AlmostAtheist,
:Read the Watchtowers from the 1950's and compare them to now. The old ones were very thoughtful, insightful. Maybe they were wrong, but they said SOMETHING. The new ones are fluff and stuff and feel-good crap. Nobody seems to care.
True. These days there are no "celebrated WTS scholars" with Freddie's or Charles's delusional audacity allowing them to pull complete utter cr*p out of their asses and present it in WT articles as the "anti-typical" truth received.
The post of chief WTS theologian seems to have been up for grabs since 1992.
Pole
The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets
by VM44 349 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Pole
-
Alleymom
Scholar: Firstly, I forgot to mention that Rolf Furuli has sourced the research by C. Wunsch on the Egibi documents as part of Furuli's thesis on Oslo Chronology.
Neil --
Do you have a page number?
I checked Furuli's bibliography and his "List of Authors Quoted," and Dr. Wunsch's name does not appear.
Marjorie
-
Alleymom
Scholar: My concern for the translation of these documents is well justified and I continue to urge you to carefully evaluate the fact that chronology is based upon methodology and interpretation. Carl Jonsson the principal advocate of the Jonsson hypothesis highlights a similar concern with these materials for in his GTR, 3rd edn, pp.321-332 there is considerable confusion in the interpretation of these documents even though Jonsson claims that these documents provide regnal years for the complete Neo-Babylonian period. It is far wiser to accept the biblical period which proves a twenty year gap with the Babylonian data.
Neil --
"Considerable confusion"? Ummm, no. That's simply not so.
You either misunderstand or misrepresent the case. The issue is that sometimes people make mistakes in copying, in transcribing, or in translating texts. How are these mistakes caught? By other scholars who re-examine the texts.
Are you familiar with the verb "collate," when used with the meaning "to compare texts critically"?
When there is a question about how a particular text has been transcribed or translated, the original will be rexamined ("collated") by one or more scholars who will then confirm or correct the reading.
I have been meaning to post a message about one instance of this in the case of a text from Amel-Marduk's reign for many months now, but have been sidetracked with other matters.
If you were to do reading and research on the actual texts you would understand the nature of these occasional errors and realize that they in no way cast doubt upon the names and regnal lengths of the neo-Babylonian kings, which have been established by a plethora of documents.
Jonsson claims that these documents provide regnal years for the complete Neo-Babylonian period
Neil, these documents DO provide regnal years for the complete neo-Babylonian period. Yours is an uninformed response. You have no knowledge of the documents themselves. This has nothing to do with some "claim" by Jonsson. This is an established fact. Ask any professor in the field.
Regards,
Marjorie Alley -
Alleymom
Alleymom wrote to Scholar:
Are you familiar with the verb "collate," when used with the meaning "to compare texts critically"?Neil ---
I'd like to return to that point for a moment.
When the text of a cuneiform tablet is published, other scholars throughout the world then have the opportunity to read, analyze, and comment. The actual cuneiform signs are reproduced with photographic plates, line drawings, or both; the text is transliterated (written in the Latin alphabet); the text is translated; an analysis is done.
Some texts are of such interest that journal articles on them have been written by a series of scholars, each of whom has re-examined the original text.
Take tablet NBC 4897, for instance. This is the bookkeeping text which contains an account of a herd of sheep and goats, with yearly records from the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar to year 1 of Neriglissar. The years and names are plainly stated.
Stefan Zawadzki, an eminent Assyriologist whose articles I have read with much enjoyment over the years, published the most recent of a series of scholarly articles on this text. On the first page of his article "Bookkeeping Practices at the Eanna Temple in Uruk in the Light of the Text NBC 4897," Journal of Cuneiform Studies, volume 55, 2003, pp. 99-123 [see the scan of the cover below], Zawadzki gives a summary of the other research which has been done on NBC 4897.
Research on this bookkeeping text (which Zawadzki terms a "remarkable tablet") was published by Dr. Ronald H. Sack (1979), by Dr. G. van Driel (1993 and 1994), by Dr. Karen Rhea Nemet-Nejat (1994), and, most recently by Dr. Stefan Zawadzki (2003).
It has been examined and re-examined. It covers the years from Nebuchadnezzar 37 to year 1 of Neriglissar.
Here is a scan of the cover of the JCS volume which has the article.
http://www.strike9.com/alleymom/JCS---NBC-4897.jpgRegards,
Marjorie -
scholar
Alleymom
Marjorie
I refer you to p.248 under the heading ABBREVIATIONS for the reference by Furuli to Wumsch's research.
