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

JW Insider
This response is to your claims about the'' Babylon the Great  ' book and Max Hatton.
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. In 1913 Martin Anstey published his Romance of Bible Chronology which was a significant piece of scholarship in its time. On pp. 18-21 Anstey makes some criticisms of the Canon and his ability as an historian although a high regard for this work remains. In 1963 the Society published its first major work on Chronology proper in the  All Scripture Is Inspired of God and it explained how the Absolute Date for 539 BCE was determined. It stated that various historical sources including Diodorus,Africanus, Eusebius, Ptolemy and other Babylonian tablets support 539 BCE when Babylon was overthrown. So it is incorrect to say that we relied only on the Canon for establishing the Absolute Date. We knew even before 1963 that there were significant problems with the traditional Chronology when compared with Bible Chronology because of the 70 years which we had long regarded as period of Desolation of the land of Judah.
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.. This treatise deals much with the Babyl;on book and its criticism of the Canon. When I met Max at Bondi, Sydney after 1983 Max excitedly told me that he had just received a copy of Edwin Thiele'ds third edition perhaps to put me to shame but I told him that I had in fact already had purchased Thiele's edition so that deflated him somewhat. Edwin Thiele perhaps Christendom's greatest Chronologist was a Seventh Day Adventist . 
scholar JW

Insider JW
You have posted in three parts so I will respond accordingly:
A debate has two sides with opposing points of view, honesty is required by both parties so I call this a two-way street.
There is no Gap in the NB Period at this stage of our present knowledge but there is a difference of 19 years. when one compares WT Chronology with NB Chronology. The much earlier  Babylon the Great Has Fallen-God's Kingdom Rules , 1963, p. 138. Rol Furuli in recent times has published extensively on the Chronologies of the Ancient World and his thesis is that the Babylonian Empire should be expanded some 20 Years. In view of these viewpoints and because the NB Period and its appended Chronology omits any mention of the Jeremiah's 70 years a Prophett who was contemporaneous with the NB  Period, a eyewitness 'to boot', I have classified the difference between the two systems as the 'Babylonian Gap'. The 'missing 20 years' I propose could properly be inserted at either two points: Neb's 18th year or his 37 th years and that will harmonize the two dating systems and all is well!!
Your claim that the methodology used by WT in connection with 537 BCE for the Return of the Exiles is 'fuzzy' is simply nonsense. Our explanation of all of the relevant data and its sources is well discussed in our publications and 537 BCE is well established. You accuse WT of being fuzzy with dates and cite 537 BCE as an example of this but I must remind you that Historians and Scholars are very fuzzy about this event for you cannot find a specific date for the event in the scholarly literature for this is a fact plain and simple. You quibble over the use of language or terms used in the WT publications which express uncertainty or a lack of finality but history is imperfect and there is no room for dogmatism in either history or chronology. Where matters are uncertain then the reader is advised but this not mean that a Chronology in harmony with certain facts cannot be constructed. The question you should be asking yourself is: 'what then is the precise date for the Return of the Jews?' 
You seem to 'hung up' on the Zero Year problem which is often raised by apostates but not by serious scholars. The WT has simply explained the anomaly and back then some chronologists possible misunderstood the difference between the Astronomical Year and the Years in the Gregorian Calendar and perhaps many reference works at that time made a similar error but once the error was noted then an adjustment was made fortunately or providentially the integrity of the 1914 CE date was preserved as the beginning of the Gentile Times. End of Part One.
scholar JW

