by ellderwho 31 Replies latest watchtower bible
I usually just breeze right past posts like this, but, for some reason i am becoming interested in this again.
Alleymom, your posts are very clear and easy to follow. AlanF, i went and found talk.origin . I'm going to have a look.
I guess people go through different stages in leaving the org. I could not bear to read anythng like this 6 months ago.
weds
JCanon --
Basically, the experts know that Thales could not have predicted the eclipse for the Lydian-Median peace agreement in 585BCE and thus that date has been dismissed by such experts as Otto Neugebaur
I have never seen anything other than a date of May 28, 585 for the eclipse predicted by Thales of Miletus. Do you have a reference to this in Neugebaur?
It is certain that an eclipse DID occur on that date, and it fits in with Herodotus' story of the battle between the Lydians and the Medes. Astyages then took over the throne from his father Cyaxares, he reigned 35 years, and that brings us down to 550, the year when Cyrus became king (not of Babylon), which was year 6 of Nabonidus.
The trouble is that everything you have spun is fantasy when compared with the actual thousands of dated cuneiform tablets. For instance, you say Nabonidus reigned 19 years. But the last dated tabets for him are in his 17th year. We have dated tablets for the first months and last months of every one of the kings' reigns.
A consistent chronology must account for all of the pieces of the puzzle, and your chronology completely ignores the day-to-day events recorded in tens of thousands of tablets from cities all over Babylon. It also fails to take into account the independently established chronologies of neighboring nations. Have you ever researched the double-dated Elephantine papyri from the 5th century, for instance?
Your conspiracy theory will not float. Even if the Bab. Chronicles and the astronomical diaries were altered for some strange reason by the Persians, they absolutely could not and did not alter the tens of thousands of everyday business, legal, and economic tablets from all over Babylon, from private individuals and business houses and the temples. They could not and did not alter the 5th century Aramaic papyri from the colony at Elephantine.
I know that the presentation I made in the KISS thread was very simplistic. I was focusing on the lengths of reigns of the kings, the relative chronology. In my little story of the class project where the teacher was making a timeline on the back wall, there was one team which was assigned to prepare a strip of paper representing the neo-Babylon empire. It was tacked down on the timeline with the right hand edge at 539, which is the date accepted by all modern scholars (other than a few orthodox rabbis using the Seder Olam) for the fall of Babylon.
I simplified by accepting the 539 date, and I know I simplified. In my story, the kids aren't ready to get into all the astronomical data, so the teacher tells them where to attach one end of their strip of paper.
But you want to focus exclusively on where to attach the strip of paper, while IGNORING the staggering, immense amount of data which establishes beyond ANY doubt how long the strip of paper should be. It's all well and good to say we need to be sure about where to attach the paper. Without that, you are not going to have a true chronology.
But you seem to be totally focused on VAT 4956 and nothing else, to the point where you have lost touch with the reality of the primary data, the thousands of cuneiform tablets which speak to the regnal lengths of the kings. You add a year or two whenever you need to stretch things out to make your chronology work.
I know I have posted the data for the beginning and ends of each king's reign. I think it was over in the Furuli thread somewhere.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/54983/14.ashxWhy don't you read over the data that establishes the beginning and end of each king's reign? Then you will see how impossible your theories are.
I haven't wanted to get into long discussions with you, because I am not sure it would be a kindness when you are so obsessed with this. Couldn't you just give yourself permission to ease up on the eclipse data for awhile? If you just can't drop the chronology altogether, maybe you could at least put the eclipse data aside for awhile while you do some research on the Elephantine papyri and the cuneiform tablets. Seriously, from things you have said, I practically feel as if I should ask to see a note from your doctor before discussing chronology with you, and I really don't want to do anything that will fuel your obsession.
I wish you well, but I think you need some help, JCanon. I answered you this time because I don't want to be rude, but I am worried about you. I don't want to get into long involved discussions about any of this with you, ok? I think you need to check back with your doctor, and if he isn't helping, you ought to ask for another doctor.
With kind thoughts,
Marjorie
Shotgun said: The only problem I have found is that it only matters to those who have already opened their minds to doubts or are only interested in JW beliefs and are not JW's. I presented this very subject to two elders from both our own publications and the bible, once they saw the years did not add up they said so what's your point..........Then they recited a phrase scholar has used...you have to trust the bible. That has nothing to do with it but it changes the direction to make you think you are being disloyal to God and the bible for challenging the WT chronology which backs the 1914 date.
Shotgun --
Good point! Yes, I know a lot of JW's are not ready to hear this. This was obviously the case with the two elders with whom you spoke.
But I think that it is important for exJW's to be able to reassure themselves about the errors in the chronology, and sometimes it helps to have a simplistic explanation. For instance, Scholar's subtraction seems correct at first, doesn't it? But if you work through it with wooden blocks, the error is very apparent.
