Babylonian Business Records

by VM44 96 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • ezekiel3
    ezekiel3

    Almost: Good point! Who's calling the kettle black?

  • tenrats
    tenrats

    WB&TS often uses deceitful methods employed by some of the

    ancient priests and kings sometimes altering records for their own purposes

    ancient priests and kings sometimes altered records for their own purposes

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom

    City Fan ---

    Thanks for your kind words regarding the KISS thread.

    I posted a lot of information from Dandamaev in this message:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/55372/810707/post.ashx#810707

    VM ---

    You asked:

    I know COJ goes into the topic of the business tables, but has the Watchtower ever tried to explain away the existence of the business tablets? Or do they just ignore the tablets completely?

    If you click on the link I gave, you will see one example of how the WT has tried to discount the historical value of the business tablets. I explained how this is deceptive and I gave counter-examples.

    Regards,

    Marjorie Alley

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom

    VM ----

    The short answer is yes, the tablets have been catalogued and summaries have been published.

    Just to give you one example, I have a copy of a long article from the Journal of Cuneiform Studies, which was one of a series:

    D. A. Kennedy, "Documentary Evidence for the Economic Base of Early Neo-Babylonian Society. Part II: A Survey of Babylonian Texts, 626 - 605 B.C.," Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Volume 38, No. 2, Autumn 1986, pp. 172 - 244.

    From the introduction:

    "This catalogue is a continuation of the catalogue of dated Babylonian economic texts ... as in JCS 35, this catalogue is only concerned with economic and administrative texts, but two astronomical texts have been included for chronological purposes.

    This long article lists the tablets just for the 21 years of Nabopolassar (Nabu-apla-usur), by year, with notes.

    Marjorie

  • the_classicist
    the_classicist

    I really don't see if why anyone would want to see business records... its probably like Greek trading tablets:

    Goats 500

    Slaves 325

    Going to Lesbos.

    Olive Oil 500 (greek volumetric unit)

    Going to Egypt.

    Or perhaps its like the Gilgamesh epic... "he who saw the deep."

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom

    The Journal of Cuneiform Studies recently had another article on tablet NBC 4897 (this is a text which has records of a herd from the temple at Eanna, with accounts running from year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to year 1 of Neriglissar).

    Text NBC 4897 covers the following years: Nebuchadnezzar 37
    Nebuchadnezzar 38
    Nebuchadnezzar 39
    Nebuchadnezzar 40
    Nebuchadnezzar 41
    Nebuchadnezzar 42
    Nebuchadnezzar 43
    Amel Marduk 1
    Amel Marduk 2
    Neriglissar 1

    It has lines of information on:

    Rams, ewes, male lambs, female lambs, total animals;
    He-goats, she-goats, male kids, female kids, total animals;
    Grand total: sheep and goats, the property of the Lady of Uruk and Nanaya
    Hides, wages, wool, goat hair

    "Balanced account which Enlil-sar-usur, the resident of Eanna and Zeriya, the administrator of Eanna, settled with the herdsmen. The month of Simanu, the 28th day, the 1st year of Nergal-sar-usur, king of Babylon."

    Stefan Zawadzki, "Bookkeeping Practices at the Eanna Temple in Uruk in the Light of the Text NBC 4897," Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Volume 55, 2003, pp. 99 - 123.

    Several things to note:

    Articles on this text have now been published by four scholars: R. H. Sack, G. Van Driel, K. R. Nemet-Nejat, and Stefan Zawadzki. While there has been some discussion regarding the method of reckoning used by the accountant, no one has questioned the sequence of kings' years (Nebuchadnezzar 37 - 43, Amel Marduk 1- 2, Neriglissar 1).

    This text is important because it shows an unbroken chain of kings with no room between Nebuchadnezzar/Amel-Marduk or between Amel-Marduk/Neriglissar for an unknown king.

    The Classicist:

    I really don't see if why anyone would want to see business records... its probably like Greek trading tablets:

    Because the Babylonian business records are dated to day, month, and year of the reigning king, they establish the relative chronology (the lists of kings with their regnal lengths) of the neo-Babylonian empire. We know who the kings were and how long they reigned.

    And if you start with 539 BCE --- which the Society says is an absolute date --- and count backwards through each year of each king (as I showed in a chart in the KISS thread), you will find that the Society's chronology is too long by 20 years.

    Marjorie

  • VM44
    VM44

    Thank you everyone for your comments.