JW Insider.
Now I am off the throne and in a relieved state I am ready for battle.. 
Nebuchadnezzer reigned for 43 years and not 63 years as shown by NB Chronology.Methodology allows one to insert 20 years into the scheme in order to harmonize NB Chronology with Biblical history via the seventy years of Jeremiah unaccounted for in NB Chronology..i have suggested that in Neb's 18th regnal years which of course would expand the the NB Period by 20 years. Now , I hear a very loud voice of protest about such an intrusion but that is not my problem it a problem for those scholars or scribes who compiled the list of reigns in the first place. they should have exercised greater diligence and not been sloppy or careless. They were very naughty.
Your claim that our theory is impossible is unclear to me because we accept the 43 years of Neb' s reign and have well described how this synchronizes with the reigns of the last Kings of Judah according to the biblical data. If it does not fit certain data from the NB Chronology then that is not my problem. Just make the required adjustment based only on trusted biblical facts . If you have found a problem then why not try to solve it? DO YOU WANT ME TO SOLVE IT FOR YOU. Already, there are other problems in connection with Jehoiakim's reign such as the 'third year of his kingship' in Dan. 1:1. and this is explained in the Insight article under 'Jehoiakim'. You will find the chart for the Reigns of Judah and Israel published in the Aid  book most helpful.
If you want me to solve your problem then present your question simply and clearly. Just present the facts, skip the references. Chronology is complex enough so simplicity works for me. You got it?  When I get a problem I usually get the solution even though it can be hard work.
scholar JW
 

Ann OMaly
An update on Jer.25:11: I do not withdraw my comment that nowhere in the OT does the seventy years refers to the nation's servitude to Babylon and in the context of all of the seventy years of Jeremiah's corpus for this applies to Judah alone. However, Jer. 25:11 can be interpreted as it is read so in accordance with the insightful comment in Keil & Delitzch's Commentary On the Old Testament, Vol.8.p.374 it offers this interesting observation on 'these nations'. In short, these peop[es or nations which surrounded Judah would also be desolated and along with Judah would have to serve Babylon. So it could well be argued at the time of Judah' servitude, desolation and exile other nations also experienced that same fury whether at that time or later is unknown so the Babylonish intervention during that time may well have  extended beyond the borders of Judah which raise some additional questions of research. The text in view has a number of interpretations regarding its application to 'these nation's.in the context of the entire chapter. Rolf Furuli has discussed the linguistics of this verse with alternative translations.
Another interpretation concerns these nations viewed metaphorically or theologically namely with the downfall of Jehovah;s kingship at Jerusalem with the end of the Davidic Monarchy it could be said that all other nations were now subject to Babylonian sovereignty. These are just short comments but nothing obscures the simple fact that Judah served Babylon for 70 years whilst exiled at Babylon leaving behind a devastated and depopulated land of Judah and perhaps beyond its borders. It is amazing how one simple expression opens many other doors for further reflection and research and I thank you for quoting that text.
scholar JW
 
 
 
 
 

Ann O Maly
I brought Rainer Albertz up because his view on the timing and nature of the Exile agrees with us in many respects but not all
 
. He begins the Exile not from 609 BCE the choice of many scholars but from the Fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 BCE but differs from us in that he ends the Exile in 539 BCE with the Fall of Babylon.  In that same paragraph on p.2 He begins the Exilic Era from that same event, the Fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 and ends it in 520 BCE which is OK with me. Also, he dates the seventy years from 587 BCE until 517 and not 609 BCE which supports our view but differs on the endpoint based on his interpretation of the two texts in Zechariah.
I repeat nothing of any historical significance occurred in 609 according to NB Chronology. If there is something then state it but remember it must be of such significance that warrants the beginning of the 70 years.  
 
Jere. 25;11 is problematic for all exegetes because ' these nations are not identified. This could refer to the inhabitants of Judah or it could refer to the peoples of the Babylonian Empire. There are a number of linguistic possibilities and the immediate context which targets Judah alone is the determinant factor.
No  I have not checked Furuli's hypothesis as to its validity but others have and it has been subject to Peer Review. But boy it is impressive don't you think?
scholar JW

Anna
Ann O Maly has kindly posted links to two scholarly articles by Ross Winkle on the Seventy Years. I recommend both articles but please be advised that these are published by a University affiliated with the Seventh Day Adventists. Also, if you choose to examine these articles do not neglect the other major  studies that Winkle references in ftn.1. p.201 of first article-PART 1.
Methodology:
1. Read all of the 70 texts and take personal notes on your thoughts
2. Research WT publications on each of those texts so that you have a firm understanding of the subject
3. Read Winkle's article again take personal notes or questions
4. Contact me for any assistance required
scholar JW

