607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?

[JW Insider]

20 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Honesty is a two-way street required by both sides in a debate therefore no need for any ;theocratic war strategy..

You were using the term "honesty is a two-way street" as if it were an excuse to explain why you made a false claim. In a "debate" you don't get to make false claims and then make excuses for it. You should be honest no matter what you think of the other person's evidence.

20 hours ago, scholar JW said:

If the Gap does not exist then how do you account for the 20 year difference between 586/587 BCE and 607 BCE for the same event? No need for circular reasoning here.

There is no gap in the NB evidence. You don't create a gap in another set of evidence by simply making a claim that one exists:

Let's say that I have a coin collection of all the different types of United States coins made during World War 1: a 1914 penny, nickel, dime, quarter, half-dollar, silver dollar, gold quarter-eagle, gold half-eagle, etc., etc., from each of the applicable locations where coins are officially minted. Let's say that  I have an entire set not just from 1914, but also from 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918. Now you come along and tell me that there is a three-year gap in my WW1 coin collection. But that doesn't create a gap in my collection. It does not create a gap in the evidence for when WW1 started and ended. It just creates a gap in your credibility.

If I ask you where this supposed three-year gap might be placed, you could say that the extra three years should be placed between 1916 and 1917. Again, this claim is only a gap in your own credibility and it has no effect on the evidence for what coins were made during World War 1 and it has no effect on the evidence for the actual years of World War 1. It's just a claim. Even if it came from your beloved grandfather who has never told a lie before, it still doesn't mean that the start of World War 1 must now be reset to 1911 instead of 1914.

You could insist that there must be a three-year gap because your grandfather actually told you that World War 1 started in 1911. He is so sure of it that he has also pushed back the beginning of the U.S. Civil war to 1858 instead of 1861, and the U.S. Declaration of Independence from Britain to July 4, 1773 instead of 1776. But this would only mean that you (and your grandfather) have a gap. It does not produce any gap in United States chronology or coinage.

20 hours ago, scholar JW said:

If there is no Gap then why or what are we discussing?

We are certainly not discussing any gap in the NB evidence itself, but a gap in someone else's claim about it. We are discussing the idea that you believe there is a gap somewhere in the NB, but you still don't even know exactly where that gap should be placed. We are in exactly the same type situation that would be created if you and your grandfather were claiming that World War 1 started in 1911 instead of 1914, assuming that you agreed that it ended in 1918, but that WW1 covered parts of 8 different years (1911-1918) instead of parts of 5 different years (1914-1918). But you still don't know where the current evidence for WW1 from 1914 to 1918 went wrong. Perhaps the three years of information you need to add should be inserted between the current evidence for 1916 and 1917. Or between the current evidence for 1917 and 1918. Or perhaps the three years should be added between February 3, 1915 and February 4, 1915.

20 hours ago, scholar JW said:

You talk honesty but your following comments replete with many references to earlier WT Publications finally concluding that some dates were or are fuzzy!

The history of these Watchtower dates that you are relying on is fuzzy. The reasons the Watchtower has needed them to be fuzzy becomes sharp and clear when you study the history of the Watchtower's chronology claims more closely. And you don't even need the older publications because the CURRENT "Insight" book admits that the two year difference between 539 and 537 is based on something that "is very probable." Current publications put the third year of Cyrus at 536, but the first year of Cyrus is pushed as closely as possible toward the spring of 537. Obviously, the WTS does this, even though Cyrus had the authority to release captives in 539 and 538, but we just don't want any Jews coming back in 539 or 538,  as that would throw off 1914 by throwing off 607 by a year or two. In the past, we allowed them to come back in 536 because we thought that was the first year of Cyrus (and therefore put Jerusalem's destruction in 606). If we were arguing for the same two-year-plus delay that we argue for now in the WTS publications, then the Jews might not be back home until 534 or even 533. The fuzziness has worked in favor of the WTS to keep 1914 afloat.

The WTS was always willing to re-adjust the old dates, although to be fair, the solution for a while was to change 1914 to 1915. Both Russell and Rutherford began using 1915 as the new end of the Gentile Times even until a few years after 1914.

