ACTUAL evidence Nebuchadnezzar's 18th is 587 BCE. TEN TIMES BETTER evidence than for Cyrus in 539?

[Many Miles]

On 2/25/2024 at 7:05 AM, JW Insider said:

There is NO Bible evidence for 539 BCE. There is NO Bible evidence for 587 BCE. There is NO Bible evidence for 607 BCE.

I think most of us understand that by now. So, I propose this new thread/topic where we shift the focus almost exclusively to the basic, fundamental question about the strength of the secular evidence in the Neo-Babylonian period. Why do we rely on it? Why does the WTS rely on secular Babylonian astronomer's evidence for Cyrus in 539? Why does the WTS reject the same evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year?  Is the evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's years actually 10 times better than for Cyrus?

I've not gotten into the nitty-gritty details of this subject to extent of others I've ran with in the past have (e.g., AlanF).  But for probably more than 40 years I've pointed out that our 1914 teaching is dependent on our 607 teaching and the 607 teaching is squarely dependent on secular records part of archeological findings. Of all these secular findings a primary question I've asked over and over again is what makes one more reliable than the next so that one presents a pivotal date and the others not? So far I've seen no evidence suggesting our chronological conclusions related to the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is sound.

[Arauna]

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Neo-Babylonian period can be discovered in exactly the same way,

I have argued with you before that the Assyrian and Babilonian chronology was set in stone by Champollion - the father of Egyptology.  Today the world of archeology is like the transgender science - set in stone and no-one can argue against it even if the science is flawed. One cannot even go and dig in Egypt if you believe in the bible and advocate for a different chronology. Champollion's wrongful assumptions not only set the entire Egyptian chronology on the wrong track and most of the PHD- degrees which have been obtained on this lie....but all the other chronologies had to be adapted to the Egyptian chronology. 

For western scholars it would not make sense for Pharoah Necho to go up to fight Nebuchadnezzar on the wrong date, would it?  So biblical chronology and Assyrian and Babylonian dates were adapted to the now accepted (peer reviewed) secular dates.

The Greeks figured time by means of four-year periods called Olympiads, starting from the first Olympiad, calculated as beginning in 776 B.C.E. This is a steadfast way to calculate years  whereas the Sumerian and Babylonian records are extremely messy and hectic.... they cannot be trusted because they are not written as chronologies, merely lists. "Thus, the ancient document known as The Sumerian King List begins: “When kingship was lowered from heaven, kingship was (first) in Eridu. (In) Eridu, A-lulim (became) king and ruled 28,800 years.

This excerpt goes on with highly exaggerated years and claims. The above gives one a taste of these lists - most unreliable. The timekeeping of the Israelites were more reliable than any pagan writings because of the timetable of sabbath years and Jubilees. 

If one gives more credit to pagan records, (individuals are welcome to privately do so), be aware that any serious student of the bible will do better to realize there are serious flaws in the secular chronologies. Scholars would rather throw out the bible chronology and accept a pagan date - which was mostly written as propaganda to enhance the king's battles and deeds and not provide a proper accurate chronology.

The Egyptian chronology is about 300 years out of whack at the time of the Exodus and narrows down to a difference of 20 years by Necho's time.  But I personally would still stick to biblical chronology to be safe. Read under the Egyptian chronology in the Insight Book. It makes some good points- some revised. Also read under Assyrian and Babylonian chronology and you will see excellent examples of how the 'lists' were "adapted".

Excerpt: “So we can consider our document not even a history in the true sense of the word, merely an inscription erected to the glory of Ashur [Assyria’s chief god] and of his people . . . When we take this view, we are no longer troubled by the numerous mistakes, even to the order of the kings, which so greatly reduce the value of the document where its testimony is most needed.”—Assyrian Historiography, p. 32."

