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.

Some two thousand years ago, following a startling prophecy concerning the ‘conclusion of the system of things,’ Jesus raised an intriguing question before his disciples:

(Matthew 24:45-47) ⁴⁵ “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? ⁴⁶ Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. ⁴⁷ Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings.

(Luke 12:42-44) ⁴² And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? ⁴³ Happy is that slave, if his master on arriving finds him doing so! ⁴⁴ I tell YOU truthfully, He will appoint him over all his belongings.

Commencing with the twelve disciples, anointed Christians would carry on the work of faithfully and discreetly feeding the Lord’s sheep. The Apostle Paul understood the nature of this stewardship as revealed in his first letter to the congregation at Corinth. “Let a man so appraise us as being subordinates of Christ and stewards of sacred secrets of God. Besides, in this case, what is looked for in stewards is for a man to be found faithful.” (1 Cor. 4:1-2)

What sort of food were the disciples expected to provide? Jesus left them in no doubt. “Work, not for the food that perishes, but for the food that remains for life everlasting, which the Son of man will give YOU; for upon this one the Father, even God, has put his seal [of approval].” (John 6:27) The food would both remain, and impart everlasting life. Rather than offering physical food subject to decay, Christ’s teachings would constitute spiritual food that would prove life-giving and everlasting. These same teachings would not undergo change or require clarification. They were clear words of truth intended to remain.

It is noteworthy that Jesus did not appoint his disciples “over all his belongings” on that occasion. The account indicates that at some future time, Jesus would “arrive” and inspect the slaves to determine whether they had discharged their duties faithfully and discreetly. The slaves whom he approved would then be appointed “over all his belongings.” Elaborating on this, Jesus continues in Matthew chapter 25:

(Matthew 25:13-30) ¹³ “Keep on the watch, therefore, because YOU know neither the day nor the hour.

¹⁴ “For it is just as when a man, about to travel abroad, summoned slaves of his and committed to them his belongings. ¹⁵ And to one he gave five talents, to another two, to still another one, to each one according to his own ability, and he went abroad. ¹⁶ Immediately the one that received the five talents went his way and did business with them and gained five more. ¹⁷ In the same way the one that received the two gained two more. ¹⁸ But the one that received just one went off, and dug in the ground and hid the silver money of his master.

¹⁹ “After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. ²⁰ So the one that had received five talents came forward and brought five additional talents, saying, ‘Master, you committed five talents to me; see, I gained five talents more.’ ²¹ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ ²² Next the one that had received the two talents came forward and said, ‘Master, you committed to me two talents; see, I gained two talents more.’ ²³ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’

²⁴ “Finally the one that had received the one talent came forward and said, ‘Master, I knew you to be an exacting man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you did not winnow. ²⁵ So I grew afraid and went off and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ ²⁶ In reply his master said to him, ‘Wicked and sluggish slave, you knew, did you, that I reaped where I did not sow and gathered where I did not winnow? ²⁷ Well, then, you ought to have deposited my silver monies with the bankers, and on my arrival I would be receiving what is mine with interest.

²⁸ “‘Therefore take away the talent from him and give it to him that has the ten talents. ²⁹ For to everyone that has, more will be given and he will have abundance; but as for him that does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. ³⁰ And throw the good-for-nothing slave out into the darkness outside. There is where [his] weeping and the gnashing of [his] teeth will be.’

The foregoing helps the reader grasp the import of Jesus’ earlier words. During the same Olivet Discourse he expands on what it means to be a faithful slave. The slaves are summoned and committed his belongings. Each individual slave is assigned a portion thereof. On his Master’s return, accounts are settled and each faithful slave receives his reward.