• During the time of trouble, closing this age, they will be exalted to power, but their "reign" of righteousness over the world could not precede A.D. 1915—when the Times of the Gentiles have expired. (The Time Is At Hand, p.81.)

• the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1915, with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. (ibid, p.101)

Here's what we the WTS said when they were first learning about the "zero year" problem in the Watch Tower from December 1912. By 1914 the WTS "discerned" that there WAS a zero year, but still kept referring to October 1915 as the end of the Gentile Times when it looked like 1914 wasn't working out. Apparently, they misunderstood the quote in the Encylopedia Britannica, below, referring to a common misunderstanding that is still made today by amateur astronomers. Then in 1943, the WTS "discerned" that there was NO zero year.:

---------quote from Watch Tower, December 1912, p. 377 [new paragraphs shown as bullet points]---------------

• Whether Dionysius began his A.D. period January 1st, A.D. 1, or whether he began it January 1st, A.D. 0, we may not be sure; neither may we feel too certain whether he began the B.C. dates December 31st, B.C. 0, or December 31st, B.C. 1. For all ordinary purposes this question would be rather immaterial. But it has a very important bearing on our calculation of Gentile Times. . . .
• Coming now to a very critical examination of the date 536 B.C., there is an open question: Shall we call it 536 full years to A.D., or 434 [sic] full years? The difference in time between October 1st and January 1st would be the fourth of a year; hence our query is respecting 536-1/4 or 535-1/4 years B.C. What is the proper method of calculation, is in dispute. If we count the first year B.C. as 0, then the date 536-1/4 B.C. is the proper one for the end of the seventy years of captivity. But if we begin to reckon it by counting the first year before the Christian era as B.C. 1, then evidently the desolation ended 535-1/4 years B.C.
• As to the methods of counting, Encyclopaedia Britannica says, "Astronomers denote the year which preceded the first of our era as 0 and the year previous to that as B.C. 1--the previous year B.C. 2, and so on."
• Whichever of these ways we undertake to calculate the matter the difference between the results is one year. The seventy years of Jewish captivity ended October, 536 B.C., and if there were 536-1/4 years B.C., then to complete the 2,520 years' cycle of the Times of the Gentiles would require 1913-3/4 years of A.D., or to October, 1914. But if the other way of reckoning were used, then there were but 535-1/4 years of the period B.C., and the remainder of the 2,520 years would reach to A.D., 1914-3/4 years, otherwise October, 1915.

 

[JW Insider]

18 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Yet you begin your diatribe with the astonishing statement that the Babylonian Empire began in 609 BCE. What nonsense for nothing of any historical significance occurred in 609 BCE.

Have you written the Watchtower Society to tell them that this claim is "nonsense"?

*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***

• True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.

If you don't have the Watchtower Library CD/DVD installed just click the link to jw.org here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102000039 and scroll down to paragraph 21 (page 256) to see the same point.

So, are you saying you do not agree with the assessment of the Watchtower Society that the 70 years of Babylonia's greatest domination ends in 539 B.C.E.?  If Babylon's 70 years of domination ended in 539, then when did it begin? I get 539+70=609.

 Unless you can offer a different answer, I'll have to assume that you get the same thing. So why do you call this claim "nonsense"? Usually, you appear to be defending what's on JW.ORG.

18 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Carl Jonsson in the 2nd edn of his Gentile Times Reconsidered produced a Chart on p.235. This Chart presents a' fuzzy' statement that the 70 years began with the Assyria crushed with no historical data in support to support this assertion.

Yes. I see that JW.ORG also does something just like what you say Carl Jonsson did. Do you think that JW.ORG got this idea from Carl Jonsson? Jonsson wrote about 15 years before the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book was written in 2000?

18 hours ago, scholar JW said:

You only have to compare the different Chronologies for the Divided Monarchy and to examine the conflict over whether Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587 BEC.

You seem confused about the reason that there is any supposed "conflict" over whether Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587. The reason is explained on JW.ORG and it has absolutely nothing to do with different chronologies for the divided monarchy. The Bible lists both the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar for what appears to be the same Jerusalem event. It can simply be a matter of whether the Bible is including Nebuchadnezzar's accession year when referring to the Jerusalem event.

*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***

• on Tammuz (June-July) 9 in the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign (Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year), a breach was made in Jerusalem’s wall.

