scholar JW

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

Ann O Maly
Your opinion is simply bluster lacking substance.
 
Yes and No. Their conversion had nothing to do with me for they related to us their experience in Hobart, Tasmania but the Hasofer's had always a deep and profound respect for the Witnesses. Regrettably, it was later after their deaths that we learnt that the wife had in fact been a baptised Witness which was never revealed to us.
That is your problem. I can only state the facts of the matter the rest is up to you.
scholar JW emeritus

Alan F
This is simply your opinion. The Jews remained in Babylon after 539, remained in captivity to Babylon even though there was a new rulership in Babylon until their release under Cyrus in537 BCE thus ending their captivity.
The Bible clearly states that the Jewish nation would serve Babylon and describes in detail the fact of their deportation, exile in Babylon and the desolation of Judah. It was Ezra that also described the end of the captivity-exile-servitude as ending with Persian rulership ending the Babylonian dynasty-'Nebuchadnezzer and his sons' and the release of the captives in 537 BCE. How can it be that you are now virtually certain of 538 whilst admitting to the possibility of 537? Make up your mind!
Says you. We are not talking about Temple rebuilding at all but the fact of the Return before they began rebuilding the Temple. I am now starting to worry that you are conflating Josephus' building of the temple with the building of the Altar at the time of their Return. tThere is no way that the Jews could have returned in 538 BCE for it is too long  a stretch and my imagination has a limit. Best stick to the more comfortable 537 date.
Your hypothesis must be tested and examined. Has it been peer reviewed?
Have you not dreamt of being an astronaut?. Please do not crush my fancies or dreams for life is painful enough. I must amount to something to attract your attention over the many years and to be so rigorous in having to denounce my scholarship. Am I a worry to you?
Not really just a simple request to reveal to the scholarly community a solution to a piece of neglected Jewish history- the date of the Return. I am sure that post Exilic scholars would love to know of some scholarship that would prove beyond any doubt that 538 is the correct date. Jack Finegan and Rodger Young which you reference at the end of your online article would be most grateful for such enlightenment. Has it been peer reviewed yet?
Wrong. Jeremiah most certainly prophesied about the land paying of its sabbaths according to Ezra and Ezra most certainly associated this with the seventy years as described in 2 Chronicles 36:21. Perhaps you Alan have a different Bible which omits this passage. I would have thought that a careful reading of this text is clear enough but I forgot that you have excellent reading comprehension so that explains your contradictory statement as above.There is nothing that can associate the 70 years with 609 or any such claim to Babylonian supremacy for such is utter nonsense for the simple fact that the Jewish nation and its internal problems were not in the frame as it were. Babylon was not even a World Power at that time so you need to get a grip on the political reality of the region.
Wrong. The link is Lev.26:34. The WBC- 2 Chronicles, 1987, vol.15, p.301 states on this text:"The Chronicler has conjoined his citation of Jer.25:11-12; 29:10 with a citation of Lev.26:34-35, 43".Now that was not difficult was it?
COJ along with many others have failed abysmally. The seventy years indeed can only be a period of servitude-exile-desolation for no other paradigm fits all of the facts. Besides this proves that I am not a WT drone because this formula is of my own origination for nowhere in any WT publication is the matter thus so simply defined. Ah! creative genius at last
So what! Such an event has absolutely nothing to do with the seventy years.
My beliefs are relevant to me because such are personal. I have a copy of Finegan's books both editions if you please and widely used by me.
If it was not fuzzy then why did Jonsson vacillate between 609 and 605 for the beginning of the seventy years?
Nonsense. The date for Babylon's overthrow of Assyria in 609? is meaningless in its relation to the seventy years because Egypt was a menacing threat to this new invader so the politics at that time was in a state of flux with rival world powers jostling for supremacy. What is certain is that your beginning of the seventy years is fuzzy for there can be no uncertainty about the beginning of the seventy years for it is well described by Ezra, Daniel, Jeremiah and Zechariah. The only certain statement that you have made is that Babylonian supremacy ended in 539 BCE upon which we agree. Your uncertain statement about the nature of the  seventy years is a bit of a worry. Methinks!
I do not think that Rodger Young would agree with you for he laboured over the conflict over 586 or 587.
Remember this it was I that introduced Rodger Young's research onto the online forums because of his use of Methodology in order to resolve the 586/87 conflict. The date 586 remains even today the widely accepted date amongst most serious scholars.
The 70 years can only be defined as a period of servitude or Babylonish supremacy, a period of exile in Babylon or for Babylon in recognition of its supremacy and period of a desolated land of Judah. the role of Babylonian supremacy is only part of the picture, a necessity in order to actualize the seventy years.
There were deportations of the Jews to Babylon before the seventy years began, at its onset and soon thereafter. The captives remained in Babylon even after its Fall in 539 even though the Dynasty of Neb. had come to an end all within the 70 years as foretold.
Their identity is not disclosed but Jeremiah addressed those nations in Jer. 25;15ff and this pericope is described as the OAN in the literature. Whatever the case if it refers to surrounding nations as you state they would have had to serve Babylon during that period of supremacy from 607 until its demise in 539 BCE but for Judah, their servitude was specifically tied to the land and exile which proved in their case a little longer in Babylon in order to fulfill their sentence of seventy years.
I disagree for in the case of the outworking of the seventy years it proved that their captivity, servitude or exile all amounted the same. Yes, they could have chosen to serve Babylon and remain in their land but they ignored the prophets and paid the price- 70 years of enslavement to a foreign power just as Jehovah foretold.
I do address it and have done so many times in the past. I am perfectly happy with the rendering 'for Babylon' as it proves the reality that for a period of seventy years the Jews served Babylon because they were under Babylonian supremacy right up to its end and until Babylon under new rulership released the captives in 537.
That is an interesting argument but it fails because despite the fact that Babylonian dynasty by means of Neb. and his descendants ended in 539. the Jews remained captive at Babylon even under a new rulership proving that the seventy years had not expired.
Jeremiah specifically addressed Judah for the seventy years applied to Judah and its land and by consequence other nations suffered similarly for they too were caught up in the maelstrom. Yes, servitude was generic, common to many nations during that period but seventy years of servitude =exile-desolation was assigned to Judah.
That is a subject of exegesis and there a number of explanations and I have my own independent of others. Simply put, whilst Judah served Babylon under its supremacy which dominated the entire region other nations were made to serve similarly as to their respective lengths it is unknown but as Babylon as respects to Judah was the dominant force for 70 years then they too had to serve for the period of its sovereignty.
No, you should research this matter more thoroughly try the leading Bible commentaries for starters. If you require guidance, scholar will help you because scholar likes to hel
 
