Quotes by Thiele concerning Watchtower Chronology

by VM44 71 Replies latest watchtower bible

scholar

Alan F
It was impossible for the Society to misrepresent Thiele because all that they did was simply to quote exacly Thiele's isolated Note in Appendix G. There was no immediate context for Thiele/s Note. Your claim of misrepresentation might be valid if in fact the Society had used that original Note after a revised Note had appeared. The Society has not used that reference after 1983 when Thiele's final revision was punlished.
I am well aware of criticism of Rogert Newton's hypothesis, in my view one of many points of connection between Thiele and Newton is that both made ambiguous admissions concerning Ptolemy's Canon.
scholar
AlanF

Scholar pretendus cum mentula flaccidus said:
: It was impossible for the Society to misrepresent Thiele because all that they did was simply to quote exacly Thiele's isolated Note in Appendix G.
Nonsense. By plopping Thiele's words into the middle of an argument that Ptolemy's Canon is unreliable, in order to support that false claim, the Society's writer was implicitly claiming that Thiele supported their claim. Why else would he have quoted Thiele? To denigrate his own argument? Since Thiele didn't support that claim, as proved by his words earlier in his book -- and which the writer was well aware of -- the writer knowingly misrepresented Thiele. Why? Because a reader who knew nothing of Thiele besides what the Society quoted would get the impression that Thiele thought that the Canon was unreliable.
This is elementary. If I quote any of your words on this thread to support a claim that Watchtower leaders are a lying bunch of hyenas, it would be a misrepresentation of your position -- because it does not accurately reflect your position. Same thing with what the Society did with Thiele's words.
: There was no immediate context for Thiele/s Note.
There didn't need to be. As I have repeatedly proved, Thiele provided sufficient context with his statements on pages 43-46 that the Canon is completely reliable. His note was fully consistent with these earlier statements.
You constantly prove yourself beyond stupid, Neil. Where is your sense of shame?
AlanF
scholar

Alan F
Well then you explain Thiele's Note. Why did he say what he did? His comment surely would indicate that Ptolemy's Canon has limits or is qualified in some way. Perhaps to imform the reader not to think that the canon is infallible or something like that.
I disagree with you that it is in context. It appears as a note to the above list as an appendix and is thus widely separated from the rest of Thiele's comments on Ptolemy. In other words it is right after the end of his book so a reader could simply read the book and miss the note altogether.
scholar
AlanF

Scholar pretendus cum mentula flaccidus said:
: Well then you explain Thiele's Note. Why did he say what he did?
I already did, you moron. Several times. Go back and read the posts again.
: His comment surely would indicate that Ptolemy's Canon has limits or is qualified in some way.
Duh. We've been over this before, too. He said that it wasn't meant to be a comprehensive history. It was meant to be a list of kings to date astronomical events. That doesn't indicate that such a limitation means it can't be used with full confidence with respect to the events it talks about. It simply means that it doesn't talk about all events. Quite being so deliberately stupid!
: Perhaps to imform the reader not to think that the canon is infallible or something like that.
No one with more than half a brain thinks any historical documents are infallible. Thiele said that the Canon is reliable and could be used with full confidence. Do you know the difference between reliable and infallible? Of course you do. Your statement is completely disingenuous.
: I disagree with you that it is in context.
Disagree all you want. You're still wrong, and you know it, and that makes you a deliberate liar.
: It appears as a note to the above list as an appendix and is thus widely separated from the rest of Thiele's comments on Ptolemy. In other words it is right after the end of his book so a reader could simply read the book and miss the note altogether.
As I've repeatedly said, any scholar worth his salt will take pains to ensure that he understands the full views of an author, especially by reading an entire book before he quotes said author. That's because intelligent people know that appendices to books are not intended to reflect the full views of an author, but to provide clarifications and expansions on topics covered only partially in the main text. Thus, appendices must be understood and viewed in light of the main text. The fact that you refuse to understand this simple point is proof that you truly are a scholar pretendus cum mentula flaccidus.
Furthermore, your statement is irrelevant to our point of debate, because the Watchotwer author demonstrably was familiar with the full contents of Thiele's book, having quoted Thiele from page 53, and Thiele's statements that Ptolemy's Canon is reliable are found on pages 43-46. But you again know that your statement is nothing but a red herring, again proving that you're a liar.
AlanF
Marvin Shilmer

S Writes:
"{Thiels's} comment surely would indicate that Ptolemy's Canon has limits or is qualified in some way. Perhaps to imform the reader not to think that the canon is infallible or something like that."
Yes. Thiele's statement was a qualification. It qualified that Ptolemy's Canon was not composed primarily for historical purposes but nevertheless can be used with the fullest of confidence as a historical guide so far as its information goes. He also stated that the primary purpose of the Canon was for astronomical purposes. To know this all you have to do is read what he actually wrote. You know, what he actually said versus what anyone else wanted him to mean.
Marvin Shilmer, who believes S has no shame
Marvin Shilmer

