| Gamaliel | Re: WTS Chronology(Oslo Hypothesis) from Vicar;Trinity College Fellow,Cambridge | |
| Post 607 of 774 since 19-Nov-02 |
Hillary, Thanks for the info. Both my copies of GTR have been on continuous loan to others who needed them more than I and, in truth, I have still done little more than skim the book myself. My differences about 1914 were on Scriptural grounds, and it wouldn't have made an iota of difference if, by some coincidence, the JWs had actually used a true chronology to get their dates. Remembering what COJ was able to uncover on other pre-Russell matters, I was pretty sure that sending him this would more likely just be an excuse to speak with him on some specifics questions within Elliott's work. But I won't embarrass myself by sending this info to him. Elliott already had put almost the entire set of evidence (the jubilees, the 7 times, the 6000 years, the parallel dispensations) only slightly adjusted by Barbour and Russell. The only thing Elliott was missing was the Great Pyramid. BTW, do you (or perhaps AlanF) know how to get ahold of the "revived" issues of The Bible Examiner? Evidently COJ wrote for the magazine per a reference in Penton's "Apocalypse Delayed." Gamaliel | |
Elliott as a source for Barbour's time proofs
by stev 3 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
stev
-
stev
This is a minute historical point, and not of interest to many, but is it true that Barbour derived his time proofs from Elliott?
William Miller had many time proofs for 1843/1844, and Barbour might have reapplied some of these. But I don't think Miller used parallel dispensations. Any evidence that Elliott did?
-
stev
Gamaliel WTS Chronology(Oslo Hypothesis) from Vicar;Trinity College Fellow,Cambridge Post 604 of 774
since 19-Nov-02Gamaliel Report, September 2003: The source of the 606 and 607 BCE date for Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem was originally based on misunderstanding Ptolemy and some poor Biblical exegesis. Interestingly, a lot more Jehovah's Witnesses are now aware of Second Adventist origins for C.T.Russell's ideas. When challenged with odd or embarrassing beliefs, some Witnesses are quick to dismiss them with phrases like, "Oh, Russell got that from Barbour [Henry Grew, Henry Dunn, George Storrs, etc.]." But most Witnesses still tend to seem quite proud of the wisdom and discernment Russell displayed in promoting the 1914 date. It's vaguely known that Russell and Barbour joined forces to publish this but very few know that it did not originate even from Barbour, but from the Rev. E. B. Elliot, A.M., Vicar of Tuxford and Fellow of Trinity College at Cambridge. It's found in the 1846 edition (2nd edition) of the book "Horae Apocalypticae." This must have been Nelson Barbour's source.
For background, the "anti-chronology" that the Watchtower Society has been promoting, literally from its inception, includes an historically unsupported date for the destruction of Jerusalem's Temple by Nebuchadnezzar. Accepting the dates 606 BCE (now, 607 BCE) instead of 587 or 586 BCE for that event has bequeathed an embarrassing situation upon Jehovah's Witnesses. They are forced to deny one of the most well-documented of all periods in ancient history: the entire Neo-Babylonian period. The attempt to promote this 20-year difference even creates issues with synchronizing Assyrian and Egyptian historical touchpoints to the Babylonian period. Also, while one could expect Bible believers to latch onto any small glimmer of historical evidence that upholds the Bible, Witnesses have created a situation for themselves in which they are required to deny a wealth of evidence that actually supports the Bible record very well during this period.
Carl Olaf Jonsson, of Sweden, formally questioned this "chronology" nearly a quarter-century ago in his book "The Gentile Times Reconsidered." The Watchtower Society made no serious attempt to answer it. Rolf Furuli, of Norway, has made what he himself evidently sees as a serious attempt to provide that answer. Rolf Furuli calls this "chronology" the "Oslo Chronology." In other circles, it has been called the "Brooklyn Hypothesis," "The Watchtower Hypothesis," etc. I am of the opinion that Furuli, in stirring up these murky waters again, studiously avoids mentioning Jonsson by name, but has seen fit, instead, to toss a little bit of slanderous "mud" toward Jonsson so that any response by Jonsson might be seen as tainted by personality issues. (See: http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furuli.htm )
It's the same ad hominem tactic the Watchtower (and scandalized corporations of all types) have utilized in order to dismiss embarrassing evidence against them without any requirement to discuss the evidence. (The label "apostate," for example, is used the way other corporations might use the phrase "just a disgruntled employee" in lieu of a considered response to facts.)