The scriptures quoted are as follows:

• (Jeremiah 52:29) In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.

• (2 Kings 25:8, 9) In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; . . .

I know you already knew this from a previous conversation.

[JW Insider]

19 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Your claim that our theory is impossible is unclear to me because we accept the 43 years of Neb' s reign and have well described how this synchronizes with the reigns of the last Kings of Judah according to the biblical data.

You were claiming that our (WTS) theory was impossible when you tried to add another 20 years to the Neo-Babylonian timeline at a point during Nebuchadnezzar's reign. You suggested Zedekiah's 11th year. You create a contradiction for yourself precisely because the Bible synchronizes the reigns of the last kings of Judah in a way that fits Ptolemy's Canon, and the Babylonian Chronicles and the combined evidence from thousands of clay tablets, along with the astronomical diaries.

19 hours ago, scholar JW said:

If it does not fit certain data from the NB Chronology then that is not my problem. Just make the required adjustment based only on trusted biblical facts . If you have found a problem then why not try to solve it? DO YOU WANT ME TO SOLVE IT FOR YOU.

Actually it is your problem if you are the one interpreting an idea in a way that contradicts all the evidence. Especially since you already admitted that many lines of evidence and thousands of tablets already represent the NB chronology. It's the same as if you wanted to make World War 1 last for parts of 8 years instead of parts of 5 years. If you say that there are three years of history about WW1 missing, then you would have to be the one to figure out where these new years should be inserted.

There is nothing for me to solve here. I see that all the years are already accounted for, and that they already fit the Bible evidence very well. I am happy that the Bible account is corroborated by the historical accounts and evidence from archaeology.

19 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Already, there are other problems in connection with Jehoiakim's reign such as the 'third year of his kingship' in Dan. 1:1. and this is explained in the Insight article under 'Jehoiakim'. You will find the chart for the Reigns of Judah and Israel published in the Aid  book most helpful.

I never mentioned Jehoiakim. I only referred to Jehoiachin. (Also called Jeconiah) It's easy to confuse them.

19 hours ago, scholar JW said:

If you want me to solve your problem then present your question simply and clearly. Just present the facts, skip the references. Chronology is complex enough so simplicity works for me. You got it?  When I get a problem I usually get the solution even though it can be hard work.

I looked up several of your past discussions here and elsewhere. I have seen from these past discussions that you typically don't try to solve any of the chronological problems related to this matter. I have noticed a common pattern of trying to imply that it is the other person who has the problem to solve. You even do that in this very post I am responding to. Apparently, you also have made use of a tactic of abandoning a problem when it is clear that you have failed to address it, and then disappearing and coming back at some later point and claiming that you previously solved the problem or "won the argument" that you had abandoned. You seem to give the impression that everything must start all over "from scratch" even after the evidence against your position was already made clear in your last attempt.   

But evidently the most common tactic, and the one I am trying to understand in this current thread, too, is this tendency to offer completely illogical nonsense as if it is relevant to the questions and claims being made. There appears to be a lot of bluster and obfuscation and I can't always tell if it's on purpose. If it is, I don't know who you would be trying to bluster here.

But if you were truly looking for a simple and clear question, in a presentation of facts without references, then I could oblige that, too. But first I'd like to ask if you would address any of the very simple questions that have already been brought up.

One, for example, was:

• What is the year you get for the beginning of the 70 years of Babylonian domination assuming you agree with the Watch Tower Society's assessment about these 70 years that ended in 539 B.C.E.? (See the previous post for the references to Jeremiah 25:8-27 in chapter 19 of Isaiah's Prophecy.) If you still insist that this date is "nonsense," as you called it, then please explain why you think the Society's idea here is nonsense, and why it's still on JW.ORG?

[scholar JW]

Insider JW

You have posted in three parts so I will respond accordingly:

A debate has two sides with opposing points of view, honesty is required by both parties so I call this a two-way street.

