ClaimChronology and 607 BCEverified2010sOrganisation's explanation

La chronologie et 607 av. n. è. · Claim record

La deuxième partie soutient, à partir de tablettes commerciales datées, que les règnes paraissent se chevaucher aux transitions de Nabuchodonosor II à Amel-Mardouk puis d’Amel-Mardouk à Nériglissar, et suggère que des souverains non enregistrés ou des interruptions entre les règnes pourraient ajouter les années manquantes à la période néo-babylonienne.

Claim ID claim-chronology-business-tablets-overlapConcerns 1 novembre 2011Explication de l’organisation

L’affirmation et ses preuves

Explication de l’organisation · 1 novembre 2011 Vérifié

La deuxième partie soutient, à partir de tablettes commerciales datées, que les règnes paraissent se chevaucher aux transitions de Nabuchodonosor II à Amel-Mardouk puis d’Amel-Mardouk à Nériglissar, et suggère que des souverains non enregistrés ou des interruptions entre les règnes pourraient ajouter les années manquantes à la période néo-babylonienne. Source: The Watchtower, 1 novembre 2011

Afficher les preuves (1 source)
Publication primaire des Témoins de Jéhovah Vérifié

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

1 novembre 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.”

Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two

Note sur la fiabilité. Full document fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026 and read in full; the quotation, the paragraph and the page were confirmed against the article text and its embedded page markers (span class=“pageNum”).

Notes. This is the organisation’s positive proposal: unrecorded extra kings or interregna lengthening the Neo-Babylonian period by the missing 20 years.

Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source. src-chr-o-w-2011-1101-business-tablets

Page de l’affirmation Corriger ou mettre à jour

A direct link to this claim is https://jwtruth.org/fr/evidence/claim-chronology-business-tablets-overlap/. Every source above opens the original document or the best available copy. If you believe the wording, date or context is wrong, report an error.