More issues with Chronology

A critical review of Rolf Furuli’s 2^nd volume on chronology:

 

Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian Chronology. Volume II of Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible

(Oslo: Awatu Publishers, 2007).

 

Part I:  The astronomical “diary” VAT 4956

 

©  Carl Olof Jonsson, Göteborg, Sweden, 2007

 

 

Rolf Furuli’s new book on chronology, Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian Chronology (Oslo: Awatu Publishers, 2007), covers 368 pages. Chapter 6 (pages 94-123) and Appendix C (266-325), which together cover 90 pages or about 25 percent of the book, are devoted to an attempt to overcome the evidence provided by the astronomical cuneiform tablet VAT 4956, dated to the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar II.

 

VAT 4956 is a so-called astronomical “diary” that records the positions of the moon and the five planets visible to the naked eye observed during the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar. About 30 of these records are so well preserved that they can be checked by modern computations. These computations have confirmed that the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar corresponds to year 568/567 BCE (spring-to-spring).

 

For a detailed description of this tablet and its importance for the absolute chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period, see pages 157-164 of my book The Gentile Times Reconsidered, 4^th edition (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 2004).  

 

 

 

 

HAS VAT 4956 BEEN “TAMPERED WITH” IN MODERN TIMES?

 

Furuli dedicates a substantial part of his discussion to arguing that the cuneiform signs on the tablet have been “deliberately tampered with” in modern times. In particular he claims that the signs for “year 37” at the beginning of the text in line 1 on the obverse of the tablet and the signs for “year 38” and “year 37” in the concluding lines at the lower edge on the reverse seem to have been “incised” by someone in modern times. He also claims that the signs for the name “Nebuchadnezzar” in line 1 on the obverse have been manipulated. After a lengthy analysis Furuli presents the following hypothesis on pages 285, 286:

 

“A consideration of the data above together with the unusual publication history of the tablet leads to the following hypothesis: VAT 4956 is an authentic cuneiform tablet that was copied from older tablets in one of the last centuries B.C.E. It came to the Vorderasiatische Museum in Berlin about 1905 as one single entity. Someone discovered that the tablet was extremely important because it was an astronomical tablet with the hitherto oldest astronomical observations. These observations seemed to fit year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II according to the chronology of Ptolemy, but a clear connection with Nebuchadnezzar II was lacking. In order to make this connection perfectly clear, the one working with the tablet used a modern grinding machine on the edge of the tablet, thus incising the signs for ‘year 37’ and ‘year 38.’ The first line with the name of the king was also manipulated. Because of the vibration, the tablet broke into three pieces, which were then glued together. It was discovered that the fit of the signs on both sides of the break on the reverse side was not perfect, and a grinding machine was used to try to remedy this. If this hypothesis is correct, a direct link to years 37 and 38 of Nebuchadnezzar II was not originally found on the tablet, but the lunar observations are genuine, while the planetary positions are probably backward calculations.”

 

On pages 295-324 Furuli discusses the astronomical contents reported on the tablet. He finds that the planetary positions on the whole fit the year 568/567 BCE, but claims that the 13 lunar positions better fit the year 588/587 BCE. At the end of the Appendix on pages 324, 325, therefore, he draws the following conclusions:

 

 “The following principal conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the discussion of VAT 4956: The Diary is most likely a genuine tablet made in Seleucid times, but in modern times someone has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs. Because of the excellent fit of all 13 lunar positions in 588/87, there are good reasons to believe that the lunar positions represent observations from that year, and that the original tablet that was copied in Seleucid times was made in 588/87. Because so many of the planetary positions are approximately correct, but not completely correct, there are good reasons to believe that they represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II. Thus, the lunar positions seem to be original observations from 588/87, and the planetary positions are backward calculations for the positions of the planets in 568/67.”

What about the claim that someone in modern times has “tampered” with the signs on the tablet and, by using “a modern grinding machine on the edge of the tablet,” has incised the signs for ‘year 37’ and ‘year 38’ on the tablet? Furuli proposes this idea as a “hypothesis,” as he knows very well that he has not been able to present any evidence in support of the idea.

 

According to Furuli’s hypothesis, the supposed modern forger did not only incise the signs for “year 37” and “year 38” at the edge of the tablet. He also incised the signs for “year 37” and “manipulated” the signs for the name of the king, Nebuchadnezzar, in the beginning of line 1 on the obverse. The first question is how he could have done this, as there would have been no space at all at the beginning of the line for adding anything?

 

If there was another date and a different royal name on the original tablet, the modern forger had first to remove these signs (with the supposed grinding machine?) before the signs of the new date and the signs of the changes of the royal name could be incised on the tablet. But such a replacement of the first signs of line 1 could never have been done without leaving clear traces (e.g., depressions in the tablet) at the beginning of the line. No such traces exist. The signs look quite genuine. As one specialist on cuneiform points out:  

 

“Anyone acquainted with cuneiform can see that ‘year 37’ and ‘year 38’ are written by an experienced scribe. No modern person could have achieved to scratch (into dried clay!!) true-looking signs.” (Communication Hermann Hunger–C. O. Jonsson, Jan. 8, 200

 

Another problem with Furuli’s hypothesis is the identity of the supposed modern forger of the dates and the royal name on the tablet. The first translation of the tablet was that of Paul V. Neugebauer and Ernst Weidner, whose translation together with an astronomical examination and a discussion of it was published back in 1915. (“Ein astronomischer Beobachtungstext aus dem 37. Jahre Nebukadnezars II. (– 567/66),” Berichte über die Verhandlungen der königlich sächlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch-historische Klasse. 67. Band. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1915)

 

As the article by Neugebauer and Weidner clearly shows, the date and the royal name (“year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar”) were already on the tablet in 1915 when they were examining it. Are we to believe that these two scholars were forgers, who co-operated in removing some of the original signs on the tablet and replacing them with signs of their own preference? Even Furuli admits that he “cannot imagine that any scientist working with the tablet at the Vorderasiatische Museum has committed fraud.” (Furuli, p. 285) He has no idea about who the supposed forger may have been, or how he/she managed to change the signs on line 1 without leaving any traces of it on the tablet.  

 

Finally, Furuli’s hypothesis is self-contradictory. If it were true that the planetary positions “represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II,” and if it were true that “the original tablet that was copied in Seleucid times was made in 588/87,” which Furuli argues was the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar, then the astrologer/copyist must have dated the tablet to the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar from the very beginning! No modern manipulation of the date would then have been necessary.

 

Furuli’s hypothesis is simply untenable. The only reason for his suggesting it is the desperate need to get rid of a tablet that inexorably demolishes his “Oslo [= Watchtower] chronology” and firmly establishes the absolute chronology for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BCE).

 

As discussed in chapter 4 of my book The Gentile Times Reconsidered (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 2004), there are at least nine other astronomical tablets that perform the same service. Furuli’s futile attempts to undermine the enormous burden of evidence provided by these other astronomical tablets will be discussed in another, separate part of this review.

 

The question that remains to be discussed here is Furuli’s claim that the lunar positions that were observed in the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar and are recorded on VAT 4956 fit the year 588/587 better than 568/567 BCE.

 

 

DO THE LUNAR POSITIONS RECORDED ON VAT 4956

FIT 588/587 BETTER THAN 568/567 BCE?

 

On the back cover of his new book Rolf Furuli states that the conclusion of his study is that “the lunar data on the tablet [VAT 4956] better fit 588 than 568 B.C.E., and that this is the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar II.” What about this claim?

 

A careful examination of all the legible lunar positions recorded on this astronomical “diary” proves that the claim is false. Almost none of the lunar positions recorded on VAT 4956 fit the year 588/587 BCE, while nearly all of them excellently correspond to lunar positions in the year 568/567 BCE.

 

The astronomy program used for this examination is Chris Marriott’s SkyMap Pro 11.04, which uses the modern complete ELP2000-82B lunar theory. The “delta-T” value used for the secular acceleration of the Moon is 1.7 milliseconds per century, which is the result of the extensive research presented by F. Richard Stephenson in his Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation (Cambridge, 1997). The program used, therefore, maintains high accuracy far into the past, which is not true of many other modern astronomy programs. 

 

About a year before Furuli’s book had been published in the autumn of 2007 I had examined his claim (which he had published officially in advance) and found that none of the lunar positions fit the year 588/587 BCE. I shared the first half of my results with some of my correspondents. I did not know at that time that Furuli not only moves the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar 20 years back to 588/587 BCE, but that he also moves the 37^th year about one extra month forward in the Julian calendar, which actually makes it fall too late in that year. The reason for this is the following:

 

On the obverse, line 17, VAT 4956 states that on day 15 of month III (Simanu) there was a “lunar eclipse that was omitted.” The phrase refers to an eclipse that had been calculated in advance to be invisible from the Babylonian horizon.

 

On page 126 Furuli explains that he has used this eclipse record as the “point of departure” for  mapping “the regnal years, the intercalary months, and the beginning of each month in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, both from the point of view that 568/67 and 588/87 B.C.E. represent his year 37.”

 

In the traditional date for the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar, this eclipse can easily be identified with the eclipse of July 4, 568 (Julian calendar). Thus the Babylonian date, the 15^th of month III, corresponds to July 4, 568 BCE. From that date we may count backward to the 1st of month III, which must have been June 20/21 (sunset to sunset), 568. As the tablet further shows that the preceding Month II (Ayyaru) had 29 days and Month I (Nisannu) 30 days, it is easy to figure out that the 1^st of Ayyaru fell on May 22/23, 568, and the 1^st of Nisannu (i.e., the 1^st day of year 37) on April 22/23, 568 BCE.

