p. 29 - "Was Berossus really an accurate historian?
Consider one example.
Berossus wrote that Assyrian King Sennacherib
followed "the reign of [his] brother"; and
"after him his son [Esarhaddon ruled for]
8 years; and thereafter Sammuges [Shamashshuma-
ukin] 21 years." (III, 2.1, 4) However,
Babylonian historical documents written
long before Berossus' time say that Sennacherib
followed his father, Sargon II, not his
brother, to the throne; Esarhaddon ruled for
12 years, not 8; and Shamash-shuma-ukin
ruled for 20 years, not 21."
This has been driving me nuts.
I couldn't trace the quote where Berossus allegedly says "Sennacherib followed 'the reign of [his] brother'" - I could only find:
"Polyhistor relates that following [Phulus] Sennacherib became king. ... Now the historian of the Chaldeans mentions Sennacherib, his son Asordan, Marodach Baghdan, and with them Nebuchadnezzar as our passage has done. Here is his description.
After Sennacherib's brother ruled, then Akises reigned over the Babylonians. ...
... The account chronologically is in harmony with what is written in Scripture. According to Polyhistor, Sennacherib ruled during the period of Hezekiah for 18 years; his son succeeded him for 8 years; Sammuges followed, for 21 years; followed by his brother, for 21 years." (Eusebius, Chronicle http://rbedrosian.com/euseb2.htm)
Now, I haven't yet been able to organize my thoughts in a logical fashion, so I'll just give you links, scans and random comments that bear on this section.
It looks like the WT writer concluded that 'Berossus wrote that Assyrian King Sennacherib followed "the reign of [his] brother"' from Burstein's book (p. 23) referenced later.
In addition to note 71, I thought note 69 explained why Sennacherib was said to follow Phulos (aka Tiglath-Pileser III).
In footnote 71, Olmstead's idea about a younger brother of Sennacherib is referred to. You can see for yourself what he says on p. 96 at http://www.archive.org/stream/1909annualreport00ameruoft#page/96/mode/2up
Another comment you may want to see is: http://www.achemenet.com/ressources/souspresse/annonces/RB.Assyria&Babylonia.pdf particularly focusing on p. 15-16 and note 43.
In any case, I cannot see why it was (mis)understood that Berossus wrote Sennacherib's reign followed that of his brother. I don't get that impression from Eusebius' text.
That's all for the present. Later I'm hoping to provide a scan of p. 8 of Burstein's work that the WT article quotes from.