Some Bible commentators reason that Jesus was referring to a “faithful and discreet slave” class. They conclude that it would be unreasonable to appoint individual slaves over ALL Christ’s belongings. This would be too much for any one slave to handle, they claim, so Jesus must have been referring to a composite body of anointed slaves. Whilst this interpretation may seem plausible, Jesus’ own words indicate otherwise. Throughout his discourse he refers to the slave in the singular, calling him a “discreet one.” Continuing the parable in chapter 25, he then reveals how these slaves would be assigned talents individually: “to one he gave five talents, to another two, to still another one, to each one according to his own ability.” Nowhere does the parable allow for the slave to be considered as a group. Indeed, Jesus is moved to declare before each loyal individual slave, “‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’” (Matthew 25: 21-23)

However, not all would prove faithful. Continuing his prophetic illustration Jesus says, “But if ever that evil slave should say in his heart, ‘My master is delaying,’ and should start to beat his fellow slaves and should eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards, the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know, and will punish him with the greatest severity and will assign him his part with the hypocrites. There is where [his] weeping and the gnashing of [his] teeth will be.” (Matt 24:48-51; Luke 12:30)

A choice lay before his disciples. Within the same household they could either prove “faithful and discreet” or “evil.” A hitherto faithful slave would have the potential to turn evil and start beating his fellow slaves.

Consider that if the slave were interpreted as a composite body, it would also mean the entire group of faithful slaves turning evil in order to become “that evil slave.” Such a scenario would leave God’s household at the mercy of wicked slaves with no one faithful to care for the belongings. However interpreting the slaves as individuals precludes such an event. An individual slave could become wicked but, other faithful slaves would be on hand to feed the domestics.

Happy is that slave, if his master on arriving finds him doing so!

When does the master arrive to settle accounts? This question has strong implications for the domestics who feed from the slaves. Once approved, a faithful and discreet slave is given greater authority over the Master’s belongings. He is clearly identified as faithful and discreet by his Master Jesus Christ - incontrovertible proof that he now exercises rightful authority over the household. Until the Master “arrives,” the domestics must determine for themselves whether the slave’s feeding program is faithful and discreet. How would this be accomplished? Jesus on an earlier occasion answers, “Really, then, by their fruits YOU will recognize those [men].” (Matthew 7:15) Such fruitage would include the identifying mark of true Christians: Love. (John 13:35)

The Master’s arrival is a joyful occasion. “Enter into the joy of your master,” Christ Jesus declares. However, those slaves judged evil are ‘punished with the greatest severity.’ This judgment does not extend over decades or for some indeterminate period of time. As the announcement of faithful and discreet slaves over all Christ’s belongings is made, the evil slaves are punished and left ‘weeping and gnashing their teeth.’ The arrival is much like the judgment of the sheep and goats. Christ “arrives in his glory” and “then he will sit down on his glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will put the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.” (Matthew 25: 31-33)

However, simply relying on a similarity between the judging of the slaves and the sheep and the goats does not determine the time of Christ’s arrival. Rather, considering the overall context of Jesus’ parable reveals the timing of this important event:

(Matthew 24:42-47) ⁴² Keep on the watch, therefore, because YOU do not know on what day YOUR Lord is coming. ⁴³ “But know one thing, that if the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. ⁴⁴ On this account YOU too prove yourselves ready, because at an hour that YOU do not think to be it, the Son of man is coming. ⁴⁵ “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? ⁴⁶ Happy is that slave if his master on arriving* finds him doing so. ⁴⁷ Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings.

*Lit., “having come.” Gr., el·thon´.

The New World Translation renders the Greek word el·thon´ in verse 46 as “arriving”. This is a perfectly legitimate and acceptable translation. Interestingly, the footnote to the New World Translation Reference Bible states that the literal translation of this same Greek word is rendered “having come.” This is reflected in other translations of the Bible:

“Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes.” (New American Standard Bible)
“Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes.” (English Standard Version)
“Happy that servant, whom his lord, having come, shall find doing so.” (Young’s Literal Translation)
“It will be good for the servant if the master finds him doing his job when the master returns.” (New International Reader’s Version)
“That servant is happy who is doing what his owner wants him to do when he comes back.” (New Life Version)
“Blessed (happy, fortunate, and to be envied) is that servant whom, when his master comes, he will find so doing.” (The Amplified Bible)
“Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing.” (New King James Version)
“It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns.” (New International Version)

