SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)

[AlanF]

26 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

JW Insider

Reminder of basic facts:

The said scholar has on the previous forum has made three contributions to the scholarship of Chronology:

1. The first scholar to introduce the role of 'Methodology' as a tool for Chronology as later advocated by Rodger Young

2. The first scholar to introduce into scholarship the three cardinal concepts of the 70 years of Jeremiah-SERVITUDE-EXILE-DESOLATION now observed by Niles in his Thesis.

Utter rubbish.

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

2 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Rubbish! I already told you: your questions were completely irrelevant to Neo-Babylonian chronology, and all of us already know the answers. You're dissembling to try to confuse the dummies on this forum.

Hardly irrelevant when I ask you a simple question in relation to your paper, 5 pages of nonsense on the Return. You are the one that is confused just read your rambliings. Go away and good riddance.

scholar JW

[AlanF]

@Arauna said:

Nothing useful.

Quote

 

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:
that 7 of those 43 years could have been spent in madness?

This why your arguments are useless. You do not definitely know for sure if the seven years accounts for madness or if it includes the years that nebuchadnezzar did duties for his father as regent. As I said..... he went to war in the name of his father..... 

 

Those seven years are irrelevant to Neo-Babylonian chronology.

Quote

Too many assumptions.

Name them.

Since you have no idea what you're talking about, all you can manage is a bit of generalized sniping at scholarly conclusions.

Quote

Like evolution these scholars are too cocksure......  It is merely a useful tool.

A useful tool that, combined with many independent lines of evidence, puts standard Neo-Babylonian chronology on an extremely firm footing.

Such generalized sniping, devoid of specifics, is of no more value than Christopher Hitchens' statements that "religion poisons everything" have with respect to concluding that Watchtower chronology is wrong because of it. That chronology is surely wrong, but not because religion poisons everything.

Arauna here quotes from a Wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_chronology 😞

Quote

Astronomical dating can be a powerful tool for establishing absolute chronologies, but...
it can easily produce precise and impressive looking results based on invalid assumptions –
results so precise and impressive they may not be questioned by scholars in other fields.
—John Steele, "The Use and Abuse of Astronomy in Establishing Absolute Chronologies."

The trouble with quoting out-of-context, generalized warnings like this is that they're meaningless with regard to specific evidence confirming or discounting something like Neo-Babylonian chronology. This is easy to see by reading the entire paragraph that this quotation comes from (The Use and Abuse of Astronomy in Establishing Absolute Chronologies, John Steele, Physics in Canada, 59 (2003), 243-248, https://www.academia.edu/2360690/The_Use_and_Abuse_of_Astronomy_in_Establishing_Absolute_Chronologies ). After detailing some difficulties in using texts from Old Babylon (2nd millennium BCE) and ancient China, Steele writes (p. 247):

<< These examples show, I hope, the potential problems in simply approaching references to astronomical events as if they were modern data. When using any astronomical event for dating, it is necessary first to consider: (i) whether the record really refers to an astronomical event, or whether this is simply a conventional modern belief; (ii) if it does refer to an astronomical event, is the source reliable; and (iii) does the record provide an unambiguous dating requiring no, or at least only minimal, assumptions about any unknown aspects of the astronomical practices of the people who made the observation. Astronomical dating can be a powerful tool for establishing absolute chronologies, but it is also a tool that must be used conservatively for it can easily produce precise and impressive looking results based on invalid assumptions –- results so precise and impressive they may not be questioned by scholars in other fields. >>

Note that Steele clearly stated that astronomical dating must be used conservatively -- not that it is useless. After all, even Watchtower chronology relies on astronomically confirmed dates from Babylonian astronomical tablets (which recorded lunar eclipses), plus information recorded in contract tablets showing the dates of the reign of Cyrus the Great -- the same tablets used by scholars like Parker and Dubberstein to compile modern Neo-Babylonian chronology. See Insight on Scriptures, pp. 452-453 for details.

