The Watchtower's 20-year adjustment to the standard Neo-Babylonian chronology

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

and the WT explanation for its computation [539] is both immediate and simple.

Haven't you read the WT explanation for it's computation? It is NOT immediate and NOT simple. Yet, the computation of any year within Nebuchadnezzar's reign is much more immediate and simple, however.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

Correct because 539 BC has universal acceptance as a date for the fall of Babylon

And just like 539,  587 BCE also has universal acceptance as the date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. As you said in your first sentence "Correct, most if not all past and current reference books on Bible Chronology most support 586 BCE and 587 BCE as a contender for the Fall of Jerusalem." And the Bible is the primary source of the question about which one to choose, because the Bible gives both year 18 and year 19. 

The Bible, by the way, does NOT say it was the first year of Cyrus, or the accession year of Cyrus when Babylon fell in 539. As you are aware, of course, Cyrus had already been ruling for the past 20 years before 539 BCE, as the ruler of the Persian Empire since c. 559 BCE, and the ruler of the Medes since 549 BCE, and the ruler of Lydia since 547 BCE. 

In fact, didn't I recall you conjecturing on this very forum about whether a certain Darius the Mede had either an interregnum rule before Cyrus or a co-rule with Cyrus starting immediately after the 539 capture of Babylon? The Bible does say that the decree went out to release the Jews in the first year of Cyrus, and yet the Watchtower puts that within a few weeks of his SECOND year starting in Nisan 537 instead of his first year 538 as the book of Ezra says. This additional stretch of what Ezra simply calls the "first year of Cyrus" allows the Watchtower to minimize the adjustment from 606 to 536, which were Russell's (Barbour's) original assumptions about the fall of Jerusalem and the first year of Cyrus. At the time, most of the reference books already had the two events correctly dated at 587/6 and 538, respetively, but Russell and Barbour misread the Cyrus date, and used a reference that had already confused the first years of Nebuchadnezzar's domination (and taking of exiles) with the destruction of Jerusalem. If one looks at the fine print footnote about it in Bishop Elliott's Horae Apocalypticae (a huge standard work for Bible chronologist study) it becomes understandable how such a mistake could be made. Instead of admitting a two to three year adjustment to the original dates, they were able to keep 1914 by making a one year adjustment at each end of the incorrect range they started with.

But the main thing that makes the Cyrus' years less simple and less direct is the fact that the Watchtower admits they are not using a dated tablet that mentions Cyrus. Instead, they are using one for Cambyses, and then trusting a King's List (exactly like the one Ptolemy used) to count backwards from Cambyses, and assuming the secular information is correct about the length of Cyrus' rule, and assuming there was no additional ruler between Cyrus and Cambyses. 

We don't have to do any of that nonsense for Nebuchadnezzar's chronology. 

To be clear, here is the Watchtower's "simple and direct" methodology for assuming Cyrus 1st year as 538 BCE. 

*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II.
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.

Also note these comments in Insight about Cyrus:

*** it-1 p. 566 Cyrus ***
The early history of Cyrus II is somewhat obscure, depending largely upon rather fanciful accounts by Herodotus (Greek historian of the fifth century B.C.E.) and Xenophon (another Greek writer of about a half century later). However, both present Cyrus as the son of the Persian ruler Cambyses by his wife Mandane, the daughter of Astyages, king of the Medes. (Herodotus, I, 107, 108; Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, I, ii, 1) This blood relationship of Cyrus with the Medes is denied by Ctesias, another Greek historian of the same period, who claims instead that Cyrus became Astyages’ son-in-law by marrying his daughter Amytis.

So basically, the Watchtower is dependent, not on a tablet about Cyrus, but a clay tablet about the 7th year of a different king and the measurement and interpretation of a couple of lunar eclipses, to give a BCE date for that other king, which is then tied to Cyrus through a separate traditional "Kings List" that matched the one that Ptolemy used. Problem is, this would be the exact same Kings List as the one that gives us all the information about Nebuchadnezzar and all the other Neo-Babylonian kings. In fact, Cyrus' dates were originally considered accurate by Russell because he praised how good and reliable Ptolemy was -- that is until Russell realized that this was the same evidence that would demolished 606 (and 607). Then he trashed Ptolemy, but didn't have a good replacement for it and kept Cyrus' dates anyway. If we can have faith in this data for 539 then it's the same data that gives us 587 for the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar.  