Note that each of these translations render Jesus’ words as related to the action of ‘his coming.’ It cannot be said that this rendering is dishonest or distorted. Any good lexicon of the Christian Greek Scriptures defines the word el·thon´ as ‘having come’. The New World Translation Committee in all fairness prints the same in its Reference Edition Bible. Substituting the equivalent “having come” for the word “arriving” in the New World Translation makes for interesting reading:

(Matthew 24:42-47) ⁴² Keep on the watch, therefore, because YOU do not know on what day YOUR Lord is coming. ⁴³ “But know one thing, that if the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. ⁴⁴ On this account YOU too prove yourselves ready, because at an hour that YOU do not think to be it, the Son of man is coming. ⁴⁵ “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? ⁴⁶ Happy is that slave if his master on having come finds him doing so. ⁴⁷ Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings.

The reader cannot help but correlate the master’s “having come” (Verse 46) with the surrounding verses’ reference to his coming “at an hour that YOU do not think to be it.” (Verses 42, 44) In the very same breath, Jesus has spoken of his future coming at the Great Tribulation to render judgment as well as his coming to judge his slaves. The context links the timing of the son of man’s “coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Verses 30, 42-44) to the inspection and judgment of his slaves. The parallel account in Luke places the “arriving” or the “having come” in the very same manner:

(Luke 12:37-4 ³⁷ Happy are those slaves whom the master on arriving finds watching! Truly I say to YOU, He will gird himself and make them recline at the table and will come alongside and minister to them. ³⁸ And if he arrives in the second watch, even if in the third, and finds them thus, happy are they! ³⁹ But know this, that if the householder had known at what hour the thief would come, he would have kept watching and not have let his house be broken into. ⁴⁰ YOU also, keep ready, because at an hour that YOU do not think likely the Son of man is coming.” ⁴¹ Then Peter said: “Lord, are you saying this illustration to us or also to all?” ⁴² And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? ⁴³ Happy is that slave, if his master on arriving finds him doing so! ⁴⁴ I tell YOU truthfully, He will appoint him over all his belongings. ⁴⁵ But if ever that slave should say in his heart, ‘My master delays coming,’ and should start to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, ⁴⁶ the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting [him] and in an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and assign him a part with the unfaithful ones. ⁴⁷ Then that slave that understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do in line with his will will be beaten with many strokes. ⁴⁸ But the one that did not understand and so did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him; and the one whom people put in charge of much, they will demand more than usual of him.

It is clear from Luke’s account that Jesus’ coming to judge his slaves takes place at an unknown hour and with thief-like stealth. As the surrounding verses reveal, this occurs at Christ’s future return [immediately before] the Great Tribulation. The slaves are commanded to keep watching for the householder for “at an hour that YOU do not think likely the son of man is coming.” (Luke 12:39, 40) There would be no need to keep on the watch if they already knew the hour of inspection. Jesus’ surprise arrival would necessitate the slave to maintain faithfulness toward his assignment. If the slave knew the timing of his Master’s arrival in advance then he might be tempted to slacken off until that time, perhaps figuring that by some last-minute activity he might redeem himself. Indeed, Jesus predicts that some slaves would be saying in their hearts, “My master delays coming.”

Thankfully, there are many true Christians today who are faithfully and discreetly serving within the Master’s household. The domestics feeding from them appreciate the hard work in their behalf. As yet, those slaves have not been declared “faithful and discreet” by Christ nor appointed over “all his belongings.” Equally, the evil slaves await punishment from the Master. Meanwhile, it is important that those who feed from the slaves develop a discerning palate since both faithful and wicked slaves exist within the same household. Indeed, not all food is necessarily wholesome and nutritious. Just as one should take care to eat good physical food, a Christian must also learn the difference between good and bad spiritual food. The Bible counsels, “Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Fine food is the true Christian’s staple. By making sure of what is fine, he or she can survive spiritually. At times, this may require an honest appraisal of the food to determine if there is any value in its eating. As the apostle John writes, “Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world.” (1 John 4:1)

As published in

The Dawn Magazine

May 1975 to July 1976

The Drawing Power of God

THE last decade of the nineteenth century was a very important one to me, although at the time I was a mere child. It was during this period that my father came into contact with the truth, which we still so lovingly refer to as the divine plan of the ages. Although very young at the time, my father’s faithful witnessing concerning the glorious things which he had learned from the Word of God began to make an impression on me. It was toward the close of this decade that volume 4 of Studies in the Scriptures was published. The original title of this book was The Day of Vengeance, but this was later changed to The Battle of Armageddon. Those who are acquainted with this book will know that it deals largely with world conditions in this end of the age which, as pointed out, have developed into the greatest time of trouble the world has ever seen.