    Alleymom, your KISS thread is indeed one of the best (and useful) threads started here. The article showing the unbroken record spanning three kings is very, very important.

    Have any other "running account records" been found covering the other kings up to Nabonid? That would really put to end any speculation that duration of some king's reign is longer than recorded.

    The Watchtower does not want to discuss the business tablets, even appearing to dismiss them from consideration, or else says that some "future information" will change our understanding of the dates. This is very very strange, the business tablets HAD to have accurate, well understood dates, otherwise the business transactions would break down!

    To leave out all those tablets because they do not like the evidence they present is being dishonest. Of course, the way they write their aricles on chronolgy has never been the model of academic integrity!

    Also, it is dishonest for the Watchtower to say that "We are right about this, and to disagree with our statements is to disagree with the Bible and go against God's good name!"....basically, "if you disagree with us, you go against the Bible and God"

    They leave out the possiblity that THEY are wrong, and that there is actually no conflict between the Bible and history of the Babylonian kings.

    I found some online data concerning Babylonian texts, and spent some time making the following, I am not sure about the accuracy of the counts, but it is interesting, and certainly shows that there are more plenty more than only ONE tablet in existence showing who was king at any one time. --VM44

    Extracted from: "Chronological List of Texts from the First Millennium B.C. Babylonia", by Janos Everling
    Gone now from the web, but still available at the following link. Large files size about 762K.:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20030814000518/http://www.nexus.hu/enkidu/lists/CHRON.CHN

    *******************************************
    ***** Neo-Babylonian Period (626-539 B.C.)
    *******************************************