That Steele is confident that modern scholars have gotten it right for Babylonian chronology in the 1st millennium BCE is shown by the following material from his paper (pp. 245-246):

<< Nowhere has the role of astronomy proved to be more useful in establishing absolute chronology than in ancient Mesopotamia. Astronomical records have furnished the necessary material to provide us with a detailed understanding of the Babylonian calendar of the last seven centuries BC . . . The backbone of Babylonian chronology in the first millennium BC is in fact provided not by a Babylonian source but a Greek one. Claudius Ptolemy, the Alexandrian astronomer of the second century AD, compiled a list of kings from the accession of Nabonassar in the mid-eighth century BC down to his own time. Ptolemy's purpose in compiling his "Royal Canon", as it is widely know, was as an aide for astronomical calculation. . . The Canon itself provides a list of Babylonian and Persian kings and the lengths that each reigned starting Nabonassar and continuing to Alexander the Great . . . Babylonian cuneiform texts, many of them astronomical, have been used to confirm the chronology of Ptolemy's Canon, and also to reconstruct the Babylonian calendar in detail. . . Parker and Dubberstein (1956) have conducted a detailed study of the Babylonian calendar and their tables can be used to convert any Babylonian date between 626 BC and AD 75 into the Julian calendar. . . many Babylonian astronomical texts from this period have been dated astronomically. The most numerous type of Babylonian astronomical text is the Astronomical Diary. . . [Many scholars including] myself have been able to date a large number of such fragments using the astronomical techniques I have outline in the earlier section. . . All of these studies have relied on the fact that fragmentary Astronomical Diaries can be precisely dated using astronomy. >>

Anyone who thinks that modern scholars have gotten it wrong must be prepared -- if they are intellectually honest -- to refute, point by point and text by text, all of the conclusions of these scholars. Using the ridiculously simpleminded "it's wrong cuz Watchtower chronology is right" may cut it with the brainwashed rank and file of Jehovah's Witnesses, but with no one else.

[JW Insider]

44 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Gibberish or special pleading. Why not just accept the basic historical fact of the 70 years and do not make it so complicated for a complex chronology is a bogus chronology- the Devil's work!!

I didn't make it complicated. I merely showed how the Watchtower has made it complicated by using an 88 year period of Babylonian domination. The NB and Bible chronology makes it simple: 70 years easily fits in a period of about 70 to 73 years. No complications!

51 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

The 70 years was defined period of servitude/domination. exile/captivity. desolation of the land between two clearly defined historical events marked in Bible History to wit: Fall of Jerusalem

"Defined?" By whom? Can you find a scripture that indicates that the fall of Jerusalem was the beginning of a period of exile? Does this mean no one was made captive or exiled before or after? Was no one made to serve or be dominated before or after? Why does Ezekiel not count time from this same event, then, but counts time from a clearly defined event a decade earlier?

22 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

and the Return whereupon on has exactly 70 years between two major historical events. pure and simple.

And for that matter, even if true, you also can't find a scripture that says it was the "Return" which was the "defined" historical event that ended the 70 years. The Bible says it was the conquering of Babylon by Cyrus, or perhaps the proclamation that they could return. Yet, you say it has "exactly" 70 years. And the same methodology and evidence by which you accept the dates for Cyrus are the same ones you reject. You can't use the words "exactly" when you have arbitrarily adjusted the same Cyrus evidence by 20 years. You claim the Cyrus evidence is exact but then reject that same Cyrus evidence when you want it to be 20 years off for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

40 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

do you accept the timeline for the Divide monarchy in recent WT publications and if not what chronology for the Divided Monarchy do you accept?