 I have lost some data so will exit now.
scholar JW
 
 

Ann O Maly
Boy I am trembling all over as I face the mighty juggernaut of Alan F but I have dealt with far greater minds than the pretender, Alan F. It seems that we are now in embedded with personalities so perhaps I should throw Emeritus Professor Michael Hasofer and his wife Atara into the mix who were converted to Orthodox Judaism because of Jehovah's Witnesses, its a fascinating story.
Further, I chose not to post p. 208 because of your attitude and I still remain puzzled why it has taken you so long to procure the document and Why you have had to get help from Alan F- your hero to get you out of the mess.
No, it is you who do not pay attention to detail for my reference to Franz's COC was sourced from page 367 in the 2nd edition, September, 1994. Please consider the Appendix and the first paragraph on page 367 which begins:"Now, for the first time"
scholar JW
,..

Alan F
Was it going to tough for you? Please come again for I am always ready for battle.
scholar JW emeritus

Ann O Maly
Boy I am trembling all over as I face the mighty juggernaut of Alan F but I have dealt with far greater minds than the pretender, Alan F. It seems that we are now in embedded with personalities so perhaps I should throw Emeritus Professor Michael Hasofer and his wife Atara into the mix who were converted to Orthodox Judaism because of Jehovah's Witnesses, its a fascinating story.
Further, I chose not to post p. 208 because of your attitude and I still remain puzzled why it has taken you so long to procure the document and Why you have had to get help from Alan F- your hero to get you out of the mess.
No, it is you who do not pay attention to detail for my reference to Franz's COC was sourced from page 367 in the 2nd edition, September, 1994. Please consider the Appendix and the first paragraph on page 367 which begins:"Now, for the first time"
scholar JW
,..