JW Insider
I admit to no such thing. Honesty is a two-way street. The simple fact is that NB Chronology as currently presented fails to mention or include the 70 years and its impact on the life and times of its vanquished people and their Land of Judah. the Biblical record contains such a period so when one wishes to construct a scheme based on the Bible then clearly there is a Gap of 20 years. Thus, the NB Period is falsified by this Gap of twenty years so to ignore it is dishonest. The twenty years must be inserted somewhere so that would be at the discretion of the Chronologist and according to his/her Methodology.
You choose to ignore the Gap along with most if not all other scholars so that is fine with me for in any event Chronology is personal, is individual and this accounts for the many schemes and interpretations at present. Chronology is based on  Methodology and Interpretation which underscores the foregoing.
The Gap exists when one compares one scheme with another. If you make no comparison then there is no Gap. If you choose to ignore the historical reality of the 70 years then also there is no Gap. You preach Honesty to me and yet you choose to ignore such a major piece of Biblical/Jewish history which was the Exile leaving Judah totally devastated whilst its population was enslaved by a foreign conqueror-Babylon. Whitewashing history is dishonest and trivializing the period by adopting 'fuzzy' beginning, 609 BCE and a 'fuzzy' end, 539 BCE is also dishonest. Perhaps now you should make that insertion at a point of time within the NB Period!!!
scholar JW

JW Insider
The Babylonian Gap of 20 years is proved by comparing that period with the 70 years of biblical history, The Bible specifies the period which was commensurate with the Babylonian Period therefore that Period requires that adjustment. Such a corrective harmonized all of the data allowing an accurate scheme of chronology to be realized
The scheme of WT chronology.is a valid presentation of all of the evidence and can be tested and has been subject to scholarly inquiry over many decades but recent research has proven its validity such as in the case of Furuli's research into VAT 4956 amongst other things. I am no late entrant into this discussion but remain very comfortable not only with our Chronology but of others and have long debated these matters over decades with many different WT critics.
You do not need a specific point to insert the twenty years but if you require some specificity I would insert it between the Neb's 18th year and the last year of Nabonidus' reign in 539 BCE for that will do nicely.Honesty requires consideration of all relevant factors so if you ignore the 70 years then your scholarship is compromised. This requires sound methodology and this is plainly evident because all factors are considered even secular evidence where necessary and relevant. There is no room for pretentiousness in Chronology but simply following the evidence where it leads.
Traditional Chronology ignores the seventy years mostly and where some have included it in their schemes there is a lack of consistency in its timing or its nature is misconstrued eg such lists or schemes end it with the Fall of Babylon and not the Return so this creates many problems. In your last paragraph, I have answered your question in the foregoing: iNSERT the 20 years anywhere between 587/586 and 539 BCE and that will expand the timeline to 607 BCE. QED
scholar JW

Anna
Herein I will attempt to answer your questions in your last two posts simply for if you read my responses to Ann and JW Insider these would address your questions in part.
The two dates of 609 and 605 BCE are used in our publications for different events so it is not the events but the dates that are not recognized in our publications or in WT/ Bible Chronology. Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 which of course lies between these two dates but these events, the battle at Carchemish and Megiddo preceded the Fall thus must be duly corrected or adjusted.
The dates for those events 629 and 625 now corrected by means of the insertion of the biblical 70 years causing a twenty-year corrective factor.
scholar JW
 

