Quotes by Thiele concerning Watchtower Chronology

by VM44 71 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  Frankly, I am not interested in the slighest of your adventurous or heroic excursion into the Creation book for that is another debate and I wiil debate that matter at another time.

  All that concerns me is your gross misrepresentation of Thiele's notations in Appendices H. For the benefit of other readers who may may not access to these editions, Why do you not post for all to see these Appenices? I am confident that you will not do this because you know only to well that Thiele made an ass of himself..

  The facts are these:

  1. Theile in his earlier outlined hi methodology and his use of Ptolemy's Canon, He stated that "the canon of Ptolemy may be used as a historical guide with the fullest confidence". MNHK, 1965, 2nd.edn., p.44. Later on in the Appendix H, p.216-7: He made a rather startling and controversial admission. He admits now that "Ptolemy's canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers of Babylon or Persia...but it was a device which made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological of certain astronomical data which were then available".

  Now one needs to reflect at what Thiele is trying to say. He is not alive today so we cannot ask of him his meaning for this statement and why he felt the need to make it.. Thus in his absence, a scholar must interpret his words.I believe that Thiele is ambiguous and honest in this statement and seems to be saying that one needs to be cautious with Ptolemy because it may well be that there is some missing data.

  This comment of Thiele is a isolated statement, it stands alone and for this reason any scholar would be quite justified in using it as it is. There can be no possible misrepresentation but only representation. WT scholars quite correctly used that comment and if Theile late complains then that is his problem. TOO BAD.

  The Society can only be accused of misrepresentation if they used this comment when in fact Thiele in his 3rd edn. published in 1983 made a slight adjustment to that earlier proviso. Then Thiele could quite correctly complain and the Society would have misrepresented Thiele. But the facts are that after 1983 the Society no longer used that original 1951, 1965 and later 1983.statement. Therfore it is easily probed that such a despicable charge of misrepresentation is malicious and says more about thee accusers than the accused.

  But Thiele is either confused or sloppy because not only was he diffident about whether the canon was of historical relevance as he says in his first and second editions but he compounds his error by his adjustnment in his third edn.

  He states on page 228 with the heading NOTE: The canon of Ptolemy is completely reliable. It was prepared primarily for astronomical purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers of Babylon and Persia...but it was a device that made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical data that were then available".

  What then does one make of this slight adjustment no doubt forced on Thiele because other scholars had allegedly either misquoted or misrepresented him. But Thiele is further confused. He dogmatically states that the canon is completely reliable then he dogmatically informs us that it is not reliable because some data may be missing, that this so called list is now incomplete..

  Thiele repeats his faux pas so once again it his problem. Scholars are left with the difficulty of whether to ignore his now thrice repeated notation or use it as they see fit. My view is that Thiele's comments simply confirm what the Aid and Insight books state and that is that accuracy in astronomy does not mean accuracy in history and I velieve that most informed would agree with this modest and cautious observation.

  scholar emeritus

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  AlanF

  Unscholar, I've already refuted all of your lies in this most recent post. You're obviously too stupid to understand what you read. For example, you said of Thiele, that:

  : he dogmatically informs us that it is not reliable because some data may be missing, that this so called list is now incomplete.

  Thiele said no such thing about reliability. You're lying when you apply your own interpretation to his words. And I already explained in detail why this is a lie.

  Once again, how can you claim to be a Christian when you tell such blatant lies?

  AlanF
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  If you are really interested in truth then post both Appendixes H on this board.

  :You said that Theile made no such comment about reliability and missing data well then What does he mean?

  What did Theile mean when he said:"It did no pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers?

  What then did Theile mean when he said:It was prepared not for historical purposes?

  What does Theile mean by a broad by a broad chronological scheme?

  Your definitive answers to these three questioins are now required/

  scholar emeritus

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  AlanF

  Scholar pretendus cum mentula flaccidus said:

  : If you are really interested in truth then post both Appendixes H on this board.

  I will do that later today, merely to prove to readers who already don't know it's irrelevant, that it's irrelevant.

  Of course, once I do that, you'll ignore the fact that you've again been proved a liar.

  :You said that Theile made no such comment about reliability and missing data well then What does he mean?

  I already told you: Thiele said that the Canon was prepared primarily for astronomical purposes, and that as regards historical information, it was incomplete. That in no way precludes using the Canon for historical purposes. It merely means that some historical information is missing. Duh.

  Your argument is like saying that because the University of Chicago's Astronomical Journal uses the Gregorian calendar to date astronomical phenomena and sometimes refers to current events by date, neither the Journal nor the Gregorian calendar could be reliably used by future historians to date the historical events it mentioned. How stupid!

  : What did Theile mean when he said:"It did no pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers?

  You have problems reading simple English, obviously. He meant that the Canon did not list every ruler that ever ruled Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and so forth. He listed only the rulers that were necessary to establish a year-by-year chronology, because listing more than that would be redundant for astronomical purposes.

  For example, Labashi-Marduk only ruled for 2-3 months, and so the year in which he ruled was covered by the last year of Neriglissar and the accession year of Nabonidus. This was sufficient information for the astronomical calculations performed by Ptolemy's predecessors who compiled most of the list of kings now known as Ptolemy's Canon, and put into modern form by Ptolemy.

  : What then did Theile mean when he said:It was prepared not for historical purposes?

  See above.

  : What does Theile mean by a broad by a broad chronological scheme?

  See above.

  : Your definitive answers to these three questioins are now required

  Now you have them, except for the irrelevant scans of a couple of pages from Thiele's book.

