Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Tory Thorpe <torythrp AT yahoo.com>]

--- On Sun, 12/21/08, Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no> wrote:

Rolf: "There may have been exceptional events in the past, but as far as we 
know, every Persian and Babylonian king had an accession year. So, just the 
fact that so many tablets are dated in year 1 of Bardiya shows that there 
must have been an accession year as well - and we have four tablets from his 
accession year."

I'm afraid I don't follow the logic. Of course the standard interpretation is 
that Bardiya had an accession year. But scribes at the city of Babylon 
thought it began shortly after month I. It took "them" until month IV to 
realize, or to accept, that Bardiya claimed the throne before month I. It was 
at that point they updated their records and equated the accession year with 
year 1. That you wont even consider the possibility that the dating formulas 
"accession year" and "first year" could be confused either intentionally or 
accidentally by some scribes in cases of irregular succession and political 
turmoil, when accession occurs towards the close of a calendar year, is a 
little troubling. 

The scenario that requires the fewest number of ad-hoc assumptions, and is 
backed up by a good deal of evidence external to Ptolemy's list and the 
confusing Babylonian data, is the one that has become the standard view. 
Olmstead's theory on Bardiya can only be raised from the dead by throwing out 
a mountain of evidence. Are you willing to do that?

Rolf: "I refer to the first 7 signs in IV' 3' of BM 32234 (Hunger et al. 
2001:20)." 

I shall have a look.

Tory Thorpe