How 539 BCE is calculated

by Doug Mason 10 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Doug Mason

The WTS accepts the date 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon. But they do not accept the Absolute Date that is used to calculate the date of the Fall.
Here is a picture that illustrates the WTS’s problem.
http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/Why_historians_know_Babylon_fell_in_539_BCE.pdf
If you have difficulties with the colours I use in my drawings and my colour combinations, I apologise. I have a red-green colour vision deficiency and I am hopeless at knowing what all the fuss is about colours that "go" and those that "don't".
Doug
Lady Liberty

Dear Doug,
WOW!! You went to alot of work to help make this a real simple explanation! Thank you! I will keep this in my file. You never know when you are going to need something like this.
Sincerely,
Lady Liberty
dannywarm

Dear Doug:
It is the most simple way that anyone can understand that...but why did you write "Here is a picture that illustrates the WTS’s problem" in a forum?. I think you should have written "Historians´s problem", should not you?
Best Regards
Danny
Doug Mason

Danny,
I had hoped the picture would show that the 539 BCE date for the Fall of Babylon is derived from the Absolute Date of 568 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, followed by the lengths of the reigns of the Kings down to the end of Nabonidus' reign.
The WTS does not accept the Absolute Date but it does accept the list of kings and the conclusion (539 BCE).
This is a big big problem for the WTS, not for the historians, and the WTS relies on them.
Maybe you can describe in detail what you meant. Have I misunderstood you?
Doug
Doug Mason
Danny,
As the creator of that picture, I know what it shows:
- The date 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon is accepted by the WTS from historians.
- The list of Babylonian kings and the lengths of their reigns is accepted by the WTS from historians.
- The Absolute Date that provides the other dates, including 539 BCE, is not accepted by the WTS.
Hence the picture shows a critical problem for the WTS. They accept the end-date and the lengths of the reigns, but not the start-date. Bizarre.
Since I am the creator of that picture, I wondered how anyone could think it depicts historians’ errors. If the historians are wrong, then the WTS has no right to accept 539 BCE from them. If the Absolute Date is wrong, then so are the other dates, including 539 BCE.
These historical sources include:
- tens of thousands of dated Babylonian clay tablets, including comprehensive tablets from the House of Egibi
- contemporary chronology of the mother of Nabonidus
- astronomical tablets
- Josephus
- Claudius Ptolemy
On my picture I provide two examples where the WTS AGREES with the accepted Babylonian chronology.
---------------------
If the WTS says the historians’ information is wrong, then the WTS has no right to accept the information that the historians provide. But the WTS does accept the historians’ information on the list of Babylonian kings, the lengths of their reigns, and the date 539 BCE. But they do not accept the vital Absolute Date.
The historians include (at least): Neugebauer and Weidner, Parker & Dubberstein (cited so often by the WTS), Thiele (I can provide personal correspondence from him), R R Newton (I can provide personal correspondence from him also), Gadd, Oates, Pritchard, Finegan, etc., etc.
My picture is about the WTS’s gross error. But there is more to the story, for the WTS is also deliberately deceptive. Let me give you two examples.
-----------------------------
First example:
In “Insight on the Scriptures”, Vol 1, page 456, “Chronology”, the WTS writes (as it did in previous publications): “Professor O. Neugebauer states that Ptolemy complained about ‘the lack of reliable planetary observations [from ancient Babylon]’.” – The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, 1957, page 98.”
The WTS repeatedly trots out this statement from Otto Neugebauer to try and show that Ptolemy said the readings at were not reliable. But the WTS only quotes the second half of Neugebauer’s sentence. He actually wrote: “Ptolemy states that practically complete lists of eclipses are available since the reign of Nabonassar (747 BC) while he complains about the lack of reliable planetary observations.”
So Neugebauer is saying that Ptolemy contrasted the eclipse records (which were “practically complete” since 747 BCE) but complained about observations of the planets. I wonder why the WTS only quoted half of the sentence?
--------------------------------
Second example:
In its book “Aid to Bible Understanding” and in The Watchtower, February 1 1969, page 89, the WTS writes:
“What is thought to be a memorial tablet written either for the mother or the grandmother of Nabonidus, gives some chronological data for this period, but many portions of the text have been damaged.” Describing it as a damaged and hence a very incomplete inscription, the WTS says its reference is “Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pages 311, 312.”
Notice that the articles in the Aid book and in The Watchtower are from the late 1960s.
Pritchard’s book also includes the translation from an identical tablet, but this one is not damaged. This undamaged tablet confirms the accepted Babylonian chronology. This tablet was discovered in 1956 and had been widely available to the WTS long before it provided its (mis)information.
The WTS failed to tell its followers that there was an undamaged tablet, and that it is in the same book as the damaged tablet.
-------------------------
These are two examples of the way that the WTS operates, in order to keep its followers unaware of the truth.
If the WTS behaves like this with facts that are easily verified, how does it behave when it interprets Scripture?
------------------------
Doug
dannywarm

Dear Doug: You have invested a lot of time in order to explain me your argument. I appreciate that... But with a lot of respect I think you get to a point where you can't see the wood for the trees. I mean you are loosing the big true for little details. So, from your point of view if the WTS does not have the True where is that?? Sincerly Danny
scholar