My father was very interested in the biblical truths brought forth in this volume, and talked about them a great deal. As I look back upon it now and remember the impressions that were made upon my young mind-I still hadn’t reached the teenage stage-I feel I can almost say that, religiously speaking, I was brought up on the time of trouble. From what I learned from my father’s comments as he talked with others, it seemed that this great time of trouble was to reach its climax in the year 1914. It appeared to my young mind, from the way my father described it, that when this climax was reached it would mean the end of just about everything that we as humans know in connection with our way of life. I thought about this more than once, and to an extent felt sorry for myself that I was so unfortunate as to the time when I was born, for it seemed that when I reached the age when I could really enjoy the things of this world they would all be over.

Of course I had a false conception of what the foretold time of trouble would mean for mankind. Otherwise, I would have rejoiced in the thought of how the joys of the world would be so greatly increased, and so soon. This I learned as I grew older and continued to listen to my father as he bore witness to others; and he was a faithful witness for Jesus and for the Word of God.

Not a Believer

In this early period of my life I was not in reality what one could describe as a believer; I was merely a child. I was interested and impressed simply because my father was so enthusiastic about these great new things which he had learned. The only church to which my father ever belonged was the Advent Church, but there was no Advent Church in the area in which we lived in these maturing years of my life, and my father did not join any of the other churches. However, he did attend occasionally. He was a good tenor singer and for a while sang in the choir of the Methodist Church. Other than this he attended church only when something special was to take place, such as an evangelistic service, and he attended then because he hoped there would be an opportunity to bear witness to the truth. And he always seemed able to bring about the much desired opportunity. I learned to enjoy going to church on these occasions with my father because I knew that if anything in the way of a controversy arose he would always come out on top, and that I enjoyed.

My father owned and operated a sawmill, and from a very early age I worked in this mill, together with my three brothers and hired hands as they were needed. The hired hands were of the type who were not too careful of their language, and I was impressed with the erroneous thought that when I got into unexpected trouble I could talk my way out by swearing, although I never used profane language if I knew my father was around. One day I had a trying experience and, thinking that my Dad was not in the mill at the time, I tried to pour oil on the wound by swearing. That night my father planned to attend a special evangelical meeting. It was my assignment that week to milk the family cow, and after supper I asked my Dad, if I could get someone to milk the cow for me that night, could I go to meeting with him. He looked at me very understandingly and replied, ‘Yes, son, you need to go to meeting.”

The special item on the program for this meeting was a lecture by a noted evangelist in which he told of two dreams he had experienced. In the first of these dreams it seemed that he was taken to the edge of the great abyss of eternal fire and brimstone and saw the sufferings of the sinners, and heard their groanings. In the second dream it seemed that he had visited heaven and participated in the joys of the saved. After he finished his lecture the meeting was thrown open for testimony, and this is where my father got his chance. My father made good use of his opportunity.

Boldly and without compromise he pointed out the truth concerning hell as it is taught in the Bible. The meeting was thrown into confusion. There was no lack of further testimonies, and without exception each one in turn agreed with the evangelist. During the meeting I sat beside a clergyman-a very honest and sincere black clergyman-and his was the last testimony. He talked at considerable length, using all the scriptures he could which he thought showed the idea of eternal torture for sinners. It was a time in which tobacco chewing was not looked upon as being offensive, so all the time he was talking I was being sprinkled with tobacco juice! I was very glad when there were signs that he was reaching the end of his dissertation; but his final remark was very surprising and very revealing. He had spent some twenty or twenty-five minutes trying to prove that there is a hell of torment for sinners, but his closing remark was, “Gentlemen, I have reached the conclusion that whether there is a hell or not I will serve the Lord just the same for fear there is.” I gathered from this that the good man had not even convinced himself. Years later I lectured in this same hall. The good black preacher, meanwhile, had passed away, but many came to the meeting who were present at the time my father witnessed there and the preacher objected. These still preferred to believe in the eternal torture of the wicked.

