Babylonian Business Records

by VM44 96 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Scholar

  Here's the information readily available in the Insight Volumes.
  

  ***it-1 p. 425 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.

  So the order of kings is unchanged from the 65 WT article cited by Alleymom.

  Now for the years each reigned:
  

  *** it-1 pp. 238-239 Babylon ***Finally, after a 43-year reign, which included both conquest of many nations and a grand building program in Babylonia itself, Nebuchadnezzar II died in October of 582 B.C.E. and was succeeded by Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach)

  *** it-1 p. 773 Evil-merodach *** 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).

  *** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus ***On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.).

  Interesting how on the 2003 WT CD, I could not find any length of reign assigned to Labashi Marduk after that 1965 WT. Nor could I find one for Neriglissar after this 1969 WT:
  

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

  Why have they chosen to omit this info in later works?

  I checked and did find the quote of Josephus where he gave 18 years for Evil-Merodach's reign. It was in his Antiquities of the Jews Book 10, Chapter 11, verse 2.

  The WT likes to have it both ways. Berossus is accurate for some things but not for others. Guess what the criterion is for them? They favour Josephus in this case (who's been shown to be innaccurate and to exaggerate when other evidence was available). A person who lived in the first century of our era, is given more credibility than multiple contemporary documents from the relevant time period.

  Scholar: Can you suggest why those supposed 16 years difference are not found among those business documents?

  Edit: hope the formatting is finally right
• 

  City Fan

  Scholar,

  I can't believe you've replied to this thread when we're all still waiting for you're responses to the questions in this thread:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/84135/1.ashx

  I must conclude that you have no answers at all!
• 

  kwintestal

  I was reading Scholar's post, and I couldn't find any info that backs up his claims. Really the only evidence he gave was the bible. Scholar said:

  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.

  So Scholar: Going back to the original Hebrew and Greek translations of the bible, can you support your theory?

  Kwin
  MA in JW BS
• 

  ellderwho

  Alleymom, good to hear from you again.

  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.

  As always excellent point. Scholar has nowhere to go. His arguement has truely become laughable. At least you'd think he would try to give some sorta kings list. This has proven to be his Achilles heal.
• 

  ellderwho

  Kwin
  MA in JW BS

  LMAO
• 

  VM44

  HI Alleymom,

  I posted that picture as a example of a Neo-Babylonian Clay Tablet upon which is written the year, month, and day of the current king.

  This particular picture is of one of the most popular Babylonian clay tablet replicas for sale by Online Relic, Ltd.

  http://www.online-relics.com/acatalog/Mesopotamian.html

  Here is more information concerning the tablet:

  Neo-Babylonian Clay Tablet, 560BC

  This document is written in the Neo-Babylonian dialect,
  on the equivalent date of 1st April, 560BC, in the town of Hubat within Babylonia.

  This cuneiform tablet is fascinating in that it constitutes one of the earliest known
  written official/legal contracts. It is written by a former slave owner, conferring freedom
  on a slave and her family in perpetuity.

  The really interesting part are the curses and threats to anyone attempting to re-enslave
  her or her family. They knew how to threaten in those days!

  The original of this clay tablet is currently housed in the Oriental Institue
  of the University of Chicago, and measures 9.6cm long and 5.8 cm wide.

  This reproduction comes with a translation and measures:

  Length: 8.8cm (3.25 ins); Width: 5.2cm (2.25 ins) and Depth: 2.6cm (1 in),
  weighs approximately 200 gms (7.5 oz) and is made from reddish clay.
• 

  VM44

  Some additional information about what is written on the tablet:

  **Laqiptu and her Children are Free !**
  The complete translation tells that it is a legally binding document which gives
  freedom to an ex-slave named Laqiptu and her children in perpetuity (forever).
  The really interesting parts are the curses and threats to anyone attempting to re-enslave her or her
  family. To any transgressor
  "May Marduk and Zarpanitu order his disappearance" etc...

  "The scribe is Nabu-bani-ahi, son of Erishu....
  (Written in) the town of Hubat, in the month of Nisan, seventh day,
  second year of Amel Marduk, King of Babylon." equivelent to April 1 560 BC"

  So this tablet contains a good example of how business documents were dated.

  The thousands of such dated legal records for the whole Neo-Babylonian period is,
  as you have mentioned many times, very important and does indeed enables one to
  confirm who reigned and for how long (a relative chronology).

  --VM44
• 

  VM44

  Alleymom,

  We need to investigate all the loan documents from the Neo-Babylonian era!

  Loaning money involves interest bering computed, and to compute interest requires knowing the time period for the loan! There are probably many tablets containing loans spanning the reigns of two different kings!

  Do you know how we could find out about such "loan/interest computation" contract documents? Also, translations would be required for them as well.

  These are not items found in the typical library!

  I believe that with enough of these types of doucments, we could end all speculation about the relative chronology and the King's List once and for all.

  Also, tt would also be interesting to see what interest rates were used back then.

  --VM44
• 

  VM44

  Anyone know COJ's email address? --VM44
• 

  a Christian

  VM44,

  I'll PM you.