Issues of Evidence : History of Israel : 734 BCE - 586 BCE
Nebuchadrezzar (Nebuchadnezzar) : King Hezekiah Of Judah : The Syro-Ephraimitic War.
PROLOGUE:
As this article appears in the "Rules of Evidence & Archaeology" articles section of the King's Calendar, it is appropriate to BE AWARE OF and to read the legal notes and definitions pertinent to issues in relation to "Evidence" and the 'provision of testimony', and to keep these things in mind when reading or studying anything in which 'authoritative' claims or statements are made.
Unlike the 4 part series: "The Law, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology"this article does not focus on legal argument, but highlights the weaknesses in Academic Opinion (and therefore 'weaknesses in Law'), in relation to King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon; King Hezekiah of Judah, and the Syro-Ephraimitic War 734-732 BCE.
In the Legal Bibliography section at the end of this article, can be found some definitions that ought to be born in mind by all readers, so as not to confuse 'opinion' with 'evidence'. Claims made by any party that have a vested interest in your acceptance of those claims, ought to be approached with caution. One ought not to just 'trust' without due consideration for the evidence. [Refer to: Direct Evidence : Circumstantial Evidence : Opinions & Presumptions : Expert Witnesses in the Legal Bibliography section at the bottom of this article.]
Part One: Nebuchadrezzar King of Babylon, Destroyer of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem 586 BCE.
Academia likes to make many authoritative claims about many things, which, standing alone, sound reasonable to the naive, but when you put them into perspective, that is, in context with the overall number of claims made, one can often see that much is amiss. Take Nebuchadrezzar (Nebuchadnezzar) for instance.
How Long Did Nebuchadrezzar reign?
The first thing to note about Nebuchadrezzar, is that no one is certain whether he reigned 43 years or 42 years. The current preferred reading is 43 years, but this is based on a business text relating to his 43rd year, that standing alone, offers no clue as to whether these 43 years "include or exclude" his accession year.
Currently Nebuchadrezzar is believed to have ascended the throne of Babylon in 605 BCE., commencing his first regnal year in Nisan of 604 BCE (Wiseman, 1985, pp.18-19), reigning forty-three (43) years until 562 BCE. (Cambridge Ancient History,1991, p.240).
This is not the picture however that Thiele paints. (Thiele, 1966, p.216 , Appendix 'G').
The chart in Appendix Six of the King's Calendar demonstrates that according to Thiele's calculations, Nebuchadrezzar reigned 42 years + his Accession Year
The 'King's Calendar' can demonstrate that professor Wiseman's figures are excessive by one year, and that 603 BCE is Nebuchadrezzar's first regnal year, having ascended the previous year, 604 BCE. Since Nebuchadrezzar's records are not complete, (Wiseman 1961. p.94) and other references to his reign may include his accession year as a regnal year, current academic opinion concerning the length of Nebuchadrezzar's reign can only be tentative. They can offer no evidence that would hold up in a court of Law.
As further evidence that Academic opinion ought not to be relied upon as 'legally credible' evidence; according to current scholarship, Nebuchadrezzar burned Solomon's Temple on either 15th August 586 BCE (Thiele 1966, p.164, Table XV) or August 5th 587 BCE (Wiseman, 1985, p.37).
When Did Nebuchadrezzar destroy Solomon's Temple?
The Second thing to note about the length of Nebuchadrezzar's reign, is that the when he commenced his reign, depends on whether he destroyed Jerusalem in 587 BCE or 586 BCE., for we have an historical reference to the specific regnal year in which this occurred.
Whilst the King's Calendar clearly demonstrates that Nebuchadrezzar destroyed Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem in 586 BCE. scholars still argue the issue. The importance of this year is paramount, for upon it hangs the particular and individual chronological preferences of various academics. By this is meant that they have vested interests in the issue, and as such, would not be considered credible witnesses in a court of law.
If one must move the date for Nebuchadrezzar's Burning of Solomon's Temple, from 587 BCE as is fashionably preached today, to 586 BCE., the former date ascribed to this event, it causes problems for certain scholastic opinions in relation to the reigns of Kandalanu and Nabopolassar, Nebuchadrezzar's predecessors.
In that section of the King's Calendar, it is pointed out that according to Roux (1982), Kandalanu is the name under which Ashurbanipal (the Assyrian King) ruled in Babylon from 648 BCE onwards.
Wiseman (1961, p89) however, indicates that Kandalanu was Ashurbanipal's appointee, immediately upon the death of Shamash-sum-ukin in 648 BCE. [Shamash-sum-ukin revolted from his brother Ashurbanipal, and facing defeat, suicided in his palace].