 

On moving back 20 years to 588/87 BCE – the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar in Furuli’s alternative “Oslo Chronology” – we find that in this year, too, there was a lunar eclipse that could not be seen from the Babylonian horizon. It took place on July 15, 588 BCE. According to Furuli this is the eclipse that VAT 4956 dates to the 15^th of month III (Simanu). Reckoning backwards from July 15, Furuli dates the 1^st of month III to June 30, 588; the 1^st of month II (Ayyaru) to June 1, 588, and the 1^st of month I (Nisannu) to May 1. (In his discussions and/or calculations he is inconsistently alternating between May 1, May 2, and May 3).

 

There are a number of problems with Furuli’s dates. The first one is that the first day of the Babylonian year, Nisannu 1, never began as late as in May! As shown by the tables on pages 27-47 in R. A. Parker & W. H. Dubberstein’s Babylonian Chronology (Brown Univeristy Press, 1956), the 1^st of Nisannu never once in the 700-year period covered (626 BCE – CE 75) began as late as in May. The same holds true of the subsequent months: the 1^st of Ayyaru never began as late as on June 1, and the 1^st of Simanu never began as late as on June 30. For this reason alone the lunar eclipse that VAT 4956 dates to the 15^th of month III cannot be that of July 15, 588 BCE! This eclipse must have fallen in the middle of month IV in the Babylonian calendar. Furuli’s “point of departure” for his “Oslo Chronology,” therefore, is quite clearly wrong.

 

Very interestingly, the lunar eclipse of July 15, 588 BCE was recorded by the Babylonians on another cuneiform tablet, BM 38462, No. 1420 in A. Sachs’ LBAT catalogue, and No. 6 in H. Hunger’s Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia (ADT), Vol. V (Wien, 2001). I discussed this tablet on pages 180-182 of my book, The Gentile Times Reconsidered (3^rd ed. 1998, 4^th ed. 2004). The chronological strength of this tablet is just as decisive as that of VAT 4956. It contains annual lunar eclipse reports dating from the 1^st to at least the 29^th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (604/603 – 576/575 BCE). The preserved parts of the tablet contain as many as 37 records of eclipses, 22 of which were predicted, 14 observed, and one that is uncertain.

 

The entry containing the record of the July 15, 588 BCE eclipse (obverse, lines 16-1 is dated to year 17, not year 37, of Nebuchadnezzar! This entry reports two lunar eclipses in this year, one “omitted” and one observed. The first, “omitted” one, which refers to the eclipse of July 15, 588, is dated to month IV (Duzu), not to month III (Simanu). So it cannot be the eclipse dated to month III on VAT 4956. That this eclipse really is the one of July 15, 588 is confirmed by the detailed information given about the second, observed lunar eclipse, which is dated to month X (Tebetu) of year 17. The details about the time and the magnitude help to identify this eclipse beyond all reasonable doubts. The whole entry reads according to H. Hunger’s translation in ADT V, page 29:

 

“[Year] 17, Month IV, [omitted.]

[Month] X, the 13^th, morning watch, 1 beru 5^o [before sunrise^?]

All of it was covered. [It set eclips]ed.”

 

The second eclipse in month X – six months after the first – took place on January 8, 587 BCE. This date, therefore, corresponded to the 13^th of month X in the Babylonian calendar. This agrees with Parker & Dubberstein’s tables, which show that the 1^st of month X (Tebetu) fell on 26/27 December in 588 BCE. The Babylonians divided the 24-hour day into 12 beru or 360 USH (degrees), so one beru was two hours and 5 USH (= degrees of four minutes each) were 20 minutes. According to the tablet, then, this eclipse began 2 hours and 20 minutes before sunrise. It was total (“All of it was covered”), and it “[set eclips]ed,” i.e., it ended after moonset. What do modern computations of this eclipse show?

 

My astroprogram shows that the eclipse of January 8, 587 BCE began “in the morning watch” at 04:51, and that sunrise occurred at 07:12. The eclipse, then, began 2 hours and 21 minutes before sunrise – exactly as the tablet says. The difference of one minute is not real, as the USH (time degree of 4 minutes) is the shortest time unit used in this text. [The USH was not the shortest time unit of the Babylonians, of course, as they also divided the USH into 12 “fingers” of 20 seconds each.] The totality began at 05:53 and ended at 07:38. As moonset occurred at 07:17 according to my program, the eclipse was still total at moonset. Thus the moon “set while eclipsed.”

 

Furuli attempts to dismiss the enormous weight of evidence provided by this tablet in just a few very confusing statements on page 127 of his book. He erroneously claims that the many eclipses recorded “occurred in the month before they were expected, except in one case where the eclipse may have occurred two months before.” There is not the slightest truth in this statement. Both the predicted and the observed eclipses agree with modern computations. The statement seems to be based on the gross mistakes he has made on the previous page, where he has misidentified the months on LBAT 1421 with disastrous results for his calculations.

 

In the examination below, the lunar positions recorded on VAT 4956 are tested both for 568/567 BCE as the generally accepted 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar and for Furuli’s alternative dates in 588/587 BCE as presented on pages 295-325 of his book.

 

Furuli has also tested the lunar positions for the year 586/585 BCE, one Saros period (223 months, or 18 years + c. 11 days) previous to 568/567. As Furuli himself rejects this year as not being any part of his “Oslo Chronology”, I will ignore it as well as all his computations for that year (which in any case are far from correct in most cases).

 

The record of the first lunar position on the obverse, line 1, of VAT 4956 reads:

 

(1)  Obv.´ line 1: “Year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. Month I, (the 1^st of which was identical with) the 30^th (of the preceding month), the moon became visible behind the Bull of Heaven”.

 

Nisannu 1 = 22/23 April 568 BCE:

The information that the 1^st of Month I (Nisannu) was identical with the 30^th of the preceding month is given to show that the preceding lunar month (Addaru II of year 36, as shown also at Obv. line 5 of our text) had only 29 days. In 568 BCE the 1st day of Nisannu fell on 22/23 April (from evening 22 to evening 23) in the Julian calendar. After sunset (at c. 18:30) and before moonset (c. 19:34) on April 22 the new moon became visible c. 5.5^o east of (= behind) α Taurus, the most brilliant star in the constellation of Taurus (“the Bull of Heaven”). This is close enough to the position given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Nisannu 1 = 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd May 588 BCE:

In 588 BCE day 1 of Nisannu fell on 3/4 April according to the modern calculations of the first visibility of the new moon after conjunction. Between sunset (at c. 18:1 and moonset (at c. 19:14) on April 3 the new moon became visible at the western end of the constellation of Taurus, about 14^o west of (= in front of) α Taurus. Thus the moon was clearly not behind the constellation of Taurus at this time. This position, therefore, does not fit that on the tablet.

 

But as stated above, Furuli moves Nisannu 1 of 588 about one month forward in the Julian calendar, which is required by his identification of the lunar eclipse dated to month III on the tablet with the eclipse of July 15, 588. (Furuli, p. 296) This should have moved 1 Nisannu to 3/4 May, 588 BCE, a date that is scarcely possible, as all the evidence available shows that 1 Nisannu never fell that late in the Julian calendar in the Neo-Babylonian or any later period. But Furuli goes on to make an even more serious error in connection with this relocation of   Nisannu 1.

 

On page 311 Furuli explicitly states that, “In order to correlate the Babylonian calendar with the Julian calendar, I take as a point of departure that each month began with the sighting of the new moon.” He goes on to explain that, due to bad weather conditions, the month could sometimes “begin a day after the new moon.” Despite this pronounced (and quite correct) point of departure, Furuli, in his discussion of the planetary positions on page 296, dates the 1^st of Nisannu in 588, not to 3/4 May but to May 1. He does not seem to have realized that this was not the date of the sighting of the new moon after conjunction. On the contrary, this date not only preceded the first sighting of the new moon by two days, but also the date of conjunction (the time of lunar invisibility) by one day!

 

Later on, in the beginning of his discussion of the lunar positions on page 312, Furuli seems to have discovered that the May 1 date is problematic, because here he suddenly and without any explanation moves the beginning of 1 Nisannu in 588 forward, at first from May 1 to the evening of May 3, but finally, in the table at the bottom of the page, to the evening of May 2! Such manipulations of the Julian date for 1 Nisannu are, of course, inadmissible. One cannot have three different dates for 1 Nisannu in the same year!

 

True, the conjunction did occur on 2 May, at c. 03:39 local time. (Herman H. Goldstein, New and Full Moons 1001 B.C. to A.D. 1651, Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1973, p. 35) But this does not mean that the new moon became visible on that day in the evening after sunset. For a number of reasons, the time interval between the conjunction and the first sighting of the new moon is considerable. As Dr. Sacha Stern explains, “the time interval between conjunction and first evening of visibility is often as long as one day (24 hours); it ranges however, at Mediterranean latitudes between a minimum of about 15 hours and a maximum of well over two days.” (S. Stern, Calendar and Community, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 100) The results of modern examinations of the first lunar crescents recorded on the Babylonian astronomical tablets from 568 to 74 BCE are presented by Uroš Anderlič, “Comparison with First Lunar Crescent Dates of L. Fatoohi,” available on the web at: http://www.univie.ac.at/EPH/Geschichte/First_Lunar_Crescents/Main-Comp-Fatoohi-Anderlic.htm . 

