When exactly did the "70 years" of Babylonian exile end?

[Jack Ryan]

This date is important for our calculations of the Messianic Kingdom.

Quote

“I am sending for all the families of the north,” declares Jehovah, “sending for King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations. ... And these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”  -  Jeremiah 25:9, 11

 

 

[The Librarian]

Quote

Seventy years back from the seventh month (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C. brings us to the month Tishri of the year 607 B.C.

In 607 B.C. the month Tishri began on September 22/23, the day for the observance of the festival of the new moon. In that month of 607 B.C. the “seven times,” or, “the times of the Gentiles,” the appointed times of the nations,” began. This was two months after Jerusalem had been destroyed and its temple plundered, wrecked and burned down, after which its two principal priests were killed.  - “Babylon the Great Has Fallen” God’s Kingdom Rules! (1963), page 372 

 

Quote

With the exit of the insubordinate Jews from the land of Judah, the foretold 70 years of desolation of the land without resident Israelite and domesticated beast started off.

Then, also, the symbolic “seven times” about which Jehovah caused King Nebuchadnezzar to dream and the prophet Daniel to offer an explanation began to run their course of 2,520 years.  - The Watchtower, March 1, 1980, page 16 

 

[JW Insider]

On 4/1/2016 at 10:19 PM, Jay Witness said:

This date is important for our calculations of the Messianic Kingdom.

 

When Jesus' disciples wanted information about calculating the time when the Messianic Kingdom would start, Jesus reminded them with a kind of rebuke:

(Acts 1:6, 7) 6 So when they had assembled, they asked him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction.

I suppose one could argue that that was then, but it might be different now. Yet Jesus said that in the end, even concerning the parousia/presence, that this statement would be just as true:

(Matthew 24:36, 37) 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence [parousia] of the Son of man will be.

Paul also said that we have no need of any information about that time period, because, as he said:

(1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) 5 Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night.

So Biblically, we might be justified to believe that the date should not be important to any calculations of the Messianic Kingdom.

But your specific question is still fairly easy to answer from the Bible, based especially on the verse you quoted in Jeremiah.

(Jeremiah 25:11) . . .and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.. . .

 

So, Biblically, we would expect the answer to be the exact time when the 70 yeas for Babylon ended. If Babylon was the empire that came to power around 609 BCE when Assyria fell, then we would expect those 70 years to end when Babylon fell to Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian in 539 BCE. Fortunately, we have a verse that spells it out directly:

(2 Chronicles 36:20, 21) 20 He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign, 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years.

So, it's pretty clear that the 70 years ended (Biblically) when the kingdom of Medo-Persia began to reign as the "world empire" in place of Babylon's 70-year empire. There are probably ten different ways from history and archaeology to show that this happened in 539 BCE. We accept that the king of Persia began to reign on that very night when the handwriting was on the wall in Daniel:

(Daniel 5:22-31) 22 “But you, his son Bel·shazʹzar, . . . 24 So the hand was sent from him, and this writing was inscribed. 25 And this is the writing that was inscribed: MEʹNE, MEʹNE, TEʹKEL, and PARʹSIN. 26 “This is the interpretation of the words: . . . 28 “PEʹRES, your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians.”. . .  30 That very night Bel·shazʹzar the Chal·deʹan king was killed. 31 And Da·riʹus the Mede received the kingdom; he was about 62 years old.

As clear as this might seem, we don't accept it because it would make the 70 years start in 609 and end in 539.

For the same reason that we changed the destruction of Jerusalem from 606 to 607 when we discovered that the 2,520 years would no longer end in 1914, we also found it necessary to do the same thing here. This 539 date would imply that Jerusalem must have been destroyed in 609, but that would make the 2,520 years end in 1912 instead of 1914. So, it has become necessary to simply change the end of the 70 years to 537 BCE. So, we give a date, instead, for a possible time when the Jews who were in Babylon to return to Jerusalem. We don't know how long this period would be, but we know from historical, archaeological records that it can take a couple months for a marching army to make that trip. We need to assume that it was two full years after Babylon's destruction for the Jews to arrive again in Jerusalem. This way 537 becomes the end of the 70 years.