When presented with a complex subject like Bible chronology, peoples' eyes tend to glaze over as their brains freeze up. I've seen this happen over the years with kids I've tutored in algebra. You can take one look at their eyes and see when you have lost them. They may be nodding up and down, but they are no longer processing a thing you say. That's when it is important to make things real again. Get out the blocks and balls and coins and number lines and other manipulatives, and go over it until they get past the block.
I think the danger is that if exJW's START to look at the chronology because they've heard that it is wrong, they may possibly fall into that confused, frozen-up mindset. That doesn't happen to everyone, of course. And plenty of people, even if they do get confused by the subject, will be happy enough to settle for knowing that ALL scholars agree on 586/7 as the date when Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. (With the exception of a few orthodox rabbis who take a different date, one that is even further removed from the WT's date of 607.)
But for those who do experience frozen-brain syndrome, that's a time when they are in danger of remembering the Society's position, which is basically: oh, this stuff is too hard, I bet it would be easy for the secular historians to have made a mistake, maybe I should just trust the Bible (i.e. the Society's interpretation of the Bible) and forget about all this.
It's important to realize that the Society would like people to believe they have to choose between the Bible and secular history. But that's nonsense! Plenty of Bible scholars as well as secular historians see no conflict between the cuneiform tablets and the accounts of the last days of Judah as found in the Bible.
It is the Society's interpretation of the Bible which is in actual conflict with the Bible.
But, as you say, some people, like your two elders, aren't ready to look at the evidence.
Thanks for the comments!
Marjorie
I can't seem to get the formatting to work right on these quotes!
Robert --
What I didn't see was anything saying that 586/587 was the 17/18 year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Not the actual year of the desrtuction but where it says the destruction took place in the 17/18 year of Nebuch's reign and not just how that works out to 586/587. Did that make more sense?
I think maybe you have picked up the number "17" from the discussion of Nabonidus' reign and the fall of BABYLON.
The destruction of Jerusalem took place in Nebuchadnezzar year 18/19, not 17/18.
For now I suggest you don't worry about accession year dating vs. non-accession year dating, or Tishri-Tishri calendar years vs. Nisan-Nisan years. Just remember that dates can be plus or minus 1 year.
Here are some relevant quotes on this from the Insight book and the NWT:
it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar
Finally, in 607 B.C.E., on Tammuz (June-July) 9 in the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign (Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year), a breach was made in Jerusalem’s wall.
2 Kings 25:8-9
And in the fifth month on the seventh [day] of the month, that is to say, the nineteenth year of King Neb·u·chad·nez´zar the king of Babylon, Neb·u´zar·ad´an the chief of the bodyguard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. And he proceeded to burn the house of Jehovah and the king’s house and all the houses of Jerusalem; and the house of every great man he burned with fire.
Jeremiah 52:12-14
And in the fifth month, on the tenth day of the month, that is, [in] the nineteenth year of King Neb·u·chad·rez´zar, the king of Babylon, Neb·u´zar·ad´an the chief of the bodyguard, who was standing before the king of Babylon, came into Jerusalem. And he proceeded to burn the house of Jehovah and the house of the king and all the houses of Jerusalem; and every great house he burned with fire. And all the walls of Jerusalem, round about, all the military forces of the Chal·de´ans that were with the chief of the bodyguard pulled down.
Is this helpful? I think the one from the Insight book is pretty plain. Let me know if you want other quotes.
Marjorie
Alleymom, once again you did it!
it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar
Finally, in 607 B.C.E., on Tammuz (June-July) 9 in the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign (Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year), a breach was made in Jerusalem’s wall.2 Kings 25:8-9
And in the fifth month on the seventh [day] of the month, that is to say, the nineteenth year of King Neb·u·chad·nez´zar the king of Babylon, Neb·u´zar·ad´an the chief of the bodyguard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. And he proceeded to burn the house of Jehovah and the king’s house and all the houses of Jerusalem; and the house of every great man he burned with fire.
Jeremiah 52:12-14
And in the fifth month, on the tenth day of the month, that is, [in] the nineteenth year of King Neb·u·chad·rez´zar, the king of Babylon, Neb·u´zar·ad´an the chief of the bodyguard, who was standing before the king of Babylon, came into Jerusalem. And he proceeded to burn the house of Jehovah and the house of the king and all the houses of Jerusalem; and every great house he burned with fire. And all the walls of Jerusalem, round about, all the military forces of the Chal·de´ans that were with the chief of the bodyguard pulled down.
That was exactly what I wanted. Something saying which year of his reign Nebuch destroyed Jesusalem and not the specific year/date. Excellent! Thanks for all your fine work and your help. I appreciate it and its simplicity as you have presented it. Great job!