    ***** Nabopolassar (626-605 B.C.)
    Nabopolassar, year 0. - (626/625 B.C.):Number of texts: 4
    Nabopolassar, year 1. - (625/624 B.C.):Number of texts: 7
    Nabopolassar, year 2. - (624/623 B.C.):Number of texts: 14
    Nabopolassar, year 3. - (623/622 B.C.):Number of texts: 9
    Nabopolassar, year 4. - (622/621 B.C.):Number of texts: 7
    Nabopolassar, year 5. - (621/620 B.C.):Number of texts: 14
    Nabopolassar, year 6. - (620/619 B.C.):Number of texts: 20
    Nabopolassar, year 7. - (619/618 B.C.):Number of texts: 22
    Nabopolassar, year 8. - (618/617 B.C.):Number of texts: 28
    Nabopolassar, year 9. - (617/616 B.C.):Number of texts: 23
    Nabopolassar, year 10. - (616/615 B.C.):Number of texts: 29
    Nabopolassar, year 11. - (615/614 B.C.):Number of texts: 20
    Nabopolassar, year 12. - (614/613 B.C.):Number of texts: 27
    Nabopolassar, year 13. - (613/612 B.C.):Number of texts: 17
    Nabopolassar, year 14. - (612/611 B.C.):Number of texts: 26
    Nabopolassar, year 15. - (611/610 B.C.):Number of texts: 26
    Nabopolassar, year 16. - (610/609 B.C.):Number of texts: 27
    Nabopolassar, year 17. - (609/608 B.C.):Number of texts: 13
    Nabopolassar, year 18. - (608/607 B.C.):Number of texts: 29
    Nabopolassar, year 19. - (607/606 B.C.):Number of texts: 30
    Nabopolassar, year 20. - (606/605 B.C.):Number of texts: 32
    Nabopolassar, year 21. - (605/604 B.C.):Number of texts: 6
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    ***** Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562 B.C.)
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 0. - (605/604 B.C.): Number of texts: 24
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 1. - (604/603 B.C.): Number of texts: 49
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 2. - (603/602 B.C.): Number of texts: 54
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 3. - (602/601 B.C.): Number of texts: 59
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 4. - (601/600 B.C.): Number of texts: 39
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 5. - (600/599 B.C.): Number of texts: 37
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 6. - (599/598 B.C.): Number of texts: 28
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 7. - (598/597 B.C.): Number of texts: 30
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 8. - (597/596 B.C.): Number of texts: 37
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 9. - (596/595 B.C.): Number of texts: 34
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 10. - (595/594 B.C.):Number of texts: 32
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 11. - (594/593 B.C.):Number of texts: 44
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 12. - (593/592 B.C.):Number of texts: 67
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 13. - (592/591 B.C.):Number of texts: 49
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 14. - (591/590 B.C.):Number of texts: 61
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 15. - (590/589 B.C.):Number of texts: 41
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 16. - (589/588 B.C.):Number of texts: 47
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 17. - (588/587 B.C.):Number of texts: 53
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 18. - (587/586 B.C.):Number of texts: 63
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 19. - (586/585 B.C.):Number of texts: 62
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 20. - (585/584 B.C.):Number of texts: 77
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 21. - (584/583 B.C.):Number of texts: 73
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 22. - (583/582 B.C.):Number of texts: 90
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 23. - (582/581 B.C.):Number of texts: 57
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 24. - (581/580 B.C.):Number of texts: 38
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 25. - (580/579 B.C.):Number of texts: 38
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 26. - (579/578 B.C.):Number of texts: 47
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 27. - (578/577 B.C.):Number of texts: 32
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 28. - (577/576 B.C.):Number of texts: 37
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 29. - (576/575 B.C.):Number of texts: 31
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 30. - (575/574 B.C.):Number of texts: 54
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 31. - (574/573 B.C.):Number of texts: 44
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 32. - (573/572 B.C.):Number of texts: 32
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 33. - (572/571 B.C.):Number of texts: 47
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 34. - (571/570 B.C.):Number of texts: 49
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 35. - (570/569 B.C.):Number of texts: 49
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 36. - (569/568 B.C.):Number of texts: 109
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 37. - (568/567 B.C.):Number of texts: 81
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 38. - (567/566 B.C.):Number of texts: 73
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 39. - (566/565 B.C.):Number of texts: 73
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 40. - (565/564 B.C.):Number of texts: 83
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 41. - (564/563 B.C.):Number of texts: 79
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 42. - (563/562 B.C.):Number of texts: 79
    Nebuchadnezzar II, year 43. - (562/561 B.C.):Number of texts: 40
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    ***** Amel-Marduk (Evil-merodach) (561-560 B.C.)
    Amel-Marduk, year 0. - (562/561 B.C.):Number of texts: 47
    Amel-Marduk, year 1. - (561/560 B.C.):Number of texts: 82
    Amel-Marduk, year 2. - (560/559 B.C.):Number of texts: 24
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    ***** Neriglissar II (NERGAL-SHAR-USUR) (559-556 B.C.)
    Neriglissar, year 0. - (560/559 B.C.):Number of texts: 50
    Neriglissar, year 1. - (559/558 B.C.):Number of texts: 57
    Neriglissar, year 2. - (558/557 B.C.):Number of texts: 54
    Neriglissar, year 3. - (557/556 B.C.):Number of texts: 49
    Neriglissar, year 4. - (556/555 B.C.):Number of texts: 4
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    ***** La-bashi-Marduk (556 B.C.)
    La-bashi-Marduk, year 0. - (556 B.C.): Number of texts: 12
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    ***** Nabonid (555-539 B.C.)
    Nabonid, year 0. - (556/555 B.C.):Number of texts: 71
    Nabonid, year 1. - (555/554 B.C.):Number of texts: 136
    Nabonid, year 2. - (554/553 B.C.):Number of texts: 153
    Nabonid, year 3. - (553/552 B.C.):Number of texts: 208
    Nabonid, year 4. - (552/551 B.C.):Number of texts: 170
    Nabonid, year 5. - (551/550 B.C.):Number of texts: 175
    Nabonid, year 6. - (550/549 B.C.):Number of texts: 156
    Nabonid, year 7. - (549/548 B.C.):Number of texts: 204
    Nabonid, year 8. - (548/547 B.C.):Number of texts: 187
    Nabonid, year 9. - (547/546 B.C.):Number of texts: 211
    Nabonid, year 10. - (546/545 B.C.):Number of texts: 248
    Nabonid, year 11. - (545/544 B.C.):Number of texts: 259
    Nabonid, year 12. - (544/543 B.C.):Number of texts: 277
    Nabonid, year 13. - (543/542 B.C.):Number of texts: 170
    Nabonid, year 14. - (542/541 B.C.):Number of texts: 177
    Nabonid, year 15. - (541/540 B.C.):Number of texts: 266
    Nabonid, year 16. - (540/539 B.C.):Number of texts: 156
    Nabonid, year 17. - (539/538 B.C.):Number of texts: 93
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    ********************************
    ***** Cyrus (538-530 B.C.) *****
    ********************************

  • kwintestal
    kwintestal

    One of the things I found interesting (and I'm remembering this a year or so after reading Gentile times) is that it is estimated that Jerusalem's temple was rebuilt 70 years after 586/7.

