Teil zwei argumentiert anhand datierter Geschäftstafeln, dass sich die Regierungszeiten an den Übergängen von Nebukadnezar II. zu Amel-Marduk und von Amel-Marduk zu Neriglissar zu überschneiden scheinen, und legt nahe, dass nicht verzeichnete Herrscher oder Lücken zwischen den Regierungszeiten die fehlenden Jahre zur neubabylonischen Epoche hinzufügen könnten.

The Watchtower, “When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two”

1. November 2011 · pp.23-24 · pars. 16-21 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania

“Therefore, neither the Babylonian chronicles nor the business tablets provide a basis to establish with certainty that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E.”

The argument rests on dated receipts that the article says overlap at the transitions between reigns: tablets of Amel-Marduk’s accession year dated to the fourth and fifth months (BM 80920, BM 58872) while Nebuchadnezzar II was still ruling in his sixth and even tenth month of his 43rd year (BM 55806), and a similar overlap between Amel-Marduk and Neriglissar (BM 75106, BM 61325, BM 75489). From this the article asks: “Could others have ruled between the reigns of these kings? If so, additional years would have to be added to the Neo-Babylonian period.”

Offizielle Quelle ↗ (öffnet in einem neuen Tab)