There is no Gap in the NB Period at this stage of our present knowledge but there is a difference of 19 years. when one compares WT Chronology with NB Chronology. The much earlier  Babylon the Great Has Fallen-God's Kingdom Rules , 1963, p. 138. Rol Furuli in recent times has published extensively on the Chronologies of the Ancient World and his thesis is that the Babylonian Empire should be expanded some 20 Years. In view of these viewpoints and because the NB Period and its appended Chronology omits any mention of the Jeremiah's 70 years a Prophett who was contemporaneous with the NB  Period, a eyewitness 'to boot', I have classified the difference between the two systems as the 'Babylonian Gap'. The 'missing 20 years' I propose could properly be inserted at either two points: Neb's 18th year or his 37 th years and that will harmonize the two dating systems and all is well!!

Your claim that the methodology used by WT in connection with 537 BCE for the Return of the Exiles is 'fuzzy' is simply nonsense. Our explanation of all of the relevant data and its sources is well discussed in our publications and 537 BCE is well established. You accuse WT of being fuzzy with dates and cite 537 BCE as an example of this but I must remind you that Historians and Scholars are very fuzzy about this event for you cannot find a specific date for the event in the scholarly literature for this is a fact plain and simple. You quibble over the use of language or terms used in the WT publications which express uncertainty or a lack of finality but history is imperfect and there is no room for dogmatism in either history or chronology. Where matters are uncertain then the reader is advised but this not mean that a Chronology in harmony with certain facts cannot be constructed. The question you should be asking yourself is: 'what then is the precise date for the Return of the Jews?' 

You seem to 'hung up' on the Zero Year problem which is often raised by apostates but not by serious scholars. The WT has simply explained the anomaly and back then some chronologists possible misunderstood the difference between the Astronomical Year and the Years in the Gregorian Calendar and perhaps many reference works at that time made a similar error but once the error was noted then an adjustment was made fortunately or providentially the integrity of the 1914 CE date was preserved as the beginning of the Gentile Times. End of Part One.

scholar JW

[Foreigner]

On 12/10/2017 at 8:30 PM, scholar JW said:

. He begins the Exile not from 609 BCE the choice of many scholars but from the Fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 BCE but differs from us in that he ends the Exile in 539 BCE with the Fall of Babylon. 

Scholar JW

This is an honest assessment for the year 609BC. 2 Kings were appointed within a 3 month period. 1 by Egypt, 1 by Babylon.

In my opinion, certain people are having a hard time grappling with secular chronology, and how the Watchtower is interpreting it. Honestly, there is enough information to support both theories. The easier chronology to explain would be, secular chronology with the date 609BC.

[Anna]

Thank you @JW Insider @Ann O'Maly and @scholar JW. I am processing all the information, and made lots of notes. Just haven't had time to put it all together yet.

I have one question in the meantime, why is it that WT has no trouble accepting the 539 date but will not accept the 587 date? Besides the obvious reason, are both dates based on completely different historical sources? Pardon the ignorance, I just haven't got that far in my research yet.

 

[Ann O'Maly]

16 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

This is an honest assessment for the year 609BC. 2 Kings were appointed within a 3 month period. 1 by Egypt, 1 by Babylon.

You're referring to Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim? Jehoahaz was appointed by his own people. Pharaoh Necho hauled off Jehoahaz to Egypt and appointed Jehoiakim in Jehoahaz's stead (2 Kings 23:30-35).

Your chart is confusing. Honestly, the plentiful information supports only one theory, and the data on VAT 4956 belongs only to 568/7 BCE.

[JW Insider]

13 minutes ago, Anna said:

I have one question in the meantime, why is it that WT has no trouble accepting the 539 date but will not accept the 587 date? Besides the obvious reason, are both dates based on completely different historical sources?

In fact, both dates conform to the exact same set of sources. They are both part of the same NB chronology which is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence from all the archaeological and astronomical sources. You could use 8 sources and come up with both 539 and 587 as correct, and you use only four of those sources and still come up with both dates as correct. You could also dismiss those 4 you just used, and use the other 4 and still see that both dates are correct. You simply cannot accept the data for 539 without also accepting the data for 587.

[Ann O'Maly]

@Anna -  No. The date 539 BCE is derived from the very same historical sources as 587 BCE.

There is the Babylonian Chronicle that indicates Babylon fell in Nabonidus' 17th year.