[Evacuated]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

So, it's pretty clear that the 70 years ended (Biblically) when the kingdom of Medo-Persia began to reign as the "world empire" in place of Babylon's 70-year empire.

Is it that clear? Or really did the 70 years end when the event noted in Ezra 3:1,6 took place?

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

We need to assume that it was two full years after Babylon's destruction for the Jews to arrive again in Jerusalem.

This only would be relevant if the conquering of Babylon marked the end of the 70 years and not the physical return of the Jews to the land.

Seems to me that, given 539 BCE as the agreed date of the capture of Babylon, we need to fit the following into a time line of some sort:

• Darius 1st year. Dan. 9:1-2,18.  Daniel saw the need to pray for Jehovah to restore his land as the end of the 70 yr desolation had approached. Obviously although imminent, still a future event.
• Cyrus 1st year. Ez. 1:1,3. When did this proclamation occur?
• Preparation of returnees. Ez. 1:5-2:67.
• Length of return journey. Ez.7:9. How long, given Ezra's later experience?
• When did the restoration of sacrifices occur? Ez. 3:1,6.

Any suggestions?

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Is it that clear? Or really did the 70 years end when the event noted in Ezra 3:1,6 took place?

 

But Ezra says nothing specifically about fulfilling the 70 years, right? The verses that do speak of the 70 years (Jeremiah and Chronicles) say that they were fulfilled with Babylon's dominance, and ended with the rise of Media & Persia. Very specifically, the Bible says: "the kingdom of Persia began to reign, to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, . . . to fulfill 70 years."

Ezra chapter 3:1-6 refers to three events which are not directly linked to the 70 years. One of those events, apparently most likely happened in the 7th month of 538, and possibly even as late as 537, when Jews came back to their cities, including Jerusalem. The second event is the re-establishment of offering sacrifices at Jerusalem at this same time. And the third event was the laying of the foundation of Jehovah's temple, which would not happen for nearly another 20 years.

(Ezra 3:1,6) When the seventh month arrived and the Israelites were in their cities, they gathered together with one accord in Jerusalem. . . . 6 From the first day of the seventh month they started to offer up burnt sacrifices to Jehovah, though the foundation of Jehovah’s temple had not yet been laid.

The Watchtower presents the same idea that you mention, and there's nothing wrong, of course, with having or considering alternatives. My point was that "Biblically," at least, we already have a clear and direct answer to the question about when the '70 years for Babylon' ended. Jeremiah indicates that the 70 years were not specifically about a length of time for the "desolations" on Jerusalem and Judea. It was a reference to the length of time when Babylon would have dominance over the other nations. Obviously, the desolation(s) on Judea were related, and would have to occur somewhere within that same period. After all, the primary reason Jehovah allowed Babylonian dominance was to teach his people the importance of faithfulness, and as a deserved punishment for their sins and the errors of their forefathers. These punishments on Judea and Jerusalem would start at some time during that period of the 70 years, but they would naturally end either at the same time or shortly after the 70 years ended.

In fact, this would be the exact same explanation that the WTS gives for the same verses in Jeremiah 25:9,11 with reference to Tyre, in the Isaiah's Prophecy book.

*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations . . . . He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination. . . . Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.

It's true that the WTS has decided to treat the domination of Judah and Jerusalem differently from Tyre, but the Tyre explanation is the only one that makes perfect sense with all the Bible accounts. (2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah and Ezra).

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

• Darius 1st year. Dan. 9:1-2,18.  Daniel saw the need to pray for Jehovah to restore his land as the end of the 70 yr desolation had approached. Obviously although imminent, still a future event.
• Cyrus 1st year. Ez. 1:1,3. When did this proclamation occur?
• Preparation of returnees. Ez. 1:5-2:67.
• Length of return journey. Ez.7:9. How long, given Ezra's later experience?
• When did the restoration of sacrifices occur? Ez. 3:1,6.

