When I saw the Watchtower article’s reference to Anatolian Studies, it stood out like a sore thumb. In the latter 1960s we were constantly visited by JWs.
Quite fortuitously, I obtained two studies at the time that exposed the Watchtower’s errors with 1914, and their neo-Babylonian chronology in particular.
When part A-E of “Aid to Bible Understanding” came out, I sought the material referenced by the “Chronology” article.
For example, at page 327 the author wrote:
“What is thought to be a memorial written either for the mother or the grandmother of Nabonidus, gives some chronological information for this period, but many portions of the text are damaged. In the following translation of one section (taken from Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pp. 311, 312), the words and figures in brackets represent the historian's attempts at restoring the damaged parts of the text. To appreciate how truly fragmentary the text is (etc., etc.)”
This was Pritchard's reference to the 1906 Adda-guppi stelae, which indeed were badly damaged, and years had been inserted by modern scholars.
However, on pages 560-561 of Pritchard's book I also read that identical but undamaged stelae had been discovered in 1956, and these confirmed the previously postulated dates. That meant that the author of Aid’s “Chronology” article did not reveal what Pritchard’s book actually said.
At the moment I cannot recall the reason, but in my searching I obtained the 1958 article in Anatolian Studies by Gadd that is referred to by the Watchtower article.
I recollect that issues raised by Gadd were addressed by Joan Oates; details are stuck somewhere in the cobwebs of the mind. Those were the days of BPC (before personal computers), where we had to write letters and visit libraries.
I notice a book on Babylon by Joan Oates is available online; I assume it could be helpful.
Doug
Doug Mason
JoinedPosts by Doug Mason
-
38
Something the "Watchtower" left out
by Doug Mason inthe october 1, 2011 watchtower article when was ancient jerusalem destroyed?
includes the following statement.. .
there is also strong evidence from cuneiform documents that prior to the reign of nabopolassar (the first king of the neo-babylonian period), another king (ashuretel-ilani) ruled for four years in babylonia.
-
-
Doug Mason
-
38
Something the "Watchtower" left out
by Doug Mason inthe october 1, 2011 watchtower article when was ancient jerusalem destroyed?
includes the following statement.. .
there is also strong evidence from cuneiform documents that prior to the reign of nabopolassar (the first king of the neo-babylonian period), another king (ashuretel-ilani) ruled for four years in babylonia.
-
-
Doug Mason
b o c,
When I wrote that by writing this article the WTS have limited their options, I had in mind that they could have left open the option to drop their "Bible Chronology" reasoning. They could have let the matter continue to rest, particularly since they have waited for so long before bringing it to the fore. And it is so long since "1914". It is not impossible that they bowed to pressure from internal self-interested sources.
I thought it was not impossible for them to have dropped all reference to the chronology and to 1914. I am fully aware of their massive changes in the past, and would not have been surprised had they done it again. I have in mind 1874, the pyramids, unprecedented peace from 1914 onwards under Zionism, shift from 536 to 539 for Babylon's fall, etc., etc. Have you read Shadduck's "Seven Thunders of Millennial Dawn"? where he showed (in 1928!) the 180-degree changes the WTS made to CTR's books, and then continued selling them?
The WTS's reach is now hampered by the effectiveness of the www, which I imagine will influence their focus on those who still read only the WTS's publications.
Just a guess; time will tell.
Doug
-
38
Something the "Watchtower" left out
by Doug Mason inthe october 1, 2011 watchtower article when was ancient jerusalem destroyed?
includes the following statement.. .
there is also strong evidence from cuneiform documents that prior to the reign of nabopolassar (the first king of the neo-babylonian period), another king (ashuretel-ilani) ruled for four years in babylonia.
-
-
Doug Mason
Thanks for your advice and corrections. As a result, I have made further amendments to my commentary on the Watchtower's article.
http://www.jwstudies.com/Commentary_on_When_Was_Ancient_Jerusalem_Destroyed.pdf
I have maintained my very deliberate and conscious decision to limit the scope of my Commentary for now. I am waiting to see what their second article contains.
At several levels, the WTS appears to be shooting itself in the foot. Since the WTS provides its Watchtower articles online for only one month, all they will have left online will be critical articles.
Why have they waited for so long before making this defence?
Why now?
Why have they limited their options when it becomes even clearer that their prophetic expectations have failed?
Doug
-
38
Something the "Watchtower" left out
by Doug Mason inthe october 1, 2011 watchtower article when was ancient jerusalem destroyed?
includes the following statement.. .
there is also strong evidence from cuneiform documents that prior to the reign of nabopolassar (the first king of the neo-babylonian period), another king (ashuretel-ilani) ruled for four years in babylonia.
-
-
Doug Mason
The October 1, 2011 Watchtower article “When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?” includes the following statement.
“There is also strong evidence from cuneiform documents that prior to the reign of Nabopolassar (the first king of the Neo-Babylonian period), another king (Ashuretel-ilani) ruled for four years in Babylonia. Also, for more than a year, there was no king in the land.[9] Yet, all of this is left out of Ptolemy’s canon.” (Watchtower, October 1, 2011, page 31)
When the Watchtower paragraph indignantly complains “all of this is left out”, it refers to endnote number 9, which includes this statement: “The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus, (H1B), I, line 30, has [Ashur-etelilani] listed just before Nabopolassar. (Anatolian Studies, Vol. VIII, 1958, pages 35, 47)”
Pages 35 and 36 of Anatolian Studies list “four monuments of the reign of Nabonidus … found at (or near) Harran”.