Robert
Alleymom......
Here is the reference about Neugebauer which I commented on. I couldn't copy the web address for some reason but I think the links within the reference are the same place. If you do a search of "Neugebauer Thales eclipse" you'll get the reference with google. (see my comments below)
It
is reported that Thales predicted an eclipse of the Sun in 585 BC. The cycle of about 19 years for eclipses of the Moon was well known at this time but the cycle for eclipses of the Sun was harder to spot since eclipses were visible at different places on Earth. Thales's prediction of the 585 BC eclipse was probably a guess based on the knowledge that an eclipse around that time was possible. The claims that Thales used the Babylonian saros, a cycle of length 18 years 10 days 8 hours, to predict the eclipse has been shown by Neugebauer to be highly unlikely since Neugebauer shows in [11] that the saros was an invention of Halley. Neugebauer wrote [11]:-
... there exists no cycle for solar eclipses visible at a given place: all modern cycles concern the earth as a whole. No Babylonian theory for predicting a solar eclipse existed at 600 BC, as one can see from the very unsatisfactory situation 400 years later, nor did the Babylonians ever develop any theory which took the influence of geographical latitude into account.
After the eclipse on 28 May, 585 BC Herodotus wrote:-
... day was all of a sudden changed into night. This event had been foretold by Thales, the Milesian, who forewarned the Ionians of it, fixing for it the very year in which it took place. The Medes and Lydians, when they observed the change, ceased fighting, and were alike anxious to have terms of peace agreed on.
Longrigg in [1] even doubts that Thales predicted the eclipse by guessing, writing:-
... a more likely explanation seems to be simply that Thales happened to be the savant around at the time when this striking astronomical phenomenon occurred and the assumption was made that as a savant he must have been able to predict it.
Now of interest are the following:
1) Thales is known to have had access to Babylonian records.
2) He did become famous for predicting this eclipse and he did predict both TIME and LOCATION!
This proves that he could not have predicted this eclipse by the saros in 585BCE, and that method of prediction was not developed. But there was a phenomenon known in Assyrian records and thus at Babylon that did, indeed, allow for predicting solar eclipse times and location. It is a rare eclipse pattern of horizontally flowing eclipse tracks which occur 54 years and 1 month after a previous ecipse event, seen in the same location but approximately 15 degrees latitudinally north. How do we know this? Because the famous 763BCE Assyrian eponym eclipse which was mentioned in the eponym list, the only eclipse mentioned was in such a series. Thus, for any solar eclipse occurring in a similar pattern and position, the second eclipse would have been predictable.
That brings us to the arguments for the eclipse occurring in early 478BCE. First of all, we know Herodotus knew completely well about the revisions and was using the 585BCE eclipse as a general substitute eclipse, but at the same time giving the details regarding this famous eclipse so that it could be relocated to the correct date which was 478BCE. That is, 478BCE is the only possible date for a predictable eclipse event? Why, because 54 years and 1 month earlier was the eclipse in the pattern that made the 478BCE eclipse predictable!
Therefore, the arguments that he became famous by luckily predicting this eclipse in the correct month and location are unfounded when you redate the eclipse to 478BCE.
Finally, we know that Herodtus was playing the "double dating game" because he clearly mixes up the kingships relating to this event. Allegedly the battle was between the father of Astyages (Cyaxares/Mede) and Croesus (Alyattes/Lydia); then Astyages married the sister of Croesus. Yet he claims that Nabonidus was the king of Babylon who mediated the agreement. Question: Was Nabonidus ruling at the time of Alyattes and Cyaxares? No. Question: Since the current dating now places Nebuchadnezzar as ruing in 585BCE, is Nebuchadnezzar the same king as Nabonidus? No.
Well then, what can we make of this? One belief is that Herodotus understood he was promoting the revised chronology while giving cryptic references to what really happened and using eclipses to redate events, but at the same time would provide some spurious conflicting confirmation of that secondary dating, such as indicating the king who was actually ruling at the time, who was Nabonidus. That's because for the predictable eclipse of 478BCE, which was predictable, per the Bible and now Babylonian VAT4956 astrotext, that would have been the 2nd year of Nabonidus, a time when he was still the sole ruler of Babylon before appointing Belshazzar. Thus Herodotus was "confirming" for us, once we arrive at the correct chronology, that indeed, Nabonidus was ruling during the original event. That's the thinking behind the theory, anyway.
Here's the proven series of eclipses:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/4653/eclipses.html
Obviously, of note, in 532BCE occurred a horizontally running eclipse event that went through Egypt and ended up right below Babylon, thus based upon the previous eclipse series noted above, Thales SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE to predict an inclipse in "Ionia" in 478BCE based upon the past records. The 532/478BCE eclipses repeated the above pattern.