 

Thus the new moon could not be seen in the evening of 2 May, either. The earliest time for the visibility of the new moon was in the evening of 3 May, as stated above. Assuming that this incredibly late date for 1 Nisannu were correct, we find that the new moon did appear behind the constellation of Taurus in this evening (of May 3) between sunset (at c. 18:36) and moonset (at c. 20:05). But it was closer to the constellation of Gemini than to Taurus, so the position of the moon still does not fit very well.

 

In conclusion, the two dates for 1 Nisannu (1^st and 2^nd May) that Furuli actually uses in his computations are impossible. And should he have used May 3 as the date for 1 Nisannu, this would not have been of much help to him, as all the three dates are unacceptably late as the beginning of the Babylonian year.

 

(2)  Obv.´ line 3 says: “Night of the 9^th (error for: 8^th), the beginning of the night, the moon stood 1 cubit [= 2^o] in front of [= west of] β Virginis.”

 

Nisannu 8 = 29/30 April 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 8th of Nisannu fell on 29/30 April. In the beginning of the night on April 29 the moon stood about 3.6^o northwest of β Virginis, or about 2^o to the west (in front of) and 3^o to the north of (above) the star. This agrees quite well with the Babylonian measurement of 2^o, which, of course, is a rather rough and rounded-off figure.

 

Furuli’s date: Nisannu 9 = 11 May 588 BCE:

As Furuli (incorrectly) dates 1 Nisannu to 2 May in 588, he should have dated the 8^th and 9^th of Nisannu to May 9 and 10, respectively. However, he moves the dates another day forward, to May 10 and 11, respectively, as is shown in his table at the bottom of page 313. Based on this error, he claims that, “On Nisanu 9 [May 11], the moon stood 1 cubit (2^o) in front of β Virginis, exactly what the tablet says.” (Furuli, p. 313)

 

But this is wrong, too. In the “beginning of the night” of 11 May 588 the moon stood, not to the west of (in front of), but far to the east of (behind) β Virginis (about 13^o to the east of this star at 20:00). To add to the mess, the altitude/azimuth position of the moon in Furuli’s two columns to the right in his table is wrong, too, as it shows the position near midnight, not at “the beginning of the night” as the tablet says.

 

(3)  Obv.´ line 8: “Month II, the 1^st (of which followed the 30^th of the preceding month), the moon became visible while the sun stood there, 4 cubits [= 8^o] below β Geminorum.”

 

Ayyaru 1 = 22/23 May 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 1^st day of Month II (Ayyaru) fell on 22/23 May. The distance between sunset this evening (at c. 18:49) and moonset (at c. 20:46) was c. 117 minutes. This distance between the moon and the sun was long enough for the new moon to become visible while the sun still “stood there,” i.e., just above the horizon. At its appearance the new moon stood about 7.3^o south of (below) β Geminorum, which is very close to the position given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Ayyaru 1 = 1 June 588 BCE:

As Furuli has dated Nisannu 1 to 1 May, and later to 2 May, the 1^st of Ayyaru should fall one lunar month later.  Furuli (p. 314) dates it to June 1. This, however, conflicts with his earlier dates, because if Nisannu 1 began in the evening of 1 May as he holds at first (p. 296), and if Nisannu had 30 days as the tablet says, he should have dated the 1^st of Ayyaru to May 31. But because he later on redates the beginning of Nisannu 1 to the evening of 2 May (p. 312), he is now able to date the 1^st of Ayyaru to 1 June. But as was pointed out earlier, the 2 May date for Nisannu 1 is unacceptable, too, as the moon did not become visible until 3 May.

 

Furuli’s choice of 1 June seems to be due to the fact that the new moon could not be sighted until that day. It became visible at sunset (c. 18:56) about 9.7^o below β Geminorum. This is not “exactly 4 cubits below” this star, as Furuli states (p. 314), but close to 5 cubits below it. Yet this would have been an acceptable approximation, had the date been right. But it does not only conflict with Furuli’s dating of Nisannu 1 to 1 May; the month of Ayyaru never began as late as in June. In addition, the altitude/azimuth position Furuli gives in his table (+ 54 and 256) is also wrong, as it does not show the position of the moon at sunset, but at c. 15:16, when it was still invisible. Actually, Furuli’s figures for the altitude/azimuth position at the time of observation are so often erroneous that they will henceforth be ignored. The only detail that fairly corresponds to the statement on the tablet, then, is the position of the moon. Everything else is wrong.

 

(4)  Obv.´ line 12: “Month III, (the first of which was identical with) the 30^th (of the preceding month), the moon became visible behind Cancer; it was thick; sunset to moonset: 20^o [= 80 minutes]”.

 

Simanu 1 = 20/21 June 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 1^st day of Month III (Simanu) fell on 20/21 June. Day 1 began in the evening after sunset on June 20. At that time the new moon became visible behind (= east of) Cancer, exactly as the tablet says. According to my astro-program the distance from sunset to moonset was c. 23^o (= 92 minutes; from sunset c. 19:06 to moonset c. 20:38). This is not very far from the measurement of the Babylonian astronomers. The discrepancy of 3^o is acceptable in view of the primitive instruments they seem to have used. As N. M. Swerdlow has suggested, “the measurements could have been made with something as simple as a graduated rod held at arm’s length.” (N. M. Swerdlow, The Babylonian Theory of the Planets, Princeton University Press, 1998, pp. 40, 187)

 

Furuli’s date: Simanu 1 = 30 June 588 BCE:

As Furuli dated the 1^st of Ayyaru to June 1, and as the tablet shows that Ayyaru had 29 days, he should date the 1^st of Simanu to June 30, which he does. And it is true that we do find the moon behind Cancer on this date. Furuli states that “it was 6^o to the left (behind) the center of Cancer, so the fit is excellent.” But he has to add immediately that “it was so close to the sun that it was not visible.” (Furuli, p. 315. Emphasis added.)

 

The reason is that the conjunction had occurred earlier on the very same day, at about 03:30. (H. H. Goldstine, op. cit., p. 35) In the evening the time distance between sunset (at c. 19:09) and moonset (at c. 19:32) was still no more than 23 minutes, i.e., less than 6^o, so the moon was too close to the sun to be visible. Furuli does not comment on the fact that the tablet gives the distance between sunset and moonset as much as 20^o (80 minutes), showing that the moon on Simanu 1 was far enough from the sun during the observation to be visible, contrary to the situation in the evening of June 30 in 588. For this reason alone Furuli’s date is disqualified.

 

(5)  Obv.´ line 14: “Night of the 5^th, beginning of the night, the moon passed towards the east 1 cubit [2^o] <above/below> the bright star at the end of the Lion’s foot [= β Virginis].”

 

Simanu 5 = 24/25 June 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 5^th of Simanu fell on 24/25 June according to the tables of R. A. Parker & W. H. Dubberstein (Babylonian Chronology, 1956, p. 28). In the evening of the 24th, the moon passed towards the east c. 2^o north of γ Virginis, not of β Virginis. So here is a problem. Either the Babylonian scholar misnamed the star, or he misdated the observation by one day. In the previous evening (on the 23^rd), the moon passed c. 4^o above (north of) β Virginis. Thus Johannes Koch translates the 5^th of Simanu into June 23 of the Julian calendar and calculates that in the evening that day at 22:36 the moon was 4^o 17´ above and 0^o 55´ behind β Virginis. (See J. Koch, “Zur Bedeutung von LÁL in den ‘Astronomical Diaries’ und in der Plejaden-Schaltregel,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 49, 1997, p. 88.)

 

Furuli’s date: Simanu 5 = 4 July 588 BCE:

Furuli dates the 5^th of Simanu to 4 July 588 BCE. He claims (p. 315) that on this date “the fit is excellent: the moon passed 1 cubit (2^o) above β Virginis.” Unfortunately, it did not. When the Babylonian day began (at sunset, c. 19:10) the moon was already c. 2 ½ cubits (5^o) behind (east of) β Virginis. It had passed above β Virginis about 12 hours earlier, in the morning before moonrise, but that would have been on Simanu 4, not on Simanu 5. So the fit is far from “excellent.”

 

(6)  Obv.´ line 15: “Night of the 8^th, first part of the night, the moon stood 2 ½ cubits [= 5^o] below β Librae.”

 

Simanu 8 = 27/28 June 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 8^th of Simanu fell on 27/28 June. My astro-program shows that in the early night of June 27 the moon stood c. 4.5^o south of β Librae, which is very close to the position given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Simanu 8 = 7 July 588 BCE:

Furuli, who dates the 8^th of Simanu to the 7th of July, 588 BCE, claims (p. 316) that the moon on that day “was 2 ½ cubits below β Librae, so the fit is excellent.” Again, Furuli is wrong. In the “first part of the night” on 7 July 588 BCE the moon stood as much as c. 6 cubits (12^o) west of (i.e., far from below) β Librae. It was in fact closer to the constellation of Virgo than to Libra. So Furuli’s date does not fit at all.

 

(7)  Obv.´ line 16: “Night of the 10^th, first part of the night, the moon was balanced 3 ½ cubits [= 7^o] above α Scorpii.”

 

Simanu 10 = 29/30 June 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 10^th of Simanu fell on 29/30 June. In the first part of the night of the 29^th, the moon stood about 8^o above (north of) α Scorpii, which is very close to the position described on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Simanu 10 = 10 July 588 BCE:

As Furuli had dated Simanu 8 to July 7, he should have dated Simanu 10 to 9 July 588. But strangely, he mistranslates it into 10 July and claims (p. 317): “The moon was 3 ½ cubits (7^o) above α Scorpii, so the fit is excellent.” But in the “first part of the night” that day the moon was over 5 cubits (10^o) northeast of α Scorpii. And even if we move back to the early night of July 9, the moon at that time was about 5 cubits (10^o) northwest of α Scorpii. It would not be correct to state of any of these lunar positions that the “fit is excellent”. None of them fits.

