Criticism of the Astronomical Texts

Awake! 1972

In the 1972 Awake! [1, p. 28], they make the claim that the author of VAT 4956 could have modified or inserted a false date into the text, however no evidence or citation to support this claim is provided:

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.

Watchtower 2011

Irrelevant texts

The 'Astronomical tablets' section [2, p. 24] starts by referencing tablet No.2 from ADT V (BM 32238):

What are they? Cuneiform tablets that contain descriptions of the positions of the sun, moon, planets, and stars, coupled with such historical information as the regnal year of a particular king. For instance, the astronomical diary shown below records a lunar eclipse that occurred in the first month of the first year of King Mukin-zeri’s reign. ¹¹

11. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume V, edited by Hermann Hunger, published 2001, pages 2-3.

However, this tablet is largely irrelevant due to the fact it is broken and missing the section that would have covered the era surrounding Jerusalem's destruction. Despite citing ADT V, they neglect to actually mention any of the relevant texts it contains, such as No.3, No.4, No.6, and No.52, with dates spanning the reigns of Shamash-shum-ukin, Kandalanu, Nabopolassar, and Nebuchadnezzar II [3].

Claims of Retrocalculations

The Watchtower suggests that the astronomical tablets contain retrocalculations [2, p. 24]:

But could the Babylonians project backward to calculate when eclipses had occurred in the past? “It is possible,” states Professor John Steele, “that some of the earliest predictions could have been made by projecting the scheme backwards when the text was compiled.” (Italics ours.)¹³ Professor David Brown, who believes that the astronomical charts included predictions made shortly before the recorded events, acknowledges that it is conceivable that some of these were “retrocalculations undertaken by scribes in the 4th and later centuries BC.”¹⁴ If these are retrocalculations, could they really be considered absolutely reliable unless corroborated by other evidence?

13. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume V, page 391.
14. Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000, pages 164, 201-202.

However, the context of Steele's quote shows that he is only referring to a particular category of eclipse tablets; the full quote [3, p. 391] starts with:

The texts in category (ii) are all arranged in columns such that each entry in a column is separated from the entry in the preceding column by one Saros of 18 years.

Of the astronomical texts relevant to the period only texts No.3 and No.4 belong to category (ii), and within texts No.3 and No.4 only a portion of the eclipse dates are predictions.

See also Steele's and Spek's responses where they say they have been misrepresented by The Watchtower regarding the eclipse tablets.

The citation of Brown in its full context [4, p. 202]:

So, although it is conceivable that the eclipse predictions dating to 731, 686, 684, 677, 668, and 649 BC were actually retrocalculations undertaken by scribes in the 4th and later centuries BC, it is much more likely that they were predictions made and recorded shortly before each of those years, and that they were only later incorporated into the Saros Canon.

References