Alan F
Well if you now correctly argue that the Jews' captivity expired after 539 BCE in 538 BCE then how can you possibly argue that the seventy years which was the nominated period of captivity-exile-servitude could possibly end in 539 BCE? That does not make any sense at all.
You accuse me of misrepresentation and to create a straw man in the pursuit thereof and that I am unchristian. This is a bit rich coming from a person who has professed to be a unbeliever or am I misrepresenting your personal views on God, Jesus and the Bible?
Actually No! The date 537 BCE is the better candidate.
 
It is nice to agree on something. Your claim that Ezra and Josephus cannot support 537 BCE is simply your opinion but if you have evidence to the contrary. I am not interested in your website as I have read it before years ago and it lacks scholarship. So, if you wish to persevere with this matter then prepare an academic paper, properly formatted to COJ for his opinion and to me for my examination and I will give you feedback and possibly an academic grade if you behave yourself. You may choose its length and as you have already a University Degree I expect rigour from you.
Jeremiah linked the land paying off its sabbaths with the Jewish nation's servitude to Babylon thus constituting a single historic period of seventy years. When reading this texts along with the others by Ezra, Daniel and Zechariah one can only conclude that the seventy years can only be one of servitude-exile-desolation. No other interpretation can fit the biblical narrative, it is as simple as that. To argue that there was Babylonian supremacy in 609 BCE is historical revisionism at best, I believe that no academic study of that Late Judean Period would support such a view and besides that the date 609 BCE is simply to 'fuzzy' and that is why COJ also argued that 605 BCE was an alternative candidate for the beginning of the seventy years. The date 587BCE is also problematic as you well know for most leading scholars have always preferred 586 BCE so this too is rather 'fuzzy'. The date 607 BCE takes the razor to both dates for it reminds one of 'Ockham's razor'.
Jer. 29:10 simply addresses those previous exiles who take as part of the first deportation and had to remain in Babylon until the seventy years had expired.Further, it recognized Babylonian supremacy particularly over Judah and its nation having to serve Babylon seventy years. Jeremiah's description of the seventy years applied to Judah alone unless otherwise specified as with the case of Tyre who had to serve Babylon for a similar period. The expression 'these nations' is subject to interpretation according to Commentators and a number of plausible have been offered but in any event commensurate with the events that befell Judah at that time other nations were in for judgement as prophesied in Jer. 25:15-38. We cannot say with any certainty the chronology for these other nations as we can in the case of Judah and Judah alone.
Yes, I agree with you that servitude is not the same as captivity but the simple facts are is that the nation was to be brought into servitude and transported from their homeland to a foreign country which in anyone's language means Exile. So with the seventy years as foretold by the Prophets the seventy years would be one of servitude/captivity and Exile.
T
 
here is nothing ambiguous about Daniel's observation for it was a fitting prelude to his prayer to Jehovah and I am quite sure that Jehovah God and the angel that answered his prayer did not find any ambiguity in Daniel for he was a 'straightshooter'.
Jer. 25;11 describes two events both of which were to be fulfilled within that seventy period namely that the land would be desolate in harmony with the previous description in vss.9-10 and the nation's servitude to Babylon. the surrounding nations would also be caught up in the forthcoming maelstrom as foretold and later described in the OAN. It cannot be said that Judah was not the primary target for Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel who were all contemporaries to those events had Judah in sight especially with a description of a totally devastated land without an inhabitant and Exile in Babylon.
That is not my intention for this chapter speaks for itself, it details events associated with the reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah namely the impending destruction and their servitude to Babylon. Its contents harmonize with our view of Late Judean history, the end of the Monarchy and our Chronology.
The reader can consult Josephus who in several places viewed the seventy years are running between the Fall and the Return so cannot be debunked. You are yet to prove with sound scholarship that Ezra and Josephus disproves 537 BCE.
scholar JW emeritus
 
 
 
 

Alan F
Well if you now correctly argue that the Jews' captivity expired after 539 BCE in 538 BCE then how can you possibly argue that the seventy years which was the nominated period of captivity-exile-servitude could possibly end in 539 BCE? That does not make any sense at all.
You accuse me of misrepresentation and to create a straw man in the pursuit thereof and that I am unchristian. This is a bit rich coming from a person who has professed to be a unbeliever or am I misrepresenting your personal views on God, Jesus and the Bible?
Actually No! The date 537 BCE is the better candidate.
 
