Scholar
Why did you not get your Certificate?
I was doing another degree at the time and didn't want the added pressure of deadlines or the added expense.
one must make a choice between the Biblical history of the Period and the contemporary documents
I see you as choosing a particular interpretation of Biblical history. Others seem to have little difficulty in arriving an interpretation which conforms to their understandings of both the Bible and history or even to arrive at an inconclusive conclusion.
How would you go about testing whether a particular interpretation of historically related Biblical text is accurate? Surely you'd expect it to be in conformity with well arrested secular evidence or have a compelling case for why the secular record is in error.
You don't need to abandon inerrancy to abandon an interpretation.
Personally, I'm an atheist and quite happy with the idea that there are errors, intentional hyperbole, rounded figures and that different writers may have had differing opinions and written from their own perspective. I'd like to make sense of it all, but I'm not uncomfortable with the idea that some of the 'rough' is a feature and needn't be smoothed away to create a gloss finish.
Eg I find it quite OK for Jonsson to conclude that he isn't certain of a start date, that there are merits and demerits to alternative positions.
What must be explained is the silence of the Babylonian records pertaining to the missing seven-year reign of Nebuchadnezzer
British Museum, No. BM 34113 (sp 213), and was published by A. K. Grayson in Babylonian historical-literary texts, 1975 might be what you want but it's hardly conclusive of anything.
2 [Nebu]chadnezzar considered
3 His life appeared of no value to [him, ......]
5 And (the) Babylon(ian) speaks bad counsel to Evil-merodach [....]
6 Then he gives an entirely different order but [. . .]
7 He does not heed the word from his lips, the cour[tier(s) - - -]
11 He does not show love to son and daughter [. . .]
12 ... family and clan do not exist [. . .]
14 His attention was not directed towards promoting the welfare of Esagil [and Babylon]
16 He prays to the lord of lords, he raised [his hands (in supplication) (. . .)]
17 He weeps bitterly to Marduk, the g[reat] gods [......]
18 His prayers go forth to [......]
http://a-laymans-journey.blogspot.com/2009/12/text-of-bm34113-british-museum-no-bm.html
What if the silence is because nothing much actually happened to be recorded or it a misremembering of Nabonidus' long stay in Teima? People doing business would still have recorded the dates of their dealings and if the madness was real. If seven years of madness exist, they're already included amongst the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar II's rule.
the omission of any mention of the seventy years hegemony over Judah and the other serving nations roundabout
Yes, there doesn't appear to be much bombast and the chronicle records seem sparse.
the length of the Neo-Babylonian Period is problematic and far from settled as it has not accounted for the twenty-year Gap proved by the 70 years of Babylonian domination
I was a bit lazy above in using 66 and 86 year periods. WT agrees that Nebuchadnezzar II reigned for 43 years and appear to give Nabonidus 16 years so the window for the 20 missing years can be narrowed substantially. Is it fair to say the WT believes the 20 years must be inserted somewhere between the 43rd of Nebuchadnezzar II and the 1st of Nabonidus?
