SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)

[JW Insider]

41 minutes ago, Arauna said:

So your issues are with the time between 539 and 537. 

False. These are not my issues. I'm only explaining why the WTS has an issue with it.

41 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Well, 2 years ago when this subject came up I was the first to mention Akitu and how important it is.

And now you have more information about why the WTS thinks it's NOT important.

41 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Is it not an obsession to prove the GB WRONG?  

The GB rejects it and thinks it's not important. You disagree with the GB here. It doesn't interest me too much because all you are really doing is effectively shortening the GB's time 70 year period by about a year. No big deal to me. It's obviously a big deal to the GB because, to them, it effectively moves back the destruction of Jerusalem to 608. Because it's no big deal to me, that's the reason I don't obsess over it.

41 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I assumed the GB had not seen this in their research.

I assumed they did, because they spoke about it, relative to Cambyses in the same context where they recognized the secular evidence that Cyrus was his father:

*** it-1 p. 581 Darius ***
Some scholars present Cambyses (II) as being made “King of Babylon” by his father Cyrus soon after the conquest of Babylon. While Cambyses evidently did represent his father annually at the “New Year’s” festival at Babylon, he seems to have resided at Sippar during the rest of the time. Research based on study of cuneiform texts indicates that Cambyses evidently did not assume the title “King of Babylon” until Nisan 1 of the year 530 B.C.E., being made coregent with Cyrus,

 

[JW Insider]

32 minutes ago, Arauna said:

No - he was crowned King of the four corners of the earth in 538 BCE during the 14 day festival 1-14 Nissan (New Years festival).  This would give until Nissan the following year plus extra months up to Tishri to gather together and get back to Jerusalem.

I've always agreed with this possibility.

32 minutes ago, Arauna said:

TO SPLIT HAIR ABOUT DAYS OR A MONTH OR TWO IS REALLY (I had a bad word here but removed it)...... THAT IS THE ONLY WAY I CAN DISCRIBE IT.

Why are you so concerned that the WTS splits hairs over this? Why would you use a bad word against them? Obviously you are not trying to do that, but you don't seem to realize yet that you are obsessing over the GB's position on this, not mine. I won't split hairs over it. But the GB has rejected the idea. Write them if you think it's important. But you should realize that ultimately you are opening up a strong possibility that 1914 should to change to 1913, so they are not going to listen!!

[JW Insider]

40 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Would you please give the following information for the beginning and end dates for the Cyrus' 1sr full year expressed in the following calenders: Jewish/Hebrew- / Babylonian / Julian / Gregorian

You keep signing your posts as "scholar JW" so I don't see why you need this diversion, nor why you can't just do this yourself. Why are you obsessing over these details?

[Arauna]

6 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

It's understandable when you truly can't answer a simple question. Once again, go back to school, you might learn!

It is true!  When he cannot answer he focusses on mistakes in language!

[Arauna]

Just now, JW Insider said:

Why are you obsessing over these details?

Insider also sounds creepy -  to be honest.  I guess he wants the details because he is calling you out on your use of stars and calendars - which is actually unnecessary to get to 539 BCE because there are much easier methods of of getting to  the correct dates.

[Arauna]

12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

o concerned that the WTS splits hairs over t

You are splitting the hairs

 

13 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But the GB has rejected the idea.

Not mentioning Akitu in their writings does not mean they have rejected it.  They may not have seen it to consider it

 

14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But you should realize that ultimately you are opening up a strong possibility that 1914 should to change to 1913,

Evidence  that you are the one obsessing! and on top of that you are patronizing towards me!  

[JW Insider]

2 minutes ago, Arauna said:

which is actually unnecessary to get to 539 BCE because there are much easier methods of of getting to  the correct dates.

What are those easier methods? And why doesn't the WTS use them? The WTS rejects the late historians and Olympiads, for example, which were created well after the chronology was established by king lists and astrology/astronomy. This is why the Insight book claims that we rely on Babylonian Chronicles, astronomy tablets with eclipse predictions/observations, and a combination of Contract Tablets, and king lists. Admittedly using the same methods that Parker & Dubberstein relied on.

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

It is not a diversion at all but simply a request for those who appear to be or claim to be  far more competent in matters of Chronology pertaining to the intricacies of NB Chronology and the use of astro programs. The matter is important because we now have a controversy raised by Alan F in his 5 page paper whether the date of the Return is 538 or 537 . Thus a definite establishment of the 1st year of Cyrus is critical as explained in our publications.

I have not found in any published scholarship to date that provides such vital information and the only go to reference work is of Parker and Dubberstein but such a work does not account for Darius' first year as stated in Dan. 9:1. So, such an omission has implications along with Neb's missing 7 years and Jeremiah's 70 years has implications for the integrity of the whole NB Period.

scholar JW

[AlanF]

Arauna said:

Quote

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:
Your theory allows the Jews to be back in 538,

Quote

How can this be if Cyrus was only crowned in 538 BCE on Nissan 1-14 (festival of Akitu) and gave the edict to return?  You work on assumptions which you stick onto me which are incorrect.