 

(8)  Obv.´ line 17: “The 15^th, one god was seen with the other; sunrise to moonset: 7^o 30´ [= 30 minutes]. A lunar eclipse which was omitted [….]”

 

Simanu 15 = 4/5 July 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 15^th of Simanu fell on 4/5 July. The expression “one god was seen with the other” refers to the situation when the sun and the moon are both visible at the same time when standing in opposition to each other. This was the situation in the early morning of 5 July. From sunrise in the east at c. 04:51 to moonset in the west at c. 05:24, i.e., for about 33 minutes, “one god was seen with the other.” This is very close to the time distance recorded on the tablet, 7^o 30´, or 30 minutes.

 

Line 17 also records “a lunar eclipse which was omitted [….]”, an expression used of an eclipse that had been predicted in advance to be invisible from the Babylonian horizon. The text is somewhat damaged, but the reference is obviously to the lunar eclipse of July 4, 568 BCE, which according to modern calculations began about 12:50 and lasted until 14:52, local time. As it took place in the early afternoon when the moon was below the horizon, it could not be observed in Babylonia.

 

Furuli’s date: Simanu 15 = 15 July 588 BCE:

Furuli dates Simanu 15 to 15 July 588 BCE. True, there was a lunar eclipse on that day that was invisible from the Babylonian horizon. Furuli claims on page 317 that “the eclipses of July 15, 588; of July 4, 568; and of June 24, 586, all occurred on Simanu 15 and fit the description.” However, the time distances between sunrise and moonset at the dates in 588 and 586 do not fit at all with the information on the tablet. On 15 July 588 the moonset (at 04:50) occurred about five minutes before sunrise (04:55), so the two “gods” could not been seen with each other that day. And the same problem is connected with the June 24, 586 BCE date. Of the three alternatives, therefore, only the July 4, 568 BCE date fits the information on the tablet.

 

In passing, Hunger’s translation of the obv.´ line 18 should be corrected. It says: “[…. the moon was be]low the bright star at the end of the [Lion’s] foot [….]”

 

The signs within brackets are illegible and the text had to be restored by Hunger. But as he himself later explained, the word “moon” was just a guess that he had not checked. Modern calculations show that, if the day number (which is lost, too) was the 16^th (July 5/6), the heavenly body that was below “the bright star at the end of the Lion’s foot” (= β Virginis) must have been Venus, not the moon. This was later pointed out also by Johannes Koch (JCS 49, 1997, p. 84, n. 7, and p. 89). However, Koch calculates that Venus in the first part of the night of July 5 was 0^o 02´above and 1^o 06´ behind β Virginis, while the SkyMap Pro 11 program shows that Venus at that time was not 0^o 02´above but about 0^o 64´ below and about 0^o 89´ behind β Virginis. These results are in closer agreement with the tablet.

 

(9)  ´Rev. line 5: “Month XI, (the 1^st of which was identical with) the 30^th (of the preceding month), the moon became visible in the Swallow; sunset to moonset: 14^o 30´ [58 minutes]; the north wind blew. At that time, Jupiter was 1 cubit behind the elbow of Sagittarius [….]”

 

Shabatu 1 = 12/13 February 567 BCE:

In 568/567 BCE the first day of month XI (Shabatu) fell on 12/13 February 567 BCE. On day 12 the distance between sunset (at c. 17:44) and moonset (c. 18:53) was 69 minutes (17^o 15´), or 11 minutes (2^o 45´) more than those given on the tablet, 58 minutes. According to the tablet, the new moon became visible after sunset “in the Swallow.”

 

The “Swallow” covered or included a part of the constellation of Pisces. The exact extension of the “Swallow” is not quite clear. But it included a band of stars called “DUR SIM-MAH (ribbon of the swallow)” which included at least δ, ε, and ζ Pisces, perhaps also some other stars. The “ribbon of the swallow” is referred to in over a dozen astronomical reports dating from 567 to 78 BCE, and these have been helpful in locating at least some stars in the group. (Alexander Jones, “A Study of Babylonian Observations of Planets Near Normal Stars,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 58, 2004, pp. 483, 490) The “Swallow”, then, comprised at least the “ribbon of the swallow” and then extended westward along the Pisces.

 

Furuli’s discussion of SIM and SIM-MAH on page 296 is thoroughly misleading, as he tries to confuse the issue by referring to some older views without telling that they were abandoned long ago. This is true of Kugler’s suggestion back in 1914 that SIM-MAH applies to the northwest of Aquarius. To be sure, Furuli states that two modern scholars, E. Kasak and R. Veede, in an article published in 2001 applies SIM to “the Bull of Heaven” (Taurus). They do not! In their article (available on the web: http:/folklore.ee/folklore/vol16/planets.pdf) they do not mention SIM at all! Furuli also refers to the conclusion of van der Waerden (1974) that it applies to “the south-west part of Pisces” – as if this would be yet another view. The fact is that his conclusion does not conflict with that of other modern scholars, including that of Jones, Hunger, and Pingree. The impression Furuli tries to give, that modern experts widely disagree about the identity of SIM and SIM-MAH, is false. All agree that it covered or included a part of the constellation of Pisces.

 

My astro-program shows that in the evening after sunset on February 12, 567 BCE, the new moon became visible in the Pisces, about half-way between α Pisces in the south and γ Pisces in the west and c. 8.5^o below the centre of the western bow of the Pisces. Furuli’s statement that the moon at this time was “13^o below the central part of Pisces” is not correct. His claim that the position is “a somewhat inaccurate fit” is totally uncalled-for, in particular in view of his statement that “the fit is excellent” when he finds the lunar position on his own preferred date (February 22, 587) to have been “9^o below the central part of Pisces.”

 

There can be no doubt that the moon on February 12, 567 BCE was “in the Swallow,” just as is stated on the tablet. At that time Jupiter could also be seen in Sagittarius as the tablet says.

 

Furuli’s date: Shabatu 1 = 22 February 587 BCE:

Furuli’s date for Shabatu 1 is 22 February 587 BCE. And it is true that the moon on that day was “in the Swallow.” One problem with this date, however, is that the new moon at sunset was so close to the sun (less than 10^o) that it most probably was invisible. The conjunction had occurred earlier on the same Julian day, at c. 01:26. Besides, Jupiter was between Aries and Pisces, far away from Sagittarius where it is placed by the tablet.

 

(10)  ´Rev. line 12: “Month XII, the first (of which followed the 30^th of the preceding month), the moon became visible behind Aries while the sun stood there; sunset to moonset: 25^o [100 minutes], measured; earthshine; the north wind blew.”

 

Addaru 1 = 14/15 March 567 BCE:

In 568/567 BCE the first day of month XII (Addaru) fell on 14/15 March 567 BCE. On day 14 the distance between sunset (at c. 18:06) and moonset (at c. 19:50) was 104 minutes (26^o), which is very close to the Babylonian measurement, 25^o (100 minutes). The distance between the moon and the sun was long enough for the moon to become visible before sunset (“while the sun stood there”). At that time the moon stood about 15^o southeast of α Aries, thus partially behind and partially below the most brilliant star in Aries. This roughly agrees with the position given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Addaru 1 = 24 March 587 BCE:

Furuli’s date for Addaru 1 is 24 March 587 BCE. Of the position of the moon Furuli says (p. 321): “The moon was 13^o to the left of (behind) Aries, so the fit is excellent.” This is not quite correct. About 86 minutes (c. 21.5^o) before sunset (“while the sun stood there”), the moon stood about 7^o to the south of (below) the nearest star in Aries (δ Aries) and about 20^o to the southeast of (i.e., partially below and partially behind) α Aries. This position is not very exact, but acceptable.

 

(11)  ´Rev. line 13: “Night of the 2^nd, the moon was balanced 4 cubits [8^o] below η Tauri.”

 

Addaru 2 = 15/16 March 567 BCE:

In 567 BCE the 2^nd of Addaru fell on 15/16 March. In the night of the 15^th, at c. 19:00, the moon was 4 cubits (8^o) directly to the south of (below) η Tauri, also known as Alcyone, the most brilliant star in the star cluster Pleiades. This position agrees exactly with that given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Addaru 2 = 25 March 587 BCE:

Furuli dates Addaru 2 to 25 March 587 BCE. In the night of that day, at c. 19:00, the moon was about 10.5^o southeast of η Tauri, a position that does not agree very well with that given on the tablet. The fit is definitely not “excellent” as Furuli (p. 321) claims it is.

 

(12)  ´Rev. line 14: “Night of the 7^th, the moon was surrounded by a halo; Praesepe and α Leonis [stood] in [it ….]” 

 

Addaru 7 = 20/21 March 567 BCE:

In 567 BCE the 7^th of Addaru fell on 20/21 March. In the night of the 20^th/21^st the moon stood between α Leonis and Praesepe, the latter being an open star cluster close to the centre of the constellation of Cancer. As they lie about 23^o apart, the halo must have covered a large area in the sky. The next line (line 15), in fact, goes on to state that “the halo surrounded Cancer and Leo.” As the moon stood between these two constellations, its position agrees with that given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s statement (p. 322) that Cancer “is either the constellation or the zodiacal sign that covers 30^o of the heaven” is anachronistic, as the zodiacal belt was not divided into signs of 30^o each until much later, in the Persian era.