How can we pin a BCE date to Nabonidus' 17th year? Babylonian astronomical tablets, that's how - by using the ancient sky clock. The astronomical record on VAT 4956 gives an anchor point for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year being none other than 568-7 BCE. There are other astronomical anchor points too - one of which is dated to Cambyses' 7th year (522-1 BCE). The method is, once we find out how many years kings ruled (evidenced from other historical data), to count forwards or backwards accordingly.

And so, we arrive at 539 BCE for Babylon's conquest and 587 BCE for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar when he destroyed Jerusalem (Jer. 52:29).

 

[Foreigner]

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

You're referring to Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim? Jehoahaz was appointed by his own people. Pharaoh Necho hauled off Jehoahaz to Egypt and appointed Jehoiakim

This is correct. King Necho ll originally deposed one King and substituted him with another. Both were under the control of Egypt. 1 King, then Jehoiakim became a puppet King to Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar ll, 1 King. 1 Egyptian, 1 King Babylonian. The crossover was King Jehoiakim. That in effect makes it easier to explain secular chronology with their own timeline.

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

A debate has two sides with opposing points of view, honesty is required by both parties so I call this a two-way street.

I will be honest in a debate whether any other party in a debate is honest or not. That is what I meant when I said it is not a two-way street, at least for me. Debates often end up highlighting the academic dishonesty or false foundations of another person's theory. Academic dishonesty can often be the result of giving too much weight to a certain interpretation and then using logical fallacies to bolster the false claims. So academic dishonesty is not always a "personal" dishonesty, but can come about through sloppiness in research, misuse of evidence, being fooled by someone else's mistakes, etc.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

There is no Gap in the NB Period at this stage of our present knowledge

Thanks for admitting that.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

but there is a difference of 19 years. when one compares WT Chronology with NB Chronology.

This is pretty much true. A lot of people make claims that turn out to be untrue, even if they make perfect sense to a lot of people. I have heard people who believe the chronology of the "Great Week" mentioned below (from http://prophecycorner.theforeverfamily.com/chron.html )

• Since it is thought that 6,000 years would go by before the sabbatical millennial Day of the Lord begins, some people have thought that the 6,000th year since Adam's creation would be about 2,000 A.D. I have heard it said that from Adam to Abraham was 2,000 years and from Abraham to Christ was 2,000 years.

Like the "Oslo" schema, it's more of a "scheme" than a chronology, but some will fight for it as if it were the only true Bible chronology, and anything different is just a secular falsehood. In the same way, some will also fight to make Cyrus' Edict begin around 460 B.C.E. so that they can make the 70 weeks of years match with their supposedly more "obvious" interpretation of Daniel. There are a lot of claims about Bible chronology, just like several of the old Watchtower claims, that have necessarily been abandoned by now for obvious reasons.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The much earlier  Babylon the Great Has Fallen-God's Kingdom Rules , 1963, p. 138.

That book contains many claims that are shamefully wrong. Note this one on the page you quoted:

• It is because of making the mistake of dating the beginning of the seventy-year period for the desolation of Jerusalem and the land of Judah after King Jehoiakim reigned at Jerusalem but three years that the chronologers in Christendom throw their time schedule of history at least nineteen years out of order, shortening up the stream of time by that many years. They do this because of trying to harmonize the Bible records with the astronomical Canon of Claudius Ptolemy, an Alexandrian or Egyptian astronomer of the second century after Christ, but whose system of astronomy has long since been exploded. In this we do not go along with such chronologers.

For a time, the WTS had relied on the king list matching Claudius Ptolemy's to get 539. People noticed the mistake right away. In fact, one letter came in to the Watch Tower the year before the book came out. They should have known better than to print this nonsense.