Naturally this experience gave me more confidence than ever in what my father was learning from the Bible, and while I did not do anything about it, it afforded me a certain sense of security in that I felt that at least there is something that a teenager-and I had become a teenager by this time-could hold to and feel that it was better than what most people enjoy.

By this time in the truth movement Brother Russell was attending many small conventions when invited, and the railroad companies were co-operating by giving special reduced rates to those who attended these conventions. We learned that Brother Russell was coming to a nearby city to speak at a Bible Students Convention. My mother and my father’s sister had for a long time wanted to visit this city, so they took advantage of the reduced railroad rates to go.

They found when purchasing their tickets, however, that the reduced fare was conditional. You could purchase a one-way ticket and, by appearing at the convention and having the ticket properly validated to show that you had attended, you could get a free ride back home. They went anyway, and in order to get the free ride home were compelled to attend the convention, although up to this point they had no interest in the truth. At the convention they heard Brother Russell speak to the public, and they heard other discourses, and when they returned home they simply couldn’t talk about anything except those wonderful things they had heard at the Bible Students Convention. In fact, they were so enthusiastic that I decided that I simply must learn more about the things that Dad believed.

So on the first convenient evening I hid myself away in what we called the parlor. That word is not used much these days, but in the time that I am speaking of a parlor was a room that was as well-furnished as the family could afford, but never used except on very special occasions when special guests would drop in to have a cup of tea.

But for me the parlor was the one place of seclusion in the home of a large family where I knew I could be by myself. We had no electricity, not even gas for lights, so I lighted up the oil lamp and betook myself to the parlor. I knew that my Dad was getting all these things from the Bible, so I found a Bible and took it with me to the parlor. I sat down at a table as near to the lamp as I could get and opened the Bible, and I started to read. And what I read was this, At that time shall Michael stand up, … and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation.

You can well imagine the effect that this had on me! For years I had heard my father talk about this time of trouble, and now with my own eyes I was reading about it right from the Bible itself! This brought me to my knees in a prayer of thanksgiving and of repentance, and for forgiveness. I closed the Bible and went to bed.

The next evening I decided on a similar course, only instead of reading from the Bible-knowing that my Dad was getting these truths through the instructions of the volumes of Studies in the Scriptures-I took with me volume 3. Not having the slightest idea what was in these volumes, I opened the book at random as I had opened the Bible, and there again I began reading about the time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation.

Marking Time

I kept this experience to myself, and continued to work in the mill and also on a small farm on which our home was located. I worked, and I thought, and I knew that the Lord was drawing me to himself, and that my only possible answer to his drawing power was the full surrender of my life to do his will in following in Jesus’ footsteps. But I did not make up my mind on this right away. As I recall, several months elapsed before I was finally drawn to the point that the only answer of a good conscience toward God was to surrender my all to him, and I did.

Then I realized that one of the first things the Lord wanted me to do as a servant of his was to bear witness to the truth. We did not live in a city. You could hardly call it a town. It was a mere village of about 1,200 inhabitants. So I decided I would secure a supply of tracts sufficient to give one to each family in the community. I was not satisfied in my new zeal to merely throw these tracts on the porches. But I knocked at the door of every home, where I knew every family, and presented the tract to them with a few words of explanation as to what they could expect to find in it.

The title of this tract was, “Are You of the Hopeful or the Hopeless?” So far as I know, everyone in that village continued to be of the hopeless, but my faith and hope were increased by the effort I had made to tell the glad tidings of the kingdom to my neighbors; and from that day until now I have been similarly rewarded for every effort I have made to bear witness to the truth.

Growing in Grace

AS A result of my mother and my aunt attending the Bible Students Convention, which I have already mentioned, they became deeply interested in the truth and went on to consecration. My father’s sister-my Aunt Clara-had two grown daughters who listened to the truth as presented to them by their mother, and they accepted the message and made a full consecration to the Lord.