And the Watchtower publications also admit that trying to use the Nabonidus Chronicle is not helpful, not only because it doesn't contain any information that would supply a BCE date, but that the year is cut off anyway:

*** it-2 p. 459 Nabonidus ***
In spite of the brevity of the Nabonidus Chronicle—the tablet measures about 14 cm (5.5 in.) in breadth at the widest point and about the same in length—it remains the most complete cuneiform record of the fall of Babylon available. In the third of its four columns, beginning with line 5, pertinent sections read: “[Seventeenth year:] . . . In the month of Tashritu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Nabonidus) massacred the confused inhabitants. The 14th day, Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The 16th day, Gobryas (Ugbaru), the governor of Gutium and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned (there). . . . In the month of Arahshamnu, the 3rd day, Cyrus entered Babylon, green twigs were spread in front of him—the state of ‘Peace’ (sulmu) was imposed upon the city.”—Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 306.
It may be noted that the phrase “Seventeenth year” does not appear on the tablet, that portion of the text being damaged. This phrase is inserted by the translators because they believe that Nabonidus’ 17th regnal year was his last. So they assume that the fall of Babylon came in that year of his reign and that, if the tablet were not damaged, those words would appear in the space now damaged.
 

So, although we have some convolutions to go through to get the regnal years of Cyrus, we have no such issues with the regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar because much of the tablet evidence goes directly and simply to his regnal years. No assumptions necessary. 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

No. Both Neb's 18th and 19th year for our modern calendar along with 586 or 587 remain contentious within scholarship.

False. That's like saying that the first year or seventh year is contentious. You are only talking about the attempts to calculate the fall of Jerusalem with the Bible's data, NOT the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. There is no question at all that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar fell exactly on Nisanu 1, 586 BCE. There is no question at all that the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar fell exactly on Nisanu 1, 587 BCE.

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

Both the Fall of Babylon and the Fall of Jerusalem in Neb's 18/19th year and that of Zedekiah's 11th year are well described in the biblical account.

The fall of Babylon is not described with a regnal year associated with it. The fall of of Jerusalem is -- and, not only that, it's synchronized as you just showed with a Babylonian king and a Judean king. 

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

The date 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon is universally accepted within scholarship whereas Neb's regnal years remain contentious

You just keep making up the same false statement. Yet you contradict yourself because you have already admitted that "most if not all" reference works give the same years for EVERY year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Turned out that even your own Professor (Oded Lipschits) used the same years for Nebuchadnezzar, in spite of your original claim that he didn't. .

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

16 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Haven't you read the WT explanation for it's computation? It is NOT immediate and NOT simple. Yet, the computation of any year within Nebuchadnezzar's reign is much more immediate and simple, however

Indeed I have all of the WT explanations right up to the present and I disagree with you. For example, the explanation in Insight, Vol.1, pp. 568-569 is simple and immediate or specific dealing with all of the attendant circumstances. Try finding in any other reference work a discussion of the year of the Jewish Return for there is no adequate treatment.

23 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

And just like 539,  587 BCE also has universal acceptance as the date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. As you said in your first sentence "Correct, most if not all past and current reference books on Bible Chronology most support 586 BCE and 587 BCE as a contender for the Fall of Jerusalem." And the Bible is the primary source of the question about which one to choose, because the Bible gives both year 18 and year 19. 

Most definitely not. For the date, 586 BCE for the Fall remains the view of leading chronologists, historians and archaeologists right up to the present and Lipschit's published research into this era is a good example of this fact. There is no way one can compare 586 or 587 BCE with the established date 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon wisely chosen by WT scholars in 1949 some 75 years ago. What genius! What a masterstroke in biblical scholarship! A fact in which I repeatedly informed the late Alan F on this and other forums. May he rest in peace.

33 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

he Bible, by the way, does NOT say it was the first year of Cyrus, or the accession year of Cyrus when Babylon fell in 539. As you are aware, of course, Cyrus had already been ruling for the past 20 years before 539 BCE, as the ruler of the Persian Empire since c. 559 BCE, and the ruler of the Medes since 549 BCE, and the ruler of Lydia since 547 BCE. 

