Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Misquoting Babylon the Great Has Fallen

"Since Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years until 562 BC"


This statement is based solely upon the Parker and Dubberstein (P&D) 1956 Babylonian Chronology - unfortunately, P&D (as did Sollberger subsequent to them) erroneously excluded over 7,000 Babylonian business cuniform tablets, of which 1,450 cuneiform tablets dated during the reign of the Kings in question (Nabopolassar through Nabonidus) reveals reigning years for most of the kings which contradict the P&D established timeline (P&D based their timeline on only two tablets - the first and the last tablets dated to each King).

On this evidence, current academic and scholarly opinion is nearly in agreement - P&D err'd, and the 50 year old chronology is in dire need of radical revision - and in fact, is already underway.

In regards to your claimed "quotes" - the 581 BCE date as the year in which Amel-Marduk succeeded Nebuchadnezzar II is based upon the biblical record at 2 Kings 25:27-30 - they then assign a 2 year period to Amel, 4 years to Neriglissar, and nine months to Labashi.

The remaining period they assign to Nabonidus ... "till Babylon fell in 539 B.C" - not 17 years (i.e., your mathematical computations are taken out of context - now you may not agree with the biblical chronology, but you should at least present your "quotes" correctly - it is Josephus, who is identified on page 230 in a footnote who makes a statement that Belshazzar was in his 17 year of rule when Babylon was taken, there is no mention as you have fabricated, that Nabonidus "ruled for 17 years" according to the cited WT publication)

You might also take note, that Nabonidus did not rule from Babylon the entire time, as he set up his ruling capital later in Tema, leaving control of the capital city of Babylon to his son, Belshazzar.