Chronicles of Chaldaean kings (626-556 BC) in the British Museum.

by VM44 6 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • VM44

    Chronicles of Chaldaean kings (626-556 BC) in the British Museum.

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    Thanks, a great PDF download there.

  • AnnOMaly

    Thanks for putting on that link, VM44. The ETANA website is an excellent resource - tons of stuff you can access.

  • wannabefree

    I hope you don't mind that I put this link on the thread, it also comes from ETANA, it is the listing of the documents that originated in ERECH, establing evidence for the rules of Nebuchadrezzar and Nabonidus.

  • breakfast of champions
    breakfast of champions

    Thanks for this stuff, guys. Just downloaded to my iPosatePad.

  • Crisis of Conscience
  • Larsinger58

    Thanks. This is an excellent PDF presentation of this old work. Now, some might be impressed and make presumptions about how this confirms the popular chronology connected with this ancient text and it's dating. So here are some highlights to note:

    1. On page 13 of the PDF in the "Introduction it notes regarding the Babylonian Chronicle that "It is a copy made in the twenty-second year of Darius from an older and damaged text..."

    Since details of the chronicle contradict the Biblical timeline, it is presumed to be a revision, in which case we know precisely when and who was revising this Babylonian record from the text itself: The Persians in year 22 of Darius II. The common presumption is that this is Darius I since it is thought he ruled up to 36 years, whereas Darius II only ruled into his 19th year. But they put a question mark on which Darius this is. However, this would be a reference to Darius II based on his Babylonian kingship. Darius II began to rule over Babylon when Xerxes faked his death in year 21 and began to rule as "Artaxeres, Longimanus", also claiming that his son Darius (II) had been killed at the same time. That is, the story is that Darius II killed his father Xerxes because of some hanky-panky with his wife. In turn, his brother "Artaxerxes" took revenge on him and killed him and then took the throne. In fact, Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king and used both names in Persia, unknown to the Greeks. This double name was used to fake the death of Xerxes and begin ruling as Artaxerxes. To do this, though, since Darius II was already known to be his heir, the conspiracy had to also kill of Darius II and leave an "Artaxerxes" as the legitimate heir on the throne. Of course, Greeks, who love tragedy, would understand the acts of passion in the scenario of betrayal and revenge.

    But what actually happened was that Darius, already an adult and likely around age 21, was sent to Babylon to rule as king and co-ruler. Making this presumption, therefore, the reign of Darius II at Babylon would have begun in the 21st year of Xerxes/Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes died after a 41-year rule and thus 20 years later, keeping in mind the first 21 years were ruled as "Xerxes." So the Babylonian records would reflect the co-rulership years for Darius II from 20 years earlier. Thus year 22 would be 2 years after the death of his father, Artaxerxes and would correspond to his sole-rulership year 2.

    At any rate, the original document likely reflected the identical chronology the Bible presents and not the apparent 1-year revision, even though this book suggests the contradiction but does not address it, very typical of Freemasonry (i.e. "hide in plain sight"), see #2 below.

    2. The contradaiction between this chronicle and this Bible appears to be an attempt to reduce the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II by an additional year by combining events over 2 years into one year. The critical event is the battle at Charchemish and the defeat of pharaoh Necho, which the Bible dates to year 1 of Nebuchadnezzar II but the chronice to his accession year. Herein we find the dishonesty of this reference. Thus if you note on page 59 of the PDF where you have a timeline of events, you'll find te following:

    603 BCE Nebuchadrezzar (same as "Nebuchadnezzar") - year 2

    603 BCE Nebuchadrezzar - year 3

    601 BCE Nebuchadrezzar - year 4

    600 BCE Nebuchadrezzar - YEAR 3

    599 BCE Nebuchadrezzar - YEAR 6

    What does this mean? See how 600 BCE jumps back to year three? This shows the author is trying to coordinate the Biblical timeline with this chronicle. Of course, obviously the "year 3" reference in 600 BCE is out of place. Anyone paying close attention would thus have their attention drawn to an apparent 1-year discrepancy.

    Per the Bible, Daniel was deported in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar II, which was year 3 of Jehoiakim. Necho was defeated in year 4, per the Bible. This was likely reflected in the original text. But the revised chronicle combines the invasion into Judea in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar II with the Battle of Charchemish, thus eliminating a year in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II and reducing his rule by 1 year. Thus the subsequent events that are dated in the Bible are 1 year off. Most pertinently the deportation of king Jehoiachin in year 8 of Nebuchadnezzar per the Bible but represented as occurring in year 7 in the revised chronicle. This secular vs Bible reference apparently is the reason why the fall of Jerusalem is often dated to two years, that is, 587/586 BC since the Bible indicates Jerusalem fell in year 19 and not year 18. It is thus presumed two different means of calculating the rulership of Nebuchadnezzar is in use, with the presumption that year 18 in one reference is year 19 in another. This is not so. The fact is, the Persians in their revision reduced the rule of Nebuchadnezzar II by 1 year and that's why the Bible says Jehoachin was deported at the end of year 8 rather than the end of year 7. In the Bible, the deportation in year 18 is distinctly different from the deportation in year 19.

    Of course, the discrepancy is apparently known to the author who subtly draws attention to it by giving us two "year 3" references for two different years (i.e. 602 BCE an 600 BCE), which of course, is impossible.

    At any rate, again, this shows you the level of jive and B.S. in the secular records you have to wade through to determine the true Bible timeline and history. But because this document on its face was a revision in year 22 (year 2 over Persia) of Darius II, it cannot be used to challenge or preempt the precise Biblical timeline for key events such as the deportation of Daniel in the accession year of Neb2, the battle of Charchemish in year 1, or the deportation of King Jehoiachin in year 8 (vs. year 7).

    Thanks for posting this great referece!!


Share this