Doug Mason
Post 215
Your chart distorts the use of 539 BCE as a pivotal date used by 'celebrated WT scholars as presented in WT publications. For starters, they do not use the Babylonian list of reigns to compute 539 BCE as traditionally used. Rather, the year is calculated from data establishing the seventh year of the reign of Cambyses II. The reigns of the Babylonian kings as you present in your diagram are not uniformly agreed upon as some ancient historians present different figure for this period./
The WTS does accept the fact of the list as currently understood for general historical purposes but it is unreliable for establishing a accurate biblical chronology because it cannot accommodate the biblical 'seventy years'. This means that the so-called Absolute Date of 568 BCE for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzer is useless for the above reason so it is far wiser to use a date such as 539 BCE as it it marks an event well established biblically.
This hre is no dilemna for the WTS because they have selectively chosen a date that fits all of the facts and is the onlt pivotal date for dating events in the OT.
scholar JW
Doug Mason

Danny,
You ask me: “if the WTS does not have the True where is that?”
The answer is so simple – “Jesus”. Who else can we go to, for he has the words of eternal life? It is he who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. When we see him, we see God.
Salvation is an absolutely free gift, yours for the asking. You cannot work for it, or earn it. Simply ask and it shall be given to you, to whoever believes. When it is yours, you are at peace with God’s requirements.
There is no test of doctrinal purity, eschatological correctness, or organizational membership.
I have to first attack the WTS so that those who have been blinded by it can remove the mental stranglehold. Then that person can better accept the news of the Gospel, which is a truth that is simply wonderful and wonderfully simple.
That’s where Truth is. With God. Make it personal, not euphoric, but deeply meaningful and satisfying. Trust him.
Doug
Doug Mason

Scholar,
If you look at my chart again, you will see that I was not showing how the WTS arrives at 539. I was showing that these WTS writers accept the date from secular sources and also that they replicate the accepted list of Babylonian kings, yet they do not accept the date at the start of this list. They have the agreed end date and the agreed length of the Babylonian chronology yet they don’t want to accept the start date – that takes some mental gymnastics.
This what the wise WTS writers state authoritatively regarding the Babylonian chronology:
“Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 BCE.” (The Watchtower, January 1 1965, page 29 “The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived”)
We agree that Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years and Nabonidus reigned for 17 years. We know that Evil-Merodach succeeded Nebuchadnezzar. And we know that this information is fully supported by sources such as the Egibi family’s business records. So where is the 20-year gap that the WTS needs?
--------------------------
I am glad we agree that the year 539 BCE is a calculated date – well done, Scholar! So it is not Absolute, but derived.
The WTS says it is derived from Cambyses’ 7th year. How do they get from that year to 539 BCE? By using the very sources they denounce. I call that hypocricy.
To get from Cambyses’ 7th year to 539 BCE, the highly acclaimed WTS writers accept an astronomical tablet, lunar eclipses, business documents, and Ptolemy’s Canon – the very same type of evidences that these gifted WTS writers denounce when the outcome does not fit their prejudice of the “70 years”. The WTS cites Parker and Dubberstein for support but they do not accept that authority whenever they feel like it. That’s not scholarship.
These outstanding WTS writers accept this astronomical tablet yet do not accept the similar tablet for Nebuchadnezzar. They accept the lunar eclipse for Cambyses but not the eclipse for Nabopolassar. They accept the business tablets to get them to 539 BCE yet they denounce business tablets when the outcome condemns them. They denounce the Babylonian king list yet accept the Persian king list, yet both come from the same sources.
This is all explained when you wrote the following sentence, when you touched on the KEY ISSUE: “The [Babylonian king] list as currently understood for general historical purposes … is unreliable for establishing an accurate biblical chronology because IT CANNOT ACCOMMODATE THE BIBLICAL 'SEVENTY YEARS'. (“Biblical” here means “the WTS’s 70 years”.)
The WTS is transfixed by its understanding of and the significance it gives to the “70 Years”. When their prejudice cannot be accommodated, they denounce the evidence, ignore the facts, and close their eyes to truth. But when the very same type of evidence fits their predetermined conclusion, the biased WTS writers accept the facts.
When things cannot be made to force fit into a preconception about the ‘70 years’, rather than determine if their eisegesis is correct, these superb WTS writers just get rid of the facts.
Scholar, a date is considered “Absolute” whether the year or the event is recorded in Scripture or not. There is no mention in Scripture of Cambyses’ 7th year, yet it is treated by the WTS as Absolute.
Scholar! Scholar! Show me their scholarship!
Doug
scholar

Doug Mason
Post 221
I disagree with your comment about the use of the Babylonian rulers and their reigns as these are featured in WT publications. We have always viewed this period with caution as authorities differ as to the specific reigns of these kings and the traditionall list is by no means complete. That is why that Absolute Date for the Fall of Babylon is not derived from Neo- Babylonian chronology. At times the traditional chronology is quoted in our publications but is not used for any purposes for chronology but for historical reasons only following the precedent set forth by Edwin Thiele.
A Absolute Date by definition can only be a derived or calcuable date and it is preferable that such a date should relate to a specific Bible event. There are many so called Absolute Dates that are based on eclipses but have not connection with an historical event thus are unsuitable for purposes of a Bible chronology.
The use of the secular data for the reign of Cambyses is not hypocrisy as you allege but simply boils down to methodology and this is consistent with honest and best practice of scholarship. You may not like that methodology but that is our business and it is simply too bad for you.
It is not some superstitious fear of the seventy years but a matter of intellectual honesty and not succumbing to the special pleadings of the 'higher critic'. The seventy years is a fixed historical period which is ignored by scholars resulting in confused and conflicting chronologies.
We disagree as to the definition of an Absolute Date but the celebrated WT scholars in their wisdom have abandoned that term preferring the more precise Pivotal Date which narrows our methodology somewhat avoiding debate over which so-called absolute Dates should be used.
scholar JW

How 539 BCE is calculated

Share this