SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)

[JW Insider]

We know that dates like 1513 BCE, 606 BCE, 587 BCE, 539 BCE, 70 CE (or AD), don't occur in the Bible, nor in the ancient astronomical diaries either. If we can pin a specific astronomical event to a record of any of Nebuchadnezzar's years, it would help. But we don't need those kinds dates yet. We can get them later.

The first thing we need to do is to figure out where the variously listed kings fit in our timeline relative to each other. If we knew the order of the kings in succession and knew how long they each ruled for, we could at least create a "relative" timeline.

So. To begin. Do ancient records provide an agreed upon list of kings, their order of succession, and the lengths of their rule?

Yes.

Do all ancient records agree?

No. (Most would argue that they agree in all the important areas, and minor disagreements are easily fixed, but we should still admit that not all records are 100% in agreement.)

So. Can we find two or three that do agree with each other, or perhaps even the majority of the records, in order to start a tentative timeline, and then deal with the disagreements later?

Yes. The most important of the ancient records from Babylon itself and from those who made use of Babylonian records for astronomical purposes all agree anyway (Babylonians, Persians, Greeks). We would expect the most accurate records to relate to works for predicting or understanding eclipses (for example) or various lunar cycles  and planetary movements. We know that certain types of astronomical phenomena were predicted in advance, or even known to be occurring even if invisible behind thick clouds, or because it occurred below the horizon, or invisible because some events relative to stars and planets could not be seen in the daytime. So  we should expect records accurate enough to be used to actually calculate and predict a future eclipse even if it would be invisible.

OK. So we'll put into our chart an example where two of these records agree with each other. For now, we'll pick the Royal King List that must have been available to Ptolemy's Almagest as a kind of "look-up table" and the writings of Berossus a Babylonian historian/priest from the Seleucid Period. They both agree on the following:

• Nabopolassar        21 years
• Nebuchadnezzar  43 years
• Awel-Marduk         2 years
• Neriglissar             4 years
• [Labashi-Marduk  9 months]*
• Nabonidus            17 years

So, we have two "witnesses" (so far) to the names, years, and order of succession for these kings, which I will place in the chart below. To save space and give us a fairly legible font size, I only put in the last few years of Nabopolassar's 21 year reign. And we haven't discussed the length of position of Cyrus reign yet, but both Berossus and the Royal King List give him 9 years starting immediately after the 17th year of Nabonidus.

So this, so far, becomes an 81-year span (arbitarily) from the 16th year of Nabopolassar up to the 9th year of Cyrus as King of Babylon. It might not be right, but it's a version that we can begin to test against the data to see if it holds up. E-M by the way, is short for Evil-Merodach (Awel-Marduk).

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81
Nabopo-lassar						N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S																	C Y R U S
16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

 

*Labashi-Marduk reigned only a few months, but we would NOT expect his name included in a timeline used for counting the number of years between any points on the timeline. And we definitely would not expect it to be included for any purposes related to astronomy calculations. That's because if a reign was so short that it started in a year already counted as "Neriglissar 4" and it ended before the start of "Nabonidus 1" then it should not be inserted because those full years were already counted. In fact, it would be considered a mistake then to include it in an astronomical reference, because it would have thrown off all calculations. predictions and cycles by a full year, making the entire king list worthless. In this case, Berossus, in the role of historian mentions him, but in the Royal King List used for astronomical purposes as a reference for Ptolemy's Almagest, for example, it should NOT be listed, and it wasn't.

[JW Insider]

So far, we've used two "witnesses" to the timeline of Babylonian kings:

• Berossus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berossus
• Royal Canon, sometimes called "Ptolemy's Canon" (a "king list" going back to the 8th century BC, and updated by various persons over the next centuries as they added successive new kings and their reigns to it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Kings

It may also be of interest to note that scholars believe these two sources are independent of each other.

There is another famous king list, the Uruk King List which can be found translated into English here: Uruk King List - Livius and several other places. It completely covers the portion of kings in the chart below and then some additional kings, both before and after the ones shown below. It includes kings much further back into the Assyrian period. I'll list them below the chart, as copied from Livius. But first, this is what it does to our chart. It's another independent witness to the exact same evidence. It's in perfect harmony with Berossus and "Ptolemy."