I have no problem with the Watchtower's presentation of the monarchies in its relative chronology. Also, as I've said before, I have no axe to grind for any particular BCE date anyway. I have no belief system riding on any ideologies connected. I think the Insight book puts it best:

*** it-1 pp. 462-463 Chronology ***
From 997 B.C.E. to desolation of Jerusalem. ... Whereas some Biblical chronologers endeavor to synchronize the data concerning the kings by means of numerous coregencies and “interregnums” on the Judean side, it appears necessary to show only one coregency. ...
The chart is not intended to be viewed as an absolute chronology but, rather, as a suggested presentation of the reigns of the two kingdoms. . . .and hence we may be satisfied with simply setting out an arrangement that harmonizes reasonably with the Biblical record.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

a gap of 20 years so that is Ok for need only have to adjust the NB period by 20 years

Odd. You say you don't see a problem because, after all, it's only a gap of 20 years. Yet you reject a set of dates for the 70 years because it might be off by as many as 3 or 4 years. Also, your claim that it is only off by 20 years is meaningless, because you no longer have any anchor date to start with. You can't reject the methodology and evidence that gives you Cyrus in 539 and still say you accept 539. You reject 539 the second you reject 587 as the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

This is why I don't think you would ever dare answer those questions I asked, even though the answer is mostly right there in the Watchtower publications. Right there in the "Insight" book. That's because if you answered them, you would realize that the evidence for 539 is the same evidence for the entire NB chronology. If you reject any part of the NB chronology, you just rejected 539. Those questions in case you forgot, were:

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Do you know what king list the WTS relies upon to know where Cyrus fits in the timeline? Do we know which royal chronicles the WTS relies upon to identify when Cyrus ruled? Do we know which astronomical positions in ancient diaries that the WTS relies upon to put a BCE date on the accession year of Cyrus?

 

[AlanF]

4 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

Hardly irrelevant when I ask you a simple question in relation to your paper, 5 pages of nonsense on the Return. You are the one that is confused just read your rambliings. Go away and good riddance.

Your usual meaningless gibberish. Since the dates are given in Julian calendar dates, and other systems such as Gregorian dating is trivially derived, there is nothing to do here.

Of course, for someone who admittedly is so incompetent that he does not know how to copy/paste on his computer, perhaps such matters are rocket science.

And I must point out for the thousandth time: You refuse to quote Scripture because you're afraid of what the actual words mean.

When someone else quotes Scripture you completely ignore the text and dismiss what it says.

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

1 minute ago, JW Insider said:

I didn't make it complicated. I merely showed how the Watchtower has made it complicated by using an 88 year period of Babylonian domination. The NB and Bible chronology makes it simple: 70 years easily fits in a period of about 70 to 73 years. No complications!

WT has made it simple. I have never seen the figure '88 years' in any of our publications in relation to this matter and does not discuss the specifics of the NB Period for it has no relevance for Bible Chronology.

4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

"Defined?" By whom? Can you find a scripture that indicates that the fall of Jerusalem was the beginning of a period of exile? Does this mean no one was made captive or exiled before or after? Was no one made to serve or be dominated before or after? Why does Ezekiel not count time from this same event, then, but counts time from a clearly defined event a decade earlier?

Defined by scholar and Niles and discussed at great length in WT publications.

5 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

And for that matter, even if true, you also can't find a scripture that says it was the "Return" which was the "defined" historical event that ended the 70 years. The Bible says it was the conquering of Babylon by Cyrus, or perhaps the proclamation that they could return. Yet, you say it has "exactly" 70 years. And the same methodology and evidence by which you accept the dates for Cyrus are the same ones you reject. You can't use the words "exactly" when you have arbitrarily adjusted the same Cyrus evidence by 20 years. You claim the Cyrus evidence is exact but then reject that same Cyrus evidence when you want it to be 20 years off for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

Incorrect. It is true!!. Two historians at least are at one with the ending of the 70 years namely Ezra and Josephus. It was exactly 70 years right to the very day of the month because Jehovah is the great Timekeeper!!! Your latter comments are simply answered by the use of METHODOLOGY.

