The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

The Length of Reigns of the Neo-Babylonian Kings 97
With respect to the dependence of the sources, the Canon of
Ptol[emy] has certainly to a great extent taken its stuff from the
Bab[ylonian] Chron[icles]. This is clear from the characteristic
aβαοτλεντα ετη [years of interregnum] 688–681, which is also found
in the Chronicle (III, 28), while the King List A at this place
introduces Sennacherib instead, as well as for the two aβαοτλεντα
ετη 704–703. The Canon of Ptol. like the Chronicle reproduces
here the Babylonian tradition, which did not recognize
Sennacherib as the legitimate king, as he had sacked and destroyed
Babylon. 17
There is also some evidence that the Royal Canon reflects not
only Babylonian chronicles, but also ancient Babylonian kinglists
compiled by Babylonian scribes. Thus scholars have concluded that
it was based upon Babylonian chronicles and kinglists, probably
through intermediary sources, but evidently independent of Berossus. 18
This is a very important conclusion, as the figures given in the
canon for the Neo-Babylonian kings are in substantial agreement
with Berossus’ earlier figures.
Thus we have two independent witnesses reflecting the length
of the Neo-Babylonian era set out in the ancient chronicles, and
even if those chronicles are only partially preserved on cuneiform
tablets, their figures for the lengths of reign of the Neo-Babylonian
kings have to all appearances been correctly transmitted to us via
Berossus and the Royal Canon. 19
17 Friedrich Schmidtke, Der Aufbau der Babylonischen Chronologie (Munster, Westf.:
Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1952), p.41. Translated from the German.
18 Burstein, for example, points out that the canon “represents a Babylonian
tradition about the first millennium B.C. that is independent of Berossus as can be
seen from the order and forms of the names of the kings.” (Op. cit., p.38) On the
same page Burstein gives a translation of the canon which, unfortunately,
contains a couple of errors. The regnal years shown for Nebuchadnezzar, “ 23”, is a
misprint for “43”; and the name “Illoaroudamos” in the canon corresponds to
“Awel-Marduk”, not “Labasi-Marduk”. For a reliable publication of the canon, see,
for example, E. J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World, revised edition
(London: Thames and Hudson, 1980), pp. 109–111.
19 Of the two sources, the Royal Canon is clearly the better witness. As Professor J. A.
Brinkman points out, the canon “is of known and praiseworthy accuracy.” (Op. cit.
[note 16 above], p. 35) Modern discoveries of Babylonian chronicles, kinglists,
astronomical texts, etc., written in cuneiform may be shown to be in complete
agreement with the canon all the way from the eighth century to the first century
B.C.E. The evidence of this is briefly discussed in C. O. Jonsson, “The Foundations
of the Assyro-Babylonian Chronology,” Chronology & Catastrophism Review, Vol. IX
(Harpenden, England: Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, 1987), pp. 14–23.