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

by wannabefree 224 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    He'd say they talks out of their enormous arse hole.

  • Pants of Righteousness
    Pants of Righteousness

    From the Leo Depuydt reference (underlined section quoted in WT).

    Page 105

    A. Is the Canon True

    "It is assumed here that the Canon is true. No one has, to my knowledge, refuted any aspect of the Canon on good grounds. On the other hand, to demonstrate the Canon's accuracy positively would not be easy. In the vast network of facts and inferences making up first millenium BCE chronology, the correctness of the Canon is at certain crucial junctures simply accepted as an axiom. To locate those junctures would be no small feat. It has long been known that the Canon is astronomically reliable. Observations dated according to it can all be authenticated. But this does not automatically mean that it is historically dependable."

    Page 106 - context of quote after discussing matching a date of an eclipse on 16 July 523.

    "The fact that this Greco-Egyptian date from the Almagest, which dates according to the Canon, can be matched with Babylonian date in a Babylonian document adds little for the astronomer, but a great deal for the historian. It does much to guarantee that the portion of the Canon from the Persian period onward is reliable. As regards the earlier rulers, the Canon would need to be compared with the cuneiform record on a reign by reign basis, considering all the dates in the literary and non-literary sources, to establish if, and where, the Canon conflicts whith cuneifrom sources. Agreement seems to be the rule, but this would have to be confirmed".

    Has anyone been able to find a full copy of the reference containing the Christopher Walker quote?


  • cantleave

    I'm wondering why it's in the public edition instead of the private WT. Surely it's for internal consumption and information control purposes?

    Because the R+F just skim through the public the edition.

  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep

    Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period:Conquest and Imperialism 539 - 331 BC

    Edited by John Curtis 1997; 246 x 189mm, 108pp Illustrations: 17 colour, 53 black & white Cased, 0-7141-1142-2, ,16.99

    It might available at the British Museum, but not to purchase. It doesn't appear in a search of the bookshop.


    Maybe a staunch JW could go to the Museum and proudly present him with a personal copy of this mag. Maybe get Christopher to sign a copy


  • nugget

    This article is disingenuous since it implies that there are only 2 source texts to support 587. Is this the case? I found the following on the internet which shows that there is more out there to support 587/586 than the society implies.

    Summary of evidence against 607 B.C. for the destruction of Jerusalem The November 1, 1986 Watchtower stated on page 6 that "in 1981 Jehovah's Witnesses published convincing evidence in support of the 607 B.C.E. date. ('Let Your Kingdom Come,' pages 127-40, 186-9)" This book, which we will refer to as KC, used secular historical evidence to establish the key date of the Society's chronology: "Historians calculate that Babylon fell in early October of the year 539 B.C.E." (p. 136).

    Nevertheless, the book set up a dichotomy between "secular records" and the Bible: Thankful, indeed, we can be that Jehovah preserved in his inspired Word an accurate picture of the needed details involving the Jews, the Babylonians and the Medo-Persians in the sixth century B.C.E. Otherwise it would be difficult to piece together the exact timing of events back there, for secular records of that period are certainly incomplete. However, based primarily on such secular records, some persons figure that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E and that the Jews came under Babylonian domination in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, which they calculate as being 605 B.C.E. [p. 138] A footnote referred the reader to an appendix on pages 186-9. We will spend some time on the arguments presented in this "Appendix," and we will show that the evidence the Society presents is biased, incomplete and misrepresentative of the facts.

    The following list of evidences is an outline of what is available to prove that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C. The symbol (KC) means the line of evidence is mentioned in the Appendix. 1. Chronicles, historical records, and royal inscriptions from the Neo-Babylonian period, beginning with the reign of Nabopolassar and ending with the reigns of Nabonidus and Belshazzar, show it ran from 626 to 539 B.C., not from 645 to 539 B.C. as the Society claims.

    a. (KC) Berossus

    b. (KC) Ptolemy

    c. Various Babylonian chronicles (incomplete) such as the Nabonidus Chronicle

    d. Nabonidus No. 18

    e. The Hillah stele, Nabonidus No. 8

    f. (KC) The Adda-Guppi stele, Nabonidus H1,B

    2. Business and administrative documents.

    a. (KC) Tablets exist that are dated from each year of the Neo-Babylonian period as established by Berossus, Ptolemy and contemporary stele; no tablets are inconsistently dated. About 5000 have been published out of a total of about 50,000. These are contemporary documents from the Neo-Babylonian period.