Any suggestions?

Yes. A couple of suggestions. First, in Daniel 9:1-2, he is praying for Jehovah to restore his land.  Then you added: "as the end of the 70 yr desolation had approached. Obviously although imminent, still a future event."

That's not necessarily true. Nowhere is it obvious that the 70 years had not yet ended. It might have just ended exactly as defined in 2 Chronicles, because the rulership of Media and Persia had just begun. That doesn't prove anything, but notice that Daniel's concern wasn't a year or two before the end of the 70 years as defined in 2 Chronicles: 539 BCE. Note that it also wasn't a year or two after the end of the 70 years as described in 2 Chronicles: 539 BCE. Daniel's concern about the end of the 70 years happened in the very FIRST year, most likely either immediately, or just months after the ruler of Media and Persia replaced Babylon. Yet the end of those 70 years was surely imminent in 541 BCE, and according to the WTS alternative theory, it was still imminent well into 538 and part of 537.

Yet, Daniel's concern about it just happens to start in the first year of the rulership of a Persian king. In fact, it's worth pointing out that if Daniel had been working on "repetition for emphasis" Daniel 9:1,2 emphasizes the point through a repetition of the fact that this was the first year of Medo-Persian empire over the Chaldean/Babylonian empire. Note:

(Daniel 9:1, 2) 9 In the first year of Da·riʹus the son of A·has·u·eʹrus—a descendant of the Medes who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chal·deʹans— 2 in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet to fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem, namely, 70 years.

Notice, then, that it's not proof, but this choice of wording by Daniel makes it easy to read the following meaning into the passage: "It was now finally the first year of Darius, a descendant of the Medes, who is also a Persian, the son of the great Persian king, Artaxerxes. And now that it was the first year of the Medo-Persian ruler -- the ruler who finally ended [the 70-year] kingdom of Babylon -- the prophecy of the 70 years could now [obviously?] be "discerned" which had fulfilled the desolation of Jerusalem."

Although "discerned" or "calculated" is in the past tense, I'm not making a linguistic argument to prove that it had already passed. But I am saying that this time period could not have been discerned for sure until after a Persian ruler had begun to rule over the former kingdom of the Chaldeans.

But there's more than that. The prophecy of the 70 years was not only, specifically, that Jerusalem would be restored at the end of those 70 years. The overall "70 years prophecy" was the entire range of related prophecies. It was that the Jews should be prepared to serve Babylon because Babylon will be given 70 years of domination over all the nations, and Judea can't escape devastation and desolation unless they submit completely to Babylon, and it will be the same for the other nations all around them. However, when the 70 years is over, and Judea is no longer under the yoke of Babylon, that only at that time [after the 70 years for Babylonian rule is finished] they should pray for a return to Judah and Jerusalem.

Notice that a better translation of Jeremiah 29 not only proves this point, but shows why we actually had it backwards when we made those older arguments. Note Jeremiah 29:10 in the NWT, 1961 through 1984 wording:

(Jeremiah 29:10) 10 “For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.’  -- NWT, 1984 Reference Edition

It was more difficult, but it was arguably still possible to see this as saying that only AFTER the 70 years were fulfilled that it was time for Jehovah to turn his attention to bring them back. But the Watchtower had argued against that position, so that Jehovah had supposedly already turned his attention toward returning them BEFORE the 70 years were fulfilled, so that, as you say above, it might be when they were re-settled in their cities, in about 537, when the 70 years were fulfilled.

But now look at how this has been corrected to the point where it is now impossible to make that same Watchtower argument from Jeremiah 29:10:

(Jeremiah 29:10) “For this is what Jehovah says, ‘When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you, and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.’ NWT, 2013 Revised Edition.