Page 46 to 53 of Anatolian Studies provide a transliteration and an English translation of that Babylonian document. It is an undamaged record by “the lady Adda-guppi, mother of Nabium-na’id, king of Babylon” (lines 1 – 2, page 47).
The Watchtower refers to line 30 at page 47 of Anatolian Studies but it “leaves out” exactly what that line states, it “leaves out” undamaged line 29, and it “leaves out” undamaged lines 31 to 33. The following are the words from lines 29 to 33 that are “left out” by the Watchtower: “From the 20th year of Assurbanipal, king of Assyria, that I was born (in) until the 42nd year of Assurbanipal, the 3rd year of Assur-etillu-ili, his son, the 21st year of Nabopolassar, the 43rd year of Nebuchadrezzar, the 2nd year of Awel-Marduk, the 4th year of Neriglissar, in 95 years of the god Sin, king of the gods of heaven and earth.” (Anatolian Studies, Vol. VIII, 1958, page 47)
Column II, lines 26 to 28 state: “From the time of Assurbanipal, king of Assyria, until the 9th year of Nabu-na’id king of Babylon, the son, offspring of my womb 104 years of happiness”. (Anatolian Studies, page 49)Lines 40 to 43 state: “In the 21 years of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, in the 43 years of Nebuchadrezzar, son of Nabopolassar, and 4 years of Neriglissar, king of Babylon (when they exercised the kingship, for 68 years.” (Anatolian Studies, page 51)
It is pure hypocrisy for the Watchtower article to complain about information being left out when it does the same thing, leaving out directly relevant information.
Doug -
16
587 B.C.E vs 607 B.C.E
by fade_away inthe latest oct. watchtower has an article that seems to be controversial amongst us "apostates.
" it's a long complicated article with tons of confusing names and dates, but in the end it sums it up and says:.
"to sum up: the bible clearly states that there was an exile of 70 years.
-
-
Doug Mason
Over the years, I have presented much on the WTS's misquotations, misrepresentations, lies and deceits, and I did not want to repeat old territory.
My intention with the piece is to track the arguments put out in the Watchtower's article and to then provide counter arguments at those points. I visualised a JW pointing to a certain location in the article and I wanted to provide a tool that enabled a person quickly to locate the counter argument. Hence my constant references to page numbers.
I have now taken the next natural step with that piece by including headings. This should make it easier to use.
The article is available at the same URL:
http://www.jwstudies.com/Commentary_on_When_Was_Ancient_Jerusalem_Destroyed.pdf
I am still very keen to hear good criticism, which, as you can see, I am prepared to take on board.
Doug
-
224
When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows
by wannabefree inobviously 607 is a problem, watchower coming out full forces on this one in the latest public edition.. http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/wp_e_20111001.pdf.
-
-
Doug Mason
Over the years, I have presented much on the WTS's misquotations, misrepresentations, lies and deceits, and I did not want to repeat old territory.
My intention with the piece is to track the arguments put out in the Watchtower's article and to then provide counter arguments at those points. I visualised a JW pointing to a certain location in the article and I wanted to provide a tool that enabled a person quickly to locate the counter argument. Hence my constant references to page numbers.
I have now taken the next natural step with that piece by including headings. This should make it easier to use.
The article is available at the same URL:
http://www.jwstudies.com/Commentary_on_When_Was_Ancient_Jerusalem_Destroyed.pdf
I am still very keen to hear good criticism, which, as you can see, I am prepared to take on board.
Doug
-
224
When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows
by wannabefree inobviously 607 is a problem, watchower coming out full forces on this one in the latest public edition.. http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/wp_e_20111001.pdf.
-
-
Doug Mason
I had to correct a word in my brief Commentary.
I am sure others will find more. Please let me know.
Doug
-
16
587 B.C.E vs 607 B.C.E
by fade_away inthe latest oct. watchtower has an article that seems to be controversial amongst us "apostates.
" it's a long complicated article with tons of confusing names and dates, but in the end it sums it up and says:.
"to sum up: the bible clearly states that there was an exile of 70 years.
-
-
Doug Mason
I had to correct a word in my brief Commentary.
I am sure others will find more. Please let me know.
Doug
-
224
When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows
by wannabefree inobviously 607 is a problem, watchower coming out full forces on this one in the latest public edition.. http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/wp_e_20111001.pdf.
-
-
Doug Mason
While you wait for expert rebuttal of the article, you might be interested in my first amateurish endeavour.
http://www.jwstudies.com/Commentary_on_When_Was_Ancient_Jerusalem_Destroyed.pdf
Since I obviously put it together very quickly, I will appreciate all criticisms. omissions, etc.
Doug
-
16
587 B.C.E vs 607 B.C.E
by fade_away inthe latest oct. watchtower has an article that seems to be controversial amongst us "apostates.
" it's a long complicated article with tons of confusing names and dates, but in the end it sums it up and says:.
"to sum up: the bible clearly states that there was an exile of 70 years.
-
-
Doug Mason
While you wait for expert rebuttal of the article, you might be interested in my first endeavour.
http://www.jwstudies.com/Commentary_on_When_Was_Ancient_Jerusalem_Destroyed.pdf
Since I obviously put it together very quickly, I will appreciate all criticisms. omisions, etc.
Doug