S writes:
"Why did {Thiele} say what he did?"
Because as an honest and reputable scholar he wanted to provide as accurate a depiction as he could. This is why reputable scholars write what they write.
Marvin Shilmer
scholar

Alan F
On the basis that the Society maded a direct quote and referenced it then it is impossible to argue that the Society is guilty of misrepresentation. The Aid book on page 327 under the herading Ptolem's canon has one paragragh which factually presents the situation then the next paragraph simply states that Ptolemy was not and historian but is known primarily as an astronomer and geographer.
Then to prove this point the Aid writer simply quotes Thiele in support of the fact that Ptolemy's canon was prepared primarily for historical porposes. So this can hardly be misrepresentation. The Aid book simply addresses the fact that Ptolemy was not a historian and thus his canon was not prepared for historical purposes.
scholar
AlanF

Scholar pretendus cum mentula flaccidus said:
: On the basis that the Society maded a direct quote and referenced it then it is impossible to argue that the Society is guilty of misrepresentation.
How many times does this have to be explained, you idiot? Accuracy in reproducing an author's words does not imply accuracy in representing an author's views. If someone reproduces an author's words in order to support a view diametrically opposed to the author's, then misrepresentation has occurred. Period. Go ask one of your former college professors -- assuming you actually went, which I seriously doubt.
: The Aid book on page 327 under the herading Ptolem's canon has one paragragh which factually presents the situation
You're slanting what the paragraph actually says. The paragraph begins with a demonstrably false statement:
Due to the lack of information from Babylonian sources, modern historians base their chronology for the Neo-Babylonian Empire largely upon what is known as the canon of Ptolemy.
This was true until the late 19th century, but because of the huge number of cuneiform tablets recovered from the Middle East, so much information was found and published not later than the 1940s, that the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology was able to be established completely independently of the Canon. Today, the Canon is just another part of a cohesive and large body of evidence establishing the chronology of hundreds of years of Middle Eastern history.
The second sentence in the paragraph then misleads the reader with a lie by omission:
Claudius Ptolemy lived in Egypt during the second century C.E., or over 600 years after the close of the Neo-Babylonian period.
The point of this statement is not simply to inform the reader of when Ptolemy lived, but to bias the reader into thinking that, because Ptolemy was so far removed from the lives of some of the kings that his kinglist mentions, likely that kinglist is unreliable.
The lie by omission is in failing to inform the reader that Ptolemy did not himself compile most of the kinglist that he published. Rather, it was a longstanding compilation that was part of the standard sources used by all astronomers and astrologers of his day to date astronomical events. Thus, the kinglist actually goes far back into antiquity -- much farther back than Ptolemy, and therefore much closer to the original sources. Ptolemy merely seems to have added some information to the existing list to bring it up to date.
Obviously, since the first two sentences of the opening paragraph in the subheading are meant to cause the reader to think that Ptolemy's Canon is unreliable, this is the slant of the entire subheading, and everything that follows must be understood in that light.
The next sentence states what lengths the Canon assigns to the reigns of Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach, Neriglissar, and Nabonidus. No problem here.
The next sentence starts off ok:
Counting back from Nisan of 538 B.C.E., historians therefore date Nabopolassar's first year as beginning in 625 B.C.E., Nebuchadnezzar's first year in 604,
But it ends with a complete misrepresentation:
and the destruction of Jerusalem is placed by some in 586, by others in 587.
The fact is that the date of Jerusalem's destruction is assigned to 586 or 587 by historians because, and only because, the Bible itself gives ambiguous evidence that the destruction occurred in either Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. Thus, just as you dishonestly continue to do, the Society here slyly attempts to bias the reader against Ptolemy's Canon by implying that it gives information ambiguous enough to confuse historians on the date of Jerusalem's destruction, when in fact the confusion is due to the Bible's own confusing statements. This is thoroughly dishonest.
The next two sentences again attempt to bias the reader against Ptolemy's Canon:
These dates are some 20 years later than those presented in the chart accompanying this article (that is, 624 for Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year and 607 for the destruction of Jerusalem). This is because we accept the Biblical information, particularly as regards the seventy-year desolation of Judah (running from 607 to 537 B.C.E.), as accurate and as superior in reliability to the ancient secular records.
This is a thoroughly biased set of statements because it equates the Watchtower Society's mere interpretation of selected biblical information with what the Bible actually says. It is a mere interpretation, because excellent scholars have given much better alternative interpretations without leaving anything out, and have even showed why the Society's interpretation is scripturally impossible. It is a selective interpretation because it fails to account for the most telling biblical passages, such as Jeremiah 25:12 and 2 Chronicles 36:20, ignoring them in favor of other passages that are its traditional fare. An honest evaluation of the biblical passages would account for all of them -- but you cannot find a single reference to the meat of 2 Chron. 36:20 in Watchtower literature, and you will find only a single, extremely lame attempt to deal with Jer. 25:12 -- which even the Society's most eminent, late and lamented Neo-Babylonian scholar, John Albu, admitted to me was ridiculous (his words).
Having thoroughly biased the reader (almost all of whom the Society knew would be naive JWs who trust it completely) against the Canon, the paragraph finishes with this:
In addition to the evidence already presented on the weaknesses manifest in the non-Biblical records, the following may be noted:
Once again, the point of the entire subheading is stated: secular records such as Ptolemy's Canon are not to be trusted.
Furthermore, the reader is notified that the next several paragraphs will give supporting evidence as to why the Canon ought not to be trusted.
: then the next paragraph simply states that Ptolemy was not and historian but is known primarily as an astronomer and geographer.
And why does it state that? Obviously, because the author thinks that it supports his claim that the Canon is unreliable. Why does he think that supports his claim? Because Ptolemy was not a historian, but a mere astronomer and geographer. This is actually a horribly bad argument, but the fact that millions of JWs have fallen for it shows that even bad arguments work with people disposed to believe anything that comes out of Brooklyn. Even you don't yet seem to understand this simple point because of your Brooklyn bias.
: Then to prove this point
Yes, the point that the Canon is unreliable because Ptolemy was not a historian, etc.
: the Aid writer simply quotes Thiele in support of the fact that Ptolemy's canon was prepared primarily for historical porposes.
Which supports the claim that the Canon is unreliable. But this is not derivable from Thiele's bare statement in the note in Appendix G, nor by any other statement he makes in his book. On the contrary, the note is neutral with respect to the Canon's reliability, and his other and earlier statements clearly state that the Canon is completely reliable.
: So this can hardly be misrepresentation. The Aid book simply addresses the fact that Ptolemy was not a historian and thus his canon was not prepared for historical purposes.
Hopefully, by now you can see why your statement shows that you really have no understanding -- or perhaps, pretend not to have any -- of the actual point made in the subheading titled "Ptolemy's canon". All you're doing is pretending that the subheading is presenting neutral information, when in fact it's a reprehensibly dishonest and biased polemic against the Canon. Quoting Thiele to support such a dishonest claim is dishonest, just as Thiele himself complained.
AlanF
scholar

