607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?

[scholar JW]

Anna

The reason why we accept 539 BCE and not 587 Bce even though both dates are derived from similar secular sources but reflect diifferent methodologies in calculating these. The answer is Methodology for WT scholars make a determination based upon the textual, historical, biblical and astronomical sources. All of these things must come together in order for a measure of confidence be assured. It is only very recent times from 2000 that METHODOLOGY has become part of the Chronologist's toolkit in order to solve some of the vexing issues of OT chronology such as the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem in either 586 or 587 BCE We have course have long solved this problem by fixing the precise date of 607 BCE because of the 70 years.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

21 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

I reject your claim that this book 'makes claims that are shamefully wrong'. The quotation from this book is correct both in fact and in history. Ptolemy's Canon has traditionally drawn much criticism over the centuries and even in Russell's day there was criticism of the Canon in the early WT.

That's my point about the shameful use of Ptolemy. He is relied on for 539 even though our publications tried to discredit Ptolemy in 1963 by saying his work was "exploded." It's shameful to be so certain about a chronological scheme, but not know what you are doing and at what points you are relying on the same types of sources. Not everything about the works Ptolemy passed on through his writings and collection of work is correct. I have read the criticism of Ptolemy from Russell's day. It was amazing that they thought they could just pick and choose without being careful. As I already pointed out from some older quotes, Russell also used Ptolemy's support as evidence for how accurate 536 was (even though we considered that a fuzzy date and changed it at a later point). Although I already mentioned that it was quite possible to also reach 539 through other lines of evidence -- these also support 587/6 for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

[scholar JW]

Foreigner

 I thank you for your colourful diagram and ii wish I had your computer skills.You mention 609 BCE but is this an error? Perhaps you meant 607 BCE instead. Like Ann O Maly I too am a little confused.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

24 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Max Hatton whom I have met in 1983 or thereabouts became a Seventh Day Adventist and was one of the earliest critics of WT Chronology on the world scene and  perhaps was influenced by a thesis written by a resident in Western Australia ,  G. Rogerson who wrote An Examination Of The Year 1914 In The Prophetic interpretation Of The Watchtower Society. I have copies  of all Hatton's correspondence to the Society and would need to compare its contents with Rogerson's treatise I should say rather than a thesis because Hatton spent his earlier days in Perth, Western Australia about that time..

I still have not read all of his story, but I find it amazing. The first letter admitted influence from a Seventh Day Adventist source. I'm surprised he became a Seventh Day Adventist himself, however. And yes I am impressed with Thiele at many points of his studies. He appears to have been able to resolve several chronological issues on the secular side, by using the Bible as a primary historical source.

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

The use of Ptolemy comes down as with all other sources to Methodology. Scholars are free to cherry pick facts from sources in order to construct a scheme of Chronology because this is what. they do and explains why there are so many different OT Chronologies right down to the present day. Ptolemy's Canon is of value to the Historian and the Chronologist and should not be ignored but Edwin Thiele had a realistic and honest view about the Canon for he stated "Ptolemy's Canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete listof all of the rulers of either Babylon or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the beginning of their reigns but it was a device which made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical data which were then available". Mysterious Numbers Of The Hebrew Kings, 1965, pp.216-7

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

Max Hatton became a Pastor of the Seventh Day Adventists, he is rather aged now and not sure whether he is still alive. He last resided in Newcastle, NSW and if alive possibly blind. Max Hatton wrote several articles on Chronology which I have in my files and one thing that struck me was his independent dating of the 70 years from normal Adventist orthodoxy. My conclusion was and still is that Scholarship broadly speaking is all at sea when it comes to the seventy years. They do not have a clue!!

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

Another point about Thiele who is long deceased is that in his seminal writings he makes no mention of the 70 years, completely missing from his majestic MNHK.an important slice of the history of the very period that Thiele engaged with in his theses.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

On 12/12/2017 at 3:55 PM, scholar JW said:

Where matters are uncertain then the reader is advised

No, that's not true, and that's the problem. The reader is NOT advised. That's a form of academic dishonesty.

Here is one of literally HUNDREDS of examples of this in our literature:

*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***

• One fragmentary Babylonian text, dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.), does, in fact, mention a campaign against Egypt. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 308)

You might know better, of course, but don't you think that some of the brothers will read this line in the "Insight" book under "Nebuchadnezzar" and get the impression that a well-researched resource about Babylonian texts indicates that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year was 588 B.C.E.?