Then there was a great uncle and his wife who also became interested-interested enough to open their home for a meeting.

So almost before we knew it we had the makings of a small ecclesia. We began to hold regular meetings, and used Tabernacle Shadows as a textbook. Just why we decided on Tabernacle Shadows as our initial study I will never know, except possibly because it was the first book written by Pastor Russell. We found the subject matter rather difficult, but nevertheless we received a blessing as we proceeded with each meeting.

Finally we came to the place in the Tabernacle Shadows where Brother Russell brings out the thought that sisters should wear a head covering at meetings of the consecrated people of God. This precipitated the first real trial and crisis that came into my young Christian life. All of the sisters refused to cover their heads in any way at the meetings.

Their reasoning seemed sound. They said, “We are simply sitting down in our own homes to study the Bible, and why should we go through all that formality?” But to me it was a serious matter and gave me much vexation of spirit. I argued with them, but to no avail. Working in the sawmill in the daytime there was much noise all around me, so I could even sing without anyone knowing about it and I found my favorite hymn to be, “If I in thy likeness, 0 Lord, may awake, and shine a pure image of thee, then I shall be satisfied when I can break the fetters of flesh and be free.”

I was sure as a result of this great trial that had come to me for what I believed was my faithful stand for the truth and for my Lord, that I had just about made my calling and election sure and would soon be glorified. I still believe that the Lord is pleased to have the sisters cover their heads in meetings, but I realize now, as I look back upon my childish reasoning at that time, that I made a much greater issue out of this matter than should have been made. I am thankful that the Lord was patient with me and that the issue gradually receded and the class was not divided, which could have been the case had I insisted on my way just a little more rigidly.

Having formed an ecclesia, we sent in a request to the Bible House for pilgrim service, and we were blessed from time to time by visits of one or another of the pilgrims. Among them we had young Brother Walter Bundy, and we had Brother Frank Draper, and also Brother John Harrison. Brother Harrison, by the way, was the grandfather of Brothers Roy and Martin Mitchell and Sister Norma Mitchell, who were long-time members of the New York Bible Students Church, their mother before them also being a member of this congregation. Sister Norma Mitchell-the only one of these still living-is still a faithful member of the New York Church.

We also had as a visiting pilgrim, Brother Benjamin H. Barton, and how well I remember some of the details of his visits! As I already mentioned, my father had been an Adventist. Before moving to the location where I consecrated, we had lived in an area about twenty-five miles away, where there was an Advent Church, and to this he belonged. But the truth began to have its effect in this church-largely, I think, as a result of my father’s witnessing-so that nearly all in the congregation accepted the glorious Gospel of the kingdom. The result of this was that these brethren took control of the church and held their meetings there.

Knowing that Brother Barton was a good public speaker, we decided to take him into this area, and an arrangement was made to hold a public meeting in this former Advent Church. The church was packed that night, and Brother Barton gave an eloquent discourse on the subject, “The Truth About Hell.” He quoted many of the usual scriptures used in presenting this subject, explaining the meaning of sheol and hades and Gehenna, which are translated hell in the King James Version of the Bible, and then he went to some of the symbolic passages of the sacred Scriptures which are frequently used in an attempt to prove the theory of eternal torture.

Finally he turned to Re 14:9-11 and read it: “And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.”

Brother Barton called attention to the fact that the smoke of the torment referred to here ascended forever and ever “in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.” Thus, he said-and rightly so-the smoke of this torment arose in heaven, because this is where the holy angels and the Lamb reside. So he concluded from this, for the benefit of the audience, that if this be literally true it would mean that it would be as smoky in heaven for all eternity as it is in Pittsburgh. By way of explanation I might add that at that time Pittsburgh was considered to be one of the smokiest cities in the country, if not in the world; so his illustration made the point.

Brother Barton explained simply that we think of smoke as the evidence that there has been a fire. Here, the smoke of their torment would be the memory of their torment, and this would never be forgotten by the angels nor by the Lamb, and as a matter of fact, neither by mankind in general.

