A "new" tablet double dated that refuted the idea of a co-regency between Darius I and Xerxes

by chasson 7 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • chasson

    I have found by inadvertance a tablet that confirm that there never had a co-regency between Darius I and Xerxes in a french's website "achemenet.net".

    It is important, because i have never seen before a double-dated tablet between this two kings, and Rolf Furuli, as Gerard Gertoux a french JW, has tried (in accordance with the book "Insight" of the Watchtower) to prove a co-regency between the two king in the final goal to have the 20th years of the King Artaxerxes in -455. This date is important for the Jw's calculation of the prophecy of Daniel 9, concerning the 70 weeks.

    If there is no co-regency so the reign of Artaxerxes has really start in -465 (and note -475 like the JW's theory) and the interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel by JW is false.

    Here is the translation in english of this tablet, that Carl Olof Jonnson has provided to me, after i have contacted him concerning this tablet

    BM 42567

  • AnnOMaly

    Oooh. Thanks. I have to rush out now. Will study later.

  • doublelife

    Very interesting. Thanks.

  • Out at Last!
    Out at Last!

    More made up or inaccurate dates from the WT? How can that be???

  • Cadellin

    Thanks for posting. Can you explain how this is double dated and what that means? This looks really interesting but I'm afraid someone is going to have to connect the dots for this mermaid...

  • Atlantis


    Thank you for posting this!


  • AnnOMaly

    Cadellin, Darius I reigned 36 years. This tablet is a receipt for tax duty that was owed during Darius' 36th year. The tax was actually paid on the 24th day of [month damaged] in Xerxes' accession year. Apparently, Darius must have died between the time the debt was owed and when it was paid off (other evidence indicates he died about November and Xerxes was reigning by December). Anyway, this tablet refutes the idea of a co-regency between Darius and Xerxes.

    See, the WTS and their apologists argue that 'the word going forth to rebuild Jerusalem' occurred in 455 BCE in Artaxerxes I's 20th year which, using Daniel's 'weeks of years' prophecy, gets to the year 29 CE for when the Messiah appeared. The trouble is, all the evidence points 10 years later to 445 BCE as being Artaxerxes' 20th year.

    To get around that, to 'lose' 10 years and keep the 455 BCE date, the apologists argue that there must have been a co-regency between Darius and Xerxes (the two kings preceding Artaxerxes). If that were true, then Xerxes' accession year would have been synonymous with something like Darius' 25th year. However, according to this tablet, Xerxes' accession follows a year 36 of the previous king thereby demolishing any claim of a co-regency and any attempt to wipe 10 years off the Persian/Babylonian calendar.

    Does that help any?

  • Midget-Sasquatch

    Chasson: Thanks for this interesting find.

    AnnOMaly: You cleared that up wonderfully. Much appreciated

    Cadellin: Thanx for asking. I think quite a few of us needed the extra info.

Share this