 

Furuli’s date: Addaru 7 = 30 March 587 BCE:

Furuli’s date for Addaru 7 is 30 March 587 BCE. He states that Cancer in that night “was 4^o above the moon and α Leonis was 13^o below the moon.” However, Cancer was not above but in front of (west of) the moon, and α Leonis was not below but behind (east of) the moon. But as this lunar position was nearly the same as on 20/21 March, 567 BCE, both positions fit.

 

 

(13)  ´Rev. line 16: “The 12^th, one god was seen with the other; sunrise to moonset: 1^o 30´ [6 minutes]; ….”

 

Addaru 12 = 25/26 March 567 BCE:

In 567 BCE the 12^th of Addaru fell on 25/26 March. According to the tablet sunrise occurred 1^o 30´ – 6 minutes – before moonset, meaning that one “god” could be “seen with the other” in the morning for six minutes. My astro-program shows that in the morning of March 26 the sun rose at c. 06:08 and the moon set c. 06:11, that is, they could both be seen at the same time above the horizon for about 3 minutes, which is close to the time given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Addaru 12 = 4/5 April 587 BCE:

Furuli has misunderstood the kind of phenomenon referred to by the expression “one god was seen with the other”. He explains on page 323: “To say that one god (the sun) was seen with the other god (the moon) was one way to express that the moon was full.”

 

Although it is true that the moon was nearly full when it was seen with the sun, this is not exactly what the expression refers to. As explained earlier, it refers to the situation when the sun and the moon stand in opposition to each other – the sun in the east and the moon in the west – and both can be seen simultaneously above the horizon for a short period of time. As Furuli has not understood this, his comments on the text are mistaken and irrelevant.

 

Furuli’s date for the 12^th of Addaru is 4/5 April 587 BCE. In the morning of April 5 the sun rose at c. 05:54. But the moon had already set at c. 05:13, i.e., about 41 minutes before sunrise. Thus one “god” could not be seen “with the other” this morning. Furuli’s date, then, is wrong. Only the 567 BCE date fits the statement on the tablet.

 

In summary, at least 10 of the 13 lunar positions examined fit the 568/567 BCE date quite well, one (no. 10) is acceptable, while two (nos. 2 and 5) are acceptable only if the dates are moved back one day. Of Furuli’s dates in 588/587 BCE only one (no. 12) fits, while 9 do not fit at all. The fits of the remaining three (9, 10, and 11) are far from good but acceptable.

 

The conclusion is, that the observations were made in 568/567 BCE. The year 588/587 BCE is definitely out of the question.

 

PROFESSOR ROBERT R. NEWTON AND ”THE CRIME OF CLAUDIUS PTOLEMY”

 

© Carl Olof Jonsson, Göteborg, Sweden, 2000

 

The following material is adapted from the discussion on pages 44-48 of the first and second editions of my book, The Gentile Times Reconsidered (published in 1983 and 1986), with some updates.

 

PROFESSOR ROBERT R. NEWTON (who died in 1991) was a noted physicist who has published a series of outstanding works on the secular accelerations of the moon and the earth. He examined in detail hundreds of astronomical observations dating all the way from the present back to about 700 BC, in order to determine the rate of the slowly changing of the length of the day during this period. The best information on his research in this area is found in his book, The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins, vol. 1, published in 1979. His results have more recently been further refined by other scholars, especially by F. Richard Stephenson. (Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)

     The research of Newton, Stephenson, and all the other scholars who have examined this matter totally and irrevocably demolishes the idea of ”Gary” (alias ”Joshua/92”), who in his posts on the H2O site claims that the longitude of Babylon in 568 BC was located at the longitude of Honolulu (a desperate idea resulting from his attempts to overcome the evidence of VAT 4956)! This idea presupposes a change of the length of the day since that time of a magnitude that is in the most glaring conflict with the research of Robert R. Newton, whom ”Gary” likes to quote (although very selectively and completely out of context).

 

Accusations against Claudius Ptolemy not new

The claim that Claudius Ptolemy ”deliberately fabricated” many of his observations is not new. Astronomers have questioned Ptolemy’s observations for centuries. As early as 1008 AD, ibn Yunis concluded that they contained serious errors, and by about 1800, astronomers had recognized that almost all of Ptolemy’s observations were in error. In 1817, Delambre asked: ”Did Ptolemy do any observing? Are not the observations that he claims to have made merely computations from his tables, and examples to help in explaining his theories?” (J.B.J. Delambre, Histoire de l’Astronomie Ancienne, Paris 1817, Vol. II, p. XXV. Quoted by Robert R. Newton in The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins [MAPO], Vol. I, Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, p. 43.)

     Two years later (1819) Delambre also concluded that Ptolemy fabricated some of his solar observations and demonstrated how the fabrication was made. (Newton, MAPO I, p. 44) More recently, other astronomers have re-examined Ptolemy’s observations and arrived at similar results. One of them is Professor Robert R. Newton. In his book, The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), Newton claims that Ptolemy fudged, not only a large body of the observations he says he had made himself, but also a number of the observations Ptolemy attributes to other astronomers, including some he quotes from Babylonian sources. These include the three oldest observations recorded in Ptolemy’s Almagest dating from the first and second years of the Babylonian king Merodach-baladan (called Mardokempados in Almagest), corresponding to 721 and 720 BC.

 

Scholars disagreeing with R.R. Newton

     In the ensuing debate a number of scholars have repudiated Newton’s conclusions. They have argued that Newton’s arguments ”are marred by all manner of distortions” (Bernard R. Goldstein of the University of Pittsburgh in Science, February 24, 1978, p. 872), and that his case collapses because ”it is based on faulty statistical analysis and a disregard for the methods of early astronomy” (scholars Noel M. Swerdlow of the University of Chicago, Victor E. Thoren of Indiana University, and Owen J. Gingerich of Harvard University, in Scientific American, March 1979, p. 93, American edition). Similar comments are made by Noel M. Swerdlow, ”Ptolemy on Trial, ” in The American Scholar, Autumn 1979, pp. 523-531, and by Julia Neuffer, ”´Ptolemy’s Canon´ Debunked?” in Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. XVII, No. 1, 1979, pp. 39-46. An article by Owen J. Gingerich with a rebuttal by R.R. Newton is found in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 21, 1980, pp. 253-266, 388-399, with a final response by Gingerich in Vol. 22, 1981, pp. 40-44.

 

Scholarly support for R.R. Newton

     Most of these critics, though, are historians without particular expertise in the field of Greek astronomy. Some reviews written by well-informed astronomers have been favorable to Newton’s conclusions. One historian who is also well acquainted with Greek astronomy, K.P. Moesgaard, agrees that Ptolemy fabricated his astronomical data, though he feels it was done for some honest reason. (K.P. Moesgaard, ”Ptolemy’s Failings,” Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. XI, 1980, pp. 133-135) Rolf Brahde, too, wrote a favorable review of Newton’s book in Astronomisk Tidskrift, 1979, No. 1, pp. 42,43.

     B.L. van der Waerden, Professor of Mathematics and an expert on Greek astronomy, discusses Newton’s claims in his book, Die Astronomie der Griechen (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1988). Although he would not go as far as Newton in his attack on Ptolemy, he agrees that Ptolemy falsified his observations, stating: ”That Ptolemy systematically and intentionally has falsified his observations in order to bring his observational results in agreement with his theory have been convincingly demonstrated by Delambre and Newton.” (p. 253)

 

Recent criticism of R.R. Newton

     G.J. Toomer, the well-known translator of Ptolemy’s Almagest (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co., 1984), discusses Newton’s claim in an article published in 1988 (”Hipparchus and Babylonian Astronomy,” in A Scientific Humanist. Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs, eds. E. Leichty, M. DeJ. Ellis, & P. Gerardi, Philadelphia, 1988, pp. 353-362), in which he convincingly argues that all the observations from earlier periods recorded by Ptolemy were taken over from the Greek mathematician Hipparchus (2^nd century BC).

     In 1990, Dr. Gerd Grasshoff included a lengthy section on the accusations against Claudius Ptolemy in his work, The History of Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue (London, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong: Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 79-91). He concludes that Newton’s arguments against Ptolemy are ”superficial” and ”unjustified”.

     More recently, Oscar Sheynin has discussed Newton’s accusations at some length, arguing that the reason why Ptolemy’s observations so well agree with his theory is, not that he fabricated them, but that he selected the observations that best fitted his theory. Although such selectivity is not allowed in science today, it was quite common in ancient times. For this reason Sheynin states that Ptolemy cannot be regarded a fraud. (O. Sheynin, ”The Treatment of Observations in Early Astronomy,” in C. Truesdell (ed.), Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 46:2, 1993, pp. 153-192.)

     In summary, there seems to be at least some evidence in support of the claims that Claudius Ptolemy was ”fraudulent” in the way he handled his observations, either by ”trimming” the values or by selecting those who best fitted his theory. However, few scholars would go as far as Newton, who dismisses Ptolemy altogether as a fraud. As Dr. James Evans notes, ”very few historians of astronomy have accepted Newton’s conclusions in their entirety.” (Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 24, Parts ½, February/May, 1993, pp. 145-146.)

 

R.R. Newton and ”Ptolemy’s Canon”

In a review of Newton’s book, The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, published in Scientific American of October 1977, pp. 79-81, it was stated that ”Ptolemy’s forgery may have extended to inventing the length of reigns of Babylonian kings.” This was a reference to the so-called ”Ptolemy’s Canon”, which Newton at that time erroneously believed had been composed by Claudius Ptolemy himself and thus may have been affected by his ”forgery”. The statement was quickly picked up and published in The Watchtower (December 15, 1977, p. 747). On page 375 of his The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, Newton also wrote: ”It follows that Ptolemy’s king list is useless in the study of chronology, and that it must be ignored. What is worse, much Babylonian chronology is based upon Ptolemy’s king list. All relevant chronology must now be reviewed and all dependence upon Ptolemy’s list must be removed.”

