The Watchtower's 20-year adjustment to the standard Neo-Babylonian chronology

[JW Insider]

If anyone wishes to participate, I'd like to have a more serious discussion about the 20-year adjustment to the standard Neo-Babylonian chronology. There may be several posts already made by @George88 and @scholar JW that are more related to this topic than @xero's topic about the Fall of Nineveh where several of them were, before being moved here.  If anyone wants to participate they are welcome of course, and if anyone wants to continue some of the related and unrelated topics back on xero's thread, that's fine too. Unrelated topics here can even be moved over there if that seems OK. 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Why are you arguing about 607 BC if that wasn't your intention? Why mention 632 BC at all? Who are you trying to persuade?

It absolutely WAS my intention to discuss evidence regarding the 20-year difference that the Watchtower has been forced to add to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology prior to 539 (technically 556, see below). It even goes back further to the dates given to the entire Judean and Israelite kingdom.

The most significant of the dates for the Watchtower during this period would be the change from 587 to 607, which is the entire purpose of changing all these other dates you will find specific references for in "Insight" and various other Watchtower articles:

• The fall of Nineveh (from 612 to 632)
• The the 14th year of Nabopolassar (changed from 612 to 632)
• The the 17th year of Nabopolassar (changed from 609 to 629)
• The death of Josiah (changed from 609 to 629)
• The 21st year of Nabopolassar (changed from 605 to 625)
• The last major battle at Carchemish (changed from 605 to 625)
• The 1st regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 604 to 624)
• The 7th regnal year "ending" of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 597 to 617)
• The 19th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 587 to 607)
• The 43rd regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 562 to 582)
• Accession year of Evil-Merodach (changed from 562 to 582)
• Beginning of reign of Nabonidus (NOT CHANGED from 556 to 556)
• End of reign of Nabonidus (NOT CHANGED from 539 to 539)

Note also that, as I mentioned before, these changed dates are directly tied to the Judean (and Israelite) kings, so that the chronology links are changed by 20 years all the way back to David. You can see this in the following Insight quote, that also makes it appear that the most prestigious reference books agree with the Watchtower chronology, even though it's false. Note how the Watchtower adds its changed dates right there within the quotes from Grayson.

*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
He led his forces to victory. This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.).—Jer 46:2.
The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu . . .

When you add something to direct quotes and don't clarify or admit that the brackets weren't in the original, it is considered very bad form or even academic dishonesty.

The other thing to notice is that the Watchtower publications force the 20-year gap into the smallest possible reigns of only 2 kings Evil-Merodach who reigned only a few months, and Neriglissar who reigned only 4 years. Unfortunately, for the Watchtower's chronology, the greater part of the Neo-Babylonian years from Nebuchadnezzar to Nabonidus are already ruled out by the Bible itself, forcing the Watchtower to try to squeeze that extra 20 years into the most obvious place where it could never fit and would have been the most conspicuous if it actually existed.

I think that's very relevant information to start out with for anyone who believes there is any merit to the reasons that the Watchtower changed the "evidenced" date for the fall of Nineveh by 20 years. (612 to 632 BCE)
 

[George88]

16 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I think that's very relevant information to start out with for anyone who believes there is any merit to the reasons that the Watchtower changed the "evidenced" date for the fall of Nineveh by 20 years. (612 to 632 BCE)

However, your attempts to present alternative hypotheses are irrelevant. You are making an inaccurate comparison between military campaigns documented at the time and the detailed observations made by scribes who aimed to connect them to the reign of their kings. This approach is incorrect if your goal is to discredit the year 607/6 BC, just as I have discredited 587/6 BC with the solid evidence provided by the Babylonian Chronicles.

This is for visitors who are about to experience the pinnacle of irrational thinking: distortion at its highest level.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

with your illogical explanation about 632 BC.

Do you know another explanation for why the Watchtower publications present the year 632 instead of 612 as the date for the fall of Nineveh? It's true that the Watchtower never admits the reason they added 20 years to the evidenced date, but they did explain the reason they add 20 years to the 587 date. It's pretty obvious to me that it's for the same reason. You can't change one date without consequences to the surrounding dates. You just have to figure out where you want to start and stop adding the 20 years. That's something the Watchtower publications have NEVER explained.

3 hours ago, George88 said:

You have inadvertently reinforced my suspicion with your illogical explanation about 632 BC. It is clear that you lack comprehension, just as you did when discussing 607 BC, which was precisely the point I was making when you relied so heavily on COJ.

