Neo-Babylonian Chronology and the Egibi Business House

by VM44 30 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AlanF

  Hmm. That last facetious comment by scholar pretendus makes me wonder if he isn't actually a JW critic in disguise.

  AlanF
• 

  confusedjw

  Freddie, the greatest Bible scholar who has ever lived

  Really, the Freddie is the greatest bible scholar who ever lived. The same Freddie who said in the Walsh trial that (to paraphrase) "That Unity was more important than Truth"

  He's was the greatest something alright.
• 

  VM44

  For the following table I combined the data in two tables in the article, "Was Jerusalem Destroyed in 607 B.C.E.?" http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/7831/babylon1.html

  The data in the table, along with the data that Nabu-ahhe-iddina was the head of the Egibi firm for 38 years, from the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar to the 12th year of Nabonidus, shows that no extension of any king's reign, or the addition of any new king, is possible.

  The middle column also can be used, using Alleymom's "Keep It Simple, Sweetie" (KISS) method http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/55372/1.ashx, to show that the durations of the king's reigns, as given in the Watchtower publications, point to 604 B.C.E as the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's rule over Babylon.

  --VM44
  

  NEO-BABYLONIAN KINGS LIST
  Historical Data vs. Watchtower Data with Watchtower Sources
  

  KING NAME	HISTORICAL	YEARS REIGNED, WATCHTOWER	REGNAL DATES, WATCHTOWER
  Nebuchadnezzar	reigned 43 years 604-562 B.C.	"43 years" "Your Will Be Done On Earth" p.114 Insight 2, pp. 480,481	"624-582 B.C.E." Insight 2, p. 480
  Evil-Merodach	reigned 2 years 561-560 B.C.	"2 years" "Babylon the Great Has Fallen," p.184 Insight 1, p.453 wt 1-1-65 p.29	"582 B.C.E." "Your Will Be Done On Earth" p.115
  Neriglissar	reigned 4 years 559-556 B.C.	"4 years" Insight 1, p.453 WT 1-1-65 p.29 "Babylon the Great Has Fallen," p.184	(no dates given)
  Labashi-Marduk	reigned 9 months 556 B.C.	"9 months" "Babylon the Great Has Fallen," p.184 WT 1-1-65 p.29	(no dates given)
  Nabonidus	reigned 17 years 555-539 B.C.	"17 years" Insight 2, p.457 "Babylon the Great Has Fallen." p.184	"556-539 B.C.E." Insight 2, p.457
• 

  VM44

  Were the existence of these Egibi tablets an obscure fact, something that most scholars in the late 19th and early 20th centuries would not be expected to know about?

  This excerpt from a 1913 book on Biblical Chronology shows that the Egibi tablets were well known to scholars. I would be very surprised if this book would not be found in one of the Bethel libraries.

  Russelll might not have known about it, but it does seem reasonalble that Fred Franz did.

  [Edited to add] If the Egibi tablets are mentioned in Mcclintock and Strong's Cyclopedia, then it would be very likely that Russell DID know about them!

  There is really no excuse for the Watchtower not writing about these tablets. They just did not want to.

  --VM44

  Excerpt at: http://lostsheep.faithweb.com/part2.htm

  An Exposition of the meaning, and a Demonstration of the Truth, of every Chronological statement contained in the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament.BY THE REV. MARTIN ANSTEY, B.D., M.A. (London)
  MARSHALL BROTHERS, LTD.,
  LONDON, EDINBURGH AND NEW YORK.
  1913.

  The Egibi Tablets.

  Table-case G in the Babylonian and Assyrian Room of the British Museum, contains a most important and valuable series of clay tablets, dating from the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar to the 36th year of Darius.These are largely legal and commercial documents, many of them recording business transactions carried out by the members of the great mercantile house, founded by a wealthy merchant - a Babylonian Rothschild of the 7th Century B.C. - named Egibi or Sin-muballit.

  These tablets include deeds respecting the sale of land, slaves, and houses, marriage contracts and dowries, loans of money and grain, payment of debts, divisions of property, accounts and receipts.

  They are dated according to the year of the reign of the King of Babylon, and thus contribute to the fixing of the Chronology of the period.Transactions are recorded in every one of the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar, from B.C. 604-562; the 2 years of Evil-merodach, B.C. 561-560 ; the 4 years of Neriglissar, B.C. 559-556; the accession year of Labashi-Marduk, B.C. 556; and the 17 years of Nabonidus, B.C. 555-539.

  Transactions are recorded in each of the 9 years of Cyrus, B.C. 538-530, including the two years in which he was Co-Rex with Darius the Mede, B.C. 538- 537, and the 7 years in which he was sole King, B.C. 536-530.Cyrus being regarded as King of Babylon during the whole of these 9 years, Darius the Mede, whose residence was at Ecbatana, is not mentioned.

  Transactions are recorded in every one of the 8 years of Cambyses, B.C 529-522, in the year of Smerdis, who is sometimes called Barzia (B.C. 521).

  Transactions are recorded in about half the years of Darius Hystaspes, but tablets are wanting for 19 years of this reign.There is, however, a tablet dated as late as the 36th year of his reign, just two years beyond the close of the Old Testament Record and the period now under review.