It's amazing (and shameful) that our publications still do this repeatedly. The referenced book by Pritchard is 100% aware that all the evidence consistently points to 568 for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and therefore 587/6 for his 19th year (not 607). There is only one reason that the Watchtower publications sneaks 588 in there without any explanation about how the book they referenced actually rejects this date. It's because 588 is the date that would allow 607 to work which would allow 1914 to work. We should not have to depend on dishonesty and slick tricks like this. If the evidence stood on its own, we would be happy to point to the evidence, instead of trying to denigrate the evidence, and then "dishonestly" forget to tell the readers that it's this same denigrated evidence that we rely on for 607.

[JW Insider]

30 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Another point about Thiele who is long deceased is that in his seminal writings he makes no mention of the 70 years, completely missing from his majestic MNHK.an important slice of the history of the very period that Thiele engaged with in his theses.

No need to. Jeremiah explained why the 70 years need not be related to the destruction of Jerusalem. It was pretty obvious, no doubt, that nations served Babylon over a period of Babylon's 70 years of domination. (Can I assume you might still get to that question I asked you about the explanation of Jeremiah 25 in the Isaiah book?)

Also, of course, Thiele takes Zedekiah's 11th year (and 4th month) as part of a Nisan-to-Nisan year which also influences his acceptance of 586 as the destruction of Jerusalem. I think Thiele is still an excellent resource for this time period. He is another good resource to show why 607 has no evidence behind it for Jerusalem's destruction.

[Foreigner]

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

I thank you for your colourful diagram and ii wish I had your computer skills.You mention 609 BCE but is this an error? Perhaps you meant 607 BCE instead. Like Ann O Maly I too am a little confused.

Scholar JW

Correct. 607 BC would be the determined year. After the death of King Josiah. His son took over. Then King Necho ll replaced (Shallum) with Jehoiakim. However. There’s a good indication that happened in the latter part of the year 610 BC. Then Jehoiakim became the puppet king to Babylon in 609 BC. Scripture relates to what happened next. This is why that period ran concurrently without no accession year attached

Max Hatton wrote a treatise in 1965 or book. Most of what is quoted come from there. I donÂ’t doubt thatÂ’s where Raymond Franz and then Carl Olof Jonsson got their ideas from.

[Israeli Bar Avaddhon]

I did not follow the conversation from the beginning so I'm not sure of the purpose of this discussion.
From personal experience I know that this date is often mentioned to corroborate or invalidate an alleged calculation of the "seven times" of Nebuchadnezzar's dream. If this is the final purpose of this discussion, then I believe that there are much more important questions.

If the purpose of this discussion is a "historical curiosity", then it is interesting.
If I were a historian, then it would be very important to understand how and where to place the events; study the evidence in favor and the contrary evidence.

As for our beliefs, however, I believe that a Christian should ask himself a more profound and important question.
The Bible book of Daniel, when it spoke of the seven times, refers to the establishment of God's Kingdom?

The question is very simple: what is the use of making a thousand discussions on a historical date if the object of the question is another?

If Daniel chapter 4 is not talking about the establishment of the Kingdom of God but of something else, is it really important to find out an exact date for a wrong event?

Twenty years more or less really do a difference if the interpretation of final event is wrong?

Good reflections to everyone

 

[Ann O'Maly]

19 hours ago, Foreigner said:

King Necho ll originally deposed one King and substituted him with another. Both were under the control of Egypt. 1 King, then Jehoiakim became a puppet King to Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar ll, 1 King. 1 Egyptian, 1 King Babylonian.

That's not what you initially said, contributing to the confusion.

12 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Then King Necho ll replaced (Shallum) with Jehoiakim. However. There’s a good indication that happened in the latter part of the year 610 BC.

You mean, BEFORE Josiah died?

13 hours ago, Foreigner said:

I donÂ’t doubt thatÂ’s where Raymond Franz and then Carl Olof Jonsson got their ideas from.

Raymond Franz said that while he was researching the Aid book, he couldn't find evidence for 607 BCE being the destruction of Jerusalem so worked on undermining the evidence for 587/6 BCE instead. Jonsson did his own independent research and submitted it to Watchtower HQ. It was then that R. Franz became aware of just how bogus the WT chronology for the NB era was.