25.03.2016 Views

The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>The</strong> Length of Reigns of the Neo-Babylonian Kings 117<br />

<strong>The</strong> results from our discussion of the Neo-Babylonian<br />

historical records are summarized in the following table.<br />

TABLE 3: THE REIGNS OF THE NEO-BABYLONIAN KINGS<br />

ACCORDING TO THE NEO-BABYLONIAN HISTORICAL RECORDS<br />

ROYAL THE NEO-BAB. THE URUK THE ROYAL B.C.E.<br />

NAME CHRONICLES KING LIST INSCRIPTIONS DATES<br />

Nabopolassar 21 years 21 years 21 years 625–605<br />

Nebuchadnezzar 43 years*<br />

Awel-Marduk 2 years*<br />

43 (ye)ars<br />

2 (ye)ars<br />

43 years<br />

2 years<br />

604–562<br />

561–560<br />

Neriglissar 4 years* ‘3’ (y’s)+8 m’s 4 years 559–556<br />

Labashi-Marduk some months* 3 months — 556<br />

Nabonidus ‘17 years’ ‘17?’ (years) 17 years 555–539<br />

* <strong>The</strong>se figures in the chronicles are preserved only via Berossus and/or the<br />

Royal Canon. See discussion.<br />

As may be seen from the table, the Neo-Babylonian chronology<br />

adopted by secular historians is very strongly supported by the<br />

ancient cuneiform sources, some of which were produced during<br />

the Neo-Babylonian era itself. Three different lines of evidence in<br />

support of this chronology are provided by these sources:<br />

(1) Although important parts of the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles are<br />

missing and some figures in the Uruk kinglist are partially damaged,<br />

the combined witness of these documents strongly supports the Neo-<br />

Babylonian chronologies of Berossus and the Royal Canon, both of<br />

which were actually— independently of each other—derived from<br />

Neo-Babylonian chronicles and kinglists.<br />

(2) <strong>The</strong> royal inscription Nabon. No. 18 and the Royal Chronicle<br />

fix the second year of Nabonidus astronomically to 554/53 B.C.E.<br />

<strong>The</strong> whole length of the Neo-Babylonian period prior to<br />

Nabonidus is given by Nabon. No. 8, which gives the elapsed time<br />

from the sixteenth year of Nabopolassar up to the accession-year<br />

of Nabonidus as fifty-four years. <strong>The</strong> stele thus fixes the sixteenth<br />

year of Nabopolassar to 610/09 and his first year to 625/24 B.C.E.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se two inscriptions, therefore, establish the length of the whole<br />

Neo-Babylonian era.<br />

(3) <strong>The</strong> Adad-guppi’ inscription gives the reigns of all the Neo-<br />

Babylonian kings (except for Labashi-Marduk’s brief, months-long<br />

reign, which may be disregarded) from Nabopolassar up to the<br />

ninth year of Nabonidus. As the Watch Tower Society indirectly<br />

accepts a seventeen-year rule for Nabonidus, this stele of itself<br />

overthrows their 607 B.C.E. date for the desolation of Jerusalem.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!