  The only tablets dated later than this in the Persian period are, one in the 2nd year of Xerxes, and one each in the 6th and the 13th years of Artaxerxes. Also one in the reign of Artaxerxes, but undated.

  Possibly these also refer to Darius Hystaspes, for Xerxes calls himself Darius in the Persepolis Inscription, and Artaxerxes is clearly another name for Darius in the Book of Ezra.

  This confirms the suspicion that, as there are no authentic records of this part of the Persian period, its duration may have been over-estimated by something like 82 years, by the late compilers Diodorus Siculus and Ptolemy.
• 

  VM44

  Going through old account receipts, business and legal documents is no fun! It reminds one of tax time. But, when you have thousands of such documents, the relative chronology can be established beyond all reasonable doubt.

  Think about it, if you had thousands of dated receipts collected during your life, could you recreate your own chronology? The answer would be "yes". and would it be accurate? again, the answer would be "yes".

  So we can have confidence when using accounting data to date the kings of Babylon. Especially, as it turns out, there are additional records from banking houses other than Egibi that back up the king chronology as well.

  --VM44
• 

  scholar

  VM44

  It is not the secular evidence that is the problem for any reconstruction of OT chronology but the interpretation of that material and the assinging of those specific regnal years into our modern calender system. In other words. it is the modern calender years that are open to interpretation. It must be pointed out that the Jonsson hypothesis with its current so called 17 lines of evidence has not yet provided a coherent chronology for the Divided Monarchy and until this is attempted then any amount of secular evidence is irrelevant.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  Alwayshere

  Scholar, You have to know by now how wrong that organization is.Their own literature is their worse enemy.How many times have they gave certain dates for the end of the world and yet you and some other elders cover for their lies.You are no better than what you represent! Sept.15,1983,page 9 says"JWs are not disciplesof man or an"off shoot of any one church." That is a lie because they got the 1914 from seventh day adv. An 1894 july15, watchtower says"1914 is the end of the time of trouble,these are God's dates not ours."The insight book vol.2 page 33says "Those who prophesy falsely in God's name have to account to him." They have prophesied in God,s name many years. Look inside any Awake mag.on the inside cover, from march 1988-Oct.1995.Then read Deut.18:21-22.I could give you tons of their lies but you are probably as familiar with them as I am. One last scripture and my favorite for WTS is Rev.22:15.
• 

  VM44

  The Egibi records even mention Belshazzar, of whom the Watchtower likes to mention often that "Higher Critics" did not think exist, but that the Bible mentioned long before archeological records were discovered that mentioned. him.

  From True From the Beginning, by Charles H. Welch, 1934, (2nd edition 1938) http://www.levendwater.org/books/true_from_the_beginning.pdf

  Belshazzar's Banking Account
  There was in Babylon a great firm of bankers called 'Sons of Egibi'. This firm's history can be traced from 1000 B.C. to 400 B.C. In 1876 several large earthenware vases were discovered. These contained from 3,000 to 4,000 contracts, and proved to be the securities of the Egibi banking firm. Among the transactions recorded is the letting of a house to 'the secretary of Belshazzar, the son of the King'. Another contract reveals that Belshazzar owned a sheep farm. A myth cannot have a banking account and these records provide definite proof that Daniel 5 speaks of a real person.

  So, again, the Egibi records are not something obscure, but were mentioned in books published during the early part of the 20th century.

  Why then did the Watchtower not make use of this excellent source to verify the Bible's mention of Belshazzar? The answer is obvious, the Egibi tablets contain TOO MUCH information. Not only would they verify the Bible as far as Belshazzar, but they would also verify that Ptolemy's King List was correct, and the records would also verify that the Watchtower's chronology is incorrect.

  So the Watcthower did what any propagandist would do, not mention the records and keep quiet!

  From the appendix to the Kingdom Come (1981) book,

  However, no historian can deny the possibility that the present picture of Babylonian history might be misleading or in error. It is known, for example, that ancient priests and kings sometimes altered records for their own purposes. Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.

  The author of the appendix left out the possibility that "yet undiscovered material" could CONFIRM BEYOND ANY DOUBT the chronology of the period.

  No wonder the Watchtower has NEVER published anything about the details of ancient financial records! The Watchtower is more like a debater, with their rhetoric, or a lawyer in a court of law, rather than a researcher. They never on their own, volunteer for consideration any evidence against their position. And any evidence that is brought up that weakens their case, they will try to cast doubt and throw uncertainty upon it. With regards to these financial records from the past, I don't see how they could do that.

  The Watchtower will never mention the Egibi Banking firm or their records.

  --VM44
• 

  City Fan

  That's a great chart VM, simple and to the point!

  Does anyone have a scan of Babylon the Great p184?
• 

  mjl

  One of my favorite topics. There is so much concrete evidence to back up 586 BCE as the destruction of Jerusalem, how can they keep on preaching 607? I have tried to keep an open mind, something I'm just starting to acquire, and I can't find 1 secular source to back up 607. With all these easy to follow charts, there's not much I can add.