In those days there were no automobiles. One could travel by bicycle, or walk, or use a horse and buggy. My father had a three-seated buggy, which needed two horses, and he had the horses. So from time to time our little class would pile into this oversized buggy and drive to visit a neighboring ecclesia. They were small ecclesias, but there were several within twenty-five or thirty miles from where we lived. We would usually do this on the occasion of a pilgrim visit. Another pilgrim who visited us during that period was Brother Frank Draper, and what a blessing we all enjoyed in fellowship with our brethren in another ecclesia and hearing Brother Draper give his discourse!

But capping the climax of all this was a visit from Brother Russell himself. This had been arranged by Brother Ingram Margeson of Boston, Massachusetts, formerly of Nova Scotia. He arranged for Brother Russell to come to our territory, where a number of local conventions were scheduled, together with public meetings. His first stop was our little village of twelve hundred people-Berwick-and naturally we felt very honored. We secured the only auditorium in town, which seated about two hundred people.

Brother Russell traveled in a special car hitched to a regular train, and when he came into our territory there were about thirty brethren with him. We had worked hard for this convention-and it was a convention, because Brother Russell addressed the friends in the afternoon. The public meeting was to be in the evening, and a few of us in the territory had traveled up and down the country-some walking and some on bicycles-distributing the advertising matter.

We were so sure, from the reports we had read, that our little hall holding two hundred would be far too small to hold those who would want to hear him. Imagine our surprise, therefore, when we went to the hall that evening, together with the other brethren, and waited for the public to come. Our turnout of the public was exactly three people! However, Brother Russell gave his talk on the subject “To Hell and Back” with the same zest and enthusiasm as though he were addressing three thousand people, and we all felt that we had been blessed.

That night, after the public meeting, the friends who came with Brother Russell, plus some others who were joining the party, boarded the train and went along with him to his next stop. This was Halifax, and the attendance at this convention was probably as many as two hundred. Here also there was a public meeting, and well attended. And here also there was a baptismal service. Brother Russell gave the discourse on baptism, and I was one of the brethren to be baptized. Being immature in the truth I got the opinion that when I was raised up from the water I should feel some special surge of the Holy Spirit, or something that would make me realize that I had been accepted by the Lord.

But nothing like this occurred, and only after further consideration and discussion with the brethren I realized that I had been looking for something that does not occur on such occasions. I had faithfully obeyed the instructions of the Lord, and my part now was faithfully to believe that the Lord would fulfill his promises and that my consecrated life, if I continued to be faithful, would ultimately result in glory, honor, and immortality.

The convention party moved on from here to a slightly smaller city, (Truro), where there was another local convention. Brother Russell spoke to the brethren in the afternoon, and a public meeting was arranged for the evening. Here the auditorium was too small properly to hold all who attended. About forty of the brethren were selected to sit on the stage behind Brother Russell to make room for more of the public, and to my consternation I was one of those selected. I felt awkward, but at the same time was happy to be able to sit so close to where Brother Russell spoke.

Brother Russell’s topic for that evening was, “A Thief in Paradise, A Rich Man in Hell, and Lazarus in Abraham’s Bosom.” I never have been disappointed in Brother Russell, although in my long association with him sometimes I was surprised, and this was one of those occasions. Brother Russell talked for at least an hour and a half, presenting the plan of God without even mentioning his subject, but when he got around to it he spent sufficient time on each item of his subject to explain it beautifully. Meanwhile, of course, many of the public had left the auditorium, but Brother Russell did not seem concerned with this. He had given the majority of them a good witness to the truth of the divine plan, and to him that was all that mattered.

Having spent these three days in close association with Brother Russell, the thought began crystallizing in my mind that I must spend more time in the service of the Lord. I realized now as never before that, unless there are circumstances which make it impossible, one’s consecration means full-time service of the Lord, and I began thinking along that line. About the only full-time service then available was the colporteur work, and I decided to enter this work as soon as possible

The Colporteur Work

WHAT was and is known as the colporteur work is the selling of truth literature on a door-to-door basis. Brother W.H. Deming of Ohio, was the first one to engage in this work. In a General Convention at Chautauqua, Ohio, Brother Deming told of some of his experiences in the colporteur work and also told of a public meeting for which he arranged while in this work. He chose as his subject for the meeting, “The United States to Have a King.” He told the brethren that the auditorium was crowded.