Alan F
The crux of the matter is why did Thiele say what he did in his Note? What was the purpose of that Note? What new or additional imformation did Thiele find necessary to draw th the readers attention? The point that Thiele wanted to convey to the reader or you could cpnsider it as a READER ALERT NOTICE was the simple fact that Ptolemy was not an historian and that the above king list was not prepared primarily for historical purposes. In context. the Aid book was simply discussing Ptolemy's canon citically with the observation based on Thiele/s research, that Ptolemy was not an historian.
Thiele's observation reflects his dependence on Ptolemy for his chronology and Thiele used that same methodology right through fis first to his third edition, 1951-1983. The Aid book was punlished in 1969 and was replaced by the Insight publication 1988 wherein a much more abbreviated discussion of Ptolemy is presented. Also, the Insight book acknowledges more modern sources for secular chronology other than Ptolemy/ canon.
The Aid book written during the Thielean era reflects that scholarship at that time was focussed for the purposes of chronology towards Ptolemy's canon. Currently, scholarship acknowleges that there are many other sources for Babylonian chronology.
In short, the Aid book and Thiele's book were products of the times which reflected the continued importance of Ptolemy relative to biblical chronology. These sources quite correctly drew attention to the correct substance of Ptolemy's Canon, astronomy not history.
scholar
AlanF