This disagreement in identifying Kandalanu, demonstrates once again, that the 'evidence' is open to interpretation. The issue is mentioned here, for it is significant, in that it impacts directly upon not only Kandalanu's reign, but provides the 'window of opportunity' that permits the King's Calendar to commence Nebuchadrezzar's reign one year later as well.
In order to justify the King's Calendar one year 'shift' forward in time, of Nebuchadrezzar's reign, from 605 BCE to 604 BCE, it is necessary to demonstrate that Kandalanu's reign can likewise be shifted.
The King's Calendar not only needs to show that such is possible, but demonstrates that if Kandalanu is 'an appointee', and not Ashurbanipal himself, then with just a few months delay in his appointment, Kandalanu's reign would commence in the following Babylonian year, and thus justify shifting Nebuchadrezzar's reign.
What Do We Know For Certain About Nebuchadrezzar?
The only thing certainly known, is that Nebuchadrezzar's reign ended in 562 BCE. with the ascension of Evil - Merodach (Amel Marduk), which Wiseman (1985, p.9) dates to October 8th 562 BCE.
This is an important date, for Second Kings 25:27 [Direct Documentary Evidence] informs us in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile, Amel-Marduk, during his accession year, set Jehoiachin free from his prison.
The King's Calendar insists that reference to 37 years of captivity is demonstrably an artificial reference, for it would otherwise require that he was captured by Nebuchadrezzar earlier than Nebuchadrezzar's first campaign against Jerusalem. When these 37 artificial years are calculated from 596 BCE (not 597 BCE), they arrive at 562 BCE, and validate the Biblical claim that it was in Amel-Marduk's accession year that Jehoiachin was released from Prison.
To see how Nebuchadrezzar's reign inter meshes with Jehoiachin's, see the Chart in Chapter TWO : 3. Determining the length of Nebuchadrezzar's reign [Chapters Two and Three deal with so many issues in relation to Nebuchadrezzar and the Kings of Judah. One day I must devote some time to writing a chapter solely on Nebuchadrezzar.]
The point I make in this article, is that generally speaking, Academics are pulling the wool over our eyes when they make definitive statements about Nebuchadrezzar.
Their arguments concerning the Death of Josiah, are made without recourse to any documents other than the Biblical, and the Biblical documents do not provide any chronological synchronisation to substantiate Academic Opinion. Rather, there is much doubt about what Academics do insist upon. { SEENo 11: Josiah to ZedekiahandNo. 12: Josiah to the Destruction of Jerusalem }
Whilst I could continue to discuss holes in the academic claims for this period of time, the purpose of this section is to merely demonstrate that evidence presented by academic is not always quite what it is claimed to be.
[ For Example: Academic claims surrounding King Jehoiakim's death and King Jehoiachin's captivity, are other contentious issues because the Babylonian Chronicles [Direct Documentary Evidence] lack precise details in identifying King's of Judah. Presently, Academics must 'alter' the Historical records of Israel [Direct Documentary Evidence] as found in the Bible, in order to suit their chronological schemes [Opinion & Presumption], even though there is no supporting data found in the Babylonian chronicles to justify this. [Refer to : No. 12: Josiah to the Destruction of Jerusalem]
Currently, issues surrounding the precise year in which Solomon's Temple was destroyed, and the exact length of Nebuchadrezzar's reign, are significant, for the 'King's Calendar' demonstrates them to be other than what is currently accepted. Deriving from these issues, Kandalanu's identity and precise chronological placement of his reign, are justifiably contested.
To insist that because 'we' believe something to be so, is insufficient in Law to establish a matter as fact. While the King's Calendar can justifiably demonstrate that current opinion is in error, academics are honor bound to 'factually demonstrate' that the King's Calendar is wrong.
Whilst the 'King's Calendar' relies upon mathematics [Scientifically Testable] to demonstrate the accuracy of its chronological reconstruction of history, Academics are relying upon (legally) demonstrably untrustworthy evidence, in order to substantiate their chronological schemes.
It's time for the Academics to be up front in their claims, and clearly distinguish for 'us' plebes, between that which is 'opinion' and that which is 'established fact'.
In Part Two: King Hezekiah of Judah: A man with No Equal in Israel, we will discuss the ultimate absurdity of the various academic claims about this particular King of Judah.
NOTE FOR THE ACADEMICS: Chapters 2 and 3 of the King's Calendar are a hard slog for anyone without the dogged determination and mental agility to hold all the strings together, (like a spider's web) but if you can manage it, you will see how Nebuchadrezzar's reign ought to be presented.
R.P.BenDedek is from Brisbane Australia and is the author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' at http://www.kingscalendar.com His academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah.
He writes photographic 'Stories from China' and social editorial commentaries, both at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing newspaper columnist. He currently teaches Conversational English in China and in addition to his English Lessons at KingsCalendar, he has created specific sites for Students of English.
