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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

326 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED<br />

the second month of Neriglissar’s accession-year (II/4/acc.), or<br />

about three months and a half earlier than the earliest tablet previously<br />

known from his reign. 33 Together, these two texts seem to create<br />

an overlap of eight and a half months:<br />

Awel-Marduk’s 2nd year:<br />

last text: X/19/2<br />

Months: | month 1 | month 2 | months 3–9 | month 10 |<br />

Neriglissar’s accession-year: first text: II/4/acc<br />

How can this overlap be explained? Again, someone might<br />

argue that the dates above, rather than showing an overlap, indicate<br />

that Awel-Marduk’s second year was not the same as Neriglissar’s<br />

accession-year, and that either he ruled for more than two years or<br />

that there was another, unknown ruler between the two.<br />

Any evidence, however, in support of such assumptions is<br />

completely lacking. It should be kept in mind that each of their<br />

known regnal years are covered by numerous dated tablets, both<br />

published and unpublished. If Awel-Marduk ruled for more than<br />

two years, we would have a large number of tablets, economic and<br />

other types, dated to each of those additional years.<br />

It is of considerable interest in this connection that the Uruk<br />

King List (discussed in chapter 3, section B-1b) specifies the reign<br />

of Neriglissar as “‘3’ (years) 8 months”. As Neriglissar’s reign<br />

ended in the first month (Nisanu) of his fourth year (see below), he<br />

acceded to the throne in the fifth month (Abu) three years and<br />

eight months earlier, according to this kinglist. This is the same month<br />

as that established earlier for his accession, before the two odd dates mentioned<br />

above were discovered.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are good reasons to believe that the information given in<br />

the Uruk King List was based upon sources that go back to the<br />

Neo-Babylonian period itself, including the chronicles. <strong>The</strong><br />

preserved figures are all in good agreement with those established<br />

by the contemporary documents. This seems to be true even<br />

when—in two cases―the number of months is given.<br />

Thus the Uruk King List gives Labashi-Marduk a reign of only<br />

three months, and the contracts from Uruk dated to his reign also<br />

show that he was recognized in that city as king for (parts of) three<br />

33 CBT VIII, p. 35. Walker, who collated both tablets on several occasions, points out<br />

that “the months are very clearly written in both cases.” — Letter Walker-Jonsson,<br />

October 26, 1990.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!