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 (III, 2.1, 4) However, Babylonian historical documents written long before Berossus’ time say that Sennacherib followed his father, Sargon II, not his brother, to the throne; Esarhaddon ruled for 12 years, not 8;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?

[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