     Newton was unaware of the fact that ”Ptolemy’s Canon” was not composed by Claudius Ptolemy. He was not an historian and he was not an expert on Babylonian chronology. He also admits in his work that he has not studied sources other than Ptolemy for the years prior to Nebuchadnezzar. (The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, p. 375) He explains that his thoughts on the relations between chronology and the work of Ptolemy were influenced by a Mr. Philip G. Couture of Santee, California! In the Preface of his book he states: ”I thank Mr. Philip G. Couture of Santee, California for correspondence which led me to understand some of the relations between chronology and the work of Ptolemy.” . (The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, p. XIV) The same Mr. Couture also induced Dr. Newton to reject the Assyrian eponym canon in his work, The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins. (See Vol. 1, 1979, p. 189)

     What Newton evidently did not know was that Mr. Couture was and still is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and that some of the chronological arguments he passed on to Newton were taken from the Watch Tower Society’s Bible dictionary, Aid to Bible Understanding. These arguments were not only aimed at supporting the chronology of the Watch Tower Society, but they are also demonstrably untenable!

 

Correspondence with R.R. Newton

     In 1978, the year after The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy had been published, I had some correspondence with Professor Newton. In a letter dated June 27, 1978, I sent him a shorter study I had prepared in which the so-called ”Ptolemy’s Canon” was compared with earlier cuneiform sources. The study briefly demostrated that all the reigns of the Babylonian kings given in the Canon, from Nabonassar (747-734 BC) to Nabonidus (555-539 BC), were in complete agreement with these older sources. (This study was later expanded and published in a British scholarly journal for interdisciplinarty studies, Chronology & Catastrophism Review, Vol. IX, 1987, pp. 14-23.) I then asked: ”How is it possible that Ptolemy’s astronomical data are wrong, and yet the king list, to which they are attached, is correct?”

     In his answer, dated August 11, 1978, Newton said: ”I am not ready to be convinced that Ptolemy’s king list is accurate before Nabopolassar [= before 625 BC], although I have high confidence that it is rather accurate for Nabopolassar and later kings.” He also pointed out: ”The basic point is that Ptolemy calculated the circumstances of the eclipses in the Syntaxis from his theories, and he then pretended that his calculated values were values that had been observed in Babylon. His theories are accurate enough to give the correct day of an eclipse, but he missed the hour and the magnitude.”

     Thus Ptolemy’s ”adjustments” of the eclipse observations were too small to affect the year, the month, and the day of an eclipse. Only the hour and the magnitude were affected. Ptolemy’s supposed ”adjustments” of the records of the ancient Babylonian eclipses, then, didn’t change the BCE dates that had been established for these observations. They did not change the chronology! Further, Newton was convinced that the king list was accurate from Nabopolassar and onwards. In other words, he was convinced that the whole Neo-Babylonian chronology from Nabopolassar through Nabonidus (625-539 BC) was accurate! Why?

     Because he had made a very thorough study of some of the ancient Babylonian astronomical records that were independent of ”Ptolemy’s Canon”, including VAT 4956 and Strm. Kambys. 400. From his examination of these two records, he had established that the first text referred to the year 568/67 BC and the second one to 523 BC. He concluded: ”Thus we have quite strong confirmation that Ptolemy’s list is correct for Nebuchadrezzar, and reasonable confirmation for Kambyses.” (The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, 1977, p. 375) These findings were further emphasized in his next work, The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins, vol. 1 (1979), where he concludes on page 49: ”Nebuchadrezzar’s first year therefore began in –603 [= 604 BC], and this agrees with Ptolemy’s list.”

     Therefore, to quote some statements by R.R. Newton in an attempt to undermine the chronology established for the Neo-Babylonian era would be to quote him out of context. It would be to misrepresent his views and conceal his conclusions. It would be fraudulent. Yet, this has been repeatedly done by the Watch Tower Society and by ”Gary/Joshua92”. Newton’s findings refute both of their chronologies and prove them to be false.

 

Summary

Whether Ptolemy falsified his observations, perhaps also some of those of earlier astronomers, is irrelevant for the study of the Neo-Babylonian chronology. Today, this chronology is not based upon the observations recorded by Ptolemy in his Almagest. Further, the claim that Ptolemy may have ”invented” the lengths of reign in ”Ptolemy’s Canon” is based upon the mistake that this king list was composed by Claudius Ptolemy. As is demonstrated on pages 94-96 of the third edition of The Gentile Times Reconsidered (and also briefly in the second edition), the designation ”Ptolemy’s Canon” is a misnomer, as this king list had been in use among Alexandrian astronomers for centuries before the time of Claudius Ptolemy. Finally, the claim that the king list is the basis of or a principal source for the Neo-Babylonian chronology, is false.Those who make such a claim are either totally ignorant or dishonest. The plain truth is that the king list is not needed for the fixing of the chronology for this era, although its figures for the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings are upheld by at least 14 lines of independent evidence based on cuneiform documents, as is demonstrated in The Gentile Times Reconsided.

    An excellent discussion of Ptolemy’s Canon, or, more correctly, the Royal Canon, and its relation to the Neo-Babylonian chronology, is found in the article by Leo Depuydt, ”’More Valuable than all Gold’: Ptolemy’s Royal Canon and Babylonian Chronology,” published in the Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 47, 1995, pp. 97-117.

Watchtower Chronology disputed

“BIBLE CHRONOLOGY”OF THE WATCH TOWER SOCIETY

Carl Olof Jonsson 1993

The role of chronology in the teaching of the Watch Tower Society

Few people are fully cognizant of the very central role played by chronology in the claims and teachings of the Watch Tower Society. Even many Jehovah’s Witnesses are not always fully aware of the indissoluble connection between the Society’s chronology and the message they preach from door to door. Confronted by the many evidences against their chronology, some Jehovah’s Witnesses tend to belittle it as something they somehow can do without. “Chronology is not so important, after all,” they say. Many Witnesses would prefer not to discuss the subject at all. How important, then, is the chronology for the Watch Tower organization?

As a matter of fact, it constitutes the very foundation for the claims and message of this movement .

The Watch Tower Society claims to be God’s “sole channel” and “mouthpiece” on earth. In short, its message implies that the kingdom of God was established in heaven in 1914, that the “time of the end” began that year, that Christ returned invisibly at that time to “inspect” the Christian denominations, and that he finally rejected all of them except for the Watch Tower Society and its associates, which he in 1919 appointed as his sole “instrument” on earth. The Society teaches that the generation of 1914 will not pass away until the final end comes at the “battle of Armageddon,” when all who have not joined the Watch Tower organization at that time will be destroyed forever. Jehovah’s Witnesses expect to survive this doomsday to live forever in paradise on earth.

The year 1914, then, plays a crucial role in the teaching of the Watch Tower Society. The date is a product of a chronological calculation, according to which the so-called “times of the Gentiles ” referred to by Jesus at Luke 21:24 is a period of 2,520 years, that began in 607 B.C. and ended in 1914. This calculation is the real basis of the message of the movement. Even the Christian gospel, the “good news” of the kingdom (Matthew 24:14), is claimed to be closely associated with this chronology. The gospel preached by other professed Christians, therefore, has never been the true gospel. Said The Watchtower of May 1, 1981, on page 17:

“Let the honest-hearted person compare the kind of preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom done by the religious systems of Christendom during all the centuries with that done by Jehovah’s Witnesses since the end of World War I in 1918. They are not one and the same kind. That of Jehovah’s Witnesses is really gospel, or good news, as of God’s heavenly kingdom that was established by the enthronement of his Son Jesus Christ at the end of the Gentile Times in 1914. “ [Italics mine] In agreement with this The Watchtower of May 1, 1982 stated that, “of all religions on earth, Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only ones today that are telling the people of earth this ‘good news’.” (Page 10) A Jehovah’s Witness who attempts to tone down the role of chronology in the Society’s teaching does not realize that he or she thereby undermines the message of the movement. Such a “toning down” is not something that the Watch Tower leadership approves. On the contrary, The Watchtower of January 1, 1983, emphasized that “the ending of the Gentile Times in the latter half of 1914 still stands on a historical basis as one of the fundamental Kingdom truths to which we must hold today .” (Page 12; emphasis added.)1The truth is that the Watch Tower Society regards it a deadly sin to reject the chronology pointing to 1914. That God’s kingdom was established at the end of the “Gentile times” in 1914 is stated to be “the most important event of our time,” beside which “all other things pale into insignificance.”2Those who reject the calculation are said to incur the wrath of God. Among them are “the clergy of Christendom” and its members, who thus are said to have rejected the kingdom of God and therefore will be “destroyed in the ‘great tribulation’ just ahead.”3Members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who openly discard the calculation run the risk of being punished very severely. If they do not repent and change their minds, they will be disfellowshiped and classified as evil “apostates,” who will “go, at death, … to Gehenna,” with no hope of a future resurrection.4 It makes no difference if they still believe in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ. When one of the readers of The Watchtower wrote and asked, “Why have Jehovah’s Witnesses disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some who still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ?” the Society answered, among other things:

“Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include? … That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence.” [Italics mine]5Nobody, therefore, who repudiates the calculation that the “Gentile times” expired in 1914, is approved by the Society as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In fact, even one who secretly abandons the Society’s chronology and thus may still formally be regarded as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, has, in reality, rejected the message of the Watch Tower Society and, according to the organization’s own criterion, is in reality no longer a part of the movement.