Jonsson makes the claims that there are a large number of dated tablets form every year during the whole neo-Babylonian period which suggests some sort of historical infallibility? However, if Jonsson's claim for the integrity of all of these secular documents is sound then Why is it the case that the records do not mention the biblical fact that Nebuchadnezzer was dethroned for a period of seven years? Do the documents detail the historicity of this event and what about the status of Daniel and his three companions in the political system in the Babylonian court, Do the records detail or record their achievements and activity of these four prominent citizens?
Silence in such critical matters whereupon Biblical history intersects with Babylonian history does not enhance the historiograpphy of Babylonian secular documents when the chronologist has to decide upon an appropriate chronology. So, even though such documents seem impressive they are still subject to the vexed problems of methodology and interpretation which Jonsson admits to some difficulty.
Celebrated WT scholars have found sufficient information in the Bible itself which when compared with the secular materials produces a ga[ of twenty years which with the addition of seven years would falsify in practice, Jonsson's claims of historical infallibillity.
scholar JW
-
Alleymom
I refer you to p.248 under the heading ABBREVIATIONS for the reference by Furuli to Wumsch's research.
Neil --
Thank you. I checked p. 248 and you are correct. Furuli does refer to Wunsch in the list of abbreviations.
HOWEVER, he does not list Wunsch in his "List of Authors Quoted" or in his Bibliography. Her work is not mentioned in the body of the book.
Therefore, your appeal to Furuli fails to support your contention that we need "competent" translations of the Egibi tablets.
I asked you in one of the previous posts if you had read any of the reviews of Dr. Wunsch's work. You did not reply to that. Since you do not know Akkadian and you do not know German (and are, therefore, not able to assess the accuracy of the translations yourself) the only possible basis you could have for criticizing the current translations and suggesting that we are still in need of "competent" translations would be if you had read negative reviews of Dr. Wunsch's translations by other scholars. However, there are no such negative reviews of her translation skills. She is an eminently qualified Assyriologist with a thorough knowledge of Akkadian.
'Fess up, Neil. Before I gave you her name, did you even know who she was? In our past discussions it has been apparent that you have never actually done reading and research on the actual texts of the cuneiform documents.
Your posts reflect the fact that you have no familiarity with the texts. For instance, let's consider these passages from the message you just sent me:
Scholar wrote: if Jonsson's claim for the integrity of all of these secular documents is sound then Why is it the case that the records do not mention the biblical fact that Nebuchadnezzer was dethroned for a period of seven years? Do the documents detail the historicity of this event and what about the status of Daniel and his three companions in the political system;in the Babylonian court, Do the records detail or record their achievements and activity of these four prominent citizens?
Silence in such critical matters whereupon Biblical history intersects with Babylonian history does not enhance the historiograpphy of Babylonian secular documents when the chronologist has to decide upon an appropriate chronology. So, even though such documents seem impressive they are still subject to the vexed problems of methodology and interpretation which Jonsson admits to some difficulty.
Neil, no one who has even a nodding acquaintance with the actual texts could ask questions like that. Do you really not realize the nature of the texts we have been discussing?
These are not the Babylonian Chronicles. These are not histories.
These are everyday documents dealing with various legal and administrative transactions and mundane activities. The significance of them is that they are witnessed and dated to the month, day, and year of the king who was reigning when the document was drawn up.
Jonsson makes the claims that there are a large number of dated tablets form every year during the whole neo-Babylonian period which suggests some sort of historical infallibility?
This is not some "claim" that Jonsson is making. It is an established fact, known to every scholar in the field (and to most laymen on this board .)
There are numerous dated tablets for the neo-Babylonian period, and yes, there are tablets for every year of every king. There are also tablets which show a continuation from one king to the next, such as the bookkeeping text NBC 4897 which I discussed earlier today.
Neil, you obviously have access to an excellent university library. It boggles my mind that you could have an interest in this area and yet never have taken the time to become acquainted with the primary data. I have to wonder why. I strongly suspect that you are afraid that if you were ever to really look at the primary data --- the actual texts of the dated cuneiform documents ---you would find that your adherence to the Watchtower's erroneous chronology could no longer be maintained.
I have subscribed to the ANE list for a long time, and I have email addresses for most of the scholars working in the field. Why not take a few months and do some reading in this area? If you have questions about what you read, I can give you references and contact information so you can talk to the experts yourself.
Regards,
Marjorie -
Jeffro
Scholar doesn't seem to grasp that for the 20-year gap to exist, in light of the known contemporary evidence, the same errors in reading many different tablets by many different people would have to have been made over and over again, hundreds of times. Apparently, the 'missing' tablets are like the missing transitional fossils in the fossil record referred to in the Creation book (p71); they "go missing in all the important places." The Society's method of dismissing an argument in this way, and using the same argument to support their own teachings is bizarrely infantile.