Claiming someone's explanation "lacks comprehension" without being able to say what specifically was wrong gets us nowhere. It's just an insult that might even give credence to a suspicion that the person trying that tactic can't point out where it's illogical. Until you can, I take it as a tacit admission that my explanation might just as easily be correct as incorrect. You can't say you made any point "precisely" in the past either when you never were able to even try to make a vague point, only an insult, or a false claim that someone was relying heavily on a "person." I rely absolutely ZERO on COJ. That would be stupid. I rely only on evidence.

3 hours ago, George88 said:

To validate your claims, show us how the Babylonian Chronicles, which that regrettable individual used to dispute 607 BC, actually provide evidence for 587 BC.

 The Babylonian Chronicles contain only relative dates. I think we generally already agree on those relative dates. I would never try to prove a BCE date with a relative date. Also your insult about COJ being a regrettable individual for doing just that is a misdirection. I read his book and he NEVER, EVER claims that the Babylonian Chronicles validate 587 over 607. I'm sure you already agree with COJ about the relative dates presented in those Chronicles. If not, you are free to show me where you disagree with the dates provided within those Chronicles. 

3 hours ago, George88 said:

You are distorting words in an attempt to defend your incompetence in my view.

Again, if you can't specifically show where, I have to assume you can't. This is why I say that empty insults don't help us make any progress on the topic.

3 hours ago, George88 said:

If you disagree with the Watchtower's calculation method, it's better to keep your beliefs private or discuss them within your closed club. Avoid spreading your incorrect perceptions in public.

Don't you think there is always a chance that someone might be able to come along and show why these "incorrect perceptions" are incorrect? What you said gives the impression that you are simply afraid of the evidence. If these were my own private beliefs however I would agree. But these are hardly private beliefs. They are based on the difference between what the Watchtower has publicly claimed and what literally HUNDREDS of other publications have already publicly claimed. There is nothing private about it. There should be nothing to hide.

Not only that, the Watchtower itself has encouraged the interest in this claim: 

*** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
This is the first of two articles in consecutive issues of The Watchtower that discuss scholarly questions surrounding the date of the destruction of ancient Jerusalem. This two-part series presents thoroughly researched and Bible-based answers to questions that have puzzled some readers.
“According to historians and archaeologists, 586 or 587 B.C.E. is generally accepted as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction. Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses say that it was 607 B.C.E.? What is your basis for this date?”
SO WROTE one of our readers. But why be interested in the actual date when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II razed the city of Jerusalem? First, because the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people.
 

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I you were directing that statement at me, I am not resorting to gimmicks to revisit the topic of 607 BC.

It's a fact that the Watchtower changed the "evidenced" date for the fall of Nineveh by 20 years from 612 to 632 for only ONE purpose: in order to support the change for the fall of Jerusalem by 20 years from 587 to 607.

That is correct. WT Bible Chronology has indeed adjusted dates before the NB Period using a 20-year gap manifest when comparing WT Chronology with that of NB Chronology and that is what Chronologists do as a matter of course. Such scholars look at the available evidence- secular and biblical evidence combining this with an interpretation and methodology to construct a scheme of Chronology.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Put simply, the Watchtower chronology takes every Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian-era date for which there is archaeological or historical evidence prior to 539 BCE and simply adds 20 years to it. This is only done in order to try to resolve (or even "cover up") the fact that there is excellent evidence for Jerusalem being destroyed in 587 BCE but the Watchtower needs it to be 607 BCE.

This is false. There is no excellent evidence for Jerusalem being destroyed in 587 BCE as it ignores the biblical and historical facts of the Jewish/Babylonian Exile. 'So-called' excellent evidence is simply a reference to COJ's 'seventeen lines of evidence' which attempts to disprove 607 BCE which has not settled the dilemma of the 586 or 587 BCE as dates for the Fall of Jerusalem. If there is such a body of evidence which disproves 607 BCE then why is it the case that no one can provide one single line of evidence disproving 607 BCE for this has not and cannot be done?

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Those with good access to that evidence often have trouble knowing what to do with it. So when the topic comes up they try to "run interference" by brining up people instead of evidence. (One person, R.Furuli, as a last resort against the evidence published by COJ, did try to run interference against the evidence itself.) But normally, from those who have tried to understand the evidence, you instantly start seeing phrases about people JWI, xero, COJ (Carl O Jonsson), apostates, rather than any real attempt to present evidence.

The simple fact is that COJ's research over seven years ending in 1975 was simply a rehash of previous research carried out by SDA scholars in Australia from the fifties so it was nothing new for the WT Society from the time of  Charles Russell and the early Bible Students had published much material on Chronology which dealt with many of the issues covered by COJ especially regarding the Gentile Times and the nature and chronology of Jeremiah's '70 years'.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Did you really think people would fall for the idea that it was Carl Jonsson who "introduced" this nonsense when it was already known by the preponderance of existing evidence since the early 1800's. And now that even more consistent and corroborating evidence has been found, the chronology is now agreed upon by the scholars who have looked into that evidence for over 100 years already. The Watchtower was already commenting on people who wrote to Russell and Rutherford about this same evidence long before COJ was born.  

