A Parte Dois argumenta, a partir de tabuinhas comerciais datadas, que os reinados parecem se sobrepor nas transições de Nabucodonosor II para Amel-Marduk e de Amel-Marduk para Neriglissar, e sugere que governantes não registrados ou lacunas entre os reinados poderiam acrescentar ao período neobabilônico os anos que faltam.

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

1 de novembro de 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.”

Fonte oficial ↗ (abre em nova aba)