Hope you find this interesting...(smile)
JCanon
Hi Alleymom:
It is certain that an eclipse DID occur on that date, and it fits in with Herodotus' story of the battle between the Lydians and the Medes. Astyages then took over the throne from his father Cyaxares, he reigned 35 years, and that brings us down to 550, the year when Cyrus became king (not of Babylon), which was year 6 of Nabonidus.
Again, you have to deal with the possibility of a conspiracy to revise this history and that Herodotus was in on it. Thus I'd say fine to the above, EXCEPT the king who negotiated the peace agreement was NABONIDUS. In 585BCE we are claiming it was Nebuchadnezzar. Any comments?
The trouble is that everything you have spun is fantasy when compared with the actual thousands of dated cuneiform tablets. For instance, you say Nabonidus reigned 19 years. But the last dated tabets for him are in his 17th year. We have dated tablets for the first months and last months of every one of the kings' reigns.
Excuse me? Sorry, but I know all about the "thousands of dated cuneiform tablets". The PROBLEM with the surviving original dated cuneiform tablets from the Neo-Babylonian period, though, is that they are "circumstantially irrelevant" to the problem at hand since the Neo-Babylonian period was not expanded but REDUCED. In other words, I'm claiming Nabonidus ruled 19 years instead of 17 years. In the palace archives you could have 20,000 "dated" documents from all 19 of those years. But if you decided to reduce the reign of Nabonidus down to two years, all you'd do is get rid of the last two years of cuneiform texts. What you'd have left is still thousands of docmens from year 1 through 17. So the question is, does the ABSENCE of years 18 and 19 prove he didn't rule that many years? No. Just because years 1 through 17 had no need to be destroyed means nothing. Yet, you as have many others, think that the first 17 years of documents, numbering in the thousands prove your point. It does not. If I was saying, hey, Nabonidus only ruled for 2 years...THEN those thousands of documents might hold sway to your argument. But those documents only prove the first 17 years....it's the last 2 years that are in question. Therefore, it's only circumstantially suggesting he only ruled for 17 years.
Your next issue would be whether or not the majority of these documents are palace records or not. If they are, then it would have been an extremely simple matter to simply get rid of the years they were deleting from the Neo-Babylonian period. Thus the surving texts prove nothing beyond the years not revised and could prove, indeed, the documents were destroyed. ADDING to that presumption, of course, are the ASTRONOMICAL TEXTS. Now astronomical texts are different than these merely "dated" records. The astronomical texts are FIXED to a specific date in history whereas simply dated texts are not. Thus if there were thousands of astronomical texts dating this period, that might be an argument. Problem is, we know there were indeed thousands of astronomical texts from this period. So what do they prove? Nothing. Why? Because they are MISSING! All of them! Hmmmmmm....I wonder why?
So in the context of EVERY ASTRONOMICAL TEXT which should have also survived in the "thousands" of documents that you want to support the current chronology completely missing from the scene and mysteriously slow, missing texts from the reduced years is simply a non-issue. Bottom line, if there was no revision issue those astronomical texts should have survived with the other records and this would be a different argument. But they didn't. So you can sympathize with my position. So sorry, my "spun fantasy" is based on hard research.
A consistent chronology must account for all of the pieces of the puzzle, and your chronology completely ignores the day-to-day events recorded in tens of thousands of tablets from cities all over Babylon. It also fails to take into account the independently established chronologies of neighboring nations. Have you ever researched the double-dated Elephantine papyri from the 5th century, for instance?
Sorry, but I've heard that "from all over Babylon" reference, which is what you will need to establish to make this claim and which I will, therefore, ask you for a reference for if I may. You see, as noted above, if these were archived records and palace documents PRIMARILY, then they would have been centrally located and very easy to manipulate in volume. You're suggesting that somehow "thousands" of tablets were found "all over Babylon" and various places amassing a huge library of documents with none of them reflecting the claimed missing years. And, that somehow, the palace record archives only contributed to a small portion of the "thousands" of records recovered. Compared to simply discovering records in various Babylonian archives that easily number into the thousands and consistently reflect the business going on for every year of the kingship. So ante up, please. Can you confirm the majority of these documents were not palace records? Thanks.
