WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2

by AnnOMaly 322 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AnnOMaly

  Thank you, Alleymom, for the additional information! Very helpful.

  I don't think Sack was misrepresented in this instance as the WT's note 9 referencing him is directly in connection to the anomalous dating of BM 75489 which places Neriglissar's reign a fair few months before the end of Amel-Marduk's. BUT the article is clearly muddying the waters. As you pointed out, you can't have it both ways. You can't argue for overlapping reigns in one paragraph, and then in the very next paragraph argue for gaps or discontinuous reigns.

  P. 24 of the article:

  "What do the documents show? There are further discrepancies in the transition of one king to another. For example, the documents show that Nebuchadnezzar II was still ruling in his tenth month - six months after his successor is assumed to have begun reigning. 8 A similar discrepancy exists with the transition between Amel-Marduk and his successor, Neriglissar. 9 [the note re: Sack and BM 75489]

  "Why are these discrepancies significant? As mentioned earlier, gaps in the history documented by the Babylonian chronicles suggest that we may not have a continuous chronological record. 10 [the note re: Dougherty and Belshumishkun]

  Regarding these tablets mentioned in notes 7, 8 and 9:

  BM 80920 - said to be dated to Amel-Marduk's month 4 is incorrect - it's actually dated to month 7;

  BM 58872 - dating to month 5 is correct;

  BM 55806 - said to date to Nebuchadnezzar's year 43, month 10 is incorrect - in fact the year number is partially erased and highly uncertain, and the month number might be 5;

  BM 75106 - said to be Amel-Marduk, month 7 is also wrong - it is actually month 4;

  BM 61325 - month 10 is correct and is anomalous.

  BM 75489 - Neriglissar's accession, month 2 is correct and, as mentioned above, is also anomalous.

  For more details about these corrections, see HERE.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Just to add: What I am particularly interested in is how Sack's comment on p. 23-24 of the article (where new (as of 1972) unpublished BM texts "completely upset" previous conclusions regarding the transition of rule between Neb. and Amel-Marduk) was used.
• 

  simon17

  Rather than there being a GAP between Amel-Marduk and Neriglissar as the Watchtower suggests in footnote 10, the tablet they cite in footnote 9 actually shows a three-month OVERLAP in the documents from the reigns of Amel-Marduk and Neriglissar.

  Just a note on this: I think that is what the WT was trying to say in footnote 9: that like the supposed 6 month potential overlap mentioned in the paragraph, these two kings had a tablet which suggested a potential overlap. I think I'm reading that correct.

  Also wanted to say that simply wonderful work on this, great research and dedication to showing how twisted most of this disucssion has been.
• 

  simon17

  Rather than there being a GAP between Amel-Marduk and Neriglissar as the Watchtower suggests in footnote 10, the tablet they cite in footnote 9 actually shows a three-month OVERLAP in the documents from the reigns of Amel-Marduk and Neriglissar.

  Just a note on this: I think that is what the WT was trying to say in footnote 9: that like the supposed 6 month potential overlap mentioned in the paragraph, these two kings had a tablet which suggested a potential overlap. I think I'm reading that correct.

  Also wanted to say that simply wonderful work on this, great research and dedication to showing how twisted most of this disucssion has been.
• 

  Alleymom

  AnnOMaly, Post 2050: BM 75489 - Neriglissar's accession, month 2 is correct and, as mentioned above, is also anomalous.

  Yes. On the scan of p. 26 of Sack's Neriglissar, posted above, he says:

  First, the overlap of at least three months in the documents datable
  to the reigns of Neriglissar and his predecessor, Amel-Marduk,
  has, to my knowledge, no parallel in the Chaldean period ... [emphasis mine].

  Sack also writes:

  One would be foolhardy, of course, to jump to sweeping conclusions
  based on the contents of only one short text.

  Note also that he says the information in this document is "admittedly, scanty."
• 

  Alleymom

  (Some of the following is taken from a private letter sent to Doug Mason) ...