The character of the chronology of the Bible

Most Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, realize that the Watch Tower Society’s calculation of the Gentile times is an indispensible element in the present doctrinal structure of the organization. On being confronted with the enormous burden of evidence against the 607 B.C. date for the desolation of Jerusalem many Jehovah’s Witnesses therefore just whisk away the evidence, claiming that they rely only on the Bible for this date, while those who date the desolation of Jerusalem to 587 or 586 B.C. are said to rely on secular, historical, sources rather than the Bible.

This presentation of the issue is not only unfair. It is completely false. It reveals that such Witnesses have not really understood the true nature of Biblical chronology.

There are no absolute dates in the Bible. It is nowhere stated, for instance, that Jesus was baptized in 29 A.D., that Cyrus captured Babylon in 539 B.C., or that Jerusalem was desolated in 607 B.C. as the Witnesses claim. The Bible gives relative datings only.

Thus, when we read about the desolation of Jerusalem in 2 Kings 25:1-12, we find only the information that this event took place in the “eleventh year of King Zedekiah” (verse 2), which corresponded to the “nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon” (verse 8). But when was that? How far from our own time was it? How many years before the Christian Era did it happen? The fact is that the Bible itself gives no information whatsoever that links up this dating with our Christian era.

The books of Kings and Chronicles tell about the kings who ruled in Israel and Judah from Saul, the first king, to Zedekiah, the last one. We are told who succeeded whom and for how many years they ruled. By summing up the lengths of reign from Saul to Zedekiah we can measure the approximate space of time (there are many uncertain points) between these two kings. In this way we find that the period of the Hebrew monarchies covered roughly about 500 years. But still we have found no answer to the question, When on the stream of time did this period start and end?

If the Bible had gone on to give a continous and unbroken series of regnal years from Zedekiah all the way up to the beginning of the Christian Era, the question would have been answered. But Zedekiah was the last king. Nor does the Bible give any other information that helps us calculate the length of the period from Zedekiah’s “eleventh year” to the beginning of the Christian Era. Thus we have a period of roughly 500 years, the period of the Hebrew monarchies, but we are not told how far from our time this period was and how it can be fixed to our Christian Era.

If the Bible had preserved dated and detailed descriptions of astronomical events, such as solar and lunar eclipses, or the positions of the planets in relation to different stars and constellations, this would have helped us. Modern astronomers, with their knowledge of the regular movements of the moon and the planets, are able to calculate the positions these heavenly bodies held on the starry sky thousands of years ago. But unfortunately, the Bible provides no information of this kind.

The Bible itself, then, does not show how its chronological datings may be connected with our own era. A chronology that in this manner is “hanging in the air” is only a relative chronology. Only if the Bible had given us the exact distance from the time of Zedekiah up to our own era, either by the aid of a complete and coherent line of lengths of reign, or by detailed and dated astronomical observations, we would have had an absolute chronology, that is, a chronology that gives us the exact distance from the last year of Zedekiah to our own time.

Is there a “Bible chronology” without secular sources?

The relative nature of the Biblical dates does not make it impossible to date events mentioned in the Bible. If it were possible to synchronize the chronology of the Bible with the chronology of another country, which in turn can be fixed to our Christian era, then it would be possible to change the relative chronology of the Bible into an absolute chronology. This means, however, that we would have to rely on extra Biblical, that is, secular historical sources, in order to date events in the Bible.

And we have no other choice. If we want to know when an event mentioned in the Bible took place, be it the date for the fall of Babylon, the date for the desolation of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the date for the rebuilding of the temple in the reign of Darius I, or any other date whatever, then we have to go to the secular historical sources. This is the grim fact every Bible believer has to accept, whether he or she likes it or not. The simple truth is that without secular sources there is no Bible chronology, no datings of Biblical events.

This also means, of course, that it is impossible to use the “chronology of the Bible” as an impartial, independent timemeasurer, by which the correctness of a certain date can be appraised. When, for instance, some Witnesses point to the fact that modern historians date the fall of Babylon to 539 B.C. and then claim that “the chronology of the Bible is in agreement with this date”, they have not made it clear to themselves what the relative nature of the Biblical chronology really implies. As the Bible does not give the calendar year for the fall of Babylon (or for any other event), the statement that the Bible agrees with the secular dating of this event to 539 B.C. is completely meaningless. And it is just as meaningless and misleading to state that the secular date for the desolation of Jerusalem, 587 B.C., disagrees with the chronology of the Bible, as the calendar year for that event is not given in the Bible, either.

Now these Witnesses, quite naturally, hold to the Watch Tower Society’s claim that the 70 years of Jeremiah 25:11,12 and 29:10 refer to the period of the desolation of Jerusalem from the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar to the return of the Jewish exiles in the 1st year of Cyrus. As a result of this view, the time interval between the dates historians have established for these two events (587/86 and 538/37 B.C.) appears too short. The Witnesses, therefore, reject one of the two dates, i. e. 587/86 B.C.. For what reason do they reject this date and not the other?

There is no Biblical reason for this choice. As was pointed out above, the Bible does not agree or disagree with any of these two dates. The Bible, therefore, cannot decide which of the two dates is the better one. On what grounds, then, should the choice be made, provided that the Society’s interpretation of the 70 years is correct?

The most logical, scholarly and sound method would be to accept the date that is best established by the extra, Biblical, historical sources. And these sources show very definitely that the chronology of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is much better established by astronomical and other documents than the chronology of Cyrus’ reign. The natural choice for a Bible believing Christian, then, should be to retain the 587/86 B.C. date and reject the 538/37 BC date if there really were a choice between them.

Yet the Witnesses have made the opposite choice. As the reason for this is neither the Bible, nor the historical evidence, what is the real reason for their choice?

Loyalty to the Bible or to a prophetic speculation?

If the Witnesses insist that the 70 year period began in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar and ended in the 1st year of Cyrus, they should have started by accepting 587/86 B.C. as the most reliable of the two dates. Counting 70 years forward from that date would bring them to 518/17 B.C. as the first year of Cyrus instead of 538/37. This would be as Biblical and more scholarly than to retain 538/37 B.C. and reject 587/86.

Some Witnesses might perhaps protest that the moving of Cyrus’ 1st year forward to 518/17 B.C. is prevented by the 70 “weeks of years” of Daniel 9:24-27, which bridge over most of the remaining time period up to the time of Christ. According to the Watch Tower Society these 70 “weeks of years”, interpreted as 490 years, began in the 20th year of the Persian king Artaxerxes, which is dated to 455 B.C. The Witnesses, therefore, might argue that the interval between the end of the reign of Cyrus and the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes was so brief (embracing only the reigns of Cambyses, Darius I, and Xerxes I), that they can trust the secular dates for this period.

It should be noted, however, that the Society’s date for the 20th year of Artaxerxes is in conflict with all historical sources. The whole reign of Artaxerxes I (464/63-424/23 B.C.) is absolutely fixed by numerous astronomical observations preserved on cuneiform tablets, such as astronomical “diaries”, lunar eclipse texts and texts with planetary observations! All these sources agree in showing Artaxerxes’ 20th year to have been 445/44 B.C., not 455/54. As the date preferred by the Watch Tower Socety implies a prolongation of Artaxerxes’ reign from 41 to 51 years, the reign of his predecessor, Xerxes I, has had to be abbreviated, from 21 to 11 years,  again in direct conflict with all historical sources! Otherwise the reigns of all the preceding kings would have had to be moved backwards 10 years. Cyrus’ 1st year, for example, would have had to be moved from 538/37 B.C. back to 548/47. Such a change, of course, would make complete havoc of the Watch Tower Society’s “Bible chronology”.

Thus the 70 weeks of Daniel are of no help to the Witnesses. Those who are able to add 10 years to the reign of Artaxerxes I, subtract 10 years from the reign of Xerxes I, and add 20 years to the Neo-Babylonian era, all the time with supreme contempt for all historical sources, should have no difficulty in moving the 1st year of Cyrus from 538/37 B.C. to 518/17, or the fall of Babylon from 539 B.C. to 519! 6

Why, then, do the Watch Tower Society and its defenders reject 587/86 B.C. instead of 538/37? As has been pointed out, the reason is neither Biblical nor historical.

The answer is quite obvious. The 587/86 B.C. date is in direct conflict with the Watch Tower Society’s chronology of the “times of the Gentiles”. In this chronology the 607 B.C. date for the desolation of Jerusalem is the indispensible starting point. Without the year 607 B.C. the Society would not arrive at 1914 A.D. And as this date is the very cornerstone of the prophetic claims and message of the Watch Tower organization, nothing is allowed to upset it, neither the Bible nor historical facts. At heart, therefore, it is neither a question of loyalty to the Bible nor loyalty to historical facts. The choice of date has quite another motive: Loyalty to a chronological speculation that has become a vital condition for the divine claims of the Watch Tower organization.
NOTE: For a full discussion of the Watch Tower Society’s Gentile Times chronology, see my book, The Gentile Times Reconsidered, originally published in 1983. A new, completely revised and expanded edition will be published in 1997 by Commentary Press.