Noted

37 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

In fact, didn't I recall you conjecturing on this very forum about whether a certain Darius the Mede had either an interregnum rule before Cyrus or a co-rule with Cyrus starting immediately after the 539 capture of Babylon? The Bible does say that the decree went out to release the Jews in the first year of Cyrus, and yet the Watchtower puts that within a few weeks of his SECOND year starting in Nisan 537 instead of his first year 538 as the book of Ezra says. This additional stretch of what Ezra simply calls the "first year of Cyrus" allows the Watchtower to minimize the adjustment from 606 to 536, which were Russell's (Barbour's) original assumptions about the fall of Jerusalem and the first year of Cyrus. At the time, most of the reference books already had the two events correctly dated at 587/6 and 538, respetively, but Russell and Barbour misread the Cyrus date, and used a reference that had already confused the first years of Nebuchadnezzar's domination (and taking of exiles) with the destruction of Jerusalem. If one looks at the fine print footnote about it in Bishop Elliott's Horae Apocalypticae (a huge standard work for Bible chronologist study) it becomes understandable how such a mistake could be made.

No it wasn't me. Whatever the case as with all good scholarship improvements or adjustments are made and that too is part of the history of our wondrous WT Bible Chronology.

39 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

So basically, the Watchtower is dependent, not on a tablet about Cyrus, but a clay tablet about the 7th year of a different king and the measurement and interpretation of a couple of lunar eclipses, to give a BCE date for that other king, which is then tied to Cyrus through a separate traditional "Kings List" that matched the one that Ptolemy used. Problem is, this would be the exact same Kings List as the one that gives us all the information about Nebuchadnezzar and all the other Neo-Babylonian kings. In fact, Cyrus' dates were originally considered accurate by Russell because he praised how good and reliable Ptolemy was -- that is until Russell realized that this was the same evidence that would demolished 606 (and 607). Then he trashed Ptolemy, but didn't have a good replacement for it and kept Cyrus' dates anyway. If we can have faith in this data for 539 then it's the same data that gives us 587 for the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar.  

So what. Better than plucking figures out of thin air and ignoring obvious historical and biblical facts about the Jewish Exile and Jeremiah's 70 years as presented in current scholarship. The data is similar being of a secular nature, the two events namely the Fall of Babylon under Cyrus and the Fall of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzer are of similar biblical-historical and theological significance but it is the latter date that is contentious- 586 BCE? 587BCE? resolved by the establishment of 607 BCE which is incontravertible.

47 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

So, although we have some convolutions to go through to get the regnal years of Cyrus, we have no such issues with the regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar because much of the tablet evidence goes directly and simply to his regnal years. No assumptions necessary. 

Well if NB Chronology with its regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar is without issues, with no assumptions then how come it omits any reference to Neb's missing 7 years of dethronement and how is it that the 70 years is not mentioned in the NB historical record thus proving a Babylonian Gap of 20 years? I say bunkum!

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

The regnal years of Neb's reign may well be documented in the Babylonian record but not in the Biblical record

OK. Now we might be getting somewhere. Yes, the regnal years are better documented in the Babylonian record than the Biblical record. But you can still trust the Bible when it says that the 18-20-month+ events surrounding the city of Jerusalem happened in the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. It doesn't matter whether the Bible used Spring-to-Spring counting of new years or Fall-to-Fall counting of each newly counted year. We know we are in the right time period (within just a few months) if we use the well-documented Babylonian record for the way THEY calculated each year, which was consistent based on all their records, and supported by astronomical records, and their exact Nisan-to-Nisan method, and accession year method is supported by literally tens of thousands of always-consistent mundane business records. Furthermore, mundane business records have no religious agendas.  

The regnal years of Cyrus are not so well documented in the Biblical record and not quite as well documented in the secular record as Nebuchadnezzar's. But they are perfectly consistent with the method used by the Babylonians.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

the Biblical record proves a gap of some 20 years in the NB Chronology by means of the 70 years of Babylonian rule and Exile. Neb's 19th year or 18th year whether 586 or 587 BCE is problematic in its relation to the Fall of Jerusalem and thus cannot be used as a pivotal year.

There you go again with that specious argument that goes:

So it must be either 586 or 587 so since we don't know which of those two years is certain, we must dismiss them both and go with a year that's 20 years off, which forces us to pretend there must be an unidentified 20 year gap.

And we don't even know where that gap might fit correctly. We can't put it in Nebuchadnezzar's reign. And we make use of a 17-year Nabonidus reign. That leaves only a place where we have mundane business documents for a total of 4 years. So we must think that this period was actually 24 years and even though business documents have shown up for EVERY SINGLE known year of every king's reign, including those 4 years, but now we suddenly have 20 extra years in that "4-year" period where no business was transacted, and every single Babylonian lost their memory for those 20 years, and all the astronomical lunar and metonic cycles stopped, and the stars and planets also stopped moving, yet caught up instantly after the 20-year "gap" was completed.