JW Insider
WT Chronology only uses the secular date for the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE for all other dates are based on the biblical narrative counting backwards or forwards in order to construct a scheme of Chronology, During the Neo-Babylonian Period alone there is found to be a Gap of 20 years and thus is used as 'corrective'in order to harmonize Biblical Chronology with traditional Chronology. For Dates that lie outside this period the biblical data where applicable is used to construct a Chronology that goes far back to Adam in 4026 BCE. 
Your claim that 'we have absolutely no idea at what point between 607 and 539 for example, that we have actually added the 20 years that we needed' is simply nonsense.The fact of the matter is that period, the Neo-Babylonian Period parallels Biblical Period of Jewish history and contains events that are or can be synchronized between both schemes. It is proven that there is a 20 years gap which floats between the two because of the '70' years missing from the NB Period historically, therefore, any interpreter, Chronologist or scholar needs to make an adjustment or corrective in order to harmonize the two systems. This is what scholars call -METHODOLOGY!!!!! This represents sound academic practice.
According to at least not half a dozen as you say but there are 17 lines of evidence which would corroborate NB Chronology along with thousands of clay documents wherein no mention or description of the biblical 70 years occurs. How strange! Yet the Bible mentions. discusses, explains this most important and critical period of biblical history so it cannot be ignored for it intruded upon and shaped the NB Period.
scholar JW

Ann
It is impossible to begin the 70 years of nation's servitude in 609 BCE because nothing of any historical significance occurred in that year. At that time it is historically incorrect to speak of any Babylonish domination at that time for the major player in the Region was Egypt and remained a dominant player until the Battle at Carchemish some four years later.Further, nowhere does the OT refer to the expression of '70 years of nation's servitude' for it seems you are conflating this with the seventy years of Jeremiah'.Scholars including Albertz refer to 3 deportations so that means that for some exiles their respective exiles would vary in length as you have explained but when we come to the chronology and nature of the 70 years our minds are focussed on that Exile proper which consumed the nation and as Albertz termed it- a CATASTROPHE. It is this Exile which began after the Fall and lasted until the Return which the 70 years of Jeremiah refer because it was commensurate with a period of servitude to Babylon and Desolation of the land of Judah.
scholar JW

Ann, Yes we have had numerous discussions numerous times and your objections have been countered and rebutted on each and every occasion. Rainer Albertz does conform to traditional Chronology or timeline except that he begins the Exie or Exilic Era from the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/586 BCE, rather than an earlier date. Josephus gives several references which are explanatory of the 70 years and it is only one other that refers to a period of 50 years which alone is contentious.
scholar JW
 

Ann O'Maly
Hi Ann
WT interpretation most certainly accommodates both meanings 'for' or 'at Babylon' because your proposition asserts  that the Exile began 10 years earlier and it is true that for those earlier exiles their length may well have been much longer than 70 years. However, the Biblical passages relevant to this matter synchronize the seventy years with the land being desolate so this requirement necessitates that the Exile proper began only after the Fall in 607 BCE. This viewpoint is in harmony with current scholarship and I urge you to read 'Israel In Exile' by Rainer Albertz and expert in the specialized study of the Exile and Restoration. Further, this also matches the description of the 70 years by Josephus. I can say much more on this topic but that will do for now!
scholar JW

Hi Anna
This highlights a major problem for WT critics as to when should the dating of the 70 years properly begin? Because the beginning of the NB Period is an open question historically speaking. The beginning of the 70 years should be an event that meets all of the prophetic and historic considerations and the only possible candidate for this epochal event is when Jerusalem was destroyed which scholars use the term the 'Fall of Jerusalem'. the 70 years would be and was a period of desolation of the Land Of Judah- a period of servitude for/to Babylon and Exile in/at Babylon- this formula alone encapsulates all of the relevant '70year' texts of Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah and duly noted by Josephus.
In short, you are quite correct the 70 years applies to Jews exiled to Babylon and to their former homeland-Judah.
scholar JW