 

Insight book quote: "The date of 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon can be arrived at not only by Ptolemy’s canon but by other sources as well. The historian Diodorus, as well as Africanus and Eusebius, shows that Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/559 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/530 B.C.E.). Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of nine years over Babylon, which would therefore substantiate the year 539 as the date of his conquest of Babylon.—Handbook of Biblical Chronology, by Jack Finegan, 1964, pp. 112, 168-170; Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, p. 14; see comments above under “Babylonian Chronology,” 

I challenge you all to go and read any historical book about Cyrus the Great.  You will find that the year of his death is without a doubt set at 530BCE....  

The Insight book also claims that the eclipses are NOT a good way to determine dates and goes on to demonstrate the flaws and says: "The accusation that the Assyrians juggled the years of their campaigns and credited kings with receiving tribute from persons no longer living might reduce even more the supposed value of the synchronization."

"The great majority of the astronomical diaries found were written, not in the time of the Neo-Babylonian or Persian empires, but in the Seleucid period (312-65 B.C.E.), although they contain data relating to those earlier periods."

In fact - based on 530 BCE as the year Cyrus died (just look it up on Google), all articles will give this as the date he died. This gives one solid date to calculate 607 BCE, given the information I wrote out above.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

I have argued with you before that the Assyrian and Babilonian chronology was set in stone by Champollion - the father of Egyptology.

I know what you are referring to, but you have never argued or even mentioned Champollion to me before. You were speaking with someone else. I have never previously weighed in on Egyptian chronology because I still know nothing about it. I suspect that the Egyptian astronomical observations and calculations will often coincide with the astronomical calculations of the Babylonians, at least through the period of the Neo-Babylonian time period related to Necho II, Nabopolassar , Nebuchadnezzar, Psammetichus, etc.

If you had mentioned Champollion to me, and claimed that this early Egyptologist had somehow set in stone the Assyrian and Babylonian chronology, I would have merely shown you that the Watchtower shows that he probably wasn't even much good at the Egyptian chronology. 

The Watchtower strongly implies that his calculations were likely wrong by about THREE THOUSAND YEARS.

*** w68 11/15 p. 681 The Bible and Egyptian History ***
RECONSTRUCTING EGYPTIAN HISTORY
Thus it has been necessary for Egyptologists to reconstruct and revise their views of Egyptian history, not once, but often, during the past hundred years or so. Note, now, how various authorities on Egyptology, generally contemporary, have arrived at widely different conclusions on the date of the first ruling dynasty, supposedly begun by the unification of Egypt under King Menes.
According to                   1st Dynasty Begins
Champollion                       5867 B.C.E.
Mariette                           5004   “
Lauth                                4157   “
Lepsius                            3892   “
Breasted                          3400   “
Meyer                               3180   “
Wilkinson                         2320   “
Palmer                             2224   “
. . . 
The Egyptians developed astronomy to some extent, and we have Egyptian texts dealing with lunar phases and the rising of the Dog Star (Sothis). These have been pressed into service, by combining these with other fragmentary data, to build up a chronological table giving approximate dates for the various dynasties as follows:
. . . 
Dynasties I to VI              c.2850-2200   “

Also, the astronomical data which helps to date not just one but several of the Egyptian dynasties, can be off by up to 120 years according to the same Watchtower article. And, in fact, the WTS chronology is only off by about 120 years when measured against the astronomical evidence, according to what is implied in the Watchtower article.  

So according to the Watchtower, Champollion's dates are on the order of THREE THOUSAND YEARS OFF. If an Egyptologist was so far off in Egyptian dating, how could he have set in stone the Assyrian and Babylonian dating?
 

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

In fact - based on 530 BCE as the year Cyrus died (just look it up on Google), all articles will give this as the date he died. This gives one solid date to calculate 607 BCE, given the information I wrote out above.

You seem to have done a lot of work on this subject. If it is accepted that the 530 BCE date is as reliable as you say (and I have no reason to doubt what you say is true), my question would be are there any other historical events equally reliable in terms of chronology that would dispute our deduction of 607 BCE? My question is to measure veracity and to avoid confirmation bias.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Today the world of archeology is like the transgender science - set in stone and no-one can argue against it even if the science is flawed.