COJ simply followed the existing interpretation of Chronology accepted by most if not all scholars prior to 1977 and afterwards up to the present day. It can be argued that the 'preponderance of existing evidence can just as easily support 607 BCE simply using 'fine tuning' using the missing 20 years to align secular NB Chronology with Bible Chronology. Jehovah's Witnesses have shown competence in Bible Chronology as demonstrated in WT publications since Russell's time as not only have they determined the precise year for the Fall of Jerusalem as 607 BCE but also produced a chronology for all of the Kings of the Divided Monarchy something which COJ never attempted and is necessary to provide and historical context for any dates with that period of Jewish history.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So it's not about people and their flaws or even scholars and experts who agree with one another. It's about the evidence. 

Correct! Such evidence in the construction of a scheme of Chronology requires two things: Methodology and Interpretation. WT scholars have a discreet methodology and a biblical interpretation viz. the 70 years and the Exile which proves the validity of 607 BCE for the Fall and thus far has not been disproved by any other scheme of Chronology.

scholar JW 

 

[scholar JW]

The simple fact is that scholars date Nineveh's fall in 612 BCE according to NB Chronology it occurred in the 14th year of King Nabopolassar. However, using the framework of Bible Chronology this event is calculated to have occurred in 632 BCE as explained in Insight, Vol.2, p.505. WT scholars have simply fine-tuned the secular NB Chronology by means of adding 20 years made manifest by the calculation of 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem when one compares the two parallel chronologies namely NB Chronology and WT Bible Chronology.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, George88 said:

Ruruli made insightful linguistic observations, while the uneducated COJ did not. Therefore, comparing the two is unjustified. COJ's attempt to manipulate experts with leading questions to support his claims against the Watchtower's use of experts creates a valid reason to be skeptical about COJ's approach.

I don't need to compare the two. I am no longer concerned about the methods of either one. I was skeptical when I read COJ; I was skeptical when I read Furuli. I am aware of what you claim was manipulation, and although I found it amazing that experts would write about how much they appreciated COJ's research and how they say it even added to the field, but I am not at all concerned about it. His discovery that the experts agreed with was totally unnecessary to the overall evidence as far as I'm concerned. Attempts to compare or insult one over the other is not my goal at all. I would prefer to have the discussion based solely on evidence without any reference to various individuals and their supposed expertise or authority. 

4 hours ago, George88 said:

You are the 607 BC denier. It's not up to me to show evidence but for you to prove how 587 BC is justified by using the same method COJ used with the Babylonian Chronicles to refute the Watchtower. So far, what I'm seeing is deflection.

You won't see any deflection, only my claim that COJ never used the Babylonian Chronicles to justify 587 over 607 and refute the Watchtower and neither would I try to do that. I actually consider it a deflection to make a request. It's like saying that you must use a yardstick to refute an ink pen. 

4 hours ago, George88 said:

Are you denying COJ isn't an apostate? Do you have proof of that? Are you denying Srecko isn't an apostate? Are you denying the refutation of 607 BC isn't an apostate view?

Why would I care. This should be a discussion about evidence, not about whether the Watchtower or any of its followers have changed their view about 607 BCE. As you probably know, the Watchtower itself changed its view about 607 about 80 years ago. Doesn't make the Watchtower "apostate."

4 hours ago, George88 said:

I cannot entertain your irrational thoughts. Historians have evidence showing that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC, 606 BC, and 605 BC, even dating back to the 1800s.

If that's true, you should be able to name and quote these historians and show the evidence they had. I'm not saying it's impossible. But the current evidence would show they were in error. 

4 hours ago, George88 said:

So, now you're saying Russell favored 587 BC over 606 BC?

No. I said he thought that the "seven times" method to reach modern dates like 1914 was inferior to using "God's dates" that proved 1874. Instead of the "seven times" to reach 1914 he thought it was better to start with 1874, a more proven date (by at least half-a-dozen supposedly independent methods) and to count forward for a 40 year harvest. Then when 1913 came around, he said he was quite willing to abandon the entire idea and hope that people 100 years from then would still see some value in what was being preached. Then when the War broke out he held onto 1914 again, but soon move the predictions to 1915 and even up to a later time. The Watchtower even later printed that The Gentile Times Ended in 1915, before going back to 1914. Russell later conceded that everything he had predicted would happen in 1914 might happen several months or even "YEARS" later. It was not as sacrosanct to him as 1874. 1874 was finally dropped under Knorr/Franz in 1943.