Why does 'scholar' continue to list everything he doesn't like as "Jonsson's claims" as if he invented all the information problematic to the 607 dogma. I hadn't even heard of Jonsson when I figured out that 607 is completely and utterly wrong. All this Jonsson fellow did was compile facts that were already available to the professional secular community (who were largely disinterested in the doctrines of a minor religious group). Weakly suggesting that something is invalid simply because "Jonsson claims" it is ridiculous, unscholarly, and childish.
Scholar, I am still waiting on that Neo-Babylonian chronology consistent with the Society's doctrines that you promised in return for a tabulation of the Divided Monarchy.
-
scholar
Alleymom
Marjorie
The fact that Furuli cites Wunsch's research shows that he is familiar with her material and no doubt when he publishes his second volume on Babylonian Chronology he will source this research more adequately.
I am not a textual scholar, nor am I familiar with those ancient languages as is Rolf Furuli so I can wait until his findings are published but I can familarize myself with whatever secular sources are available in English. However, such an enterprise as worthy as you claim must wait until I have the time necessary. I cannot work with the primary sources because I am not skilled in ancient languages and neither is Carl Jonsson so like Carl I can critique whatever is published in English. My impression of the Jonsson hypothesis' use of such secular evidence is rather ambiguous and does not inspire great confidence in using these materials as a corrective to the clear bibl,ical evidence. Regardless of what claims are made for these secular ,materials there remains a twenty year gap and the missing seven years of Nebuchadnezzer which must be reconciled for these materials to be given equal weight or authority. My scholarship only permits me to give precedence to the biblical evidence rather than the secular records in pursuit of history and chronology.
scholar JW
-
scholar
Jeffro
The problematic twenty year gap arises because of methodology and interpretation in constructing a biblical chronology. Critics of WT chronology base their methodology solely upon Neo- Babylonian chronology as chiefly represented by the Canon of Ptolemy so when a comparison is made between the two competing chronologies there remains a twenty year gap which is hardly a figment of imagination. Also, such secular evidence admits no mention of the seven years of Neb's dethronement which must falsify the widely exaggerated claims made for Neo-Babylonian schema.
I continue to mention the Jonsson hypothesis because its author Carl Jonsson as an apostate has produced research over many years which tries to disprove WT chronology by at least 14 so-called lines of evidence. You should read his work so that you can become informed and knowlegeable about the more meatier aspects of chronology and not remain in the kindergarten of chronology. Whilst reading Jonsson you should read Thiele, Anstey, Hughes, Finegan and Jones. Also, a list of relative journal articles on chronology can be made available if you are really interested.
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
The problematic twenty year gap arises because of methodology and interpretation in constructing a biblical chronology. Critics of WT chronology base their methodology solely upon Neo- Babylonian chronology as chiefly represented by the Canon of Ptolemy so when a comparison is made between the two competing chronologies there remains a twenty year gap which is hardly a figment of imagination. Also, such secular evidence admits no mention of the seven years of Neb's dethronement which must falsify the widely exaggerated claims made for Neo-Babylonian schema.
Yes, the gap is indeed problematic. We can't have nasty things like 'methodology' getting in the way of the Society's 'whacky' doctrines can we? Based chiefly on Ptolemy's Canon? If that were the case, the contemporary tablets wouldn't be a problem. The 20-year gap certainly is a figment of the Society's leaders' imaginations because there is no physical evidence of the missing years despite the fact that all of the known years present evidence. It is neither secular chronology nor the bible that faces any problems, but solely the Society's faulty doctrines that introduce the erroneous 20 years.
I continue to mention the Jonsson hypothesis because its author Carl Jonsson as an apostate has produced research over many years which tries to disprove WT chronology by at least 14 so-called lines of evidence. You should read his work so that you can become informed and knowlegeable about the more meatier aspects of chronology and not remain in the kindergarten of chronology. Whilst reading Jonsson you should read Thiele, Anstey, Hughes, Finegan and Jones. Also, a list of relative journal articles on chronology can be made available if you are really interested.
It is clear in your posts that use the term 'Jonsson hypothesis' to attempt to denegrate and minimize the significance of anything that is not in harmony with the Society's flawed doctrines. 'Kindergarten of chronology' - you really are a condescending pratt aren't you! As I am gainfully employed fulltime, I don't have the available time to make this matter the chief concern in my life, but I am indeed acquainted with enough of the facts, which are in harmony with other posters on this forum who have patiently and professionally indicated how the Society hypothesis is completely baseless.
Still no complete Neo-Babylonian chronology that fits the Society's model? You're not going to break your promise are you?