Secondly (or maybe firstly), this argument is now PREEMPTED totally by the VAT4956 double-dating issue. In that text, which is an alleged "copy" of known records from 200 years earlier, reflecting astronomical observations we can critically date to 568BCE in a text dated to "year 37" of Nebuchadnezzar, also contain from "errors". At least they were thought to be "errors" since they did not match up to 568BCE. But when the "errors" were compared it was discovered they were from the same lunar cycle and specifically the lunar cycle of 511BCE. So we can't claim these were scribal "errors" or non-intentional references in this complex text. Question is, why would the Persians include double-dating to 511BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in a text with over a 100 references to 568BCE? Well.....if the Persians had revised the chronology and all the astronomical texts were destroyed, someone might have thought it clever to hide some references to the original chronology in a text "diary" such as this! In which case, we'd have to presume that 511BCE must have been the original dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. Now that sort of floats out there casually at this point until we check the Biblical chronology which dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar the very same year! 511BCE (i.e. Cyrus' first year is dated to 455BCE, 483 years from 29CE. Per Josephus (Ant. 11.1.1) 70 years of "servitude" began at the last deportation and ended the first of Cyrus. That dates year 23 to 525BCE, and year 37 to 511BCE). So basically, the VAT4956 not only proves that the 568BCE dating was revised but forces us to redate year 37 to 511BCE whether we like it or not. So if you don't redate at this point, it's just a matter of incompetence and inexperience. It's just that simple now.
Your conspiracy theory will not float. Even if the Bab. Chronicles and the astronomical diaries were altered for some strange reason by the Persians, they absolutely could not and did not alter the tens of thousands of everyday business, legal, and economic tablets from all over Babylon, from private individuals and business houses and the temples. They could not and did not alter the 5th century Aramaic papyri from the colony at Elephantine.
It's not a "theory" any more. The VAT4956 contains 511BCE references dated to year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in the midst of other references to 568BCE. That means 511BCE was the original date of a revised chronology. So it's not a "theory" any more. Note. I don't need the Bible or Josephus to redate year 37 to 511BCE now. I can use the SAME TEXT you use to date to that year, the VAT4956. Only the 511BCE dating preempts the 568BCE dating since it's the hidden date. So it's not a theory. It doesn't need to float anywhere, and 568BCE and the popular chronology is now SUNK, never to return. You must keep up with the UPDATED research.
I know that the presentation I made in the KISS thread was very simplistic. I was focusing on the lengths of reigns of the kings, the relative chronology. In my little story of the class project where the teacher was making a timeline on the back wall, there was one team which was assigned to prepare a strip of paper representing the neo-Babylon empire. It was tacked down on the timeline with the right hand edge at 539, which is the date accepted by all modern scholars (other than a few orthodox rabbis using the Seder Olam) for the fall of Babylon.
The only problem here, is you are simply repeating a REVISED history. The issue is not whether or not ANY timelines have survived from this period, but WHEN were they created and what are the chances they were REVISED? Case in point, Ant. 11.1.1 per Josephus says 70 years of "servitude" began with the last deportating ending the first of Cyrus. What about that timeline interval? It conflicts with the Babylonian records. Are we to just believe the Babylonian records that are mysteriously missing their astronomical texts? I don't think so. Don't believe Josephus either, but it's time to investigate further, right? You're just quoting from the Bayblonian records without questioning them at all. Saying: "Here are some complete records compied from after the fact" is not going to get it. You need more in this case where there are conflicting records.
I simplified by accepting the 539 date, and I know I simplified. In my story, the kids aren't ready to get into all the astronomical data, so the teacher tells them where to attach one end of their strip of paper.
Sorry, but you can't use the Babylonian records to preempt the dating now because of the VAT4956's 511BCE reference to year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. You have to go with that date FIRST, then try to establish 539BCE. The VAT4956 establishes year 37 in 511BCE as the original dating for that year. Hmmmm... I think I mentioned that. Have you ever heard of the "VAT4956"?
But you want to focus exclusively on where to attach the strip of paper, while IGNORING the staggering, immense amount of data which establishes beyond ANY doubt how long the strip of paper should be. It's all well and good to say we need to be sure about where to attach the paper. Without that, you are not going to have a true chronology.
As I told you, you have a wrong perception of the "evidence". If I were claiming Nebuchadnezzar ruled LESS years or Nabonidus ruled LESS years, then yes, thousands of documents from other years would seem to be a challenging theory of revisionism. But if I'm claiming MORE years, then there could be a zillion documents from the years we both agree on that they ruled and it wouldn't matter. It's only "circumstantial" that the documents support the current chronology, therefore, since obviously if there was the revisionism I'm claiming, they would have gotten rid of the extra documents. EASY to do for all documents within the control of the government, particularly stored palace archives. To prove your point, you'd have to prove that the "thousands" of documents that are "staggering" were gotten from all over Babylon, hidden in various places and represent the greater body of all texts ever created for this period and among them have not been found a single document from years 44 and 45 of Nebuchadnezzar or years 17 and 18 of Nabonidus, and, therefore, it is reasonble to conclude that these kings did not rule for these years. OR, in addition, if you had several thousand documents saying "year 43, accession year of Evil-Merodach" or something like that, then there would be an issue. Otherwise, missing palace records for those years would have been quite easy to destroy and thus the fact we don't have them means nothing but that they were destroyed. And that is supported since we know that a STAGGERING AMOUNT of original astronomicalt texts that we know existed during this period have NOT survived? Where are they? They were destroyed, that's where. And WHY? Oh yeah, why?