 

[scholar JW]

7 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I would prefer to have the discussion based solely on evidence without any reference to various individuals and their supposed expertise or authority. 

JW Insider is correct here. Bible Chronology must be based on evidence if available but it requires also a methodology and interpretation of any such evidence as Chronology is not an exact science for scholars to agree on only very few dates in history such as the date for the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. The history of WT Chronology beginning with Russell is most fascinating showing an evolution of dates and events which was more or less finally concluded in the sixties with the publication in 1963, All Scripture is Inspired of God.

scholar JW

[George88]

14 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Bible Chronology must be based on evidence if available but it requires also a methodology and interpretation

By focusing on interpretation and following a "correct" methodology, you can engage in a compelling debate that remains unbiased and free from personal opinions or speculations.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

There is no excellent evidence for Jerusalem being destroyed in 587 BCE as it ignores the biblical and historical facts of the Jewish/Babylonian Exile.

The Bible does not give a BCE start date or a BCE end date for the Jewish/Babylonian exile. The Bible, which I consider excellent evidence, says that it was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. And, fortunately, there is excellent evidence for the BCE date of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. You can ignore all else, even though the biblical and historical facts ALSO provide excellent and consistent support for the correct BCE dates.  

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

'So-called' excellent evidence is simply a reference to COJ's 'seventeen lines of evidence' which attempts to disprove 607 BCE which has not settled the dilemma of the 586 or 587 BCE as dates for the Fall of Jerusalem.

Not for me. I couldn't care less whether COJ found no evidence, 17 lines of evidence, or 100 lines. It's not about COJ. And it shouldn't be for anyone else, I'd think. Bringing him up is just a way to say that ONE of the THOUSANDS of persons who support 587/586 is an apostate for having supported it, too. So it's just an easy deflection and diversion that "poisons the well" or attempts the ad hominem. If you could provide a good ad hominem for the other THOUSANDS of people who have carefully looked at the evidence then you might be onto something. But I'd still prefer looking at the evidence and not worry about specific individuals you might like or dislike.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

which has not settled the dilemma of the 586 or 587 BCE as dates for the Fall of Jerusalem.

If you prefer 586 then say so. If you prefer 587 say so. In the past, just has you are apparently doing here, you always bring up this same argument that because it's either one or the other then it can't be either. To me, that's a very specious argument. 

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

40 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The Bible does not give a BCE start date or a BCE end date for the Jewish/Babylonian exile. The Bible, which I consider excellent evidence, says that it was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. And, fortunately, there is excellent evidence for the BCE date of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. You can ignore all else, even though the biblical and historical facts ALSO provide excellent and consistent support for the correct BCE dates.  

Correct, the Bible does not give a start and end date for the Exile but does give and describes such historical events which can then be dated by a valid scheme of chronology hence we have 607 BCE for its beginning with Neb's 18/19th year and 537 BCE for its end with Cyrus' first year which are proved to be correct.

44 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Not for me. I couldn't care less whether COJ found no evidence, 17 lines of evidence, or 100 lines. It's not about COJ. And it shouldn't be for anyone else, I'd think. Bringing him up is just a way to say that ONE of the THOUSANDS of persons who support 587/586 is an apostate for having supported it, too. So it's just an easy deflection and diversion that "poisons the well" or attempts the ad hominem. If you could provide a good ad hominem for the other THOUSANDS of people who have carefully looked at the evidence then you might be onto something. But I'd still prefer looking at the evidence and not worry about specific individuals you might like or dislike.

I  too, care naught for COJ or any others but only the evidence that the Bible as God's Word contains.

47 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

If you prefer 586 then say so. If you prefer 587 say so. In the past, just has you are apparently doing here, you always bring up this same argument that because it's either one or the other then it can't be either. To me, that's a very specious argument. 

I prefer neither but simply point out that scholarship by means of its methodology cannot provide a definite date for the Fall of Jerusalem whereas WTscholars have provided a definite date for the Fall as 607 BCE.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

If there is such a body of evidence which disproves 607 BCE then why is it the case that no one can provide one single line of evidence disproving 607 BCE for this has not and cannot be done?

Why would anyone want to try something as silly as trying to disprove a negative? That would be like someone asking if you could disprove 587 BCE or disprove 586 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. You would look foolish to try. 

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The simple fact is that COJ's research over seven years ending in 1975 was simply a rehash of previous research carried out by SDA scholars in Australia from the fifties so it was nothing new for the WT Society from the time of  Charles Russell and the early Bible Students had published much material on Chronology which dealt with many of the issues covered by COJ

Exactly correct. Thanks. So it meaningless to keep bringing up his name unless one has the motive of trying to attach the label "apostate" to a rehash of research that has been around for over 100 years, completely separate from Witnesses or ex-Witnesses.