 

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81
Nabopo-lassar						N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S																	C Y R U S
16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Timeline above confirmed by Berossus
Timeline above confirmed by Royal Canon ("Ptolemy's")
Nabopo-lassar						N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S																	C Y R U S
16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Uruk King List

As copied from Livius.org below. The other side of this inscription continues beyond Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, etc.):

1'note /MU 21\	[mAššur-bâni-apli]	Aššurbanipal	21 years	668-631
2' ša-niš	/m\Šamaš-šuma-ukîn	Šamaš-šuma-ukîn	at the same time	667-648
3' MU 21	mK[an-da]-la-an	Kandalanu	21 years	647-627
4' MU 1	m dSîn2-šumu-lîšir2	Sin-šumliširnote	1 year	626
5' u	m dSîn2-šarra-iš-ku-un	and Sin-šar-iškûn	Id.	Id
6' MU 21	m dNabû-apla-usur	Nabopolassar	21 years	626note-605
7' [M]U 43	m dNabû-kuddurî-usur	Nebuchadnezzar [II]	43 years	604-562
8' [M]U 2	mAmîl-dMarduk	Amel-Marduk	2 years	561-560
9' [MU] /3\ 8 ITI	m dNergal2-šarra-usur	Neriglissar	3 years, 8 months	559-556
10' [(...)]note 3 ITI	mLa-ba-ši-dMarduk	Labaši-Marduk	[accession year] 3 months	556
11' [MU] /17?\	m dNabû-nâ'id	Nabonidus	17? years	555-539
12' [MU x	mK]ur-aš	Cyrus [the Great]	[x years]	539-530
13' [MU x	mKambu-z]i-i	Cambyses [II]	[x years]	530-522
14' [MU x	mDaria-m]uš	Darius [the Great]	[x years]	522-486

 

[JW Insider]

The reason I included the kings from the Uruk King List going back a bit further is because our next "witness" is easier to understand if one goes back before Nabopolassar, into the time of the Assyrian kings.

This next one is the Adad-Guppi’ inscription, also known as Nabon. No. 24 (Nabon H 1, B.). It was for a kind of funeral/grave inscription for Nabonidus' mother (Queen Adad-guppi) who lived to be about 102. So part of this inscription includes various events from her long life, and it includes a list of all the kings she lived through. You can find a translation here: https://www.academia.edu/38585121/MOTHER_OF_HER_SON_THE_LITERARY_SCHEME_OF_THE_ADAD_GUPPI_STELE

• From the
• 20th year of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, that I was born (in), until the
• 42nd year of Ashurbanipal, the
• 3rd year of Aššur-etilu-ili, his son, the
• 21st year of Nabopolassar, the
• 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, the
• 2nd year of EvilMerodach, the
• 4th year of Neriglissar – for 95 years, Sîn, king of the gods of heaven and earth, (in) which I sought after the shrines of his great godhead, (for) my good doings he looked upon me with a smile, he heard my prayers (Adadguppi Stele I:29–36)

(Note that there are no differences in the Uruk King List, Adad-Guppi, and Royal "Ptolemy" King List in any of the Neo-Babylonian kings. But the Assyrian Kings are not listed in the Babylonian records except where they were simultaneously kings of Babylon.)

Another part (of the Adad-guppi' inscription) says she died in the 9th year of Nabonidus, which would indicate at least an age of 102, and the Nabonidus Chronicle (B.M. 35382) confirms the same information.

So here's what this new piece of evidence gives us. And remember it's a "stone witness" that is both contemporary and independent of the others.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81
Nabopo-lassar						N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S																	C Y R U S
16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Timeline above confirmed by Berossus
Timeline above confirmed by Royal Canon ("Ptolemy's")
Nabopo-lassar						N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S																	C Y R U S
16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Uruk King List
Nabopo-lassar						N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S
16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Adad-Guppi' inscription (although it only goes to Nabonidus 9)

 

[JW Insider]

By now we can have a pretty good idea that several independent sources are in complete agreement, giving the same order of succession for these kings, and they also give the same number of years for each king.

But some might question whether there were any gaps we didn't account for. Perhaps one king couldn't start ruling until some coup or civil war was decided. Perhaps a king died and no successor could be found immediately. Or, perhaps two kings overlapped in their rule and it's not accounted for in the chart. (Of course, we might immediately doubt that we will encounter such problems, because if it had been a real problem, then all those calculations for eclipses and other events --and the Babylonians were well known for these-- could never have worked.)

So how do we check that there are no gaps? or no co-regencies in these King Lists?

As it turns out there are many ways. One of them involves two completely different inscriptions, written for different reasons. Here they are:

• The Babylonian Chronicle 3 (B.M. 21901) says that  The chronicle states that in the “sixteenth year” of Nabopolassar, the Medes (Umman-manda) marched to Harran and captured the city. He carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple.
• The Adad-guppi’ inscription (already mentioned above) states the same thing: that in the 16th year of Nabopolassar, their god got angry and the city and its people were destroyed.

