When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows (page 17)

AnnOMaly

What is going on here?

From what I can make out (from a quick refresher look-see in GTR4), Ptolemy was an OK guy when, back in Barbour's time it was thought he supported the view that Cyrus' first year was 536 BCE (+ 70 = 606 BCE). Then when Russell realized that this wasn't the case, that Ptolemy supported 538/7 BCE as his first year and also 587 BCE as the date of Jerusalem's destruction, then Ptolemy was no longer an OK guy.

Add to that R.R. Newton's controversial book "The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy" ...

w77 12/15 p. 747 Insight on the News

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.

... well, we can join the dots.

3Mozzies

[marking]

Dutch-scientist

Dear Ann,

Do you have an link for me where VAT tablet with 588BC link is debunked?

DS

Dutch-scientist

VAT 4956 give accurate positions of Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Astronomers calculated that these planets were in these unique positions only between the spring of 568 and 567 B.C.

what does the JW need to mixed up to pretent it hapen in 588???

I know Furuli make a mess with VAT 4956 but i need some simple short list.

DS

AnnOMaly

Hi Ds - http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf2/review.htm. Furuli agrees that the planetary positions better fit 568/7 BCE, but thinks that, either due to a conspiracy or tablet mix-up, the lunar positions belong to 588/7 BCE - nonsense, of course. I also looked at the positions myself, using my own astro-programs, and the lunar positions do not fit 588/7 BCE better than 568/7 BCE by any stretch of the imagination.

By the way, regarding Ptolemy's alleged fraud - useful resource from Doug's site: Julia Neuffer's "'Ptolemy's Canon' Debunked?" - scroll down about ¾ of the way down.

Dutch-scientist

So 1 Nisan cannot be fall in may in our calendar system. Its way to late that is point one.

Dutch-scientist

Dear Ann,

Thanks!!! i will study this the coming weekend. ;)

DS

VM44

Footnote 8 from the article says the following:

"Sin-sharra-ishkun ruled for seven years, and 57 economic tablets of this king are dated from his accession year through year seven. See Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Volume 35, 1983, pages 54-59."

The complete reference for the article is:

Documentary Evidence for the Economic Base of Early Neo-Babylonian Society: A Survey of Dated Babylonian Economic Texts, 721-626 B.C.
J. A. Brinkman and D. A. Kennedy
Journal of Cuneiform Studies
Vol. 35, No. 1/2 (Jan. - Apr., 1983), pp. 1-90
(article consists of 90 pages)

Currently this article may be purchased for $9.00US using Paypal from JSTOR.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3515942

VM44

Footnote 10 from the article:

"10. Some scholars contend that certain kings were omitted by Ptolemy—who supposedly listed only kings of Babylon— because thesewere called by the title “King of Assyria.” However, as you will note in the box on page 30, several kings included in Ptolemy’s canon also had the title “King of Assyria.” Economic tablets, cuneiform letters, and inscriptions clearly reveal that kings Ashur-etel-ilani, Sinshumu- lishir, and Sin-sharra-ishkun ruled over Babylonia."

For a discussion of the kings (1) “Sin-šarra-iškun”, (2) “Sin-šumu-lišir”, and (3) “Aššur-etel-ilani” see the online article by Carl Olof Jonsson "Were there unknown Neo-Babylonian kings?" at:

http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf3/review5.htm

This article is part 5 of a series of articles in which Jonsson reviews Rolf Furuli’s 2nd volume on chronology.

Note this paragraph from Jonnson's review concerning King Sin-sharra-ishkun who is also mentioned in Footnote 8 of the Watchtower article.

"Furuli’s claim (p. 69) that Sin-šarra-iškun was ruler over most or all of Babylonia, then, is false. Only a few of the many cities in Babylonia remained under Assyrian control for a brief period after the accession of Nabopolassar. According to the economic tablets, Sin-šarra-iškun’s control over the city of Babylon is limited only to a part of his accession year. His control over Sippar is dated only until the beginning of his 3 rd year. His control over Nippur (which, although situated in southern Babylonia, in this period was an Assyrian city as shown above) lasted until his 6 th year, while his control over Uruk is dated in his accession year and in his years 6 and 7. After that Nabopolassar had full control over all Babylonia and could start to attack Assyria proper in the north. – J. A. Brinkman and D. A. Kennedy, “Documentary Evidence for the Economic Base of Early Neo-Babylonian Society,” in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 35/1-2 (1983), pp. 52-59"

VM44

On page 30 of the article a question is asked.

"Ptolemy omits some kings in his list. Why?"

The answer to this question requires information not contained in the article. Why?

When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows

Share this