by scholar 33 Replies latest watchtower bible
The last reference on the last page of the site is:
Green, Alberto R. "The Chronology of the Last Days of Judah: Two Apparent Discrepancies." Journal of Biblical Literature. Vol. 101. (March 1982) 61-62.
THANK-YOU, again! I will check it out and comment back on it!!!
Canon
Would you please identify yourself and state your academic qualifications. I have to agree with AlanF that much of your chronology is simply drivel designed to confuse rather than illuminate. I know that many would say the same for WT chronology even though once they believed it but your theories lie outside any scholarship and is simply empty and vacuous meandering. At least WT chronolgy has a long tradition and is slowly challenging orthodoxy but your stuff is frankly nonsense.
Hi Scholar. I apologize for the impression my rantings give, but my style is not good. I try to put too many details into a simple concept and readers, many of whom think they can skim my posts get lost. But my position on the chronology is not at all unique so it wouldn't qualify as "outside scholarship" as you say. Here's the basics.
BIBLICALLY: Biblically, I side with Martin Anstey and some others (Philip Mauro, a preterist, if you want to do a search) who believe the Bible is correct in dating the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE. Their position challenges the large volume of records that have survived to us with the general presumption that these records have been revised. My research supports that, indeed, the records are either circumstantially inconclusive or revised. For instance, three CRITICAL references which shape this chronology from Babylon, "The Babylonian Chronicles", "The Cyrus Cylinder" and "The Nabonidus Chronicle" are all post-datable and/or known "copies". These documents present some of the only "details" in question, so what can you do?
JOSEPHUS: At any rate, once you believe that Cyrus' 1st year per the Bible falls in 455BCE, then you do have a critical secular reference for dating the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, and that is Josephus. In "Antiquities 11.1.1" he claims that 70 years of "servitude" began that ended in the first of Cyrus with the last deportation in the 23rd of Nebuchadnezzar. So, whether you agree with that source or not, Josephus challenges the current popular notion that less years were involved from the fall of Jerusalem to the 1st of Cyrus. But strictly using his specific reference, the 70 years would begin in 525BCE if you date the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE.
And that's IT!
This is not my chronology.
It's not new.
It's my opinion, sure, but I'm simply agreeing with Martin Anstey and Josephus. I'd hardly call that not being academic.
VAT4956: As far as the VAT4956 is concerned, it is our good friend AlanF who caught the original "Jewish(?)" translators, Abraham Sachs and Hermann Hunger lying/misrepresenting details in the text, specifically Line 18 where they inserted in a blank space that the "moon" was in a certain position arouns Sivan 15 when, in fact, the Moon was far from there, more than 10 days out of Virgo at the time. Alan understood this to be an "error" and corrected it, noting, based upon his own astronomical program, that the reference most likely was "Venus" which, indeed, was in that position at the time. Well, it turns out if Venus WAS the reference, then it changes a few others references in the text around, starting a huge complex controversy. I have my own take on all this and granted some of my views are very speculative, but I still came away with not just a correction of the transliteration in Line 18 but a strong SUSPICION that Lines 3 and 14 had references to another DATE! That is, the specific lunar positions in Line 3 and Line14, which already were known not to match 568BCE (year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar per other references in the text), amazingly match 511BCE. In other words, a reference in Line 3 that says the "moon was 1 cubit in front of the Rear Foot of the Lion" is NOT where it was in 568BCE, but where it was in 511BCE. And in line 14, the same thing, the location of the Moon is where it was in 511BCE. Now YOU CAN CHECK THIS OUT YOURSELF IF YOU WANT WITH AN ASTROPROGRAM. But because there are TWO references that were considered "errors" before that happen to match the SAME DATE, the presumption that these were incidental errors by the scribes is not "academically" responsible. You must presume at least they were inserted on purpose, whether or not they amount to anything. But it just so happens, after we note that the two references belong to 511BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar that that is the precise year that would date year 23 in 525BCE, the date we get from the Bible and Josephus using Martin Anstey's chronology. So the question is: Is the VAT4956 a clever secret reference to a revised chronology, or not?....not thanks to Sachs/Hunger, right? That's where that research supposition is.
BUT....if it turns out to be convincing that, indeed, this is a secret reference to the original chronology then you'll be forced to date year 19 to 529BCE for Nebuchadnezzar as the best reference from secular records we have and as evidence of the conspiracy. In that case, especially since the VAT4956 wasn't created until the Seleucid Period anyway, which makes it very dismissible as a fake/revision anyway, it would be more preemptive than 568BCE of the Bible's chronology. That is the secretive 511BCE dating is a stronger reference then the presumably revised 568BCE dating found all the text in more than 70 other references. But it just so happens it doesn't challenge the Bible at all since it agrees with it.