This is another form of poisoning the well. The Watchtower relies on the world of archaeology to get the dates for Cyrus from flawed material. But the "ten-times-better" archaeological material is dismissed. The Watchtower does nothing but try to sow seed of doubt about the "ten-times-better" material. Note:

*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
From a secular viewpoint, such lines of evidence might seem to establish the Neo-Babylonian chronology with Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year (and the destruction of Jerusalem) in 587/6 B.C.E. However, no historian can deny the possibility that the present picture of Babylonian history might be misleading or in error. It is known, for example, that ancient priests and kings sometimes altered records for their own purposes. Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.

Back in the 1870's when Barbour and Russell considered Ptolemy to be the only source of Cyrus 1st year as 586 BCE [sic], they praised Ptolemy as the astronomer with whom ALL reputable scholars agreed with. After it was discovered that it was the same data from Ptolemy that demolished 606 BCE, the WTS has done nothing but try to sow seeds of doubt about him. 

*** g72 5/8 p. 28 When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem? ***
As Ptolemy used the reigns of ancient kings (as he understood them) simply as a framework in which to place astronomical data, . . . Hence both Ptolemy’s Canon and “VAT 4956” might even have been derived from the same basic source. They could share mutual errors.
 

*** w77 12/15 p. 747 Insight on the News ***
How certain can we be of the presently accepted chronology of the ancient Babylonian Empire? For many years, chronologists have put heavy reliance on the king list of Claudius Ptolemy, a second-century Greek scholar often considered the greatest astronomer of antiquity.
However, in his new book “The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy,” the noted physicist Robert R. Newton of Johns Hopkins University offers proof that many of Ptolemy’s astronomical observations were “deliberately fabricated” to agree with his preconceived theories “so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories.”
In its comments on Newton’s book, “Scientific American” magazine notes: “Ptolemy’s forgery may have extended to inventing the length of reigns of Babylonian kings. Since much modern reconstruction of Babylonian chronology has been based on a list of kings that Ptolemy used to pinpoint the dates of alleged Babylonian observations, according to Newton ‘all relevant chronology must now be reviewed and all dependence upon Ptolemy’s [king] list must be removed.’”—October 1977, p. 80.
 

Not only have the accusations been thoroughly debunked, the WTS publications have been so anxious to present information that sows seeds of doubt, that they have been caught quoting authors and experts out of context to make it seem they were saying something that the author didn't say. One example is one that you allude to when you speak of the old Assyrian mythological king list where kings reigned for thousands of years instead of reasonable lengths of time. Quotations from books referring to those pseudo-chronologies have been used (even in the 1981 "kc" Appendix I quoted above) to make it look like they referred to the Neo-Babylonian chronology. Sometimes the "trick" has been to speak of ancient pre-astronomy Babylonian chronology (Nimrod/Hammurabi/etc) and make it seem like Neo-Babylonian chronology is being referred to. If this was done on purpose I guess that would be an example of what you called "deviant scholarship." At least I think you would have called it that if I had used such a "trick."

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

For western scholars it would not make sense for Pharoah Necho to go up to fight Nebuchadnezzar on the wrong date, would it?

For purposes of this discussion I will go ahead and learn something about Egyptian chronology. My goal was to focus on what the evidence shows for Neo-Babylonian chronology. 

My experience has been that there is one question that most of us are deathly afraid to answer as Witnesses, the same question I put to @scholar JW:

What BCE date does the astronomical evidence point to for the 14th year of Nebuchadnezzar?

[You can pick any particular year you like in his reign]

If you are like almost all other Witnesses in my personal experience, most will say they don't know. But for those who have some idea what the actual answer will be, they will invariably start obfuscating and talking about tiny disagreements among scholars, or Delta-T, or claim that only dates after Cyrus accession are accurate, or start talking about some other chronology issues, or put the onus back on me to solve some unrelated issues that they pretend are related. It's an amazing experiment, I've seen played out here a dozen times. 

