Something the "Watchtower" left out

by Doug Mason 38 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    The October 1, 2011 Watchtower article “When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?” includes the following statement.

    “There is also strong evidence from cuneiform documents that prior to the reign of Nabopolassar (the first king of the Neo-Babylonian period), another king (Ashuretel-ilani) ruled for four years in Babylonia. Also, for more than a year, there was no king in the land.[9] Yet, all of this is left out of Ptolemy’s canon.” (Watchtower, October 1, 2011, page 31)

    When the Watchtower paragraph indignantly complains “all of this is left out”, it refers to endnote number 9, which includes this statement: “The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus, (H1B), I, line 30, has [Ashur-etelilani] listed just before Nabopolassar. (Anatolian Studies, Vol. VIII, 1958, pages 35, 47)”

    Pages 35 and 36 of Anatolian Studies list “four monuments of the reign of Nabonidus … found at (or near) Harran”.

    Page 46 to 53 of Anatolian Studies provide a transliteration and an English translation of that Babylonian document. It is an undamaged record by “the lady Adda-guppi, mother of Nabium-na’id, king of Babylon” (lines 1 – 2, page 47).

    The Watchtower refers to line 30 at page 47 of Anatolian Studies but it “leaves out” exactly what that line states, it “leaves out” undamaged line 29, and it “leaves out” undamaged lines 31 to 33. The following are the words from lines 29 to 33 that are “left out” by the Watchtower: “From the 20th year of Assurbanipal, king of Assyria, that I was born (in) until the 42nd year of Assurbanipal, the 3rd year of Assur-etillu-ili, his son, the 21st year of Nabopolassar, the 43rd year of Nebuchadrezzar, the 2nd year of Awel-Marduk, the 4th year of Neriglissar, in 95 years of the god Sin, king of the gods of heaven and earth.” (Anatolian Studies, Vol. VIII, 1958, page 47)

    Column II, lines 26 to 28 state: “From the time of Assurbanipal, king of Assyria, until the 9th year of Nabu-na’id king of Babylon, the son, offspring of my womb 104 years of happiness”. (Anatolian Studies, page 49)

    Lines 40 to 43 state: “In the 21 years of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, in the 43 years of Nebuchadrezzar, son of Nabopolassar, and 4 years of Neriglissar, king of Babylon (when they exercised the kingship, for 68 years.” (Anatolian Studies, page 51)

    It is pure hypocrisy for the Watchtower article to complain about information being left out when it does the same thing, leaving out directly relevant information.


  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    I was blown away by the Lady Adda-guppi info in COJs The Gentile Times Reconsidered book. It is point conclusive about who reigned during her long life and for how long, ... and with them being her direct descendants she KNEW the facts.

    Another obvious case of SELECTIVE quoting from the WTS.

  • AnnOMaly

    As VM44 (I think) noted on the other thread, the article also omitted to mention the Egibi archive.

    There is a lot the WT article missed out.

    Regarding Ashuretel-ilani, while it is technically true this Assyrian king ruled 'in Babylonia' for four years, what the article doesn't disclose is that he only held one or two of the cities in Babylonia (principally, Nippur) while other cities had been taken over by Nabopolassar.

    Similar can be said about the WT article's statement immediately before the one Doug quoted:

    Notice that Ptolemy lists
    only four kings between the Babylonian rulers
    Kandalanu and Nabonidus. However, the Uruk King List-a part of the cuneiform record-
    reveals that seven kings ruled in between.
    Were their reigns brief and negligible?
    One of them, according to cuneiform economic
    tablets, ruled for seven years.

    [Footnote] Sin-sharra-ishkun ruled for seven
    years, and 57 economic tablets of this
    king are dated from his accession year
    through year seven. See Journal of Cuneiform
    Studies, Volume 35, 1983, pages

    Similar can be said about Shin-sharra-ishkun. He ruled parts of Babylonia over a period of seven years. The Assyrian empire was in its death throes and there were power struggles between the Assyrian empire and the rising Neo-Babylonian one with cities being won and lost, lost and won. The WT article fails to make clear (deliberately, no doubt) that these kings Ptolemy omits shared the same regnal 'time space' with Nabopolassar. Ptolemy needed to assign one king to a particular year to be able to count and make his astronomical calculations. The inclusion of these competing Assyrian kings (who lost in the end) would have been superfluous to his purposes.

  • Pants of Righteousness
    Pants of Righteousness

    Thanks for this Doug.

  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep
    As VM44 (I think) noted on the other thread, the article also omitted to mention the Egibi archive.

    Page 31

    9. The economic tablet C.B.M. 2152 is
    dated in the fourth year of Ashur-etelilani.
    (Legal and Commercial Transactions
    Dated in the Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian
    and Persian Periods—Chiefly From Nippur,
    by A.T. Clay,1908, page 74.) ....

    Legal and Commercial Transactions Dated in the Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods—Chiefly From Nippur, by A.T. Clay,1908 PDF

  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep

    Anatolian Studies, Vol. VIII, 1958, pages 35, 47 PDF

  • Crisis of Conscience
  • AnnOMaly

    I don't think that's Egibi, Black Sheep. CBM 2152 came from Nippur; in Clay's time the Egibi tablets found so far had come from Hillah, near Babylon; and the only Egibi-related tablet (one of two) that is translated in Clay's work is dated to Nabopolassar's reign and looks unprovenanced.

  • cantleave

    I hope one of you Brainbots out there does a line by line deconstruction of this article, so that the stupid like me, can join the dots.

  • smiddy


Share this