Nabonidus provided inscriptions that spoke of the gods coming to him in a dream in his accession year, telling him he should rebuild those temples at Harran destroyed by the Medes. Here's one in Nabod. No. 8:

(Concerning) Harran . . . which had been lying in ruins for 54 years because of its devastation by the Medes (who) destroyed the sanctuaries, . . . the time for reconciliation approached, 54 years, when [the god] Sin should return to his place.

The accession year of Nabonidus was the same partial year that he took office during Neriglissar's 4th year. Note the count over the top of that year is marked with a 55. And notice that we already started counting Nabopolassar's 16th year with a "1" above it. How many years is it from "Nabonidus 16" to Neriglissar 4 (a.k.a., Nabonidus accession year)?

55-1=54. Exactly 54 years. Which is exactly how long the inscription says it is.

It turns out there are hundreds of these evidences that the chart is correct, and they are found in the most mundane of business documents, not just in the royal inscriptions. But this one shows that there were no gaps between the end of the rule of Nabopolassar and the beginning of the reign of Nabonidus. That covers the entire reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

 

 

[JW Insider]

So far, we have seen evidence for the following timeline:

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81
Nabopo-lassar						N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S																	C Y R U S
16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Timeline above confirmed by Berossus
Timeline above confirmed by Royal Canon ("Ptolemy's")
Nabopo-lassar						N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S																	C Y R U S
16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Uruk King List
Nabopo-lassar						N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S																	C Y R U S
16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Adad-Guppi' inscription
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81
Years with no evidence of gaps or co-regencies (Bab Chronicles, Adad Guppi, Nabon. No. 8 )

 

Of course, one might still argue that a gap of a year or so, might be balanced out by co-regencies totaling the same number of years.

That point is covered by looking at literally tens of thousands of pieces of evidence. Maybe even 100,000! 

Imagine if all the bank checks written in the United States from 1930 to 2010 had been found to be made of nearly indestructible material, like some kind of laminated plastic. And imagine that every check contained the then-current president's name up there where the date goes. If you had about 100,000 of these checks spread fairly evenly across each year from 1930 to 2010, you could easily create a chart that showed how many years Hoover served as president since 1930, how many years FDR was president, Truman, Ike, LBJ, JFK, etc.

Fortunately, we have just about the equivalent of that in literally tens of thousands --perhaps 100,000-- of these "checks" because they were written on wet clay that dried as hard as stone and thousands have remained intact in the dry climate of Babylonia/Iraq for more than 2,500 years. These are even more valuable than bank checks for our purposes, however, because they include contracts, legal agreements, sales agreements, trade agreements, rental (land use) agreements, receipts, loans, gifts, etc. And all of them are dated with the month, day, and specific year of the currently reigning king. They even include the indication for a partial "accession" year when a king takes over for the previous king mid-year, and doesn't start his official "Year 1" until the new year.

Here's what they tell us:

• There are tablets representing EVERY SINGLE YEAR of reign for ALL the kings mentioned above.
• The tablets are dated so accurately that we can know, to within a matter of days, when one king was succeeded by the next king.
• ALL of them are in agreement with Berossus, the Royal King List, the Uruk King List, the Babylonian Chronicles, the Adad-Guppi' stele, Royal Temple Inscriptions, Royal Palace Inscriptions, and Astronomical Diaries.
• There are NO tablets that create any contradictions or discrepancies to the years shown in the chart above
• These tablets provide another independent witness to the accuracy of the Kings' Lists, the Royal Inscriptions, the Babylonian Chronicles, and the Astronomical Diaries (which haven't been discussed yet).
• These tablets include examples that cross over from one king to the next so that ALL the transitions are known to be without co-regencies or gaps of more than a few days.
• There is an average of up to 1,000 tablets for each year of the chart shown above, and ZERO (so far) for any proposed additional years not shown in the chart, which is more evidence that there are no possible gaps.
• There are even such texts for the short reign of Labashi-Marduk which lasted only a couple of months.

 

[JW Insider]

So far, then, we have consistent evidence all corroborating the following timeline. But none of these yet includes one of the most powerful pieces of evidence supporting this timeline. And I'm not even talking about the Astronomical Diaries, yet.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81
Nabopo-lassar						N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S																	C Y R U S
16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Timeline above confirmed by Berossus
Timeline above confirmed by Royal Canon ("Ptolemy's")
Nabopo-lassar						N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S																	C Y R U S
16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Uruk King List
Nabopo-lassar						N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S																	C Y R U S
16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Adad-Guppi' inscription
Nabopo-lassar						N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S																	C Y R U S
16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Timeline above exactly confirmed by THOUSANDS of Business/Contract Tablets
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81
Years evidenced to be without gaps or co-regencies thru multiple inscriptions (Bab Chronicles, Adad Guppi, Nabon. No. 8  )
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81
Years evidenced to be without gaps or co-regencies by THOUSANDS of Business/Contract Tablets

 

One of the most powerful areas of evidence is supplied within specific sets of the Business/Contract Tablets. The various 'Business Tablets' are already like thousands of independent witnesses all exactly corroborating the timeline above. So we are already well beyond the need to find "two witnesses" that agree; we have found tens of thousands of effectively independent witnesses.