The real source behind the chronology, however, is neither Pittsburgh, Brooklyn nor Oslo.
The relevant portion of a book entitled Horae Apocalypticae (Commentary on the Apocalypse) by the Rev. E. B. Elliot, A. M (Vicar of Tuxford, and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge) has been posted on a site for the Bible Students who still generally support most of C.T.Russell's teachings. Page 260-1 of the book contains the following quote: "
I must add yet a word besides on two or three other more dubious, yet very interesting and important prophetic periods. And, 1st, on the seven times of Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and state of bestialism: {1} These calculated after the year-day system, on the hypothesis of the Babylonish king's insanity figuring that of the great empires which he then headed, in their state of heathen aberration from God, (an hypothesis on the truth of which I do not myself entertain much doubt,) terminate, -- if dated from the time, B.C. 727, when the Assyrians under Shalmanezer {1} first acted the wild beast's part against Israel,-about the year 1793; that is, at the epoch of the French Revolution, and the coincident going forth of the gospel-message to evangelize the heathen: -- doubtless a very remarkable synchronism: especially considering that the bisecting point of these seven times is then A. D. 533; the very commencing epoch, with Justinian's Decree, of the three and a half times of the Papal Antichrist. Of course if calculated from Nebuchadnezzar's own accession and invasion of Judah, B.C. 606, the end is much later, being A.D. 1914; just one half century, or jubilean period, from our probable date of the opening of the Millennium.
[The opening of the millenium was A.D. 1862, according to Rev. Elliot, from page 260; Russell (via Barbour) used A.D. 1873 (for the end of 6,000 years of man's existence).]
In addition to the above quoted material, I am also copying the title page as shown on the site:( http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/bsl/04%20Horae%20Second%20Edition%20Chronology.htm )
HORAE APOCALYPTICAE,
OR
A COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE,
CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL;
INCLUDING ALSO AN EXAMINATION OF THE CHIEF PROPHECIES OF DANIEL.
ILLUSTRATED BY AN APOCALYPTIC CHART,
AND ENGRAVINGS FROM MEDALS AND OTHER EXTANT MONUMENTS OF ANTIQUITY.
BY THE REV. E. B. ELLIOTT, A. M.
LATE VICAR OF TUXFORD, AND FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
SECOND EDITION,
CAREFULLY REVISED, CORRECTED, AND IMPROVED;
WITH AN APPENDIX,
CONTAINING, BESIDES OTHER MATTER,
A SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF APOCALYPTIC INTERPRETATION, AND INDICES.
VOL. IV.
SEELEY, BURNSIDE, AND SEELEY, FLEET STREET, LONDON.
MDCCCXLVI.
1846
-
stev
AlanF Re: WTS Chronology(Oslo Hypothesis) from Vicar;Trinity College Fellow,Cambridge
Post 2755 of 4499
since 07-Mar-01Hi Gamaliel, : I had noticed the point about 606 meaning Nebuchadnezzar's succession and invasion of Judah. I'm glad you brought it up. This understanding is better suited to the more probable meaning of Jeremiah and Chronicles when the 70 years are identified for Babylon's rise to power affecting all nations around Judea, rather than their specific association for 70 years with Judea herself. Is there more evidence that this is how Elliott saw it
I don't know. I didn't read Elliott's works other than to find out what he had to say about 1914 and his reasoning on related items.
: and that Barbour simply misunderstood, or did Barbour purposely make the change believing that all chronology before 536 BCE was murky (and therefore flexible) as Jerry Leslie (Bible Student) says about Russell?
My impression is that Barbour rejected Elliott's understanding and adopted that of Christopher Bowen. This seems to have occurred sometime between early 1874 and June, 1875, when he published the first of the new Herald of the Morning tracts, since the available material from 1874 and earlier doesn't show anything like what he adopted by 1875 as his view of Babylonian chronology.
: I had mentioned some plans to you for the end of summer. Those plans have changed. I'll write or call you about it on the weekend if you are not terribly busy.
Call any time you like, except that I'm probably going up into Rocky Mountain National Park for the entire day Sunday. Otherwise, most weeknights are fine.
AlanF