9 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I have no problem with the Watchtower's presentation of the monarchies in its relative chronology. Also, as I've said before, I have no axe to grind for any particular BCE date anyway. I have no belief system riding on any ideologies connected. I think the Insight book puts it best:

*** it-1 pp. 462-463 Chronology ***
From 997 B.C.E. to desolation of Jerusalem. ... Whereas some Biblical chronologers endeavor to synchronize the data concerning the kings by means of numerous coregencies and “interregnums” on the Judean side, it appears necessary to show only one coregency. ...
The chart is not intended to be viewed as an absolute chronology but, rather, as a suggested presentation of the reigns of the two kingdoms. . . .and hence we may be satisfied with simply setting out an arrangement that harmonizes reasonably with the Biblical record.

Really? Well last time I checked I found that 607 BCE was the 11 th year of Zedekiah's reign ending with the end of the Judean Monarchy.

12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Odd. You say you don't see a problem because, after all, it's only a gap of 20 years. Yet you reject a set of dates for the 70 years because it might be off by as many as 3 or 4 years. Also, your claim that it is only off by 20 years is meaningless, because you no longer have any anchor date to start with. You can't reject the methodology and evidence that gives you Cyrus in 539 and still say you accept 539. You reject 539 the second you reject 587 as the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

The gap of 20 years is only present when a comparison is made between two chronologies, one is sacred the other is profane so it is your problem not mine.

14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

This is why I don't think you would ever dare answer those questions I asked, even though the answer is mostly right there in the Watchtower publications. Right there in the "Insight" book. That's because if you answered them, you would realize that the evidence for 539 is the same evidence for the entire NB chronology. If you reject any part of the NB chronology, you just rejected 539. Those questions in case you forgot, were:

I know that, tell me something I don't know for this issue perplexed COJ and i answered this perplexity by one word-methodology.

16 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Do you know what king list the WTS relies upon to know where Cyrus fits in the timeline? Do we know which royal chronicles the WTS relies upon to identify when Cyrus ruled? Do we know which astronomical positions in ancient diaries that the WTS relies upon to put a BCE date on the accession year of Cyrus?

I rely on the Biblical record.

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

16 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Your usual meaningless gibberish. Since the dates are given in Julian calendar dates, and other systems such as Gregorian dating is trivially derived, there is nothing to do here.

Of course, for someone who admittedly is so incompetent that he does not know how to copy/paste on his computer, perhaps such matters are rocket science.

More blustering. Just answer a simple question seeing that you unlike everyone else is so competent- the smartest boy in the room . Reminds me of a former prime minister here in Australia and he fell on his sword.

 

18 minutes ago, AlanF said:

And I must point out for the thousandth time: You refuse to quote Scripture because you're afraid of what the actual words mean.

When someone else quotes Scripture you completely ignore the text and dismiss what it says.

For starters you you not believe in those Scriptures and you show little or no interest in exegesis so do the exegesis and then we can talk.

scholar JW

[AlanF]

1 minute ago, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

More blustering. Just answer a simple question seeing that you unlike everyone else is so competent- the smartest boy in the room . Reminds me of a former prime minister here in Australia and he fell on his sword.

 

For starters you you not believe in those Scriptures and you show little or no interest in exegesis so do the exegesis and then we can talk.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

So says the Elmer Fudd of Bible chronology.

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

10 minutes ago, AlanF said:

So says the Elmer Fudd of Bible chronology.

So you must be the Humpty Dumpty of Secular Chronology

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

The said scholar has on the previous forum has made three contributions to the scholarship of Chronology:

1. The first scholar to introduce the role of 'Methodology' as a tool for Chronology as later advocated by Rodger Young

But neither you nor Rodger Young were the first to introduce the role of Methodology. Besides, you reject most of what Rodger Young says, and you especially reject his chronology.  In fact, the very 1922 Watchtower you referenced before showed clearly that the Watchtower used a methodology that proved that Watchtower chronology had "Proof of Divine Origin." That methodology was the 1,845 year parallel dispensations. And the second methodology was to count 2,520 years backward from 1914 and then attach an assumed "nearby" event to whatever date was derived. (In 1943/1944 a similar exercise had to be repeated when the zero year "controversy" was settled. Counting backwards from 1914 gave a new and different date for the same assumed "nearby" event. It was accepted as if it had been the same date all along because the methodology didn't actually care what the date was, only that it could be subtracted from 1914.)