But you seem to be totally focused on VAT 4956 and nothing else, to the point where you have lost touch with the reality of the primary data, the thousands of cuneiform tablets which speak to the regnal lengths of the kings. You add a year or two whenever you need to stretch things out to make your chronology work.
Sorry, but you must START with this astronomical text because you must start with ASTRONOMICAL TEXTS. The dated documents don't give you dating. ONLY the astronomical texts do. You want to go to level 3 before looking at level 1 evidence. Thus if you think you can dismiss the VAT4956 and sweep it under the carpet and then go on to other less critical references then that explains why you think there was no revisionism.
To which I'd simply then tell you that according to Josephus, there was a 70-year period from the last deportation to the first of Cyrus. He says it. It is no my fantasy that he says it, it is a reference. A reference not addressed by Olof Jonsson or the WTS anybody else I know of in a major written form. So sorry, it's not just ME and the VAT4956. Of note, if you date 70 years PER JOSEPHUS from 455BCE, the 1st of Cyrus, then you get 511BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. Oh I see, yet ANOTHER coincidence that is part of my "fantasy".
Why don't you read over the data that establishes the beginning and end of each king's reign? Then you will see how impossible your theories are.
This information does not "establish" anything but that during the Seleucid Period this was the agreed upon chronology. I could tell you that the VAT4956 "establishes" that year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar fell in 511BCE. Are you buying it? You should because you have no choice. Or I could say per Josephus we must add 70 years between the last deportation and the 1st of Cyrus. Are you buying it? No. So all you're doing is saying "My FAVORITE reference says this..." and it means little because other references say something else. Problem is the astronomical text that contains BOTH dates, preempts your chronology. In other words, if I just came up with a document that said something different than the VAT4956 in a separate text, then we'd be arguing about which document was true or not. It would be a draw. Bu if the SAME text you use for dating your timeline to year 37 to 568BCE is the SAME TEXT that contains double-dating to 511BCE, then it preempts your dating and everything connected to it and "establishes" 511BCE as the correct dating. The ONLY THING that could then preempt that would be the Biblical record. But since the Biblical record AGREES with 511BCE, it's OVER. Anyone still dating year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 568BCE is now simply incompetent. And this argument will work whether told to you or to the British Museum or to Hermann Hunger or to anybody. IT'S A FACT OF LIFE. Deal with the VAT4956. You can't just dismiss it because you have other favorite references you prefer.
I haven't wanted to get into long discussions with you, because I am not sure it would be a kindness when you are so obsessed with this. Couldn't you just give yourself permission to ease up on the eclipse data for awhile?
No, I'm not going to EASE UP on the eclipse data because that is WHERE the focus is supposed to be. That's like saying: "Can you ease up on the eye witnesses and the videotaped evidence you have of the murders for now and lets concentrate on what these other people heard other people telling them what happened?" Sorry, you want to go from direct evidence to "hearsay". You have to deal with the astronomy FIRST, because astronomy gives us the ABSOLUTE DATING. Once we establish some critical ABSOLUTE DATE, then we can deal with the "relative dating". You must get the BASICS out of the way first before you start looking at details. Right?
If you just can't drop the chronology altogether, maybe you could at least put the eclipse data aside for awhile while you do some research on the Elephantine papyri and the cuneiform tablets. Seriously, from things you have said, I practically feel as if I should ask to see a note from your doctor before discussing chronology with you, and I really don't want to do anything that will fuel your obsession.
Forget it. I can see you don't know what you're talking about right now. THE CRUX OF THE DATING is the astronomical texts! Look at Olof Jonsson's book, GT3. He says the VAT4956 is the "most important" of all the texts!!! Look at "The Crimes of Claudius Ptolemy" and find out about dismissint Ptolemy's canon because that is the HARDWARE and foundation beneath your chronology. Without first establishing an "absolute" date, you can't date a single thing by relative dating. Since that dating basically comes from Ptolemy's canon which was dismissed it defaulted to the VAT4956. Up until the double-dating was found, that was the preemptive document for this period. Same with the Assyrian dating, EVERYTHING is dated on the eponym ECLIPSE (sorry...) of 763BCE. So pretending to get around it is not facing reality. NONE of the other data can be dated WITHOUT the astronomical dating, so.... I'm TRYING to get you to focus on the IMPORTANT things and you're trying to ignore them. ???