By correcting the translation so that it now comes closer to aligning with the Hebrew without the former confusion (some would say obfuscation) of the prior translation, it's clear again that Jehovah turns his attention only when the 70 years for Babylon are already fulfilled. Of course, the bigger problem with this verse was that the original Hebrew says "70 years for Babylon" not "70 years at Babylon." Most modern translations understand it this way. Even a couple of the foreign editions of the NWT translated it this way in countries where linguistic expertise allowed for translation from the original language (not merely a translation of the English NWT into another language). These NWTs have been changed back to the incorrect translation of "at" corresponding to the English translation.

One way to know that the word "for" was more appropriate than "at" is found in the context of Jeremiah. Note that the same idea had occurred in Jeremiah 25:

(Jeremiah 25:11-12) 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time.

In the alternate theory you are presenting, the 70 years are fulfilled two years after the king of Babylon has been killed. But how does Jehovah call him to account two years after he was already called to account? The only suggestion that makes sense with the totality of the Scriptural references is the one that agrees with the above Bible verses, stating that it was exactly at the end of the 70 years when Babylon is called to account, and it is completely fulfilled when Medo-Persia is ruling. Daniel and Ezra are clearly referring to the same idea: that it is only after the 70 years are fulfilled that Cyrus can now make the proclamation in his first year that the Jews may return home. It is after they are fulfilled that the Jews begin praying earnestly for that return.

P.S.

(Cyrus was the overall king of the Persian empire, sharing the area of Babylon's former empire with the Medes. So the first year of Darius was also the first year of the empire of Cyrus. Identifying Ahasuerus as Artaxerxes, also identifies Darius simultaneously as the Persian ruler in case that had been in question. That should also cover your second point about when the proclamation in Ezra 1 occurs.)

 

 

 

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

this time period could not have been discerned for sure until after a Persian ruler had begun to rule over the former kingdom of the Chaldeans.

Agreed, but the reversal of the desolation is still to occur: v17 "cause your face to shine upon your sanctuary that is desolate"

I'm not convinced that the removal of Babylonian dominance has to sync exactly with the end of the sanctuary's desolation which appears to be a key element if the 537 BCE view is to be discarded.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So the first year of Darius was also the first year of the empire of Cyrus

Is this a fact or a suggestion?

[Evacuated]

Can I substitute this for my last post? I got timed out editing! Sorry for the repeat.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

this time period could not have been discerned for sure until after a Persian ruler had begun to rule over the former kingdom of the Chaldeans.

Agreed, but the reversal of the desolation was still to occur: v17 "cause your face to shine upon your sanctuary that is desolate"

I'm not convinced that the removal of the Babylonian ruler has to sync exactly with the end of the sanctuary's desolation. This appears to be a key element if the 537 BCE date is to be discarded. Even today when a ruler is gone, the effects of their dominance can take time to dissipate.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So the first year of Darius was also the first year of the empire of Cyrus

Is this a fact or a suggestion?

 

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Agreed, but the reversal of the desolation was still to occur: v17 "cause your face to shine upon your sanctuary that is desolate"

I'm not convinced that the removal of the Babylonian ruler has to sync exactly with the end of the sanctuary's desolation. This appears to be a key element if the 537 BCE date is to be discarded. Even today when a ruler is gone, the effects of their dominance can take time to dissipate.

Agreed. There is no reason that the removal of the Babylonian ruler has to sync exactly with the end of the sanctuary's desolation. The Bible doesn't speak directly of 70 years of desolation(s) on the sanctuary. In fact, it speaks of desolations and devastations and deportations of people from the land over a period that occurred many years before and even for some time after the desolation of the sanctuary. The Bible speaks of 70 years of domination of the nations by Babylon. That domination for Babylon would directly affect any desolation or devastation of the sanctuary, but there is no indication of exactly how many years any devastation of the sanctuary should last.