Let's try this again. The following dates are taken from Parker and Dubberstein (Babylonian Chronology -- 626 B.C. - A.D. 75, Brown University Press, 1956; Wipf & Stock Publishers, Eugene, Oregon), along with a Julian date calculator website ( https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1227779487 ). All dates are given by the usual Julian calendar.

The Insight book (Vol. 1, p. 453) clearly admits that Cyrus' official accession year was Nisan 1, 539 BCE through Addaru 30, 538 BCE, and his official FIRST year was Nisan 1, 538 BCE through Addaru 30, 537 BCE. The Persians under Cyrus conquered the city of Sippar, near Babylon, on October 10, 539, conquered Babylon on October 12, 539, and Cyrus entered Babylon on October 29. Tablets dating to Cyrus' accession year, dating to October 10 through January 14, 538, are listed in P&D (p. 14).

Therefore it was evident to all inhabitants of Babylon not later than October 29 that Cyrus was now the king. Since Cyrus was known to release captives when he conquered a city, it was obvious to the Jews that he would almost certainly release them. The question was when? It was the custom of rulers in Persia, and apparently Babylon, to celebrate the Akitu Festival beginning about Nisan 1. Accompanying this celebration, especially one in combination with celebrating the inauguration (on the 1st day of the 1st official year) was the ceremonial release of captives. Thus, it is extremely likely that the Jewish captives were freed on or about Nisan 1, 538 BCE in connection with the Akitu Festival.

Now, from Cyrus' entry into Babylon, October 29, 539 BCE to his inauguration day, Nisan 1, 538 BCE, is 146 days, or nearly five lunar months. This allowed nearly five months for the Jews to prepare for release from captivity, and even more if they were aware that Cyrus' depredations around Babylon before conquering it presaged the fall of Babylon.

Ezra 3:1 clearly states that by the 7th month Tishri (Tishri 1 = September 17), the Jews "were in their cities". From Nisan 1 to Tishri 1 is 6 months; 6 plus 5 equals 11, for the mathematically challenged, so the Jews theoretically had nearly 11 months of time to prepare for their Return to Judah and to execute it. The usual travel time between Babylon and Judah was about 4 months, which easily fits in the time slots between Nisan 1 (March 24), 538 and Tishri 1 (September 17), 538, or October 29, 539 and Tishri 1, 538. Either way leaves plenty of time for a return in 538 BCE.

Now, Arauna dearie, which of the above bits of information do you disagree with? Which do you agree with? State your reasons and your reasoning. If you disagree with the conclusions, please contact your scientist brother and run it all by him. Perhaps he can explain it to you. Finally you should present a well-documented exposition like I've given you above.

[AlanF]

18 minutes ago, Arauna said:

It is true!  When he cannot answer he focusses on mistakes in language!

We're watching a couple of morons here trying to discuss what ScholarJW thinks is rocket science.

I've answered all of your challenges, Arauna. You're a blatant liar. The fact that you, but especially Cesar Chavez, have serious problems with English is YOUR problem, not mine. Clear language is necessary for clear communication.

Of course, since Watchtower publications for several decades have been written in 3rd grade level English, y'all wouldn't know that.

[AlanF]

7 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

JW Insider

It is not a diversion at all but simply a request for those who appear to be or claim to be  far more competent in matters of Chronology pertaining to the intricacies of NB Chronology and the use of astro programs. The matter is important because we now have a controversy raised by Alan F in his 5 page paper whether the date of the Return is 538 or 537 . Thus a definite establishment of the 1st year of Cyrus is critical as explained in our publications.

I have not found in any published scholarship to date that provides such vital information and the only go to reference work is of Parker and Dubberstein but such a work does not account for Darius' first year as stated in Dan. 9:1. So, such an omission has implications along with Neb's missing 7 years and Jeremiah's 70 years has implications for the integrity of the whole NB Period.

scholar JW

Largely the usual nonsense and claptrap. And of course, zero evidence is presented, so none is needed to dismiss.

[scholar JW]

Alan F

9 minutes ago, AlanF said:

The Insight book (Vol. 1, p. 453) clearly admits that Cyrus' official accession year was Nisan 1, 539 BCE through Addaru 30, 538 BCE, and his official FIRST year was Nisan 1, 538 BCE through Addaru 30, 537 BCE. The Persians under Cyrus conquered the city of Sippar, near Babylon, on October 10, 539, conquered Babylon on October 12, 539, and Cyrus entered Babylon on October 29. Tablets dating to Cyrus' accession year, dating to October 10 through January 14, 538, are listed in P&D (p. 14).

So then what is fundamentally wrong with the explanation given in the Insight article seeing that it does account for the brief reign of Darius which you do not and does not also occur in the tables in P&D?

scholar JW