Ebabbar Cylinder 2:14 — A JW email "explaining" its significance...

by AuldSoul 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • AuldSoul

    I got a look at this email received by someone I know very well (namely, me ), and HAD to share it with you all. In it, the JW writer purports to explain why Neo-Babylonian chronology must be extended based on the sole proof of the Ebabbar Cylinder 2:14 (which I can't seem to locate for independent research, so help along those lines would be appreciated).

    I will post the email and then examine the argument for accuracy/validity. All grammatical errors were in the original.


    I'm well aware with the length of the kings and the what WTS said about them. We must agree most of this was quoted before 1988.

    Regarding Evil- Marduk reign, here some infomation that is quite interesting. According to BM 75322, Evil-Marduk reigned day 20, month 5, asccession year. And according to BM 61325, Evil-Marduk reigned day 17, month 10, year 2. The point here is that BM 61325, gives Evil-Marduk more than 5 months longer than many espected and these tablets indicates that he ruled for 3 years. Plus, these tablets punctures Nebucadnazzer ruling for several months.

    There are problems with theses texts as well as others. One problem is that in his 2nd year reign Nabonidus stated to restore the temples. One temple he restored was in Ebabbar. According to the Ebabbar cyclinder 2.14, it says "During 52 years the walls of this temple fell down and it became useless". If this cyclinder is correct, then there are problems.

    According to traditional chronology, if we count back from this year in accordance with

    Nabonidus2 years
    Neriglissar4 years
    Eveil- Marduk2 years
    Nebuchadnezzar43 years
    Total:51 years

    Table format added for readability, original text preserved.

    So if 52 is correct then, traditional chronology is wrong because king Nebuchadnezzar was not ruling yet, and he was the last one restored the temples. Also, here is another problem. King Nebuchadnezzar began to restored the temples at least 6 years after he began to rule. So, Nabonidus really put wrench in the chronology there. Here is why, lets say that Nebuchadnar begun to ruled in line with 2nd year of Nabonidus (total 51 years, etc). Then we must add 6 more years with some else. Why? Because Nebuchadnazzer began to restore the temple at least 6 years after he ruled as king.

    So these above indicates the Neo-Babylonian Chronology must be extended. And personally I believe that Nebuchadnezzar ruled more than 43 years and Nabonidus ruled more than 17 years but, time will tell if I'm wrong.

    Yes, I did my homework too especially with chronology. And I came to the conclusion that something wrong here with Neo-Babylonian Chronlogy. Also, the astomocial tablets are totally srewed up. Two of them is diary in 651 BCE and VAT 4956.

    Note: Having researched the documents to which the writer refers is not necessary in order to spot the fallacies in the argument. Where to begin...

    Evil-Marduk, according to BM 61325, had two regnal years (as the writer attests). The writer indicates this is longer than many expected. This is actually exactly how many years secular chronology has assigned Evil-Marduk since the most recent discovery of a contemporary copy of Nabon. H1, B, and the WTS published this secularly recognized fact themselves as early as 1969.

    I have no idea what the writer means by Nebuchadnezzar ruling for some months. It would have been nice if he wrote coherently, but alas, I am left to wonder.

    "There are problems with these texts as well as others" refers to the texts he mentioned and at least Nabon. H1, B. In another email he claimed that Nabon. H1, B has been altered by the British Museum. What the problems are he doesn't bother to explain (which would be helpful if he intends to get his argument across cogently) unless he seriously believes his reasoning on Nabonidus' activities (per Ebbabar Cylinder 2:14) is valid as reasoning that produces conflicts within accepted Neo-Babylonian chronology.

    One erroneous assumption in this line of reasoning is that the temple at Ebbabar was constructed or last repaired sometime during Nebuchadnezzar's reign. This erroneous assumption is implicit in the inference that Nebuchadnezzar MUST have been ruling at the commencement of the "52 years". Another glaringly erroneous assumption is that the temple at Ebbabar MUST have been repaired during Nabonidus' 2nd year simply because that is when he started to repair temples.

    It is so endearing that he "personally believes" Nebuchadnezzar reigned longer than 43 years and that Nabonidus reigned longer than 17 years. Especially considering that the length of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is freely admitted to be completely accurate by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, without any dispute whatsoever, as is the length of Nabonidus' reign. This poor fellow chose to take issue with the lengths of reigns of two of the kings even the Watchtower Society won't touch with a 10-foot pole.

    What is most striking is that this person presents this information as though what he writes is easily understood and as though his conclusions are obvious. This is the way the Governing Body wants Jehovah's Witnesses to think and to reason with people. This site is filled with other examples. Study them, learn the way Jehovah's Witnesses obfuscate reality by changing the facts as they go, freely altering history on the basis of belief alone, interpretting historical data prejudicially to force adherence to a previously held belief.

    I thought this example of the way a JW mind works from a sincere, well-meaning JW might help others to avoid the pitfalls of JW-think.


  • kls
    I got a look at this email received by someone I know very well (namely, me ), and HAD to share it with you all

    Things gettin that bad that you are now sending yourself emails

    Sorry but i just couldn't resist

    Now back to programming

  • Jeffro

    The claim for extending the reign of Nebuchadnezzar is automatically dismissed by 2 Kings 25:27, which identifies a definite period of time between Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year and Evil-Merodach's first.

  • Forscher

    As far as I can determine Auldsoul, it looks like the writer misspelled the name. I think it is Ebabar. It seems that the temple complex of the great ziggurat at Babylon once carried the Arabic name Al Ebabar. Apparently, that is where the Cylinder was found, though I haven't been able to pin it down. I hope your french skills are reasonable!
    Good hunting!

  • AuldSoul

    Thanks for the tip, Forscher. He spelled it four different ways in four separate emails.

    I hope your french skills are reasonable!

    We, mon sewer. Mon franswa capcidades son gran! (, j/k)

  • Leolaia

    I haven't been able to find a discussion of this text yet, but it probably is mentioned in the following book that reviews all the evidence found regarding the history of this temple in Neo-Babylonian times:

    A. C. V. M. Bongenaar (1997). The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and its Prosopography. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. (559 pages)

    There could very well be other texts that more precisely indicate the date of the earlier construction or repair of the temple. I was just looking at a review article of this book and interestingly it points out that Neriglissar was an official at the temple as early as Year 33 of Nebuchadnezzar, became a royal-appointed temple official in Year 43 of Nebuchadnezzar, and then in the final months of the reign of Amel-Marduk was already declared king at Sippar. This may indicate that, having been a resident of Sippar, Neriglissar began his revolt there and was recognized king there first, before Amel-Marduk was murdered and officially deposed.

  • Forscher

    Oh my!
    Franish for Auldsoul!

  • AuldSoul

    Thanks, Leolaia. I will try to find a way to access that reference work. I really think this sort of sharing is vastly underestimated by those who think the Internet isn't having a huge impact. The apostates of today are armed to the teeth with hundreds of well-researched doctrinal issues, whereas only a few short years ago an apostate would only be able to rant on frustratedly about three or four issues they had personally figured out.

    This means each apostate has a larger pool of potential topics on which to speak knowledgably and will therefore be more effective as time progresses in waking others up. The WTS knows this.


  • peacefulpete
  • AlanF

    Interesting email, AuldSoul. The buggered English is extremely reminiscent of that of Fred Hall. I wonder if your "buddy" is good old Fridolin in disguise.


Share this