But if you look up "methodology"+"chronology"+"Babylon" on Google Books you get several books from the 1800's with articles on the methodology for studying Babylonian, Assyrian and Bible chronology.

Even the papers by Steele show the sophisticated use of methodology by Babylonian mathematician/astrologers.

Besides, you don't even accept Young's methodology which is really just a binary 2² decision "tree" that helped him choose the optimum date for the fall of Jerusalem between 587 or 586 based on testing two criteria at a time. You reject both those dates anyway. This kind of binary decision tree has been used for centuries. It's basically a matter of looking at the outcome if two criteria are any combination of true or false. It's very common in math, logic, and computer science:

It's the same as counting from 0 to 3 in binary: 00, 01, 10, 11 which expands to testing the outcome if we accept these same combinations of true and false:

• What is the outcome if CRITERIA 1 = FALSE and CRITERIA 2 = FALSE?
• What is the outcome if CRITERIA 1 = FALSE and CRITERIA 2 =  TRUE?
• What is the outcome if CRITERIA 1 =  TRUE and CRITERIA 2 =  FALSE?
• What is the outcome if CRITERIA 1 =  TRUE and CRITERIA 2 =  TRUE?

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

2. The first scholar to introduce into scholarship the three cardinal concepts of the 70 years of Jeremiah-SERVITUDE-EXILE-DESOLATION now observed by Niles in his Thesis.

And just like with Rodger Young, you reject both of these people's conclusions anyway. You promoted exactly the opposite of what Niles promotes. You say that these are all the same concept combined in the same time period. He says they are all completely different concepts that must be placed in three separate time periods.

It really does look like we are approaching that point when you merely repeat what has already been proven wrong.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

3. The first scholar in company with Leonard Tolhurst to have the first translation of the German original into English of the VAT 4956 paper by Ernst Weidner

That's great. Sprichts du? Ausgezeichnet! One of those old books from the 1890's on historical and chronological methodology was by Revere F. Weidner, but I don't have time to see if he was related to Ernst F. Weidner. But again, you don't accept the astronomical analysis found in that same paper anyway:

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

6 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But neither you nor Rodger Young were the first to introduce the role of Methodology. Besides, you reject most of what Rodger Young says, and you especially reject his chronology.  In fact, the very 1922 Watchtower you referenced before showed clearly that the Watchtower used a methodology that proved that Watchtower chronology had "Proof of Divine Origin." That methodology was the 1,845 year parallel dispensations. And the second methodology was to count 2,520 years backward from 1914 and then attach an assumed "nearby" event to whatever date was derived. (In 1943/1944 a similar exercise had to be repeated when the zero year "controversy" was settled. Counting backwards from 1914 gave a new and different date for the same assumed "nearby" event. It was accepted as if it had been the same date all along because the methodology didn't actually care what the date was, only that it could be subtracted from 1914.)

But if you look up "methodology"+"chronology"+"Babylon" on Google Books you get several books from the 1800's with articles on the methodology for studying Babylonian, Assyrian and Bible chronology.

Even the papers by Steele show the sophisticated use of methodology by Babylonian mathematician/astrologers.

You fail understand the point. Rodger Young was the first Chronologist to introduce' methodology. as tool in constructing and resolving chronological problems in the academic literature. If I am wrong then prove it. Yes, I do not his methodology, so What?

10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

And just like with Rodger Young, you reject both of these people's conclusions anyway. You promoted exactly the opposite of what Niles promotes. You say that these are all the same concept combined in the same time period. He says they are all completely different concepts that must be placed in three separate time periods.

It really does look like we are approaching that point when you merely repeat what has already been proven wrong.

Again , So what. I am free to agree or disagree am I not?

Your comprehension skills are appalling.