But these special sets of them are another witness, independent from the other types of contracts, and of course they perfectly support the consistent timelines above.

These, of course, would be the various "houses of business" much like the records of a specific bank, or specific real estate company, or family trading company. There are several of these, and one of the most studied is the "House of Egibi." The Egibi house is known through literally THOUSANDS of tablets spanning the time from third year of Nebuchadnezzar to Evil-Merodach to Neriglissar to Nabonidus to Cyrus to Cambyses to Darius I.

Naturally, it confirms every year perfectly in line with the above timelines, but it does much more than that. It provides a double-check validation of all of the kings by including not just the month day and year of the king, but also the name of the current head ("president") of the Egibi House. These provide a kind of audit of the timeline and show that:

• The first president was head of the firm for 20 years from "Nebuchadnezzar 3" to "Nebuchadnezzar 23."
• Then the second head of the firm was president for 38 years from "Nebuchadnezzar 23" to "Nabonidus 12."
• Then the third president was for 23 years from "Nabonidus 12" to "Darius 1"

Those 20+38+23=81 years are exactly the 81 years matching the evidence from Berossus, Adad-Guppi', the King Lists, the Babylonian Chronicles, the Royal Inscriptions, "Ptolemy" etc.

More than that, a few of the documents of this type (business houses) refer to contracts starting under one king and going on for a number of years and ending under another king, all matching the timeline confirmed by every other source of evidence.

There are many good references to be able to read many of these types of tablets in translation. I can include several of my favorites, and links, in another post.

[JW Insider]

At this point, it should be obvious to anyone, scholar or not, that if you could put a specific BCE date on any one of these years in the chart, that you have just put a date on every other year in the chart.

For example:

• If you could show that Nabopolassar's 21st year was 605 BCE, then you would simultaneously be showing that his 20th must have been 606 BCE, and that the year after 605 was 604 BCE.
• If you could show that the 2nd year of Cyrus was 537 for example, you would simultaneously be showing that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 586 BCE, and that the 17th year of Nabonidus was 539 BCE. (And also therefore the accession year of Cyrus.)

Evidence of any date in the timeline is now exactly the same evidence for every other date in the timeline.

Also, these king's lists extend the same type of accuracy far into the future beyond Cyrus, Cambyses, etc., even up until well past the birth of Christ, and the Roman Caesars, for example.

So the same holds true if you could put a specific CE (AD) date on any event during Persian, Greek, or Roman empires, you would simultaneously be putting a date on any years of Nabonidus, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc. And in the next posts, which should be unnecessary at this point, it can be shown that the astronomical diaries actually offer hundreds of specific astronomical events and configurations that can only be tied to one specific BCE or CE date during those empires (Babylon, Persia, Greece & Rome).

And all of the astronomical dates spread across various points of the timeline also confirm the timeline. Therefore a discussion of the astronomical diaries will give us even more evidence for the accuracy of the initial timeline. In fact, if anyone had an idea that the timeline could somehow still be "falsified" then it would be more efficient to look for any recorded astronomical event that is NOT aligned with the timeline. There are certain diaries that have been copied and recopied, or show damage making them difficult to read in places. Yet, there are rarely more than three or four errors out potentially a dozen or more easily datable readings in these same diaries.
 

[ComfortMyPeople]

Awesome. I really appreciate all your effort by putting your knowledge at our disposal. In spite of the risk to be misunderstood, I'm always learning a lot of you.
Yes, yes, I hear some ones saying "you're a man's follower..."

[JW Insider]

The older the diary, the more it has been recopied, and the more likely a few errors would creep into it. This will be true of VAT 4956 for which the planetary positions interspersed throughout certain lines of the diary provide excellent evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year was 568/7 BCE. But the lunar positions on other interspersed lines of the same diary match only 17 dates of the 23 lunar positions, and 17 out of those 23 positions are a match (73.9%).