JW Insider
No, I cannot agree that Jeremiah's seventy years refers to Babylonish domination alone but only in part for those two texts that you have quoted make it quite clear that the 70 years was also a period of Exile and desolation of the land of Judah.This is proven by the context of Jer. 25:8-11 wherein the Exile and Desolation is well described. In vs. 12 judgement will befall Babylon only after a period of 70 years has expired. In Jer. 29:10 the servitude and Exile to Babylon and in Babylon is foretold. So this means that apart from the other 70 texts of Daniel, Zechariah and Ezra, Jeremiah' confirms the fact of DESOLATION-EXILE-SERVITUDE.
The translation of Jer.29:10 remains a matter of dispute as to whether the Hebrew proposition should properly be rendered as 'for' or'at' as these are possible meanings. However, it does not matter because the above interpretation of the 70 years as outlined above can accommodate either of these two meanings. In short, it makes no difference whatsoever.for the simple reason that the 70 years contains the element of servitude as shown by 'for' indicating purpose  and exile as shown by 'at' indicating location.
The 70 years of Isaiah belonging to TYRE are totally different to Jeremiah's seventy years which belong to Judah so we should not conflate the two periods for the only commonality is that both indicate Babylon's domination either in part or in whole. The 70 years of Jeremiah does contain that one aspect of Babylon's domination or servitude to or for Judah.
scholar JW

allensmith28
This is nonsense. Dan. 9:1,2 refers to the 'first year of Darius' and the 'first year of his reign' which either preceded Cyrus's 'first year' or concurrent with it. This is an important chronological datum which should not be ignored because it is located in that immediate historical context for the dating of the Return. The later texts of Ezra and Josephus are superfluous to the dating of the Return which should only be confined to Ezra 1:1-3:6 which is the historical context.
scholar JW emeritus

Alan F is correct in that the scenarios for both 538 and 537 BCE are similar so in theory what works for one should work for the other. However, the 538 scenario in order to work Cyrus' Decree must have been given in the first month in his 'first year' but the Chronicler does not state what month it was. Further, 2 Chron. 36: 22 and Ezra 1:1 refers to this Decree as a proclamation to be made throughout the kingdom which required the use of heralds making known the Edict which would require time even before journey preparations could be made. The other problem is the first year of the reign of Darius which either preceded the reign of Cyrus or concurrent with it so this would mean that the Decree could only have been made either late in 538  or before the spring of 537BCE
scholar JW emeritus
 

allensmith28
Alan F would have us believe that the six month interval from Nisan, 538 BCE month 1 until Tishri, 538 BCE, month 7 according to his tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews were prior to Month 1 would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if Alan F demands such an indulgence proving 538 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that he refuses one to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have more easily returned the following year in 537 BE. 
The 538 BCE scenario perhaps first developed by Jeffro on his colourful website then later copied by Alan F is ridiculous, stupid and impossible unless Cyrus had the Internet, publish, circulate by email to all Jews waiting at the door with their Go- bags  packed  waiting for the air-conditioned coach to take them to the airport where they could travel cattle class by jet travel from Babylon to Jerusalem in a matter of a couple of hours and days.
Frankly, this scenario is garbage. The very fact that COJ remains silent or indifferent on this matter is quite telling for COJ is their hero, their Poppa and these two characters will simply whatever nonsense without any evidence. There is simply no evidence for the many assumptions Alan F and Jeffro make such as:
1. Cyrus issued his Decree in Month 1, 538 BCE
2. That the Jews arrived in Judah in Month 6, 538 BCE
This is just for starters.
scholar JW emeritus

allensmith28
This is nonsense. Dan. 9:1,2 refers to the 'first year of Darius' and the 'first year of his reign' which either preceded Cyrus's 'first year' or concurrent with it. This is an important chronological datum which should not be ignored because it is located in that immediate historical context for the dating of the Return. The later texts of Ezra and Josephus are superfluous to the dating of the Return which should only be confined to Ezra 1:1-3:6 which is the historical context.
scholar JW emeritus

Alan F is correct in that the scenarios for both 538 and 537 BCE are similar so in theory what works for one should work for the other. However, the 538 scenario in order to work Cyrus' Decree must have been given in the first month in his 'first year' but the Chronicler does not state what month it was. Further, 2 Chron. 36: 22 and Ezra 1:1 refers to this Decree as a proclamation to be made throughout the kingdom which required the use of heralds making known the Edict which would require time even before journey preparations could be made. The other problem is the first year of the reign of Darius which either preceded the reign of Cyrus or concurrent with it so this would mean that the Decree could only have been made either late in 538  or before the spring of 537BCE
scholar JW emeritus
 