12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

That's great. Sprichts du? Ausgezeichnet! One of those old books from the 1890's on historical and chronological methodology was by Revere F. Weidner, but I don't have time to see if he was related to Ernst F. Weidner. But again, you don't accept the astronomical analysis found in that same paper anyway:

Again , So what?

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

I have never seen the figure '88 years' in any of our publications in relation to this matter and does not discuss the specifics of the NB Period for it has no relevance for Bible Chronology.

And I'm sure you won't see it. But all you have to do is take the date that the Insight book gives for the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (625) and subtract it from the last year of "Babylonian domination" which is considered to be the same as the first two years of Persian domination (537 BCE). Do the math: 625 minus 537 equals 88 years. Yet those Insight articles on Carchemish, Josiah, Necho(h), Nebuchadnezzar, Jehoiakim, etc., all showed that Babylonian domination began early in Nebuchadnezzar's reign (and obviously lasted until Cyrus). Here's another

*** it-1 p. 1186 Image ***
The image obviously relates to domination of the earth and Jehovah God’s purpose regarding such domination. This is made clear in Daniel’s inspired interpretation. The golden head represented Nebuchadnezzar, the one who, by divine permission, had gained power as the dominant world ruler . . .Since the other body parts represented kingdoms, the head evidently represented the dynasty of Babylonian kings from Nebuchadnezzar down till Babylon’s fall in the time of King Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

Two historians at least are at one with the ending of the 70 years namely Ezra and Josephus.

I think most all historians are in agreement about the ending of a fulfillment of 70 years. Ezra says it ended when the sons of Persia began to reign. But the devastations and desolations began as soon as Babylon became dominant. Starting in the third year of Jehoiakim.

(2 Chronicles 36:20) . . .He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign,

Ezra contradicts the Watchtower by saying that it was when the kingdom of Persia began to reign. Not a year and a half or two later, as the Watchtower claims.

Also, Jeremiah's 70 years were fulfilled by some who were taken in the third year of Jehoiakim and some who were taken 5 years after Jerusalem was destroyed, with the major exile taking place about 10 years before Jerusalem was destroyed. The Insight book says that the third year of Jehoiakim was 626 [i.e., 4th year 625]. That's almost 20 years before Jerusalem was destroyed.

*** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***
The fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.) saw Nebuchadnezzar defeat Pharaoh Necho in a battle over the domination of Syria-Palestine. The battle took place at Carchemish . . .

If you accept 539 as the time of Cyrus' domination then you are accepting evidence that this battle was actually 605, not 625. Which of course gives you nearly 70 years to 539/537 right there.

And of course, if you accept 539 as the time of Cyrus' domination, then you are accepting evidence that the temple was destroyed about 50 years earlier than 539, not 70 years. So you have this same problem repeated that you are putting a 88 to 90 year domination for Babylon, when Jeremiah gave it 70 years.

And your claim that Josephus definitively and explicitly gave "Cyrus" 70 years since the full destruction of Jerusalem is also wrong, as has been pointed out already. Even Furuli admitted that the final word of Josephus on this was not "seventy" but "fifty" which is in line with the standard chronology. Even the JW defending site, "Setting the Record Straight" admits that the final word of Josephus was 50 not 70 which means that the first desolations upon Jerusalem/Judea perhaps even some temple tribute (Daniel 1:1-2) started 20 years prior, as Daniel and Berossus indicate:

In Against Apion however, Josephus first wrote "seventy" in Book I, Chapter 19 §132,^ftn5 but just two chapters later in the same book he wrote "fifty" (Book I, Chapter 21 §154^ftn6)! . . .Perhaps he was aware of secular chronology leaving only fifty years for the desolation, and was pandering to both biblical and secular chronology. As to the reliability of this "fifty years" anomaly, on page 71 of Rolf Furuli's book Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews^ftn7 we find: "Some manuscripts of Josephus give a different number than 50 years here [in Against Apion I, 21 §154], but both Eusebius and Syncellus in their quotes from Josephus use 50."