It is nice to agree on something. Your claim that Ezra and Josephus cannot support 537 BCE is simply your opinion but if you have evidence to the contrary. I am not interested in your website as I have read it before years ago and it lacks scholarship. So, if you wish to persevere with this matter then prepare an academic paper, properly formatted to COJ for his opinion and to me for my examination and I will give you feedback and possibly an academic grade if you behave yourself. You may choose its length and as you have already a University Degree I expect rigour from you.
Jeremiah linked the land paying off its sabbaths with the Jewish nation's servitude to Babylon thus constituting a single historic period of seventy years. When reading this texts along with the others by Ezra, Daniel and Zechariah one can only conclude that the seventy years can only be one of servitude-exile-desolation. No other interpretation can fit the biblical narrative, it is as simple as that. To argue that there was Babylonian supremacy in 609 BCE is historical revisionism at best, I believe that no academic study of that Late Judean Period would support such a view and besides that the date 609 BCE is simply to 'fuzzy' and that is why COJ also argued that 605 BCE was an alternative candidate for the beginning of the seventy years. The date 587BCE is also problematic as you well know for most leading scholars have always preferred 586 BCE so this too is rather 'fuzzy'. The date 607 BCE takes the razor to both dates for it reminds one of 'Ockham's razor'.
Jer. 29:10 simply addresses those previous exiles who take as part of the first deportation and had to remain in Babylon until the seventy years had expired.Further, it recognized Babylonian supremacy particularly over Judah and its nation having to serve Babylon seventy years. Jeremiah's description of the seventy years applied to Judah alone unless otherwise specified as with the case of Tyre who had to serve Babylon for a similar period. The expression 'these nations' is subject to interpretation according to Commentators and a number of plausible have been offered but in any event commensurate with the events that befell Judah at that time other nations were in for judgement as prophesied in Jer. 25:15-38. We cannot say with any certainty the chronology for these other nations as we can in the case of Judah and Judah alone.
Yes, I agree with you that servitude is not the same as captivity but the simple facts are is that the nation was to be brought into servitude and transported from their homeland to a foreign country which in anyone's language means Exile. So with the seventy years as foretold by the Prophets the seventy years would be one of servitude/captivity and Exile.
T
 
here is nothing ambiguous about Daniel's observation for it was a fitting prelude to his prayer to Jehovah and I am quite sure that Jehovah God and the angel that answered his prayer did not find any ambiguity in Daniel for he was a 'straightshooter'.
Jer. 25;11 describes two events both of which were to be fulfilled within that seventy period namely that the land would be desolate in harmony with the previous description in vss.9-10 and the nation's servitude to Babylon. the surrounding nations would also be caught up in the forthcoming maelstrom as foretold and later described in the OAN. It cannot be said that Judah was not the primary target for Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel who were all contemporaries to those events had Judah in sight especially with a description of a totally devastated land without an inhabitant and Exile in Babylon.
That is not my intention for this chapter speaks for itself, it details events associated with the reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah namely the impending destruction and their servitude to Babylon. Its contents harmonize with our view of Late Judean history, the end of the Monarchy and our Chronology.
The reader can consult Josephus who in several places viewed the seventy years are running between the Fall and the Return so cannot be debunked. You are yet to prove with sound scholarship that Ezra and Josephus disproves 537 BCE.
scholar JW emeritus
 
 
 
 