allensmith28
Further, what must be born in mind that Chronology is not just a set of numbers on paper that can be made to fit any argument according to one's bias or opinion and this why biblical chronology varies so much between scholars. Chronology simply charters history so must be built on a solid historical base and history is about people and their lives so one must not only look at a pretty colourful chart but see beyond the page and comprehend whether such a scheme can relate to human experience. In this case, a period of six months based on two calenders that already have a floating six month difference can be very problematic.
Also, one should further consider that within scholarship there are numerous scholarly papers in reputable journals that try to resolve the Nisan-Tishri problem and that is a very complex field of study for we simply do not know with certainty what Calender, Ezra used in dating the first year of Cyrus.
scholar JW emeritus

allensmith28
Alan F first raised his hypothesis on the JWD forum about August 2006 presented with a tabulation of events from Tishri, 539 BCE to Iyyar, 536 BCE. This tabulation would cover those events around the return of the Jews. He states the following:
1. Cyrus issued his Decree in his 1st year, Nisan 538 BCE counting from Month 1
2. The Jews arrived in Judah in Month 6 in Cyrus' 1st year, Elul, 538 BCE
3. The Jews are settled in their cities in Month 7, in Cyrus', Tishri, 538 BCE
What this shows that within a period of 6 full months all of the events as described in Ezra 1:1-3:1 which of course is plain and utter nonsense. Alan F has already admitted that the journey would have taken at a minimum, 4 months so one can that this is simply a 'contrivance' designed to mislead the reader.
Now, COJ is no fool and he has had plenty of time to deal with this issue and even now he could easily post an ADDENDUM in support of Alan F's hypothesis but to date Jonsson has simply confined this issue to a footnote with two scholarly references and does not share Alan's dogmatism that 538 BCE is the only possible date for the Return or wording thus similar.
scholar JW emeritus

allensmith28
Alan F would have us believe that the six month interval from Nisan, 538 BCE month 1 until Tishri, 538 BCE, month 7 according to his tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews were prior to Month 1 would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if Alan F demands such an indulgence proving 538 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that he refuses one to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have more easily returned the following year in 537 BE. 
The 538 BCE scenario perhaps first developed by Jeffro on his colourful website then later copied by Alan F is ridiculous, stupid and impossible unless Cyrus had the Internet, publish, circulate by email to all Jews waiting at the door with their Go- bags  packed  waiting for the air-conditioned coach to take them to the airport where they could travel cattle class by jet travel from Babylon to Jerusalem in a matter of a couple of hours and days.
Frankly, this scenario is garbage. The very fact that COJ remains silent or indifferent on this matter is quite telling for COJ is their hero, their Poppa and these two characters will simply whatever nonsense without any evidence. There is simply no evidence for the many assumptions Alan F and Jeffro make such as:
1. Cyrus issued his Decree in Month 1, 538 BCE
2. That the Jews arrived in Judah in Month 6, 538 BCE
This is just for starters.
scholar JW emeritus

allensmith28
Alan F would have us believe that the six month interval from Nisan, 538 BCE month 1 until Tishri, 538 BCE, month 7 according to his tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews were prior to Month 1 would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if Alan F demands such an indulgence proving 538 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that he refuses one to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have more easily returned the following year in 537 BE. 
The 538 BCE scenario perhaps first developed by Jeffro on his colourful website then later copied by Alan F is ridiculous, stupid and impossible unless Cyrus had the Internet, publish, circulate by email to all Jews waiting at the door with their Go- bags  packed  waiting for the air-conditioned coach to take them to the airport where they could travel cattle class by jet travel from Babylon to Jerusalem in a matter of a couple of hours and days.
Frankly, this scenario is garbage. The very fact that COJ remains silent or indifferent on this matter is quite telling for COJ is their hero, their Poppa and these two characters will simply whatever nonsense without any evidence. There is simply no evidence for the many assumptions Alan F and Jeffro make such as:
1. Cyrus issued his Decree in Month 1, 538 BCE
2. That the Jews arrived in Judah in Month 6, 538 BCE
This is just for starters.
scholar JW emeritus