We must sound like complete idiots to the same people we treat as experts when we quote from them about anything else in the "Insight" book.   

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The only way that the 70 years remains intact is to view it quite properly as the period of Jewish Exile beginning in 607 BCE and ending in 537 BCE.

And the problem with that is that you are putting faith in 539, then adjusting it as necessary to 537, and pretending that it is somehow better attested than 537 for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

I don't mind starting a Jewish Exile beginning around 607, because we know that Daniel claimed to be one of several exiles as early as Nebuchadnezzar's first or accession year, which is evidenced to be 605/4. So a period of Exile could well have matched the period of greatest domination of the Babylonian Empire. The Watchtower publications tell us that this period was the 70 years ending 539 and that different nations came under that yoke at different times. Same could be said for different parts of Judea and Jerusalem which also came under that domination and exile at different times during the 70 year period of their domination.

So clearly, according to the Watchtower's own publications, this particular 70 year period can remain intact without proposing that an event for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (which you call "607") actually happened BEFORE his own accession year, which all evidence shows was exactly in 605 BCE.

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

33 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

False. That's like saying that the first year or seventh year is contentious. You are only talking about the attempts to calculate the fall of Jerusalem with the Bible's data, NOT the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. There is no question at all that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar fell exactly on Nisanu 1, 586 BCE. There is no question at all that the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar fell exactly on Nisanu 1, 587 BCE.

I am talking about the dates 586 or 587 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem which the Bible states happened in the 18/19th year of Neb. That is what is contentious! These two regnal years of Neb are irrelevant unless are tied to an event in biblical history such as the Fall of Babylon and the Fall of Jerusalem.

scholar JW

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Your methodology is flawed. The date 539 BCE remains the only pivotal date for the OT for no other date is its equal.

True, Nebuchadnezzar's years are only slightly better, not equal. LOL.

But putting faith in the secular date 539, although it isn't necessary for Bible students, doesn't cause any real trouble because it is validated by the same evidence that validates Nisan 1, 586 BCE as the first day of the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year of reign. And this also perfectly fits the words of Jeremiah about Nebuchadnezzar being there at the start of the 70 years of Babylonian domination because it puts his accession year back in 605.   

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

And the problem with that is that you are putting faith in 539, then adjusting it as necessary to 537, and pretending that it is somehow better attested than 537 for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

It is not an act of faith at all but simply using a sound and solid date that can serve as an anchor point for OT Chronology thus one can then reckon backwards and forwards to construct a valid scheme of Bible Chronology. The date 537 BCE is well attested than the problematic 19th or 18th year of Neb.

8 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I don't mind starting a Jewish Exile beginning around 607, because we know that Daniel claimed to be one of several exiles as early as Nebuchadnezzar's first or accession year, which is evidenced to be 605/4. So a period of Exile could well have matched the period of greatest domination of the Babylonian Empire. The Watchtower publications tell us that this period was the 70 years ending 539 and that different nations came under that yoke at different times. Same could be said for different parts of Judea and Jerusalem which also came under that domination and exile at different times during the 70 year period of their domination.

Well done in choosing 607 BCE as an Exilic beginning but you need to see that this year also was the date for the Fall which can only properly begin the Exile which was commensurate of not only Babylon's domination but also leaving a desolated Land of Judah for 70 years. This period did not end in 539 BCE but in 537 BCE with the Return of the Jews. There were no exiles but only ONE Exile with other deportations in biblical history of the Late Judean Monarchy.

13 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

o clearly, according to the Watchtower's own publications, this particular 70 year period can remain intact without proposing that an event for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year actually happened BEFORE his own accession year!!

WT publications well describe the 70 years in its nature and chronology which began in Neb's 18th/19th year and Zedkiah's 11 th year for no other interpretation works. One Exile of 70 years beginning in 607 BCE and ending in 537 BCE.

16 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

That would make the Bible correct, but the Watchtower interpretation wrong, therefore non-Biblical.

Both the Bible and WT interpretation are in sync.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'm surprised you even admitted that one. It's an even better criteria for using Nebuchadnezzar's pivotal Bible dates instead of the secular Cyrus 1 date. Several of Nebuchadnezzar's years actually ARE synchronized to the Judean monarchy, yet ZERO of Cyrus' dates are. 

Why are you surprised?

I was surprised that you would say it's better to use a pivotal date tied to the Judean monarchy and then you still go right on and defend the ONE date in all of this discussion that is NOT tied to the Judean monarchy. The Nebuchadnezzar dates are explicitly tied to the Judean monarchy.