Re: Newton's 1977 book on Ptolemy

Doug Mason

Ric,

I scanned the few pages I have from Newton's 1977 book, "Crime of Claudius Ptolemey", as well as a few explanatory pages.

It's available at:

http://www.jwstudies.com/Newton_Crime_Ptolemy.pdf

Doug

Leolaia

Thanks. So is it true that Newton had a JW acquaintance acknowledged by the author as a source of information on chronology? How is that established that this person was a JW?

AnnOMaly

You mean Philip Couture? Couture is a JW. Jonsson attests to that in GTR and I happen to know independently.

Oh and thanks, Doug, for the link.

It must be of much chagrin to WT critics and apostates that Dr Robert Newton in researching for his The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy sought the valuable assistance of a JW, chronologist Philip G. Couture. Do you not think that such a 'celebrated' scholar would be included in that august body of 'celebrated WT scholars?

scholar JW

Leolaia

And would you please inform me what academic qualifications this "celebrated scholar" possesses and where his work has been subject to peer review in the literature?

Just curious.

thetrueone

I find it amusing to hear the Watchtower Society's scholars as being celebrated.

How about that clothing store owner turned evangelist C T Russell .....nope , he borrowed

most of his religious ideologies from other people and really was a religious charlatan of his time.

How about that professional lawyer that took over the publishing business

you remember that guy who insisted everyone call him a Judge when he wasn't one J. Rutherford....nope

How about the many presidents or men that made to the GB were there any studied theological scholars with

certified degrees under their belt, cant think of any.

In any case any constructed scholarship on ancient biblical times has to moved to side a bit to

make away for the new archaeological findings which are bringing dates of particualr events a bit more into focus .

The Celebrated Trueone

AnnOMaly

Doug,

I must say thanks again for this valuable resource. Reading the extract from Newton's book ... wow, faulty assumptions, heavy on speculation to support those faulty assumptions, conclusion-jumping, making false and unfounded accusations, admissions of inadequate background knowledge (which would have prevented the faulty assumptions, speculation and conclusion-jumping), creating problems where none really existed. Uncannily 'Furulian.' And I'm particularly pleased to have the Neuffer article debunking Newton's claims.

These two points stand out from the link:

- Despite the problems with his ideas about Ptolemy, Newton does uphold the established dating and lengths of reign for Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 BCE) and his father, Nabopolassar (625-605 BCE).

- Chronologists don't need Ptolemy. Ptolemy's chronology has been superfluous for the past century or so due to the wealth of Babylonian records unearthed in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

scholar

Leolaia

Post 13924

I have no information as to Couture's qualifications etc but the very fact that Newton acknowledged Couture's contribution is a significant proof of Couture's scholarship.

scholar JW

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1214

I think you are rather foolish in working up a lather over the information that Doug Mason has presented on Newton's book and the various reviews. The fact is that Newton's views on Ptolemy regarding the nature of his observations have found some support but whether Ptolemy was a fraud is a debate that remains unsettled.

Newton does certainly uphold aspects of Neo-Babylonian chronology regarding the reigns of particular kings but how these relate to a chronology is a matter of interpretation for accurate data does not necessarily mean an accurate chronology as Furuli and other scholars have commented. The simple fact is that Newton believed that Ptolemy could not be trusted and that his Canon had to be independently verified.

Chronologists most certainly need Ptolemy as his Canon remains even to this day the 'backbone of Neo-Babylonian chronology. Jonsson would have us believe otherwise expressing the tendency to abandon Ptolemy or at least put him outside. Perhaps, Jonsson like others iare somewhat embarasssed because of Newton's most strident criticism of Ptolemy. Yes there is much material that has been unearthed but much of this needs to be transalated so modesty would caution us to be a little circumspect in this regard.

scholar JW

AnnOMaly

The simple fact is that Newton believed that Ptolemy could not be trusted and that his Canon had to be independently verified.

That was what Newton believed, yes. And the simple fact is that Newton seemed to be unaware that 'his' Canon had already been independently verified.

Chronologists most certainly need Ptolemy as his Canon remains even to this day the 'backbone of Neo-Babylonian chronology. Jonsson would have us believe otherwise expressing the tendency to abandon Ptolemy or at least put him outside.

Bull. As was correctly brought out by Neuffer, 'Ptolemy's' Canon is superfluous because we have first-hand Babylonian information.

Perhaps, Jonsson like others iare somewhat embarasssed because of Newton's most strident criticism of Ptolemy.

More likely cringing with embarrassment at Newton's deeply flawed scholarship when criticizing Ptolemy.

A review titled 'Judgment on Ptolemy' from the Journal for the History of Astronomy on another of Newton's books can be found HERE.

Re: Newton's 1977 book on Ptolemy

Share this