Ann O Maly
Well, what took you so long? 2 hours from my old sparring partner on JWD, Alan F who incidentally was forced to concede that there is, in fact, a 'connection' established from the context on page 208. I hope it takes you much less time to discern the nature of the 'connection'!
Read that paragraph again on p. 367 in Franz's COC , 2nd edn, Sept, 1994 which clearly shows Franz' s agreement with the Society's later published statement in the Proclaimer's book that Brown did, in fact, connect Daniel's 'seven times' with Lukes' Gentile Times in Luke 21:24.
That is correct, Franz was forced to withdraw his earlier view in harmony with Carl Jonsson's original dogmatic claim, however, this was no doubt due to the fact that I had written to Franz to seek the reason for his change of mind. He had none but simply acknowledged Jonsson's work but it left the impression in my mind that the reason for this change was the simple fact that the said 'scholar' by means of that email had compromised him.
scholar JW

Nana Fofana
Yes, this outlines for the first time within scholarship sound methodology relating to the determination of a precise date for the return of the Jewish Exiles however 538 is an unlikely candidate for the reasons we have explained as to the journey's length and time of travel amongst other unknown specifics which would make 537 BCE the most likely candidate.
scholar JW

Alan F
Yes Alan, let's get some facts.
I shan't worry about your early comments on 1914 as these are simply nonsense. As this post is about 607 BCE let us stick to that!
No, the pivotal date for WT chronology is 539 BCE and not 537 BCE and there is no speculation associated with the calculation of 537 BCE for it is a 'stand alone' date based on the historical events described 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-3:1-7.
The word speculation is defined as: contemplation along with other related meanings such as conjecture but nothing of that sort is present in WT publications discussing the chronology of the Return of the Jewish Exiles. The date 537 BCE is well established historically, biblically and in accordance with sound principles of Chronology. The WT publications clearly outline all of the data associated with this period and a relevant dating is thereby established as outlined. There is nothing 'bogus' or 'fuzzy' here. In fact, even Carl Jonsson has not found any problems with our Methodology  simply proposing 537 or 538 BCE for the Return.In fact, biblical historians leave this matter open by simply either omitting a precise date or giving a suggestive date for the Return.
Your date of 538 BCE does not fit the evidence and is a poor choice, yes you can make it fit but it is a tight squeeze, for 537 BCE is just a nice fit, comfortable in scope and nature.
Your claim that Jeremiah's 'seventy years' represents only a period of Babylonian hegemony over the Near East is only partially correct for this period also represents total desolation of Jerusalem and Judah and the Exile for and in Babylon.No other theory than this fits all of the biblical, historical data coincides with secular history namely Josephus and fits well within the OT theological context.
scholar JW
 
 

Alan F
No! The Jewish captives were not released in 539 BCE but remained captive in Babylon until released by Cyrus in 537 BCE. This fact is proven by 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 wherein Jehovah declared that it was in the 'first year of Cyrus the Persian that the captives would be released and his 'first year' was 538/537BCE.
According to the Chronicler vs.21 clearly quotes Jeremiah's prophecy about the 'land paying off its sabbaths' which was a requisite component of the 'seventy years' period as the land had to remain desolate for 70 years as stated. In order for the land to repay its sabbaths it had to remain infertile, desolate for a fixed pre-determined period of time -seventy years. Nothing of any historical consequence occurred in 609 BCE as Babylon had by that time reached at any stage of political hegemony as Egypt remained the dominant player at that time in the region. The seventy years could not have begun in 609 BCE for the simple reason there was no suitable event that would warrant the status of a terminus a quo. 
Daniel in ch.9 vs.2 simply affirms the ongoing fulfilment of the seventy years as a period of desolation of both Jerusalem and Judah. He made this observation during the 'first year of Darius' which began after the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE proving that even at that late hour the 'seventy years' had not then expired.
Jeremiah 29:10 simply affirms the fact that the seventy years was a period of Babylonian supremacy over the Jewish nation and its land as a period of servitude to Babylon whilst exiled in or at Babylon.
Jeremiah 25:11 describes the seventy years as a period of servitude of the Jewish nation whilst the land was desolate. During this period other surrounding nations roundabout would also experience servitude, brought under Babylonian domination as in the case of Tyre, Egypt and others.
All of the 'seventy year' textual corpus proves that the 'seventy years was a definite historic period of servitude to Babylon, an exile in Babylon with a desolated land running from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE which harmonizes well with the many accounts of the Jewish historian, Josephus.
scholar JW