(Zechariah, written much closer to 519 BCE, implies that the rebuilding of the Temple was about to begin, and that this was also a 70-year period following the sanctuary's destruction. That would place the destruction of the Temple closer to 588 BCE)

So, verse 17 is exactly what we should expect if the 70 years for Babylon were already finished. When Babylon was no longer in power, and the Persian ruler had begun ruling, then they knew that those 70 years of a Babylonian "punisher" were already fulfilled. So it would now be time for these desolations and devastations upon the land and Temple to also be completed, either immediately, or shortly, or within 20 years -- the Bible doesn't say, exactly.

Your point implies that there must be a timeline that had also been given for the sanctuary's desolation. That's possible, of course, but there is nothing in the Bible that says such a timeline, if it ever existed, had to be 70 years, or had coincide with the 70 years for Babylon. Are you thinking that there are also exactly 70 years of desolation on Jerusalem or Judea. As Jeremiah shows, the 70 years mentioned in that book are not 70 years for Judea and/or Jerusalem, but 70 years for Babylon.

 

You also ask whether I think it is a suggestion or a fact that the first year of Darius is the first year of Cyrus. Historically, we know that Cyrus' first year of ruling the empire began immediately with the destruction of Babylon. The chronicles of Cyrus and Nabonidus fill the historical gap for us. We know Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar and the same Cyrus the Great (Persian) from historical sources. Secular chronological sources date the event and this "first" year of Cyrus empire to 539 BCE. There is no known historical person named Darius the Mede, so it could just be the name that Daniel has chosen to identify Cyrus himself, pointing out that Cyrus is descended from both Medes and Persians. If Darius is a separate person from Cyrus himself, then historians would most likely try to identify him with a former Babylonian governor who had switched allegiance to the Persians, and who had opened up the way for Cyrus to win Babylon without a fight. This would have put him in exactly the right place for the reward of being appointed as ruler of this new portion of the Persian empire under Cyrus. In either case the rule of Cyrus was primary and would have been counted immediately upon the conquest of Babylon. That would still make the 70 years end as soon as Cyrus took over, even if it took him a few months or more to appoint Darius.

Here's what Wikipedia says about this identification of "Darius the Mede" based on the Babylonian era stone chronicles:

• On 10 October Cyrus won a battle at Opis, opening the road to Babylon, and on 12 October "Ugbaru, governor of the district of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without a battle" (Babylonian Chronicle). Ugbaru is presumably the same person as the Gorbyras mentioned by the Greek historian Xenophon, a Babylonian provincial governor who switched to the Persian side. Cyrus made his entrance into the city a few days later; Nabonidus was captured and his life spared, and nothing is known of the fate of Belshazzar.^[7]

[Evacuated]

On 4/4/2016 at 05:43, JW Insider said:

There is no known historical person named Darius the Mede

Hmm. Is this definitive? or should we say: "secular historical records have yet to be found that identify the ruler that Daniel referred to as Darius the Mede"

However, the timing of Dan 9:1 remains unaffected by the identity of Darius the Mede. The event of Babylon's fall remains timed at 539 BCE. with the advent of Persian domination. Then the 1st year mentioned seems to put us into  538 BCE for the time of Daniels prayer. 

I still feel Daniel places the restoration future due to his words at Dan. 9:17. So, where does that leave us?

[Ann O'Maly]

On 4/3/2016 at 11:06 PM, JW Insider said:

One way to know that the word "for" was more appropriate than "at" is found in the context of Jeremiah. Note that the same idea had occurred in Jeremiah 25:

There's the context of Jer. 29 too. The letter was addressed to the captives taken 10 years before Jerusalem's destruction, i.e. the major exile* of 597 BCE (617, WT time). This means most Jewish exiles would have been 'at Babylon' 80 years - not 70. So this is another indication that 'for Babylon' is the more appropriate rendering here.

* The numbers taken then were far greater than those taken at Jerusalem's destruction - 2 Kings 24:14-16; Jer. 52:28-30.

