Posted by What's going on? [GLamotta] on April 03, 1999 at 17:49:38 {Ed9c7782HMbfhNhPm81IboLUiPtahc}:
WATCHTOWER SOCIETY AND A.J. SACHS
AT ODDS OVER DATING OF VA54956.
Below are the direct quotes from Watchtower
publications about the VAT4956 wherein they
claim that it is a "copied" document dated
from the Seleucid Period.
But this disagrees
with known expert A.J. Sachs who states it is
one of the earliest extant astronomical
diaries available and should be dated in
568/67BCE. Is the WTS misrepresenting the
truth in order to dismiss this
document so
they can keep their 607 BCE dating? Here are
their statements regarding the VAT 4956:
*** kc 186 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
VAT 4956: This is a cuneiform tablet that
provides astronomical information datable
to
568 B.C.E. It says that the observations were
from Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. This would
correspond to the chronology that places his
18th regnal year in 587/6 B.C.E. However, this
tablet is admittedly a copy made in the
third
century B.C.E. so it is possible that its
historical information is simply that which
was accepted in the Seleucid period.
*** g72 5/8 28 When Did Babylon Desolate
Jerusalem? ***
Nevertheless, someone may ask, Is
there not an
ancient astronomical tablet, "VAT 4956," that
places the thirty-seventh year of
Nebuchadnezzar's reign exactly in the same
year as does Ptolemy's Canon?
It should not be overlooked that the source
of
corroborative evidence should bear the
earmarks of dependability. Can this be said
about "VAT 4956"? Not really. The text is not
an original and it contains numerous gaps.
Certain terms found therein cannot even
be
understood now. Twice in the text the notation
hi-bi (meaning "broken off, obliterated")
appears. Thereby the scribe acknowledged that
he was working from a defective copy.
Even if, despite these problems,
the
astronomical information presents a true
picture of the original, this would not
establish the correctness of the historical
data. As Ptolemy used the reigns of ancient
kings (as he understood them) simply as
a
framework in which to place astronomical data,
so the copyist of "VAT 4956" may, in line with
the chronology accepted in his time, have
inserted the 'thirty-seventh year of
Nebuchadnezzar.' As admitted by the
German
scholars Neugebauer and Weidner (the
translators of this text), the scribe
evidently changed words to conform with the
abbreviated terminology common in his day. But
he was both inconsistent and inaccurate. So
he
could just as easily have inserted other
information to suit his purposes. Hence both
Ptolemy's Canon and "VAT 4956" might even have
been derived from the same basic source. They
could share mutual errors.
Opposed to
Ptolemy's Canon and "VAT 4956"
stands the unanimous testimony of Jeremiah,
Zechariah, Daniel and the writer of 2
Chronicles, that Judah and Jerusalem lay
desolate for seventy years. Thousands of
ancient manuscripts of these
writings contain
the identical testimony. So, because of the
problems inherent in Ptolemy's Canon and "VAT
4956," it takes more faith to accept them than
it does to accept the Bible's testimony, which
would place the
desolation of Jerusalem by the
Babylonians in 607 B.C.E.
[Footnotes]
For additional details, see the book Aid to
Bible Understanding, pp. 327, 331, 339, 348.
WATCHTOWER POSSIBLY LYING ABOUT
VAT4956?
The WTS may have
misrepresented the VAT4956
as coming from the Seleucid Period when, in
fact, it apparently is quite old according to
experts.
In Carl Olof Jonsson's GTR3, page 157, he
clearly indicates based upon a chart by A.J.
Sachs,
[considered an expert in the
field--only that field is not specified, it's
just presumed it must be very wide and open
with not very many buildings, ed.] that the
VAT4956 is the second oldest of only about 400
datable
astronomical texts. C. Jonsson says:
"More than 1,200 fragments of astronomical
diaries of various sizes have been discovered,
but because of their fragmentary condition
only about a third of the number are datable.
[That's
about 400 in all.]
Most of these cover the period from 385 to 61
B.C.E. and contain astronomical information
from about 180 of these years, thus firmly
establishing the chronology of this period.
Half a dozen of the dairies
are earlier.
The two oldest are VAT 4956 from the
sixth and B.M. 32312 from the seventh
centuries B.C.E. Both provide absolute dates
that firmly establish the length of the
Neo-Babylonian
period."
Supporting Mr. Jonsson's claim that the VAT
4956 indeed is not to be dated from the
Seleucid Period but is a very old and
contemporary document is a chart which is
provided on page 158 from Sachs in which
it
shows the dating of various texts and the
caption reads: "The earliest diary is from
652/51 B.C.E. Then follows VAT 4956 from the
568/67 B.C.E."
Thus it is quite clear that Mr. Jonsson has
quoted from an expert in this
field, A.J.
Sachs who should know the dating of ancient
texts and he clearly dates this document along
with Jonsson (also an expert) as dated from
568/67 BCE and not much later when its
credibility would have been
obviously
questioned as a fraud during the Seleucid Era
as the Watchtower Society is now trying to
claim. Where did the Society get its
information?
For sure, without adequately dismissing what
Mr. Jonsson clearly refers
to as "the most
important astronomical diary" of his
discussion, the Watchtower Society's 607BCE
claim for the fall of Jerusalem is clearly
challenged and is apparently WRONG!
One must ask, therefore, why would the
Watchtower Society openly lie and claim
that the VAT 4956 came from the Seleucid
Period when, in fact, per Sachs and Jonsson
it is the second oldest of all the datable
diaries available and is dated by them as
a
contemporary document from 568/67BCE?
Obviously A.J. Sachs and C. O. Jonsson would
have no reason to lie and misrepresent the
historical facts about this document.
Is the WTS up to its old tricks?
Anonymous
(NOTE:
Above contains some elements of
satire.)