  Now we will watch as you perform your usual dance known as the JW sidestep.

  AlanF
• 

  doogie

  what happened to "Venerable Scholar, BA MA etc..."?

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/86139/1424612/post.ashx#1424612

  the magnificent doogie

  GED General Studies
• 

  AlanF

  Scholar pretendus cum mentula flaccidus said:

  : If you are really interested in truth then post both Appendixes H on this board.

  Actually, you meant "the two pages from Appendix G", since the one-page Appendix H is just a short list of eclipses, and we've only discussed Appendix G up to this point. More shitty scholarship from that most eminent scholar pretendus cum mentula flaccidus.

  I'm also going to post the pages in which Thiele stated clearly, establishing a context for his entire book's view of Ptolemy's Canon, that the Canon is absolutely reliable for historical dating purposes. To recap on this, in my posted dated 06-Mar-05 10:53, I said:

  Here is what Thiele stated, on pages 43-46 of the revised (1965) edition of his book:
  In addition to these important documents which provide a check on the accuracy of the [Assyrian] eponym canon prior to the middle of the eighth century B.C., there is another document which provides a check on its accuracy for the period following the middle of the eighth century B.C., namely, the canon of Ptolemy. . . What makes the canon of such great importance to modern historians is the large amount of astronomical material recorded by Ptolemy in his Almagest, making possible checks as to its accuracy at almost every step from beginning to end. . . The dates of the Nabonassar era have thus been fully established, and once the method of procedure involved in the reckoning of the years of the kings is understood, the canon of Ptolemy may be used as a historical guide with the fullest confidence. Since Ptolemy's canon gives precise and absolutely dependable data concerning the chronology of a period beginning with 747 B.C., and since the Assyrian eponym canon carries us down to 648 B.C., it will be seen that there is a century where these two important chronological guides overlap and where they may be used as a check upon each other. . . When the student has at his disposal chronological materials so dependable as the Assyrian eponym list and the Ptolemaic canon, he may have complete assurance that he has a solid foundation upon which to build.

  So first, here are the pages from which I took the above quotations:

  http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/mysterious_p43_web.jpg

  http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/mysterious_p44_web.jpg

  http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/mysterious_p45_web.jpg

  http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/mysterious_p46_web.jpg

  And here are the pages from Thiele's Appendix G:

  http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/mysterious_p216_web.jpg

  http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/mysterious_p217_web.jpg

  Ok, now, scholar pretendus cum mentula flaccidus, let's see some substantive responses! We know you can't do it! Go, go, go!

  AlanF
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  S writes:

  ?The facts are these:

  ?1. Theile in his earlier outlined hi methodology and his use of Ptolemy's Canon, He stated that "the canon of Ptolemy may be used as a historical guide with the fullest confidence". MNHK, 1965, 2nd.edn., p.44. Later on in the Appendix H, p.216-7: He made a rather startling and controversial admission. He admits now that "Ptolemy's canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers of Babylon or Persia...but it was a device which made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological of certain astronomical data which were then available".?

  So far so good.

  S writes:

  ?Now one needs to reflect at what Thiele is trying to say. He is not alive today so we cannot ask of him his meaning for this statement and why he felt the need to make it.. Thus in his absence, a scholar must interpret his words.I believe that Thiele is ambiguous and honest in this statement and seems to be saying that one needs to be cautious with Ptolemy because it may well be that there is some missing data.?

  You are write that no one needs to reflect on what Thiele is trying to say, because he said what he was trying to say. Given his demise, it is a good thing he wrote what he intended to say so that unethical wannabe scholars can?t lie today about what he was trying to say, least not lie and get away with it!

  In Thiele?s absence a scholar must not write Thiele in his own image. Rather, in his absence, a scholar will take great care to present what Thiele said for himself.

  What did Thiele say with his words that S cited? Simply that though Ptolemy?s cannon was not composed for historical purposes is can be used confidently as a historical guide. He also stated that the primary purpose was for astronomical purposes. This is probably very much like S? daily diary. It is not written primarily to record an insider?s look at a work in progress, but it can be used as such a guide with the fullest of confidence!

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  It took a while but you finally posted the relevant pages from Appendix G and so the readers can judge for themselves along with the other material as to whether the Society misrepresented Thiele's notaion. I thank you for your answers to my three questions.

  Thus far we can agree on the following;

  1. Thiele admits that the historical information in the Canon is incomplete.

  2. That Ptolemy only inserted those rulers in his list that were suitablle for astronomical purposes.

  3. That Ptolemy's Canon is only suitable for astronomical purposes

  4. That Ptolemy's canon is merely a broad chronological scheme.

  These facts are from Thiele's Note which was clearly his conviction as confirmed in all three revisions of his major work on chronology. In view of these facts and the fact that the Society has not used Thiele's original quote post 1983 completely clears the Society of any accusation of misrepresentation. All that the Society did was to simply draw attention to Thiele's summation of the canon and that such canon has inherent limitations.

  scholar emeritus

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  ozziepost
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  S writes:

  "That Ptolemy's Canon is only suitable for astronomical purposes"

  Dude you would have to be as deaf, dumb and blind to think this is what Thiele said, and intellectually dishonest too. The fact that Thiele said, "the canon of Ptolemy may be used as a historical guide" directly disputes your claim. And his later statement that the canon was not prepared primarily for historical purposes is in no way contradictory because it says no more than it was not PRIMARILY for historical purposes. It does not say that the canon was unsuitable for historical purposes.

  The fraudulence of your presentation on this whole subject is only exceeded by its transparency.

  Marvin Shilmer