On 4/4/2016 at 5:43 AM, JW Insider said:

[From Wikipedia] On 10 October Cyrus won a battle at Opis, opening the road to Babylon, and on 12 October "Ugbaru, governor of the district of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without a battle" (Babylonian Chronicle). Ugbaru is presumably the same person as the Gorbyras mentioned by the Greek historian Xenophon, a Babylonian provincial governor who switched to the Persian side. Cyrus made his entrance into the city a few days later; Nabonidus was captured and his life spared, and nothing is known of the fate of Belshazzar.

The problem with identifying Darius the Mede with Ugbaru is that the latter died on the 11th of Arahsamnu - only a few weeks after Babylon fell. Gobryas was a different person entirely and was only appointed satrap of Babylonia in 535 BCE. So this guy remains a bit of a mystery.

[JW Insider]

On 4/23/2016 at 10:35 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

Hmm. Is this definitive? or should we say: "secular historical records have yet to be found that identify the ruler that Daniel referred to as Darius the Mede"

You are right. It doesn't need to sound so definitive. There is not yet a known person from extra-Biblical historical records or archaeological evidence. And, of course, there may never be such evidence ever found in the present system.

There are some reasons that scholars tend to sound more definitive about thinking this "Darius the Mede" is not going to be a known person who went by that title. It's because we know more about this particular time and place in history, more than any other time and place in ancient history.

In fact, I believe that there is such an over-abundance of evidence from the time and place, that you would almost guess that Jehovah was trying to protect us from coming up with some conjectured but unsupported dates like 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem. And all these lines of evidence all tend to agree and support each other even though they come from different independent sources. Many of them are actual extant documents from the original time period, not later copies, or written histories from a later time.

For this reason, we can pretty much tell that the Medes were no longer a great power from a time very early in the Neo-Babylonian period. They were actually defeated  early in the reign of Cyrus (about 550 BCE). So Darius wasn't representing Media as a current empire or power, but was someone representing Persia, but from the Mede's ancestry or lineage. This would explain why he was called in Daniel 9:1 "a descendant of the Medes." You are right, however, it doesn't change the date of Daniel 9:1.

On 4/23/2016 at 10:35 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

The event of Babylon's fall remains timed at 539 BCE. with the advent of Persian domination. Then the 1st year mentioned seems to put us into  538 BCE for the time of Daniels prayer. 

Yes, maybe. When Cyrus conquered Babylon, I'd guess that he would have wanted someone he could trust to watch over it for him. An emperor is a King of Kings, and therefore needs "kings" (governors, princes, generals, etc.) under him to handle different portions of the empire. But Cyrus was known for freeing foreign slaves. And foreign captives being held by a people who were no longer in power could quickly become agitated and difficult, clamoring for freedom, and becoming a danger to the peaceful transition of the new state. So why bother to try to hold them? Why take the risk of trouble? Why wait until March/April  to make a decision about them if he conquered Babylon in October?

It's not like Cyrus hadn't already been ruling for many years. This wasn't really his first year, it was more like his 11th year. He had already been King of Persia, Media and Lydia. It was only counted as his first year in relation to creating a Persian "world" empire by conquering Babylon in 539.  He had already been ruling since 530 BCE, so it wasn't like he needed to establish himself before he could make a declaration about the Judean captives in Babylon.

So yes, it's very possible that he waited until 538 BCE, and if it was the first month of the year, that would be about 6 months after he conquered Babylon. But it is also possible that when referring to the rulership of Cyrus over Judeans, Daniel would use a common Hebrew method of counting the years, which was to call the first year right from the start. The accession year was sometimes called the first year. But even if he allowed the Jews to return in 538, it doesn't change the fact that the 70 years ended when the Persian ruler conquered Babylon in 539 BCE.

(2 Chronicles 36:20, 21)  He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign, 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years.