Alan F
Again you misrepresent the facts for nowhere did the Society in the quotation on page 134 of the Proclaimers book use the word 'equate' but used the word 'connect' which is not synonymic. Brown simply connects these two time periods simply on the basis that the 'seven times' would be the 'Gentile Times' as part of the signs of his second coming which also would include his second judgement etc..(Eventide , 1823, vol.2.p.208) The Proclaimers  book on p.134 simply stated the fact of the connection between the two time periods contra Jonsson who had asserted the contrary. How then as you claim that Brown equated the two periods when in fact he interprets both periods differently throughout his treatise and the Society did not 'equate' these either but simply affirmed the connection which is clearly understood by any unbiased reader.
The Society in its publication did not explain the connection but simply affirmed it, Brown, on the other hand, connected the two contextually by means of two successive paragraphs, one with the former 'seven times' and in the next, by a quotation of Lule 21;24. Further, the link between the two time periods is part of the' signs of his second coming'.
There you have it in a 'nutshell'. No need for 'gobble-de-goop'.
scholar JW
 

Nana Fontana
Thank you for the source but is typical of how this subject is treated in the literature. You should note that there is no specific date given for the Return despite the clear historical facts presented by the Chronicler.
scholar JW

Alan F
Yes Alan, let's get some facts.
I shan't worry about your early comments on 1914 as these are simply nonsense. As this post is about 607 BCE let us stick to that!
No, the pivotal date for WT chronology is 539 BCE and not 537 BCE and there is no speculation associated with the calculation of 537 BCE for it is a 'stand alone' date based on the historical events described 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-3:1-7.
The word speculation is defined as: contemplation along with other related meanings such as conjecture but nothing of that sort is present in WT publications discussing the chronology of the Return of the Jewish Exiles. The date 537 BCE is well established historically, biblically and in accordance with sound principles of Chronology. The WT publications clearly outline all of the data associated with this period and a relevant dating is thereby established as outlined. There is nothing 'bogus' or 'fuzzy' here. In fact, even Carl Jonsson has not found any problems with our Methodology  simply proposing 537 or 538 BCE for the Return.In fact, biblical historians leave this matter open by simply either omitting a precise date or giving a suggestive date for the Return.
Your date of 538 BCE does not fit the evidence and is a poor choice, yes you can make it fit but it is a tight squeeze, for 537 BCE is just a nice fit, comfortable in scope and nature.
Your claim that Jeremiah's 'seventy years' represents only a period of Babylonian hegemony over the Near East is only partially correct for this period also represents total desolation of Jerusalem and Judah and the Exile for and in Babylon.No other theory than this fits all of the biblical, historical data coincides with secular history namely Josephus and fits well within the OT theological context.
scholar JW
 
 

Ann
I have made clear my position so the ball is in your court.
scholar JW

Ann
It is all very simple. Carl Jonsson in his early editions of his GTR, 1983/86  p. 21 stated that John Aquila Brown "He did not associate this period with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24". Jonsson provided no support for this opinion and in his later editions, 3rd in 1998 and the 4th edn. in 2004 he stated: "Further, despite the Society's italicized statement, Brown did not connect the 2520 years with the Gentile  Times of Luke 21:24".
So, I would have thought with this history of matters the onus of proof lies not with the Society because they had simply made a correct observation based on a careful reading of Brown's entire work and possibly in refutation of Jonsson's original claim but with Jonsson himself to 'set matters straight'. In view of this, you can either write to Bethel for the specific page as I had done or you can write to Jonsson for a copy.
The very fact that you have sat on your hands for the last two decades and not satisfied yourself as to the integrity of the matter is quite telling thus it is left to others on this forum to make a judgement about your own motivation and bias.
scholar JW
 
 