For example, Max Hatton wrote the Watch Tower Society on June 10, 1962. This letter also contained information about an even earlier letter sent to the Watch Tower Society on July 9, 1959. The 1962 letter says in part:

• To date our arguments have been largely concerned with the 70 years mentioned by Jeremiah. I am confident that with the aid of the Societies [sic] publications and some private research I have and will have no real difficulties with this portion of the discussion. It seems that the next item for discussion will inevitably be whether the period of 70 years literal desolation can be accommodated by a Chronological arrangement for the period. As far as I have been able to ascertain the basis for the Chronology, popularly accepted, for the years 747 B.C., to the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C. and further on, is the Canon of Ptolemy. It therefore seems obvious that one cannot accept the record of the 70 year desolation and at the same time accept the Canon as being an accurate record. In rejecting the Canon completely, a problem seems to arise, because, as far as I am aware, the date for the destruction of Babylon in 539 B.C. per medium of the Chronological arrangement for which Ptolemy's Canon is the basis. . . . I would greatly appreciate your advice then, whether 539 B.C. can be accurately calculated by some other means entirely independent of the Canon, such as a continuous list of kings with their Accession years calculated by the length of their reign, based on some other evidence. (Either Bible or Secular.) I fully appreciate the advice in the Watchtower of 1st December, 1946 that an eclipse of the moon is not sufficient data by which to locate the year of a certain event, however the "Secretary of the Australian Institute of Archaeology" has advised me that "Ptolemy's Canon is based on a much wider range of astronomical data, the details of which are recorded in his Almagest. It is necessary to correlate the details he gives in his canon with dates he has calculated in other works. The sum result of this is that his canon appears to be accurate within all reasonable limits."  . . . Could I be advised please in what respects the Society considers the Canon to be in error and also reasonable grounds to substantiate such a claim?

That is only a small part of the letter, without the original paragraph breaks from the letter. The Watchtower wrote back to Brother Hatton on June 28, 1962. That letter gave some of the best evidence ever that the Society simply did not understand the claims they were making or that, less likely one hopes, they were willing to be very dishonest. Brother Hatton's next response naturally contained more questions, and even more research, and the Society's next letter, told him that they didn't have time to stop for such a research project with the current preparation for the 1963 "Everlasting Good News" assembly coming out (at which the Babylon book would be released). The following exchange of letters shows that the Society was now on the defensive with nowhere to turn. The Babylon book only made the matters worse because the Society was obviously "digging in its heels" on things they had no right to claim. They asked him to give less attention to chronology. The Society told him that if he didn't agree he could still point persons to the place in the Society's publications where such explanations were given, even if he had mental reservations. By July 1965, the Society had disfellowshipped both Brother Hatton and his wife for apostasy. His wife had possibly never said anything but it was suspected that she supported her husband. 

 

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

This response is to your claims about the'' Babylon the Great  ' book and Max Hatton.

I reject your claim that this book 'makes claims that are shamefully wrong'. The quotation from this book is correct both in fact and in history. Ptolemy's Canon has traditionally drawn much criticism over the centuries and even in Russell's day there was criticism of the Canon in the early WT. In 1913 Martin Anstey published his Romance of Bible Chronology which was a significant piece of scholarship in its time. On pp. 18-21 Anstey makes some criticisms of the Canon and his ability as an historian although a high regard for this work remains. In 1963 the Society published its first major work on Chronology proper in the  All Scripture Is Inspired of God and it explained how the Absolute Date for 539 BCE was determined. It stated that various historical sources including Diodorus,Africanus, Eusebius, Ptolemy and other Babylonian tablets support 539 BCE when Babylon was overthrown. So it is incorrect to say that we relied only on the Canon for establishing the Absolute Date. We knew even before 1963 that there were significant problems with the traditional Chronology when compared with Bible Chronology because of the 70 years which we had long regarded as period of Desolation of the land of Judah.

Max Hatton whom I have met in 1983 or thereabouts became a Seventh Day Adventist and was one of the earliest critics of WT Chronology on the world scene and  perhaps was influenced by a thesis written by a resident in Western Australia ,  G. Rogerson who wrote An Examination Of The Year 1914 In The Prophetic interpretation Of The Watchtower Society. I have copies  of all Hatton's correspondence to the Society and would need to compare its contents with Rogerson's treatise I should say rather than a thesis because Hatton spent his earlier days in Perth, Western Australia about that time.. This treatise deals much with the Babyl;on book and its criticism of the Canon. When I met Max at Bondi, Sydney after 1983 Max excitedly told me that he had just received a copy of Edwin Thiele'ds third edition perhaps to put me to shame but I told him that I had in fact already had purchased Thiele's edition so that deflated him somewhat. Edwin Thiele perhaps Christendom's greatest Chronologist was a Seventh Day Adventist . 

scholar JW