    I just started looking through the book again. I have the 1998 version and the last chapter discusses the WTS' attempt to overcome the evidence. It refers to the "Let Your Kingdom Come" pg. 127-40, 186-9. Ther summary is this:

    It has been amply demonstrated above that the Watch Tower Society in its "Appendix" to "Let Your Kingdom Come" does not give a fair presentation of the evidence against their 607 BCE date:
    (1) Its writers misrepresent historical evidence by omitting from their discussion nearly half of the evidence presented in the first edition of this work (the Hillah stele, the diary BM 32313, and contemporary Egyptian documents) and by giving some of the other lines of evidence only a biased and distorted presentation. They erroneously indicate that the priests and kings might have altered historical documents (chronicles, royal inscriptions, etc.) from the Neo-Babylonian era, in spite of the fact that all available evidence shows the opposite to be true.
    (2) They misrepresent authorities on ancient historiography by quoting them out of context and attributing to the views and doubts they do not have.
    (3) They misrepresent ancient writers by concealing the fact that Berossus is supported by the most direct reading of Daniel 1:1-6, by quoting Josephus when he talks of seventy years of desolation without mentioning that in his last work he changed the length of the peroid to fifty years, and by referring to the opinion of the second century bishop, Theophilus, whithout mentioning that he ends the seventy years, not only in the second year of Cyrus, but also in the second year of Darius thus confusing the two kings.
    Finally, (4) they misrepresent the biblical evidence by concealing the fact that the most direct understanding of the passages dealing with the seventy years show them to be the period of the Neo-Babylonian rule, not the peroid of Jerusalem's desolation. This understanding is in good agreement with the historical evidence, but in glaring conflict with the application given to it by the Watch Twoer Society. It is truly distressing to discover that individuals, upon whose spiritual guidance millions rely, deal so carelessly and dishonestly with facts. Their "Appendix" to "Let Your Kingdom Come" in defence of their chronology is nothing but yet one more clever exercise in the art of concealing the truth.
    Kwin
  • Alleymom
    Alleymom
    VM44: Have any other "running account records" been found covering the other kings up to Nabonid? That would really put to end any speculation that duration of some king's reign is longer than recorded.

    See COJ's section B-4: Chronological interlocking joints in chapter 3, "The Length of Reigns of the Neo-Babylonina Kings."

    If you have the third edition, it's on pages 129-139.

    You'll see that he discusses NBC 4897 (the text I referenced in last night's post) and several others.

    The Hillah Stele (Nab. No. 8, which is a royal inscription of Nabonidus , and not a business text) shows continuity between Neriglissar and Labashi-Marduk.

    Somewhat similar to NBC 4897 is SAKF 165 which "presents a year-by-year inventory of wool stuffs made into garments for the cult statues of the deities in Uruk ... Furthermore, it covers the vital years before and after the Persian conquest of Babylon."

    [Brinkman, JNES 25, p. 209, quoted on p. 136 of COJ, third edition.]

    It covers the final years of Nabonidus on into the first two years of Cyrus.

    Marjorie

  • scholar
    scholar

    VM44

    The Society has stated its view on the corpus of business tablets relating to the Neo-Babylonian period in the Appendix to the publication, Let Your Kingdom Come published in 1981. WT scholars fully recognize and are excited about such a rich repository of historical and cultural information but we also note the need fo temper any exuberance in such relative chronology presented in these tablets. The data presented in these tablets simply consists of regnal data which needs to be converted into an absolute chronology for the period in question. These tablets do not give any calender dates so such regnal data needs to be interpreted into a chronology schema.

    Higher critics and apostates who adhere to the Jonsson hypothesis believe that there is a twenty year gap between secular chronology and WT chronology and thus disproving the validity and integrity of the calcuable date of 607 BCE. WT chronology only accepts the validity and the integrity of the historical data presented in God's Word which presents 607 as the ONLY possible candidate for the Fall of Jerusalem. If such a methodology creates a twenty years gap between the sacred and the profane chronology then so be it. Already, WT scholars are meeting the challenges offered by the mirage of secular evidence in the form of the Oslo Chronology as presented by Rolf Furuli who will publish his research into Babylonian Chronology in the near future. Furulu unlike Carl Jonsson, is fully competent in dealing with such primary evidence and is able to provide a fresh look at conventional wisdom.

    In any event, Christians who loyally adhere to the superiority of God's Word are not disturbed by the interpretations of men and in faith believe that as time progresses God fully vindicates his faithful servants.

    scholar

    BA MA Studies in Religion

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit