Certificate issued by the clay tablet VAT 4956

In this publication can be obtained slightly revised information from this clay tablet.

It may be noted from Chapter 1 and the related chapter, “The Timing of the Babylonian Calendar in 568 BCE.” that the clay tablet in question is probably a report originally written by eyewitnesses events of in the Babylonian calendar year 568/567 BCE.

It could also be stated that the error assumed by the researchers in relation to the 8th day of the Nisannu month is a mere assumption. The date Nisannu 9th indicated by this clay tablet is true for the year 568 BCE.6-1 This is also confirmed by the beginning of the month of Ajaru following the month of Nisannu depicted on the clay tablet.

Characteristics of the copy

There is more to this clay tablet than its date that points to a copy.

It shows a long time gap, more than six months, for which there is no data. This indicates that the old clay tablets associated with this period were probably so damaged that the Babylonian astrologers were unable to reproduce the information they contained.

In the 11th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar

When the Babylonian astrologers began to reproduce ancient clay tablets in about 200 BCE.,6-2 what did their dates read? Could the date read: 'in the 11th year of Nebuchadnezzar'? Perhaps.

In any case, they used the astronomical tool of that time and, with the help of lunar and planetary movements, timed that clay tablet just right up to 568 BCE.

If there read that date above, they must have wondered greatly about it.

After all, they only had information about the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, and that chapter ‘11’ did not seem to fit at all.

According to the royal list in their possession, it corresponded to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II's reign. So they wrote that chapter to a copy. It is also possible that the original text was so damaged that it was not clear from the year, but the name of the king ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ somehow happened to be perceived from it.

What if the king's name on the date was completely different? Since the Babylonian astrologers had already dated the clay tablet to the year 568 BCE., they would not necessarily have changed the date of the original clay tablet, nor the years of the reign of the kings, according to the knowledge they had of history at that time. Why not?

They would have interpreted that they had found entirely new information in history and would have considered it probable that this “king named after him” had acted as king along with Nebuchadnezzar II, his co-ruler. Perhaps they would have liked to pass this “information they found” to future generations.

In this regard, the clay tablet VAT 4956 bears a wordless testimony: in 568 BCE. Babylon was ruled by a king who used the name Nebuchadnezzar.

Nebuchadnezzar V, despised king

The introduction already referred to the quandary that what could be the reason for Nebuchadnezzar V’s absence from the Babylonian royal list.

It cannot be considered very consistent to conclude that the Babylonian scribes made a mistake in this matter and “forgot” one king who had acted during their own lifetime.

Religion seems to have been the most important thing to the Babylonians, mainly the identity of the whole people. Therefore, the religious reason would seem to be the most probable, which is why a king wants to completely forget and hide the history of the people.

Is there then evidence that Amel-Marduk could have had a different religious background? Yes.

The biblical account shows that he was sympathetic to Jewish prisoners. He released Jehoiachin, king of Judah, from honor, and gave him glory so that he could eat at the king's table at the same table with the king for the rest of his life.

Thus, Nebuchadnezzar V may have shown positive attention to the Jews in many other ways. This infuriated the “pure” Babylonians, and so Nebuchadnezzar V was a despised king in his lifetime. And possibly this attribute of his was one of the reasons why the king's brother-in-law, Neriglissar, murdered him. The reign of Nebuchadnezzar V was thus about 18 years and 4 months from 578-560 BCE.

Earlier, mention was made of Nabonidus’ old mother Adad-Guppi and the list of kings she made. This begs the question: why did such an old woman see fit to make a king's list? Was it not the task of the scribes appointed for the purpose to draw up the king's lists?

The conclusion to be drawn from this is that Adad-Guppi, in so far as she was the author of the list, wanted to argue that the name of Nebuchadnezzar V should not be mentioned in the list of kings. Such a procedure, whereby an unpopular king is not included in the list of kings, was not unusual in ancient times.

References

6-1 This will be examined in more detail in chapter 33

6-2 Because there was a great deal of text in the original cuneiform text, time of over a year, it was likely that the text  was divided into several clay tablets.

6-3 internationalstandardbible.com/N/nebuchadnezzar-

nebuchadrezzar.html