

AnnOMaly

Here, from a 1969 WT and practically the same as the Aid book entry:

w69 2/1 p. 89 Babylonian Chronology—How Reliable?

What is thought to be a memorial tablet written either for the mother or the grandmother of Nabonidus, gives some chronological data for this period, but many portions of the text have been damaged, leaving much to the ingenuity and conjecture of historians. The reader can appreciate how fragmentary the text is by ignoring the bracketed material in the following translation of one section of this memorial—material that represents modern attempts at restoring the missing, damaged or illegible portions:.

“[During the time from Ashurbanipal], the king of Assyria, [in] whose [rule] I was born—(to wit): [21 years] under Ashurbanipal, [4 years under Ashur]etillu-ilani, his son, [21 years under Nabopola]ssar, 43 years under Nebuchadnezzar, [2 years under Ewil-Merodach], 4 years under Neriglissar, [in summa 95 yea]rs, [the god was away] till Sin, the king of the gods, [remembered the temple] . . . of his [great] godhead, his clouded face [shone up], [and he listened] to my prayers, [forgot] the angry command [which he had given, and decided to return t]o the temple é-hul-hul, the temple, [the mansion,] his heart’s delight. [With regard to his impending return to] the [temp]le, Sin, the king of [the gods, said (to me)]: ‘Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the son [of my womb] [shall] make [me] en[ter/sit down (again)] in (to) the temple é-hul-hul!’ I care[fully] obeyed the orders which [Sin], the king of the gods, had pronounced (and therefore) I did see myself (how) Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the offspring of my womb, reinstalled completely the forgotten rites of Sin, . . . ”

Farther along in the text Nabonidus’ mother (or grandmother) is represented as crediting Sin with granting her long life “from the time of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, to the 6th year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the son of my womb, (that is) for 104 happy years, . . . ”—Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pages 311, 312.

From this very incomplete inscription it can be seen that the only figures actually given are the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and 4 years of Neriglissar’s reign. As to this latter monarch, the text does not necessarily limit his reign to four years; rather it tells of something that happened in his fourth year. How far within the reign of Ashurbanipal the life of Nabonidus’ mother (or grandmother) began is not stated, so that we are left in the dark as to the commencement and the close of the “104 happy years.” Nor is there any information as to the lengths of the reigns of Ashur-etillu-ilani, Nabopolassar and Evil-merodach. And there is no mention of Labashi-Marduk, now generally acknowledged by historians as reigning between Neriglissar and Nabonidus.

It will be noted, too, that the conjectured numbers of years, inserted by modern historians on the basis of Ptolemy’s canon, when added to the “6th year of Nabonidus,” give a total of 100 or 101 years, and not the 104 years mentioned in the text itself. So this fragmentary record provides scant information for the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period.