Scholar pretendus cum mentula flaccidus, you demonstrate perfectly the truth of the old saying:
You can lead an idiot to knowledge, but you can't make him think.
You said:
: The crux of the matter is why did Thiele say what he did in his Note? What was the purpose of that Note? What new or additional imformation did Thiele find necessary to draw th the readers attention?
Only an idiot could ask a question like that, because the answer is in the Note itself. The table of rulers listed in Appendix G does not contain the names of certain kings. An astute reader, but one unfamiliar with the background of Ptolemy's Canon, might compare the list with a complete list such as given by Parker & Dubberstein in Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. - A.D. 75 (1956; or the earlier work Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. - A.D. 45, 1942, 1945), and wonder why some kings were missing. Thiele's Note explains why. In particular, he says that the Canon "was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical purposes." Then he explains why the list didn't contain a mention of every king: "It did not pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers." Why was it unnecessary for Ptolemy to list every king? Because the Canon "was a device which made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical data." Why were certain kings left out? Because "kings whose reigns were less than a year and which did not embrace the New Year's day were not mentioned by the canon." Obviously, such short-reigning kings were unncessary for Ptolemy's "broad astronomical scheme".
: The point that Thiele wanted to convey to the reader or you could cpnsider it as a READER ALERT NOTICE was the simple fact that Ptolemy was not an historian and that the above king list was not prepared primarily for historical purposes.
I've already explained exhaustively why this is irrelevant: Either the Canon is accurate and reliable, or it is not. If it is, then the fact that Ptolemy was not a historian has no bearing on its accuracy. And of course, Thiele himself confirmed that the Society's use of his quotation to support its claim that the Canon is unreliable was a dishonest misrepresentation:
It is misleading and unscrupulous. It is misleading in that it would give an entirely different impression concerning this important canon of Ptolemy than I hold. It is unscrupulous, because a procedure of this type is not honest.
I explained this in my last post. Do you ignore this because you're stupid, or because you think readers won't notice?
: In context. the Aid book was simply discussing Ptolemy's canon citically with the observation based on Thiele/s research, that Ptolemy was not an historian.
Why do you continue to lie? I clearly explained what the Aid book did. It was not a neutral discussion as you claim. It was a polemic designed to undermine confidence in the reliability of the Canon.
: Thiele's observation reflects his dependence on Ptolemy for his chronology
It does no such thing. Thiele, like all good scholars, used a variety of historical evidence to form his conclusions. In particular, he obviously had access to Parker & Dubberstein's Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. - A.D. 45, published in 1942 and 1945. This is easily proved: In the Preface, on page ix of the 1965 edition of Mysterious Numbers, Thiele writes:
To professors Richard A. Parker of Brown University and . . . I likewise wish to express my gratitude for suggestions and contributions at times specific but often intangible and pervasive yet nonetheless helpful.
This Preface is dated to February 7, 1951.
Furthermore, in the 1965 edition of Mysterious Numbers, on page 168 Thiele refers to the 1956, updated version of Parker & Dubberstein's Babylonian Chronology. Therefore, it is proved that Thiele relied on far more than just Ptolemy for his research that resulted in Mysterious Numbers.
: and Thiele used that same methodology right through fis first to his third edition, 1951-1983.
Yes, a methodology that takes into account far more than Ptolemy's Canon.
: The Aid book was punlished in 1969 and was replaced by the Insight publication 1988 wherein a much more abbreviated discussion of Ptolemy is presented.
Indeed, and why do you think that abbreviated discussion was presented? Because the Society got burned on its dishonest presentation in the Aid book! And it has absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Ptolemy's Canon is unreliable!
: Also, the Insight book acknowledges more modern sources for secular chronology other than Ptolemy/ canon.
This is irrelevant to the Aid book's unscrupulous and dishonest presentation.
: The Aid book written during the Thielean era
Ah, yes, Yet another Nielologism designed to deceive Neil into believing something that isn't true, like his imaginary "Jonsson hypothesis".
: reflects that scholarship at that time was focussed for the purposes of chronology towards Ptolemy's canon.
I've demonstrated that this is absolute rubbish. Parker & Dubberstein's work Babylonian Chronology was first published in 1942. It eliminated the need for Ptolemy's Canon. Of course, the Canon remains extremely useful.
: Currently, scholarship acknowleges that there are many other sources for Babylonian chronology.
As it did in 1951, when Thiele's first edition of Mysterious Numbers was published. And of course, the Aid book of 1969 had the benefit of an additional several decades of scholarship, such as P&D's 1956 work -- virtually all of which it either ignored or tried to minimize.
: In short, the Aid book and Thiele's book were products of the times which reflected the continued importance of Ptolemy relative to biblical chronology.
Self-deception at its worst, Neil.
: These sources quite correctly drew attention to the correct substance of Ptolemy's Canon, astronomy not history.
Which is entirely irrelevant to the accuracy and reliabilityof the Canon.
Neil, why do you keep beating a dead horse? No reader accepts your nonsense. No honest JW will, either. You're obviously only trying to convince yourself. Give it up. You have no legs to stand on.
You know that you don't, because you refuse even to acknowledge the fact that the Society's Paradise Restored book disproves your contention about the 70 years mentioned in Zechariah 7, much less try to explain why it does. You have extreme cognitive dissonance. You need help!
AlanF

Quotes by Thiele concerning Watchtower Chronology

Share this