Dating Babylon's Fall

Doug Mason

How does the WTS calculate that Babylon fell in 539 BCE?

Doug

See the Watchtower, August 15, 1968 page 490-492 ( available on the WT CD-ROM ) for an in-depth look at 539 BCE as the date of Babylon's fall. Basically, the Watchtower accepts mainstream chronology which also pins Babylon's fall at 539 BCE.Too bad they don't use the same chronological markers to date Jerusalem's fall!

CyrusThePersian

Woodsman

Yes. I second that. It is another example of quoting experts when they agree and criticizing the same expert conclusions where they disagree with your epistemology.

becca1

The accept the same secular evidence that they reject pertaining to the destruction of Jerusalem.

moggy lover

The WTS arrives at the 539 BC date for the fall of Babylon through a curious blend of outright cynical manipulation of the historical data along with a dogmatic assertiveness that appears to overide any reservations that doubters may possess. It is this intellectual dichotomy that makes WTS "reasoning" on this matter so reprehensible.

CtheP mentioned the Aug 15 1968 WT which gives a detailed apologia for the WTS conclusions on this matter, and despite its having been written almost 40 years ago, an entire generation, mind you, it still remains the most definitive account yet published by the WTS.

In case either you, or others don't have access to this issue, we will hightlight at least two points that expose the blatant dishonesty of the WTS

1 On pg 488 of this issue of the Wt, the anonymous writer[s] make the fundamental error of referring to 539 BC for the fall of Babylon as an "Absolute Date". This is simply not correct. 539 BC is not an absolute date, because it is in fact historically calculated from an absolute date: 605 BC the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar. [There are two absolute dates strewn about the Neo-Babylonian era: 605 and 568 BC, the 37th year of King Nebuchadnezzar which is established without any doubt whatsoever by a tablet called VAT 4956]

Since we know from the Nabunaid Chronicle that Babylon fell 66 years after the accession of Nebuchadnezzar, it therefore must mean that Babylon fell in 539 BC. It is simple as that. So you cannot have the date 539 BC without the former year-base on which it rests, 605 BC The utter gall of the WTS is to simply ignore 605 BC and accept 539 BC on its own, as if it somehow magically fell from the sky.

2 That same magazine article lists an impressive array of scholarship to establish 539 For the fall of Babylon Here are the 19 authorities:

a The Nabunaid Chronicle

b ANE Texts Relating to the OT: James Pritchard

c Light from the Ancient Past: Prof Finegan

d Babylonian Chronology: Parker and Dubberstein

e Encyclopedia Britannica

f Encyclopedia Americana

g Nabonidus and Belshazzar: Prof Dougherty

h Ancient History: Hutton Webster

i The Story of Ancient Nations: WL Westermann

j History of the Hebrews: FK Sanders

k The Jews- Their History and Culture: Louis Finkelstein

l Zondervan Bible Dict

m World History at a Glance: Prof Reither

n New Standard Bible Dict

o Darius The Mede: Prof Whitcomb

p Ancient and Medieval Hist:Hayes and Mon

r Funk and Wagnall Ency

s Outline of History: HG Wells

t Bibel Lexikon Herbert Haag [german]

Like an artful conjurer, or even a snake-oil salesman, the WTS emphasizes only that part which they want you to see. This impressive list is empty if you do not also acknowledge that ALL these authoritiesalso endorse 605 BC as the date for Nebuchadnezzar's accession [as opposed to the WTS date of 625 BC] They all accept the fact that it is only from 605 that one can arrive at 539 The imbecility of the WTS is that somehow, they calculate the 539 BC date from an accession year that they do not recognize, without actually realizing that there is simply no way you can arrive at the 539 BC date any other way.

It is only the outright intellectual dishonesty of the WTS which allows them to accept the conclusions of the above authorites, yet deny the process these authorities use to arrive at their conclusions.

The WTS would like 539 to be an independant date, not contigent on any other consideration. This is simply not true. You can only arrive at 539 the way that the 19 authorities above do so, and that is to acknowledge 605 BC as the base date first.

Hope this helps

Cheers

And Moggy says G'day

greendawn

The 1914 date is so crucial to the WTS that they will promptly play foul and carry out a lot of alchemies rather than admit that it is unfounded. Their main marketing point is based on 1914 which stands on their (erroneous) Jerusalem fall date. They can't afford to lose it after having used it for decades to get their followers committed to their cause.