Of course, there's another theory. The other idea is that Jeremiah had said that Babylon would be given 70 years of rule over the nations, and this time was obviously up when they were conquered. But the other theory is that this 70 years for Babylon opened up the possibility that Judah would also have 70 years of desolation to pay off its unkept sabbaths. This is closer to the WTS teaching. The WTS downplays the 70 years of Babylonian power over the nations, and focuses these entire 70 years on Judea. The WTS only makes the exception for the case of Tyre who would also be "forgotten" for 70 years.

*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.

This same explanation could also have been used for Judea and Jerusalem, which would have meant that there were 70 years of desolation for Judea, but does not mean that the desolation needed to be "full" for the entire 70 years of Babylon's greatest period of domination. Still it would be true that those 70 years allowed for the time of fulfillment of the time required for Judea to pay off its sabbaths. By interrupting the ownership of land, by removing and exiling the elite and important Jewish people from around Judea, the punishment would have started and that punishment would end in 539. It wouldn't be 70 years for every individual, but the repercussions of the ongoing punishment would be felt across the land for 70 years. Also, there is no real reason why we have to look for a period of "exactly" 70 years. The period of 70 years could just as well represent any period that could be rounded off to 70 years. 

Another theory is the multiple 70 years periods:

• Babylon gets 70 years of domination (605 to 539 if possibly rounded)
• Judea gets 70 years of exiles and captivity (605 to 538 if possibly rounded and allowing for formal decree in 538 and time to begin settling back home in 538)
• Temple gets 70 years of desolation from 587 to 518, if possibly rounded until the time the building had begun again as Zechariah prophesied.
• The Greater Temple gets 70 "weeks" of years from the time of the restoration of the completed physical temple is complete until the time that Jesus fulfills the Greater Temple in the final week of years ("7 years" or "2,520 days") between 29 CE and 33 CE and 36 CE. 

On 4/23/2016 at 10:35 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

I still feel Daniel places the restoration future due to his words at Dan. 9:17. So, where does that leave us?

(Daniel 9:16, 17) And now listen, O our God, to the prayer of your servant and to his entreaties, and cause your face to shine upon your sanctuary that is desolate, for your own sake, O Jehovah.

I'm not sure why this seems important that the restoration was future. In every case the restoration would always be future -- some time after the 70 years for Babylon had already ended. Apparently, Daniel was asking specifically about the sanctuary. This may have been very appropriate for him, now that his own personal captivity in Babylon had approached 67 years and he himself would evidently not be going back to Judea with the rest of them, likely already about 90 years old by then, if secular chronology is correct. (110 in the WTS schema.) He was concerned for pure worship to be restored. For him there might not even be an end of the 70 years in his own lifetime. The answer he gets about Jeremiah is basically that there would NOT be 70 years until the sanctuary was truly restored, but 70 x 7 years. In other words, for himself, he would not be able to take a literal view of Jeremiah's prophecy, but Daniel must, as a prophet, see into the future, until the "end" when the spiritual sanctuary is restored about 490 years from then -- and even this period might be a rounded off period. (Or it might refer to something we don't yet know about.)

[Evacuated]

 

13 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Another theory is the multiple 70 years periods:

Mights and maybes abound in all of this. I also get a feeling that argument is colored by the fact that there are participants who do not want 607 BCE to have significance as strongly as those who do. The spirit shown in the argumentative ripostes on this matter in the forum seem to me to underline the value of Paul's words below:

1 Tim 1:4 "nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith."

2Tim 2:23 "Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates, knowing that they produce fights."

I don't believe that Jehovah wants me to base my faith on the fading artifacts and conflicting interpretations of humans grappling with these at best, incomplete records no matter how persuasive they may seem.

I think I'll discard all the crumbling, dusty secular "evidence" for everything, including 539 BCE, interesting though it is. Then I can construct a view based on the word of God alone. If there are some apparently corroborative features in the secular field, then fine. If not, then fine too. That element will not arbitrate on what I believe anyway.

2:Tim 3:16.17 "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work"