I think that anyone here can easily learn how to use the astronomy software and use it to check eclipses and other solar and planetary phenomenon back to yesterday, to last year, and then scroll back through the last century, and the last millennium -- or use it to discover the next eclipse or the next planetary configurations. (I have a nice telescope and I also use the same software to set up viewings of planets up to a year in advance.)

In spite of the ease of use, try to get another Witness to check out a reading from Nebuchadnezzar's time, and let the deflections and diversions and excuses begin. 

[Many Miles]

14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
From a secular viewpoint, such lines of evidence might seem to establish the Neo-Babylonian chronology with Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year (and the destruction of Jerusalem) in 587/6 B.C.E. However, no historian can deny the possibility that the present picture of Babylonian history might be misleading or in error. It is known, for example, that ancient priests and kings sometimes altered records for their own purposes. Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.

I recall the first time I read that in the Kingdom Come book. My first thought was to say to myself, everything said in that statement could be equally applied to our own chronology, its source material and interpretations. That was only my first thought!

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

The Greeks figured time by means of four-year periods called Olympiads, starting from the first Olympiad, calculated as beginning in 776 B.C.E.

Actually, they kept lists of winners for each games, which had started much earlier than 776 BCE, but in the mid 200's BCE when it was clear that the Greeks and Egyptians and Assyrians and Babylonians had been keeping fairly accurate chronologies going back to the 700's, they decided to start attaching some of those important historical events to specific Olympiads, deciding to start the first one in 776 BCE. For the most part, it seems they did a good job. But they cared more for Greek events, especially related to Alexander the Great in the 300's, than to prior Assyrian and Babylonian and Egyptian and Persian events.  But here and there they at least tied the reigns of Cyrus and Artaxerxes, etc., to specific Olympiads that fit the existing Babylonian and Persian records. 

Unfortunately, the Watchtower REJECTS the Olympiad date they picked for Artaxerxes, which was apparently correct, and they ACCEPT the date for Cyrus, which was also apparently correct. Of course, the Greeks got that data about Cyrus and Artaxerxes from the same Babylonian and Persian records that also give us the rest of the Neo-Babylonian period. We know this from the fact that Greek astronomers like Claudius Ptolemy also still had access to the same astronomically verified chronology handed down and copied and recopied from the Babylonian data.  

[Many Miles]

*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Evidently realizing such facts, Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr., introduced a chart, which included Neo-Babylonian chronology, with the caution: “It goes without saying that these lists are provisional. The more one studies the intricacies of the chronological problems in the ancient Near East, the less he is inclined to think of any presentation as final. For this reason, the term circa [about] could be used even more liberally than it is.”—The Bible and the Ancient Near East (1965 ed.), p. 281.

That statement also got my attention back in 1981. My first thought to myself was, then we cannot depend on our own conclusions as "final" because they are equally based on secular chronology.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Arauna said:

I challenge you all to go and read any historical book about Cyrus the Great.  You will find that the year of his death is without a doubt set at 530BCE.... 

I already have, and I have never thought there was a problem with that date. After all it comes from copies of exactly the same CONTEMPORARY records that give us Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year as 587 BCE. And it comes from exactly the same records that put the reconstruction of the Temple in Zechariah's time nearly 70 years later. (Closer to 517 BCE). That makes more sense of the Bible record that says a lot of the people who saw the new temple being constructed cried out louder than the younger ones who raised their voice at the new construction. That didn't make sense to me if these people were about 90 and up (Psalm 90:10). But it made more sense if they were closer to 70 and up, like you and me.

Also Zechariah said: 

(Zechariah 1:12) . . .So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”

Zechariah would have written this a little closer to 520 BCE, a date that the WTS publications have agreed with. So 70 years earlier would have been the siege that started a year and an half earlier according to Jeremiah. That would put it about 589 according to the astronomical records. 

[Arauna]

32 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

same CONTEMPORARY records that give us Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year as 587 BCE.

That is the controversy. Don't you see it? 

[JW Insider]

Just now, Arauna said:

That is the controversy. Don't you see it? 

No. I don’t know what controversy you mean. Sorry. 
 

And I hope you will say something about how you are faring these days. Hadn’t heard from you in quite a while.