---

Footnotes:

1 The Society’s former president, Frederick W. Franz, in the morning Bible discussion for the headquarters family on November 17, 1979, stressed even stronger the importance of the 1914 date by saying: “The sole purpose of our existence as a Society is to announce the Kingdom established in 1914 and to sound the warning of the fall of Babylon the Great. We have a special message to deliver.” (Raymond Franz, In Search of Christian Freedom, Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1991, pp. 32, 33)

2 The Watchtower, January 1, 1988, pp. 10, 11.

3 The Watchtower, September 1, 1985, p. 25.

4 The Watchtower, April 1, 1982, p. 27. In The Watchtower of July 15, 1992, the Witnesses are even urged to “hate” such “apostates … with a complete hatred.” (Page 12) This was not just an accidental “slip of the pen”. The exhortation was repeated in The Watchtower of October 1, 1993. Former members, who have broken the ties with the Watch Tower organization because they can no longer endorse all its claims and teachings, are not only classified as evil “apostates” but also as “enemies of God”, who are “intensely hating Jehovah”. They are stated to be so “rooted in evil” that “wickedness has become an inseparable part of their nature”. Christians, therefore, “must hate” them and ask God to kill them. (Page 19) As such rancorous attacks on former members of the movement reflect an attitude that is exactly the reverse to that recommended by Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:43-48), it may be asked why the Watch Tower Society finds it necessary to resort to such malignant language. The answer is obvious to every informed and attentive observer. The leaders of the movement know very well that if the facts about their “Bible chronology”, for instance, that have caused thousands of members to turn their back on the Watch Tower organization in recent years, find their way to the Witnesses in general, great numbers would lose confidence in the organization and its leadership. In order to safe-guard the elevated position they claim for themselves, the leaders of the organization are forced to prevent the Witnesses from learning these facts. The method resorted to is an old and well-tried one in authoritarian organizations throughout the centuries. Dissident members are excommunicated (”disfellowshiped”) as heretics (”apostates”), slandered, defamed and isolated. The Witnesses are taught that it is a “deadly sin” to talk to them and read their books and that hatred is the true Christian attitude toward them. In this way it is hoped that embarrasing information can be withheld from the Witnesses. Thus truth has become a dangerous threat to the Watch Tower Society these days. Although this organization uses the word “Truth” more often than most other organizations on earth, truth has, in fact, become the worst enemy of the movement.

5 The Watchtower, April 1, 1986, pp. 30, 31.

6 The 587/86 and 538/37 B.C. dates are both correct. None of them is in conflict with the Bible. Jeremiah did not say that the 70 years were “for Jerusalem” but “for Babylon” (Jer. 29:10; the “at Babylon” of NW and KJV is a mistranslation). As Assyria definitely lost its empire to Babylon in 609 B.C., the 70 years “for Babylon” lasted from 609 to 539 B.C. For a detailed presentation of the many lines of evidence against the 607 B.C. date, see my book, The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1986. Also available in Italian, German, and Swedish.

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS AND THE UNITED NATIONS IN PROPHETIC SPECULATION

“And many false prophets shall arise,  and shall lead many astray. ” Matt. 24:11 (ASV.) How is it that so many individuals through the centuries have found such a pleasure in playing the role of prophet, despite the fact that their prophecies so seldom come true? Regularly their predictions fail, yet they go on with prophesying. One important reason is, without doubt, that being regarded by others as equipped with remarkable, God-given insights and abilities may give a person a certain feeling of power and importance. Doubtless the temptation of having the “ego” strengthened in this way has produced many a false prophet.

Others may honestly feel that they are divinely guided to a correct understanding of the Biblical prophecies and are commissioned by God to act as his prophet by giving warnings to mankind and declaring things to come. In The Watchtower of April 1, 1972, pp. 197-200, the leaders of the Watch Tower Society lay claim to such a position for their movement as a whole:

This “Prophet” was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses.

And prophesied they have done. It is well known to anyone who has examined the Watch Tower publications for the past hundred years that this literature is bristling with predictions, most of which have failed, while many others are still waiting for fulfillment - or failure.

Numerous pamphlets and articles have been published recently attacking the Watch Tower Society for their many failed dates, such as 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, and 1975. The purpose here is not to present another variation on this theme.1 On the contrary, the intention is to discuss some of the few predictions that actually - at least in some respects— have come true. The most striking examples of these are those related to the formation and obvious failure of the two international peace organizations of our century, the League of Nations and the United Nations. The questions that will be answered are: How specific were these predictions? Did they clearly originate in the Watch Tower movement? Do they substantiate the prophetic claims of this movement?

As an indication of their prophetic ability, the Watch Tower writers, in the article “Making Known God’s Prophetic Truths,” published in The Watchtower of August 1, 1971, pp. 467ff., give the impression that,  prior to the outbreak of the World War in 1914, well-nigh all except for the Witnesses took an optimistic view on the future, sensing that peace, not war lay ahead:

The political, religious and commercial elements of this world widely accepted that view. However, Jehovah’s witnesses held a view that was just the opposite! In the July 1879 issue of their official publication, The Watchtower (at that time known as Zion’s Watch Tower) its readers were told: “God teaches in many Scriptures that a great time of trouble will come upon the nations.“

IIt is certainly true that strong optimistic trends prevailed during the last century in the fields of science, politics, economy and religion. Yet the statement indicates gross ignorance of the views held by millions of Biblebelieving Christians of that time. “The International Bible Students” was just one small group among many other, much larger groups of Christians who in the latter part of the last century predicted that the world was rapidly approaching the great “time of trouble” and Christ’s second coming. These groups formed parts of a broad current, known as the “millenarian movement” (so called because of a common belief in a future millennial kingdom on earth to be ruled by Christ). This movement had its roots back in the early decades of the last century and the widespread interest in the Bible prophecies prompted by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. In the days of Pastor Russell, the millenarian movement had deeply influenced many of the great denominations, such as the Episcopal, Presbyterian and Baptist churches. Even at that time, the millenarian movement included millions of people. Common to them all was the fact that they did not share the general optimism with respect to the future of the world. The outbreak of World War 1, therefore, came as no surprise to these people, as Dwight Wilson points out in his book, Armageddon Now, (Grand Rapids, 1977 pp. 36, 37:

World War I stimulated the premillennialists to a tiptoe expectancy and also provided tantalizing fulfillment of some of their longings. The war itself came as no shock to these opponents of postmillennial optimism; they had not only looked toward the culmination of the age in Armageddon, but anticipated “wars and rumors of wars” as signs of the approaching end.

Wilson then quotes one of the millenarian expositors, R.A. Torrey, who in his book The Return of the Lord wrote the following in 1913, one year before the outbreak of the war:

We talk of disarmament, but we all know it is not coming. All our present peace plans will end in the most awful wars and conflicts this old world ever saw!

Similar predictions had been made for several decades by different millenarian writers, and Wilson gives several examples in his book. The view of the future held by the Bible Students, then, was in no way unique. It was a view held by practically all fundamentalist Christians of those days. Predictions of what would take place in the near future were countless, even if the millenarians generally did not fix dates (there were exceptions!) for the coming events, as did the Bible Students. They were therefore spared from the bitter disappointments that the Bible Students had to experience when the expectations failed and the predicted events refused to appear on the “right” dates.

The Bible Students, as well as several millenarian expositors, had explained that the World War was the prelude to Armageddon.2 C.l. Scofield, the famous translator of The Scofield Reference Bible, thought in 1916 “that the war would be the death struggle of the present world system which would be succeeded by the Kingdom of God.”3  When the war suddenly ended in 1918, this came as a nasty surprise to these experts on Bible prophecy. They explained that the period of peace would be very short and that Armageddon would surely come very soon. When, in 1919, the League of Nations appeared, they immediately predicted that this organization would fail and that it could just create a temporary interruption before Armageddon.

Watch Tower writers have often tried to give the impression that they, because of their prophetic insight, foresaw the failure of the League of Nations:

When the League of Nations was established, some of the clergy of Christendom even hailed it as the “political expression of God’s kingdom on earth.” However, what were Jehovah’s witnesses saying? Again, just the opposite! The March 1, 1919, issue of The Watch Tower declared: “Lasting relief to suffering humanity will come neither through human uplift nor through any league of nations, however desirable such an arrangement might be, but only through the power of Christ, . . .”4

What Watch Tower writers fail to mention, however, is that this attitude towards the peace organization was the one generally held among the millenarians. As early as 1918, the above-quoted R.A. Torrey had the following to say at a prophetic conference held by the millenarians in New York City that year (Nov. 25-28, 1918): “Now that the armistice has come, the minds of people on both sides of the water are filled with all kinds of fantastic hopes and anticipations that are doomed to disappointments.” 5

Then Torrey went on to tell his audience that “the League of Nations can never achieve more than a temporary cessation in hostilities.” 6 Dwight Wilson, too, points out that “at the close of the war, there was little optimism reflected concerning the peace treaties or the League of Nations. Our Hope (la millenarian periodical edited by Arno C. Gaebelein) had no hope that the League would prevent war.” 7

Even more detailed predictions concerning the League of Nations were made by the two Bible commentators, C.F. Hogg and W.E. Vine, in their book, Touching the Coming of the Lord, published in London in 1919, shortly before the League was formed. They explained that the failure of the League of Nations was predicted in the Bible, at Revelation 17:12, 13:

Such a League of Nations, for instance, as is proposed to-day as a panacea for national wrongs, not only has been foretold in Scripture as the last resource of international politics, but its failure has likewise been predicted. 8

Vine who wrote these lines, then quotes Daniel 7:23, 24 and continues:

A corresponding vision was given to the Apostle John. He also saw a beast with ten horns, and the symbolism is again explained, but in greater detail: “The ten horns that thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but they receive authority as kings, with the beast, for one hour (i.e. for a brief time). These have one mind, and they give their power and authority unto the beast,” Rev. xvii.12,13. Obviously these ten kingdoms are contemporaneous. The potentates ruling over them agree to a certain policy in handing over their authority to a superior ruler. No such league has existed in human history as yet. 

It is manifest, too, from th