Ann
It is all very simple. Carl Jonsson in his early editions of his GTR, 1983/86  p. 21 stated that John Aquila Brown "He did not associate this period with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24". Jonsson provided no support for this opinion and in his later editions, 3rd in 1998 and the 4th edn. in 2004 he stated: "Further, despite the Society's italicized statement, Brown did not connect the 2520 years with the Gentile  Times of Luke 21:24".
So, I would have thought with this history of matters the onus of proof lies not with the Society because they had simply made a correct observation based on a careful reading of Brown's entire work and possibly in refutation of Jonsson's original claim but with Jonsson himself to 'set matters straight'. In view of this, you can either write to Bethel for the specific page as I had done or you can write to Jonsson for a copy.
The very fact that you have sat on your hands for the last two decades and not satisfied yourself as to the integrity of the matter is quite telling thus it is left to others on this forum to make a judgement about your own motivation and bias.
scholar JW
 
 

Ann
You have known about this matter for many years as I had a lengthy discussion about this on the JWD forum and yet during all that time you never bothered to obtain that particular page so I am wondering Why this is so?
Anna like any Witness can write to Bethel for a copy of the page or obtain a copy through an appropriate library in the country in which she lives. However,t is always preferable to read the entire book in order to get a complete picture and this where COJ got unstuck for he simply confined his reading to selected portions of the book and made a serious historical blunder.
scholar JW

Anna
The simple answer is that 539 and 537 BCE are not controversial as there is no contradictory evidence against these two dates whereas 587 is very controversial within scholarship for the following reasons:
1. Does not account for the biblical 'seventy years' creating a gap of 20 years in the NB Period
2. Rolf Furuli's research based on VAT 4956 that the Fall of Jerusalem can be adjusted to 607 and not 586/7BCE
3. Scholars cannot precisely determine whether Jerusalem fell in 587 or 586 BCE
4. WT scholars as with all other Chronologists use different Methodologies in order to construct a scheme of Chronology so that means that WT scholars looking at all of the available evidence can exercise academic discretion exercising priority/interpretation to the data.
5. I stand corrected but it is  my opinion that it was Christine Tetley, a NZ scholar who did her Ph.D on the Divided Monarchy or as she terms it the Divided Kingdom-DK, made good use of Methodology in her thesis perhaps the first scholar to introduce such a term into Chronology. I had introduced the term before her or about the same time on a online forum soon after Rodger Young used the term as well. Tetley's thesis is titled The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom, 2005, Eisenbraums.
So in very simple terms the answer in one good word essential in all academic work: METHODOLOGY
scholar JW

Anna
The simple answer is that 539 and 537 BCE are not controversial as there is no contradictory evidence against these two dates whereas 587 is very controversial within scholarship for the following reasons:
1. Does not account for the biblical 'seventy years' creating a gap of 20 years in the NB Period
2. Rolf Furuli's research based on VAT 4956 that the Fall of Jerusalem can be adjusted to 607 and not 586/7BCE
3. Scholars cannot precisely determine whether Jerusalem fell in 587 or 586 BCE
4. WT scholars as with all other Chronologists use different Methodologies in order to construct a scheme of Chronology so that means that WT scholars looking at all of the available evidence can exercise academic discretion exercising priority/interpretation to the data.
5. I stand corrected but it is  my opinion that it was Christine Tetley, a NZ scholar who did her Ph.D on the Divided Monarchy or as she terms it the Divided Kingdom-DK, made good use of Methodology in her thesis perhaps the first scholar to introduce such a term into Chronology. I had introduced the term before her or about the same time on a online forum soon after Rodger Young used the term as well. Tetley's thesis is titled The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom, 2005, Eisenbraums.
So in very simple terms the answer in one good word essential in all academic work: METHODOLOGY
scholar JW

Ann O Maly
To all thus interested:
Would someone please post page 208 of Brown's Eventide and give Ann some peace. I could but am not disposed to at this moment because I am concerned about Ann's postings on this subject and her apparent bias against the WT scholars not wishing to add 'fuel to the fire'.
scholar JW