From the time I made up my mind that I would enter this phase of service I began to be fearful of how well I could do it. I am not what one would call an “outgoing” person by nature, and it is very difficult for me to converse with strangers, especially if I have to lead in the conversation and keep it moving. So I wondered how a person like this would really make out in the colporteur work.

It was a few weeks after reaching the decision to enter this service before I actually got started, and I never will forget my experience in making my first call. A lady met me at the door and invited me into her home. But I soon came out, and I came out utterly amazed, for, believe it or not, I sold a book! I do not know how it happened. All I know is that it gave me the courage to continue on.

This particular colporteur trip was not to be a long one. I soon found that I needed some funds on hand to carry on this work as it was conducted in those days. We took orders for the books and delivered them usually the following Monday, and one had to have sufficient funds to pay for a room and food during the week. And sometimes the collections on the delivery of books on Monday were not sufficient to carry one through the remainder of the week, so I decided to return home, which was nearby, and work in my father’s sawmill until spring. I knew that there I could earn a dollar a day, and I figured that by working through the winter at this scale I would have enough funds to carry me through the following summer, which I did.

Brother Arthur Marchant-a colporteur who introduced the truth to my father-went with me on this short trip and, through a sister who lived on a farm nearby, arranged for a public meeting to be held on the following Sunday evening. We drove to the schoolhouse in which the meeting was to be held, with a horse and buggy loaned to us by a relative. As we came within about fifteen minutes of the schoolhouse, Brother Marchant made the startling announcement that I was to give the lecture that night.

I had never given a lecture and I decided that Brother Marchant was overdoing things just a little. But he insisted, and when the meeting started there I was on the platform. I had learned, through correspondence, that there was a very young brother at Bethel at that time, (W.F. Hudgings) who was giving public lectures and being billed as “the boy preacher.” And though I knew that I was more of a boy than he could possibly be, this gave me a little courage, and while waiting for the opening hymn to be sung I began to think about my subject.

No formal topic had been announced, so I decided to speak on the subject of restitution, using Ac 3:19-21 as my text. From the time that I began my real interest in the truth I made it a point to memorize as many scriptures as I could, and fortunately I had memorized many from the Old Testament, which gave me a background for what I wanted to present to the audience-and we had a good audience; the schoolhouse was filled. The only way I have of knowing how that discourse was received was by the fact that nobody left the auditorium until I was through.

However, my aunt-father’s sister-criticized me very severely for even undertaking it, and I knew from her attitude that she felt that it was not right for one so young to be participating in this type of service. And she was probably right, from the standpoint that it might go to my head, so to speak; and I prayed earnestly that this might not be the case. Anyway, it was many months before I had another such opportunity.

The Winter Passed

The winter passed, and my little nest egg of finances built up to some extent, so I was ready to go out again. A brother living in Digby County, Nova Scotia, which was east from my home, wanted to go with me that spring, and he preferred to work in the province of New Brunswick. St. John, New Brunswick, was just across the Bay of Fundy from where he lived, so I joined him there for the trip across the bay. Ordinarily one makes that trip by passenger boat, which plies from Digby to St. John, but this young brother-whose name was Walter Boutelier-and his father owned and operated a general store in the town of Digby and owned a boat about as large as a medium sized tugboat with which to convey his merchandise from New Brunswick to Digby, so Walter and I decided that we would cross the bay in his father’s boat. We took off at night and arrived in St. John in the morning. Since Walter wished to work in the country, we provided ourselves with bicycles for this undertaking.

Reaching St. John we went immediately to a home in that city which had become the haven of many transient Bible students, especially colporteurs. It was the home of a sea captain and his wife who loved the truth and were anxious to do all they could to assist the Bible Students, especially the colporteurs, in their efforts to serve the Lord. This dear old sea captain made a sort of profession of forecasting the weather each morning to let everybody know what to expect during the day. Many times he recognized that he had no idea what the weath