Scholar said: Interestlingly, Carl Jonsson in his GTR, 1998, p.91, ftn.1. gives a reign of 16 years from 555-539 BCE.
Scholar --
You have made a mistake and I hope you will retract it.
Carl Olof Jonsson does NOT say that Nabonidus reigned only 16 years. Throughout his book The Gentile Times Reconsidered, he says over and over again that Nabonidus reigned 17 years. There is not one place in the entire book where he says Nabonidus reigned "16" or "sixteen" years. You made that up yourself by taking two of his numbers and subtracting them, without understanding whether COJ was using inclusive or exclusive reckoning. You then attributed the results of your own erroneous calculation to COJ and put words in his mouth.
First of all, please note that you made an error in your citation. You refer to footnote 1 on page 91. That is a mistake. The footnote is on page 90.
Next, please note that COJ did NOT say anything at all about Nabonidus reigning "16" or "sixteen" years. That is your own INTERPRETATION of his numbers. You are putting words into his mouth AND you are ignoring the numerous other instances in the book where he says very clearly that Nabonidus reigned 17 years.
Let us look at the exact wording of the footnote:
The term "neo-Babylonian" usually refers to the period that began with the reign of Nabopolassar (dated to 625-605 B.C.E.) and ended with Nabonidus (555 - 539 B.C.E.).
Scholar, do you see the number "16" anywhere? No!
You calculated 555 - 539 = 16 and decided that means Nabonidus reigned 16 years. It SEEMS right, doesn't it? Likewise, you could take the first two numbers in the footnote and calculate 625-605 = 20, and say Nabopolassar reigned 20 years. But that would be wrong.
Why? Bear with me for a minute, and let's work this through step by step.
First, please turn to page 121 in the 1998 edition of Carl Olof Jonsson's The Gentile Times Reconsidered. Look at Table 4, which gives "The Neo-Babylonian Chronology According to the Economic-Administrative and Legal Documents."
Let's look at the kings, the lengths of their reigns, and the years of their reigns, as given in Table 4.
Nabopolassar, 21 years, (625-605 BCE)
Nebuchadnezzar, 43 years, (604-562 BCE)
Awel-Marduk, 2 years (561 - 560 BCE)
Neriglissar, 4 years, (559-556 BCE)
Labashi-Marduk, 2-3 months (556 BCE)
Nabonidus, 17 years (555 - 539 BCE)
Let's repeat the kind of calculation you did when you said that COJ only gives Nabonidus 16 years instead of 17 years.
Start with Nabopolassar. 625-605 = 20, right? But the table says he reigned 21 years.
Nebuchadnezzar. 604-562 = 42. But the table says he reigned 43 years.
Awel-Marduk. 561-560 = 1. But the table says he reigned 2 years.
Neriglissar. 559-556 = 3 years. But the table says he reigned 4 years.
Labashi-Marduk. 556. Less than 1 year.
Nabonidus. 555-539 = 16 years. But the table says 17 years!
Scholar, do you see that something is wrong? Every single time you subtract the two numbers, you get a result that is off by one year, according to COJ's table. How can that be when, obviously, your arithmetic skills are satisfactory?
Sometimes the best way to show what numbers mean is to look at a picture or a chart. I suggest that you look at the appendix on pp. 350-351. There is a chart which shows all of the years of Nabonidus's reign. Start with the second chart on p. 350. You will see that the rectangle representing Year 1 of Nabonidus is placed over the rectangle for 555 BCE. Follow along, block by block, through every year of Nabonidus's reign, and you will see that YEAR 17 is placed over the rectangle for 539 BCE.
I would also suggest that you look at the table I prepared in message #1 of the KISS thread, http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/55372/1.ashx
It is essential to understand that the accession year comes BEFORE "year 1". It is as if there is a "year 0". The accession year is part of the reign.
When people talk about dates and lengths of reign, there can be confusion because of the accession year, the first year, and inclusive reckoning. In order to understand very clearly what anyone is saying, you have to be very sure you understand how they are listing the regnal years. People list the "first year" differently, depending on what they mean by "year 1".
It is obvious from Table 4 on p. 121 and from the charts in the appendix on pp. 350-351 that you have misunderstood COJ's figures.
You performed an arithmetic operation, arrived at "16" and then declared that COJ only gives Nabonidus 16 years rather than 17.
You never bothered to check the rest of the book, which would have revealed your error.
Anyone who wants to verify that COJ says Nabonidus reigned 17 years should check the following pages, which are listed in the index: 75, 80, 90, 102-104, 110, 119-121, 124, 135-139, 327-329.
Let me give one quote from the book so that anyone who does not own the book can see that Scholar has misrepresented COJ's position:
"...the Society correctly dates this battle in 550 B.C.E., thereby indicating Nabonidus' reign of seventeen years to be correct, as is held by all authorities and classical authors." GTR, 1998, p. 104.
This can all be very confusing, and I can understand how you may have misinterpreted COJ. But since he very clearly and plainly says throughout the book that Nabonidus reigned 17 years, you should have realized you were making an error in your calculations.
Marjorie Alley