I wish you well, but I think you need some help, JCanon.
Well, thanks. I acknowledge your sweetness. But don't let my rantings fool you. I'm highly well-researched and aggressive about exposing lies of the academic world who have their own agenda. I sometimes post things for shock value out of boredom. But basically, I don't really HAVE to have an opinion about all this. This chronology is one of several out there, I'm just agreeing with it. So it's not ME. For instance, look up Philip Mauro or Martin Anstey. He long ago surmised that the 1st of Cyrus should be dated around 455BCE. Look up Josephus who tells you 70 years expired between year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar and the 1st of Cyrus. Is that ME? No. Those chronologies date the fall of Jerusalem around 529BCE. That's long before I came along. I'm just agreeing with them and saying this is the Judeo-Biblical timeline for that event. Only now, the VAT4956 proves this timeline SPECIFICALLY. It proves that 511BCE was the original date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, just as the Bible says. So......really. It seems when some people don't find me easy to persuade then suddenly I need medications or something. But it's not that. I just am stubborn and know my stuff.
I answered you this time because I don't want to be rude, but I am worried about you. I don't want to get into long involved discussions about any of this with you, ok? I think you need to check back with your doctor, and if he isn't helping, you ought to ask for another doctor.
With kind thoughts,
Marjorie
Well, again, that's cute and sweet, but what we're looking at is simply that you can't handle the research issues and I'm difficult to persuade, and somehow you think you're being more objective about this than I am. But I've done my research. And as I said, if it makes you feel better, you can argue with Martin Anstey and Philip Mauro who have no problem dating the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE (do you know more than they do?) or you can argue with Jewish Historian Josephus why 70 years didn't occur between year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar and the 1st of Cyrus because you see post-dated Babyonian texts claiming otherwise and you absolutely don't think the Babylonians would stoop to revising their records and should be believed at all costs, regardless of what Jewish tradition or the Bible have to say about it. The 455BCE chronology and extended Neo-Babylonian period were out there before I came along, sorry. I didn't invent them in some "fantasy" which is probably why you think I need medical attention. Fact is, there are more than one conflicting record to deal with, some of which you want to sweep under the rug like the VAT4956. Sorry, but that's not how research works.
Thanks for your comments though. I know you believe in what you believe in and this takes time.
You don't have to comment further if you don't want. I understand.
Have a nice day and thanks, again, for your well-intentioned thoughts!
JCanon
Hey JC
Yet he (Herodotus) claims that Nabonidus was the king of Babylon who mediated the agreement.
This is the direct quote from Herodotus 1.74 "Syennesis of Cilicia, and Labynetus of Babylon, were the persons who mediated between the parties, who hastened the taking of the oaths, and brought about the exchange of espousals."
Where in this passage does Herodotus call Labynetus the King of babylon? He is called King of Babylon later on in the Histories but only after Cyrus has 'captured' Astyages in 550 BCE. When the battle of the eclipse occurred in 585 BCE Nebuchadnezzar was King of Babylon and Nabonidus was one of his generals who was later to succeed to the throne.
You then say:
you have to deal with the possibility of a conspiracy to revise this history and that Herodotus was in on it.
You do but I don't. I'm not going to base anything on possible conspiracies throughout history by every scribe, priest and historian to rewrite history for some unknown purpose.
Hi City Fan....thanks for your comments.
This is the direct quote from Herodotus 1.74 "Syennesis of Cilicia, and Labynetus of Babylon, were the persons who mediated between the parties, who hastened the taking of the oaths, and brought about the exchange of espousals."
Where in this passage does Herodotus call Labynetus the King of babylon? He is called King of Babylon later on in the Histories but only after Cyrus has 'captured' Astyages in 550 BCE. When the battle of the eclipse occurred in 585 BCE Nebuchadnezzar was King of Babylon and Nabonidus was one of his generals who was later to succeed to the throne.
That's cool. You're saying though generally it is implied these were the ruling kings at the time, that is not necessarily so, it could have been key persons in the government instead of the king? That allows for Nebuchadnezzar to be king and a non-party to the mediation. I guess that's fair on the technicality. Your choice. Not mine, though.
You then say:
you have to deal with the possibility of a conspiracy to revise this history and that Herodotus was in on it.
You do but I don't. I'm not going to base anything on possible conspiracies throughout history by every scribe, priest and historian to rewrite history for some unknown purpose.
