The Section on Berossus in WT Oct. 1, 2011 "When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?"

AnnOMaly

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Babylonian historical documents written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.

Billy the Ex-Bethelite

Ann, Watchtower has asked me to tell you to stop checking their sources and just believe whatever they tell you... without question.

But my guess would be that they've twisted the reference of his brother's ruling over Babylon with other references to rulership over Ninevah. Is there something there that they've pick and mixed in a city switch?

AnnOMaly

Ann, Watchtower has asked me to tell you to stop checking their sources and just believe whatever they tell you... without question.

LOL. And I take it you gave them an appropriate response on my behalf?

But my guess would be that they've twisted the reference of his brother's ruling over Babylon with other references to rulership over Ninevah. Is there something there that they've pick and mixed in a city switch?

The existence of a brother ruling at the time is a mystery - granted. The fact that he is not named is curious. He is not listed in the king lists.

In addition, this period is a problematic time, it looks like. Sennacherib was ruling Assyria and Babylonia, and yet Babylon was always rebelling which meant usurpers, Assyrian-loyal appointments to the throne, rebellions and deposings/assassinations. Ptolemy's source counted a 2 year 'kingless period' (see Ptolemy versus Uruk list on p. 30 of the WT article) whereas Berossus and King List A (ANET, 272) filled them in with short-lived rulers (also see King List and footnotes to it by A.H. Sayce (1888)).

Later in Sennacherib's reign in 689 BCE, Babylon was sacked and desolated, and remained a ruin for roughly a decade until Sennacherib's son, Esarhaddon, rebuilt it. Those eight years are counted as Babylon's 'kingless years' by Ptolemy's source ('second kingless period' listed on p. 30 of the WT article); King List A fills in the gap with Sennacherib.

Anyway, the part about Sennacherib is kind of a red herring. The important question is whether there is a conflict between Berossus' account of the later Neo-Babylonian dynasty and what has been established independently now.

aristeas

Thank you, Ann, for your update. I don't understand why they are now trotting this 'defense of 607' thing out again. From things I've read here and eslewhere, I thought they were putting this whole 607/gentile times thing way back on the back burner. After all, they've taken the 1914 stuff from the copyright page out of the current mags and they've funneled off this stuff to an appendix in the current newbie book. Why in the world would they be binging all this stuff up in the WT again???

And Billy, you certainly do have the 'ultimate truth' down!

Billy the Ex-Bethelite

I think they must have purged enough of the old people in Bethel that this new GB doesn't realize that they lost this argument decades ago.

AnnOMaly

P. 29 of the WT article:

How do other scholars view Berossus? "In the past Berossus has usually been viewed as a historian," states S. M. Burstein, who made a thorough study of Berossus' works. Yet, he concluded: "Considered as such his performance must be pronounced inadequate. Even in its present fragmentary state the Babyloniaca contains a number of surprising errors of simple fact . . . In a historian such flaws would be damning, but then Berossus' purpose was not historical."

Here's the full quote and it's immediate context. The RED underlining is what the WT article quotes. The BLUE underlining is, interestingly, what Jonsson quotes in GTR4, p. 94, n. 11.

VM44

I found some information searching Google Books.

The Babyloniaca of Berossus
Authors: Berosus (the Chaldean.), Stanley Mayer Burstein
Undena Publication, 1978 - History - 37 pages

"...Sinecherim) +18 years; and after him his son 8 years; and thereafter Sammuges 21 years; and his brother 21 years and thereafter Nabupalsar 20 years and after him Nabukodrossoros 43 years. And in all there are 88 years included in the ..."

This might be the source of the article's Berossus quote.

VM44

....as AnnOMaly suspected from her reseach above.

It looks like the Burstein article was published as a separate volume with the title The Babyloniaca of Berossus.

I wish there was a pdf of the whole book available.

AnnOMaly

"...Sinecherim) +18 years; and after him his son 8 years; and thereafter Sammuges 21 years; and his brother 21 years and thereafter Nabupalsar 20 years and after him Nabukodrossoros 43 years. And in all there are 88 years included in the ..."
This might be the source of the article's Berossus quote.

Yes it is. That part is on p. 24 - the page after the first scan posted above. Burstein notes there are chronological problems with this part - specifically Sennacherib's 18 years and Esarhaddon's 8 years. He devotes an Appendix to it but I haven't yet properly read and digested it.

Google Books only gives tantalizing little snippets of this book - at least that's all it gave me. Frustrating. That's why I got the library to track down and lend me a copy.

Black Sheep

From things I've read here and eslewhere, I thought they were putting this whole 607/gentile times thing way back on the back burner.

Check your sources better.

There are Misery Skool talks in August and October that contradict that internet myth.

The Section on Berossus in WT Oct. 1, 2011 "When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?"

Share this