These are discussed very well here, where the author ("Ann O'maly") has compared the accuracy score, to another proposed date, 20 years further back for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year:

https://www.academia.edu/44227088/Fact_checking_VAT4956_com

The final tabulation is almost identical to the results anyone can get with computer-based astronomy programs. The final column on the right is the score given to the lunar positions for 568/7 which matches the timeline above. (Green is good, red is not.) The left column is a good indication of how well (actually, how poorly!) the lunar positions might match a date 20 years earlier, or even perhaps for any other random year. This attempt to make it match another date scores about 5 out of the 23 positions (21.7% vs 73.9% for the more accurate year).

The author also provides probable reasons for certain non-matches, giving a good reason for assuming the mis-identification of a specific star, which would have otherwise made a couple of mis-readings much closer, or even a match. Scholars have sometimes assumed a simple one day error in the date, which would also have produced a match (and could also swap non-matches to matches in the final column).

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

Your presentation of NB Chronology is excellent with lovely coloured charts and it appears infallible. How does one test or falsify this scheme of Chronology. Can it now be viewed as an Absolute Chronology and can it now be used to construct a OT Chronology which are legitimate questions?

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

26 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Your presentation of NB Chronology is excellent with lovely coloured charts and it appears infallible.

Thanks.

26 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

How does one test or falsify this scheme of Chronology.

By looking at any additional items of Neo-Babylonian data to see if they continue to corroborate the timeline that fits the data we have made use of, so far.

26 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Can it now be viewed as an Absolute Chronology and can it now be used to construct a OT Chronology

 As you can see, I have not attempted to turn this into an absolute chronology yet. It may very well be "absolutely" accurate as a relative chronology, however. I have only referenced one small item, so far, purporting to offer us several data points for an "absolute" chronology.  On its own, however, it is only one piece out of many, and I prefer to discuss the overall quality of these evidences for an absolute chronology first.

By "absolute," of course, I am referring to the ability to attach it to the BCE/CE era. A relative timeline can be "absolutely" accurate and still not be called an "absolute chronology" as the term is used by a chronologist/historian/archaeologist. I like to start with at least two witnesses to the evidence.

What I have presented here, so far, is a reference to to some of the relevant evidence that indicates that we do have a solid basis for a "relative" chronology from at least the reign of Nabopolassar through Cyrus. (We also know that this same level of confidence continues into the future well past the time of Jesus, Augustus, Nero, etc.) So we know that if anyone accepts any particular date as absolute (through the range of Napopolassar through Nero, for example), that they are, in effect, accepting every date along this line as absolute.

It need not be tied to the OT. It stands on its own. The fact that it CAN be tied to the OT and still be perfectly supported and not falsified by the OT only gives additional support to the evidence.

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

19 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

y looking at any additional items of Neo-Babylonian data to see if they continue to corroborate the timeline that fits the data we have made use of, so far

What is of concern to me that there is the danger of circular reasoning. What i am seeking is some external or independent evidence that lies outside NB Chronology that would validate it.

21 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

As you can see, I have not attempted to turn this into an absolute chronology yet. It may very well be "absolutely" accurate as a relative chronology, however. I have only referenced one small item, so far, purporting to offer us several data points for an "absolute" chronology.  On its own, however, it is only one piece out of many, and I prefer to discuss the overall quality of these evidences for an absolute chronology first.

By "absolute," of course, I am referring to the ability to attach it to the BCE/CE era. A relative timeline can be "absolutely" accurate and still not be called an "absolute chronology" as the term is used by a chronologist/historian/archaeologist. I like to start with at least two witnesses to the evidence.

What I have presented here, so far, is a reference to to some of the relevant evidence that indicates that we do have a solid basis for a "relative" chronology from at least the reign of Nabopolassar through Cyrus. (We also know that this same level of confidence continues into the future well past the time of Jesus, Augustus, Nero, etc.) So we know that if anyone accepts any particular date as absolute (through the range of Napopolassar through Nero, for example), that they are, in effect, accepting every date along this line as absolute

Herein lies the problem.  A failure to carefully distinguish between these two terms, 'relative' and absolute' because wil confuse the two and believe that what as been constructed becomes a absolute chronology.

For NB Chronology to have a useful or practical purpose for Bible Students it must have an interface to OT chronology which can stand alone from NB Chronology as shown by the independent WT chronology which employs identical regnal data for both the Monarchies of Judah, Israel, Babylonian, Persian and Egyptian and Assyrian. Thus interface between these different periods and chronologies is the regnal data. Now of course, we have the additional problem of a lack of consensus with respect to the Divided Monarchy. Thus if we admit to the absoluteness of the NB Period and its Chronology then we have the problem of the INTERFACE between the two- NB Period and OT period.

scholar JW

scholar JW