  I have emphasized before that the BIG LIE in Part One was the assertion (repeated in the summary) that secular scholars mainly base their conclusions on the writings of classical historians and on the canon of Ptolemy. The Society knows this is not so (see my comment #1) and they ADMIT it in Part Two (see my comment #2). Comment #1 -- If you search a WT library CD for Society citations of Raymond Philip Dougherty you will see that they have been quoting from his 1929 book for more than 50 years, most recently in the 11/1/2011 article, so they know full well the importance of the dated cuneiform tablets. As early as 1929 Dougherty could say that the king list based on the cuneiform tablets was the unimpeachable standard for questions of neo-Babylonian chronology. So all the blah blah blah in Part One about mistakes in Josephus and Berossus and the canon of Ptolemy, all of which will make the average reader's eyes glaze over, is irrelevant, pure and simple. Secular scholars place far more weight on the primary sources -- the contemporary cuneiform tablets. Secondary and tertiary sources (Berossus, cited in Josephus) are ... secondary and tertiary. :-)

  Comment #2 -- Has anyone else noticed this? They ADMIT on the first page of Part Two, the second column, that scholars base their calculations on ancient cuneiform documents! Take a look at the graphic in the upper left hand corner of page 22 of Part Two. It's titled "Part One Established the Following Points." The summary repeats in slightly different wording the assertion from Part One about secular historians basing their conclusions on the writings of classical historians and on the canon of Ptolemy. Then take a look ON THE VERY SAME PAGE over in column 2, where they say scholars' calculations are based on cuneiform documents. So which is it? Do secular historians mainly base the date of 587 BCE on the writings of classical historians or on the cuneiform tablets? If it is on the basis of the cuneiform tablets, then why did they waste all that ink in Part One on the supposed errors in Josephus, Berossus, the canon of Ptolemy, etc.? Any errors in the writings of the classical historians are irrelevant if secular scholars actually base 587 BCE on the cuneiform tablets. The anonymous author of the article tries to cover all bases, but you can't have it both ways! [Edited for formatting. Still not satisfactory.]
• 

  AnnOMaly

  The 'scholars base their chronology on Ptolemy' Canon, etc.' assertion was the first thing that made me wince too. It's all the more staggering when, in the first article (p. 30), Christopher Walker's quote about the Canon is (mis)used (see the other thread). If the author of the WT article had read the beginning of Walker's piece - only a page before the quote, which page was also cited in the endnote! - he should have known better than to make that claim.

  "Prior to the discovery and interpretation of the Mesopotamian cuneiform inscriptions the fundamental source for the chronology, both relative and absolute, of the later Babylonian and Achaemenid kings (747-324 BC) was the king-list known as Canon Basileon, compiled by the astronomer Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) of Alexandria (fl. c. AD 130-175) perhaps borrowing from the work of earlier astronomers of Alexandria." - Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period, p. 17 [emphasis added].

  The Mesopotamian cuneiform inscriptions were unearthed from the 19th century onwards, so the Canon hasn't been a fundamental source for chronology for more than 100 years! To claim otherwise is, as Alleymom pointed out, grossly dishonest.

  By the way, Alleymom, would it be possible to see the 1972 Sack "completely upset" quote in context? Do you have that one?
• 

  Mickey mouse

  So, is there any chance that any of these experts will hold the publishers of the Watchtower to account for the misrepresentation of their work, or will the WT get away with it, again?
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  I would just like to say that this is a great thread. Very awesome job contacting all of the scholars! I think this thread should be categorized as one of the "best of" threads.

  @Mickey mouse:

  You wrote:

  So, is there any chance that any of these experts will hold the publishers of the Watchtower to account for the misrepresentation of their work, or will the WT get away with it, again?

  Question: What exactly could the scholars do to the WTB&TS in this case? Could they force a printed retraction?

  Thanks,

  MeanMrMustard
• 

  Witness My Fury

  LOL by printing these articles in the "public edition" of the WT the WTS may have made a serious error. Let's hope so.

  Awesome work all, thanks.