    3. Astronomical diaries.

    a. (KC) VAT 4956 fixes the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar to 568 B.C. by a unique set of astronomical observations, establishing his accession year in 605 B.C. b. BM 32312 plus the Akitu Chronicle pin the 16th year of Shamashshumukin (a Babylonian king before the Neo-Babylonian period) to 652/1 B.C. This, combined with business documents, Ptolemy's canon, the Akitu Chronicle and the Uruk King List combine to date Nebuchadnezzar's reign to 605/4-562/1, with his 18th (destruction of Jerusalem, Jer. 52:28-30) year in 587/6 B.C.

    4. Saros (lunar eclipse) texts.

    a. Four independent texts provide absolute dates within the Neo-Babylonian period. Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is fixed at 587/6 B.C.

    5. Synchronisms with contemporary Egyptian chronology show Watchtower chronology consistently off by 20 years.

    a. Josiah died during Pharaoh Nechoh's reign, which began in 610 B.C. The Society dates Josiah's death to 629 B.C.

    b. Some Jews fled to Egypt under Pharaoh Hophra (Apries) immediately after Jerusalem's destruction. Since he began to reign in 589 B.C., Jerusalem could not have been destroyed in 607 B.C.

    c. A fragmentary cuneiform text mentions a battle by Nebuchadnezzar in his 37th year against Pharaoh Amasis, who began to rule in 570 B.C. The Society claims Nebuchadnezzar died in 582 B.C.

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    This is the publication quoted afaik listed on the British Museum site:

    Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period:Conquest and Imperialism 539 - 331 BC
    Edited by John Curtis
    1997; 246 x 189mm, 108pp
    Illustrations: 17 colour, 53 black & white
    Cased, ISBN 0-7141-1142-2, ,£16.99

    If so then it covers the WRONG period and it would be interesting to see the full quote in context, ...so far can't find a readable version to find it though.

    Oops already posted by Black Sheep, me so slow LOL (actually I had it all typed up ready then lost and and had to start again = not LOL)

    Christopher Walker quoted appears to be an expert on ancient astronomy and is quoted in this context....

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    More info...

    "Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period"

    14 Jun 2011 11:30

    "Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period", which presents the papers presented at the Lukonin Memorial Seminar held at the British Museum in July 1995, has been rendered into Persian Zahra Basti and released by SAMT publication in Iran.

    IBNA: "Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period" publishes the papers presented at the Lukonin Memorial Seminar held at the British Museum in July 1995.

    Five scholars spoke on different aspects of the history and culture of Mesopotamia and Iran during the period of Achaemenid rule between 539 BC and 331 BC.
    The book is intended as a sequel to "Early Mesopotamia and Iran: Contrast and Conflict c.3500 - 1600 BC" and "Later Mesopotamia and Iran: Tribes and Empires 1600 - 539 BC", the proceedings of seminars held in 1991 and 1993.

    Edited by J.E. Curtis the book was rendered into Persian and released in 164 pages.

  • Dutch-scientist

    WoW!!! i will read the publication soon. Tks for the link and info!

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    Also naughty they shorten the source title as the full one has the WRONG dates in it!


    5. Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period, pages 17-18.


    Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period:Conquest and Imperialism 539 - 331 BC

  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep

    The Babyloniaca of Berossus / by Stanley Mayer Burstein

    I would like to see scans of the relevent pages to see the quotes in context.

    How do other scholars view Berossus? “In the past Berossus has usually been viewed as a historian,” states S. M. Burstein, who made a thorough study of Berossus’ works. Yet, he concluded: “Considered as such his performance must be pronounced inadequate. Even in its present fragmentary state the Babyloniaca contains a number of surprising errors of simple fact . . . In a historian such flaws would be damning, but then Berossus’ purpose was not historical.”3

    Maybe our Okkers can help. There are copies in Sydney and Melbourne university libraries, both of which are open to the public.

Share this