Classical Historians​—How Accurate?

Historians who lived close to the time when Jerusalem was destroyed give mixed information about the Neo-Babylonian kings.c (See the box “Neo-Babylonian Kings.”) The time line based on their chronological information disagrees with that of the Bible. But just how reliable are their writings?

One of the historians who lived closest to the Neo-Babylonian period was Berossus, a Babylonian “priest of Bel.” His original work, the Babyloniaca, written about 281 B.C.E., has been lost, and only fragments are preserved in the works of other historians. Berossus claimed that he used “books which had been preserved with great care at Babylon.”¹ Was Berossus really an accurate historian? Consider one example.

Berossus wrote that Assyrian King Sennacherib followed “the reign of [his] brother”; and “after him his son [Esarhaddon ruled for] 8 years; and thereafter Sammuges [Shamash-shuma-ukin] 21 years.” (III, 2.1, 4) However, Babylonian historical documents written long before Berossus’ time say that Sennacherib followed his father, Sargon II, not his brother, to the throne; Esarhaddon ruled for 12 years, not 8; and Shamash-shuma-ukin ruled for 20 years, not 21. Scholar R. J. van der Spek, while acknowledging that Berossus consulted the Babylonian chronicles, wrote: “This did not prevent him from making his own additions and interpretations.”²

How do other scholars view Berossus? “In the past Berossus has usually been viewed as a historian,” states S. M. Burstein, who made a thorough study of Berossus’ works. Yet, he concluded: “Considered as such his performance must be pronounced inadequate. Even in its present fragmentary state the Babyloniaca contains a number of surprising errors of simple fact . . . In a historian such flaws would be damning, but then Berossus’ purpose was not historical.”³

In view of the foregoing, what do you think? Should Berossus’ calculations really be viewed as consistently accurate? And what about the other classical historians who, for the most part, based their chronology on the writings of Berossus? Can their historical conclusions really be called reliable?

The Canon of Ptolemy

The Royal Canon of Claudius Ptolemy, a second-century C.E. astronomer, is also used to support the traditional date 587 B.C.E. Ptolemy’s list of kings is considered the backbone of the chronology of ancient history, including the Neo-Babylonian period.

Ptolemy compiled his list some 600 years after the Neo-Babylonian period ended. So how did he determine the date when the first king on his list began to reign? Ptolemy explained that by using astronomical calculations based in part on eclipses, “we have derived to compute back to the beginning of the reign of Nabonassar,” the first king on his list.⁴ Thus, Christopher Walker of the British Museum says that Ptolemy’s canon was “an artificial scheme designed to provide astronomers with a consistent chronology” and was “not to provide historians with a precise record of the accession and death of kings.”⁵

“It has long been known that the Canon is astronomically reliable,” writes Leo Depuydt, one of Ptolemy’s most enthusiastic defenders, “but this does not automatically mean that it is historically dependable.” Regarding this list of kings, Professor Depuydt adds: “As regards the earlier rulers [who included the Neo-Babylonian kings], the Canon would need to be compared with the cuneiform record on a reign by reign basis.”⁶

What is this “cuneiform record” that enables us to measure the historical accuracy of Ptolemy’s canon? It includes the Babylonian chronicles, lists of kings, and economic tablets​—cuneiform documents written by scribes who lived during, or near, Neo-Babylonian times.⁷

How does Ptolemy’s list compare with that cuneiform record? The box “How Does Ptolemy’s Canon Compare With Ancient Tablets?” (see below) shows a portion of the canon and compares this with an ancient cuneiform document. Notice that Ptolemy lists only four kings between the Babylonian rulers Kandalanu and Nabonidus. However, the Uruk King List​—a part of the cuneiform record—​reveals that seven kings ruled in between. Were their reigns brief and negligible? One of them, according to cuneiform economic tablets, ruled for seven years.⁸

There is also strong evidence from cuneiform documents that prior to the reign of Nabopolassar (the first king of the Neo-Babylonian period), another king (Ashur-etel-ilani) ruled for four years in Babylonia. Also, for more than a year, there was no king in the land.⁹ Yet, all of this is left out of Ptolemy’s canon.

Why did Ptolemy omit some rulers? Evidently, he did not consider them to be legitimate rulers of Babylon.¹⁰ For example, he excluded Labashi-Marduk, a Neo-Babylonian king. But according to cuneiform documents, the kings whom Ptolemy omitted actually ruled over Babylonia.

In general, Ptolemy’s canon is regarded as accurate. But in view of its omissions, should it really be used to provide a definite historical chronology?

8. Sin-sharra-ishkun ruled for seven years, and 57 economic tablets of this king are dated from his accession year through year seven. See Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Volume 35, 1983, pages 54-59.

9. The economic tablet C.B.M. 2152 is dated in the fourth year of Ashur-etel-ilani. (Legal and Commercial Transactions Dated in the Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods​—Chiefly From Nippur, by A.T. Clay, 1908, page 74.) Also the Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus, (H1B), I, line 30, has him listed just before Nabopolassar. (Anatolian Studies, Vol. VIII, 1958, pages 35, 47.) For the kingless period, see Chronicle 2, line 14, of Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, pages 87-88.

10. Some scholars contend that certain kings were omitted by Ptolemy​—who supposedly listed only kings of Babylon—​because these were called by the title “King of Assyria.” However, as you will note in the box on page 30, several kings included in Ptolemy’s canon also had the title “King of Assyria.” Economic tablets, cuneiform letters, and inscriptions clearly reveal that kings Ashur-etel-ilani, Sin-shumu-lishir, and Sin-sharra-ishkun ruled over Babylonia.

[Chart/​Picture on page 29]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

NEO-BABYLONIAN KINGS

If these historians are reliable, why do they disagree?

Kings

Nabopolassar

BEROSSUS c. 350-270 B.C.E. (21)

POLYHISTOR 105-? B.C.E. (20)

JOSEPHUS 37-?100 C.E. (—)

PTOLEMY c. 100-170 C.E. (21)

Nebuchadnezzar II

BEROSSUS c. 350-270 B.C.E. (43)

POLYHISTOR 105-? B.C.E. (43)

JOSEPHUS 37-?100 C.E. (43)

PTOLEMY c. 100-170 C.E. (43)

Amel-Marduk

BEROSSUS c. 350-270 B.C.E. (2)

POLYHISTOR 105-? B.C.E. (12)

JOSEPHUS 37-?100 C.E. (18)

PTOLEMY c. 100-170 C.E. (2)

Neriglissar

BEROSSUS c. 350-270 B.C.E. (4)

POLYHISTOR 105-? B.C.E. (4)

JOSEPHUS 37-?100 C.E. (40)

PTOLEMY c. 100-170 C.E. (4)

Labashi-Marduk

BEROSSUS c. 350-270 B.C.E. (9 months)

POLYHISTOR 105-? B.C.E. (—)

JOSEPHUS 37-?100 C.E. (9 months)

PTOLEMY c. 100-170 C.E. (—)

Nabonidus

BEROSSUS c. 350-270 B.C.E. (17)

POLYHISTOR 105-? B.C.E. (17)

JOSEPHUS 37-?100 C.E. (17)

PTOLEMY c. 100-170 C.E. (17)

(#) = Length of king’s reign (in years) according to classical historians

[Credit Line]

Photograph taken by courtesy of the British Museum