Anyway, that's about the size of it.
I took this information, by the way to the British Museum who did acknowledge the error by Sachs/Hunger in Line 18 (what else could they do?) but they didn't investigate further, except for mentioning they were requesting Hunger and Stephenson (another well-known ancient astrochronologist) to review the VAT4956 and other astronomical texts, especially since we have the astronomy programs computerized now. That was about 2 years ago.
But the VAT4956 is just icing on the cake. As I noted before, if you simply agree with Martin Anstey and apply Josephus' 70 years, you come up with "my" chronology. It's always been one of the choices out there. I just agree with it.
Canon
P.S. Ask AlanF whether or not Sachs/Hunger made an "error" (lied?) in Line 18 of the text and that he agrees with me that Venus should be there!! And don't let him get off the topic either, he'll try to bring up all kinds of stuff. Just let him rant on about why you shouldn't even be talking with me and then politically say: "Oh, um, by the way...what's this about experts Sachs/Hunger lying about the moon in Line 18 in the VAT4956". Force him to tell you. Otherwise, he'll get you off track. Keep him on the topic. He doesn't want you knowing too much.
Actually, "scholar", JCanon's "chronology" is on a par with Watchtower's.
I'm not sure if Alan means my chronology is no more convincing/credible than that of the WTS, or whether we are in agreement. ???
Considering that some might think my chronology is "on par" with the WTS as far as dating, I'll just clarify the following for the record.
1. The WTS believes that the 70 weeks prophecy was fulfilled by Nehemiah in the 20th of Artaxerxes and thus 455BCE dates the 20th of Artaxerxes. I DO NOT. I believe the prophecy, like Martin Anstey, is fulfilled when the Jews first returned from Babylon in the 1st of Cyrus when the "word went forth to rebuild Jerusalem" and thus I date the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE. That's an 82-year difference. I'm hardly "on par" with the WTS on that one.
2. Even though the WTS believes there was a 70-year period of desolation and they actually quote Josephus to support this, they date the 70 years from the destruction of Jerusalem, which is the basis for their dating the fall of Jerusalem in 607BCE. I DO NOT agree with this. I follow Josephus specifically (Ant. 11.1.1) who dates the 70 years from the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, which is the last deportation. Thus I date the last deportation and the 23rd of Nebuchadnezzar in 525BCE and the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE (19th year). So we are not "on par" there either.
If AlanF thus just meant that we were both wrong per his own opinion and research and thus we are "on par" that way, then perhaps so. But there is very little chronology I have in common with the WTS other than say 455BCE beginning the "70 weeks" and that there was a 70-year period (at least) of desolation of the land to pay back the sabbaths sometime following the destruction of Jerusalem (we're 4 years apart in that regard).
Canon
3) A third suggestion is that the Judah accounted Nebuchadnezzar's kingship one year earlier than his formal accession. This is based upon the fact that Nabopalassar was relatively inactive the last year of his life, leaving Nebuchadnezzar primarily in charge. Nebuchadnezzar's actions as crown-prince were quite comparable to an acting king.{13}A few other proposals have been made. For a more detailed examination of the matter read:
- Green, Alberto R. "The Chronology of the Last Days of Judah: Two Apparent Discrepancies." Journal of Biblical Literature. Vol. 101. (March 1982) 57-73.
Each of these views has difficulties which have led different scholars to different conclusions. Either way, at worst, the chronology of the last kings of Judah has been established to within one year, which is a substantial achievement for ancient historical reconstruction.
The above is all that was said about the "two discrepancies" between the Bible and the chronicles and I believe they are the same two. But basically, I agree with them, that while a specific match isn't there, the discrepancy is just by "one year".
To their credit, though, they at least acknowledge the discrepancy and leave it at that. Unlike JWs who distort the Bible by trying to make a match.
My position, of course, based upon the overall picture is that the reign of Nebuchadnezzar was reduced from 45 years to 43 years and the REVISED documents squeezed into that time most of the events, pertinently squeezing what happened in the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar into his accession year, making all other events precisely a year later. This would help a bit. This discrepancy is the basis for the insistence that Jerusalem fell in 587/586BCE.
Thanks, again....I'll try to specifically look up this reference....
Canon