Well, it's not quite that simple. Today we're used to "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." But when it comes to ancient history and revisionism, it's just the opposite. I'll just have you note this if you may. The reason why is because you can have a couple hundred years of kings and records basically reflecting what happened during their reign. But you get one jealous king or an ambitious court official who wants to expand the reign of his present king or one who wants to abolish the history of a previous king he didn't like and guess what? All he has to do is change the records, destroy monuments whatever. The result is what comes down to us is not a reflection of the 200 years of good, honest recordkeeping of the previous king, but a reflection of whatever the last revisionists decided to leave us. Thus ancient history is first a reflection of the revisionists.
This conundrum of history is articulated for us in the sci-fi movie "1984" where it states, basically: "He who controls of the past controls the present. He who controls the present, controls the future. But he who controls the present, also controls the past!" That's because people in the present can change the records of the past.
So you can feel as comfortable as you can afford to assuming there were no revisions in the ancient chronology, but JUST IN CASE THERE WAS....the history you are seeing is a reflection of EVERY REVISION. That's just the way history was.
Furthermore, you mentioned "for some unknown purpose". Why do you think they would bother to revise records, especially as extensively as this for some "uknown purpose". The RECORD of this particular conspiracy has a purpose. Xerxes changed his name to Artaxerxes locally when his father died, being killed by the Athenians. He then invaded ATHENS SPECIFICALLY for revenge and destroyed all the artwork and great monuments of the Athenians and tried to wipe out the entire population, who knew this was coming and fled to Salamis. But the Athenians won out and after Xerxes fled, they now being a dominant sea power, were going to invade Persia and kill Xerxes. But when Themistocles went to Persia and discovered the king was also going by the name of Artaxerxes, he leaked a propaganda letter into Greece claiming that Xerxes had died and a new king, his son, "Artaxerxes" was now on the throne. Of course, they would wonder why Xerxes' son, Darius, didn't succeed him, right? Plus what relationship was this "Artaxerxes" to Xerxes? So Darius had to be killed historically as well and so the story went, very simply that Darius killed his father Xerxes and Artaxerxes, his brother (and thus legitimate heir to the throne), killed Darius out of revenge and now was on the throne.
This ploy worked! But it wasn't for any glory of the king, but to avoid a war. POLITICAL REASONS. Later on, when they looked back at the numbers and compared notes with the ages of Artaxerxes in relation to his father Darius, they knew they needed to add another generation and so they increased the 6-year rule of Darius (Ezra 6:14,15) by 30 years making it 36 years. And that was beginning of the revsions.
So really, the chronology was a SUPPLEMENTAL circumstance of the original political scheme to claim Xerxes had died to avoid a revenge invasion by the Greeks.
So it's not for "no reason". We know who made the revisions, when and why. Plus, we have the VAT4956 with BOTH DATES for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar which allows us to confidently correct the dating.
Did you note that? BOTH DATES. Year 37 in both 568 and 511BCE. One date is the revised date and the other the original.
So people at this point who need "more evidence" there was a conspiracy might have more to do with their ability to interpret and recognize evidence of revisionism than the lack of those particulars.
But getting away from that. Generally. Don't you think it is rather STRANGE that Josephus claims there is 70 years from the 23rd of Nebuchadnezzar to the 1st of Cyrus as does the Bible and the Babylonian records say something else? Somebody is off? right? Why do we assume first it must be the Bible that is off and the Babylonian records shouldn't be questioned?
Anyway, the VAT4956 PROVES the Persians kept double books and gives us both dates and 511BCE was the original year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar and with that single reference you can reconstruct the entire period.
With reference to the eclipse event we discussed, it JUST SO HAPPENS BY COINCIDENCE when you date the reign of Nabonidus from 480 to 462BCE, that in his second year the only possible predictable ecilpse that could have made Thales famous occurred in his second year, suggesting the mention of "Labytenus" by Herodotus was a cryptic confirmation that the eclipse actually took place during the reign of Nabonidus and not Alyattes and Cyaxares. But.....some of us need things a little less complex in our lives and can't go there. I totally understand.
Thanks, again for the reference. You're certainly entitled to your doubts. Have a nice day.
JC
This is an experiment to see if I can link to an image from Strike9.com
http://www.strike9.com/file.aspx?path=/alleymom/thumbnails/ANE+eclipse+585+BCE.jpg
If it shows up, this is a map of the eclipse of May 28, 585 BCE which was predicted by Thales of Miletus. Note that it is a total eclipse (as indicated by the solid lines).
The next one is the eclipse of 478 BCE which JCanon says was secretly encoded by Herodotus.
http://www.strike9.com/file.aspx?path=/alleymom/thumbnails/ANE+eclipse+478+BCE.jpg
I didn't color this one in, but it is the eclipse numbered 1546880. It cuts diagonally across the top left corner of the map. Note the dotted lines, which indicate that this eclipse was annular, not total.
This is the first time I have scanned and uploaded an image, so I am not sure if it will work.
I will add comments only if the images display properly.
Marjorie