Anne O Maly
Let us be perfectly clear on this matter. I have to hand a large red manilla folder which contains my correspondence both by mail and email to the WT Society in Brooklyn, Carl Jonsson and Raymond Franz all to do with the italicized statement made in the Proclaimers book. I wrote twice to Bethel seeking clarification of this dispute, the first letter, ECE:ECP April 13, 1998 which gave me the source for the quotation and the second letter , ECM:ECH March 11, 1999 came with 2 photocopied pages, p, 135 and 208 from Brown's book along with a photocopy of the title page showing the vol. number and date of publication; vol.2, 1823. It was noted that the connection is found on page 208 wherein the connection is clearly and easily identified. This page contains 2 paragraphs in portion, the first par. mentions the 'seven times' of Daniel and the very next par. contains the quotation of Luke 21:24 so a connection between the two is plain. 
Previously, I had received from COJ copies of some pages from Brown's book which purported to show the Society's error but these revealed no such thing and that is why I wrote to Bethel. The letter from COJ is dated Jan. 12,1998. Subsequent emails from COJ on this matter showed COJ trying to defend his position quibbling over the nature of the connection but this too was foolishness and I was left wondering about COJ's level of comprehension.
Further, I had written to both James Penton and Raymond Franz about the matter because they were part of the group of editors who wrote the Foreword to the Gentile Times Reconsidered, first published in 1983. Penton did not reply but Franz did and he simply referred the matter to COJ for comment. Franz had in fact supported the Society's position as shown in his Crisis Of Conscience, 1994, 2nd edn.p.367 yet he in a email dated September 24, 2003 he chastised me and the Society for sloppy research and failing to properly understand Brown's description of the prophetic periods.
In short, whatever the nature of the connection it is left up to the reader to decide its relationship and I believe that COJ made a serious error in accusing the Society in such a dogmatic way for plainly on that same page 208 .a connection of sorts is plainly evident.
scholar JW

Anna
My previous comments on Chronology must be read in context. The subject is complex but beneficial for all as anyone can at least know the dates and how these are determined without being bogged down with technicalities so it is adaptable to one's level of understanding. Dates are not essential for salvation but accurate knowledge leading to Wisdom is a most worthy spiritual pursuit.as I am sure you appreciate.
I omitted Gerard Gertoux not because he is a competent Chronologist but because his Witness status is uncertain and he has been publicly vague on this point. If I remember correctly he stated that as he was a PhD candidate he did not want his Thesis compromised in any way so has minimized his activity. Perhaps I should have mentioned his name as follows: Gerard Gertoux?
scholar JW

Anne O Maly
Let us be perfectly clear on this matter. I have to hand a large red manilla folder which contains my correspondence both by mail and email to the WT Society in Brooklyn, Carl Jonsson and Raymond Franz all to do with the italicized statement made in the Proclaimers book. I wrote twice to Bethel seeking clarification of this dispute, the first letter, ECE:ECP April 13, 1998 which gave me the source for the quotation and the second letter , ECM:ECH March 11, 1999 came with 2 photocopied pages, p, 135 and 208 from Brown's book along with a photocopy of the title page showing the vol. number and date of publication; vol.2, 1823. It was noted that the connection is found on page 208 wherein the connection is clearly and easily identified. This page contains 2 paragraphs in portion, the first par. mentions the 'seven times' of Daniel and the very next par. contains the quotation of Luke 21:24 so a connection between the two is plain. 
Previously, I had received from COJ copies of some pages from Brown's book which purported to show the Society's error but these revealed no such thing and that is why I wrote to Bethel. The letter from COJ is dated Jan. 12,1998. Subsequent emails from COJ on this matter showed COJ trying to defend his position quibbling over the nature of the connection but this too was foolishness and I was left wondering about COJ's level of comprehension.
Further, I had written to both James Penton and Raymond Franz about the matter because they were part of the group of editors who wrote the Foreword to the Gentile Times Reconsidered, first published in 1983. Penton did not reply but Franz did and he simply referred the matter to COJ for comment. Franz had in fact supported the Society's position as shown in his Crisis Of Conscience, 1994, 2nd edn.p.367 yet he in a email dated September 24, 2003 he chastised me and the Society for sloppy research and failing to properly understand Brown's description of the prophetic periods.
In short, whatever the nature of the connection it is left up to the reader to decide its relationship and I believe that COJ made a serious error in accusing the Society in such a dogmatic way for plainly on that same page 208 .a connection of sorts is plainly evident.
scholar JW