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

[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

[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

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

After I had made a post to you this morning I was sitting on the throne whereupon much inspiration and meditation can be entered into for knows how great minds have constructed ideas which have altered the course of history or civilization. I thought of you and your need for some insertion regarding the 20 years Babylonian Gap. So, I propose that in view of the fact that NB Chronology is silent regarding Neb's 18th year when he destroyed Jerusalem and King Zedekiah's 11 th year that it should be at that time and event the 20 years could be inserted thus altering the traditional 587 or 586 BCE to 607 BCE.

See, I have most dutifully corrected the problem.

scholar JW

[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

[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

 

 

 

 

 

[JW Insider]

On 12/10/2017 at 3:02 PM, scholar JW said:

Honesty is a two-way street.

No. Honesty is NOT a two-way street. I hope you are not thinking of "theocratic war strategy" when you consider it OK to be dishonest if you consider someone to be an enemy or not entitled to honesty.

*** w57 5/1 p. 286 Use Theocratic War Strategy ***

• So in time of spiritual warfare it is proper to misdirect the enemy by hiding the truth.

*** it-2 p. 244 Lie ***

• ". . . saying something false to a person who is entitled to know the truth . . ."

On 12/10/2017 at 3:02 PM, scholar JW said:

Thus, the NB Period is falsified by this Gap of twenty years so to ignore it is dishonest.

This is misdirection through circular reasoning.

If Bob says 20+30=70, and Jim says 20+50=70, Bob can't say Jim is dishonest because Jim is ignoring Bob's 20-integer Gap.

On 12/10/2017 at 3:02 PM, scholar JW said:

for in any event Chronology is personal,

No. Chronology is not "personal."

On 12/10/2017 at 3:02 PM, scholar JW said:

If you choose to ignore the historical reality of the 70 years then also there is no Gap

This is part of the false, circular reasoning. I find no Gap, and yet I choose NOT to ignore the historical reality of the 70 years. I find all 70 years perfectly accounted for.

On 12/10/2017 at 3:02 PM, scholar JW said:

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!!!

I have already stated my acceptance of making the insertion point of the 70 years of Babylonian "empire" from 609 to 539. But I am not against someone accepting a "fuzzy" beginning or end to this period -- within reason. I know, for example, that the Watchtower teaches a "fuzzy end" of this period that admits that the Babylonian empire ended in 539 but also admits that we are only guessing when we say that the Jews returned to end this period in 537. I am not concerned about the 2 years of the Watchtower's "fuzziness" as you would call it. There was a time when the Watchtower accepted 536 as the first year of Cyrus - and not only the first year, but the year of the Edict itself. If there were good reasons to accept that this "70-year period" was shorter, or longer by a few years, or even symbolic, I'd have no problem with it, and I therefore have no problem with a date near 537 as the end of the period. (And I'd have no problem with a date like 607 as the beginning of the 70 years.) But you will see why I consider "honesty" to be an integral part of the discussion when we look more closely at how the Watch Tower publications have "toyed" with this time period.

*** it-1 p. 458 Chronology ***

• During Cyrus’ first year his decree releasing the Jews from exile was given. And, as considered in the article on CYRUS, it is very probable that the decree was made by the winter of 538 B.C.E. or toward the spring of 537 B.C.E. This would permit the Jews time to make necessary preparations, effect the four-month journey to Jerusalem, and still arrive there by the seventh month (Tishri, or about October 1) of 537 B.C.E.

*** w07 9/1 p. 19 par. 9 Highlights From the Book of Daniel ***

• The year is now 539 B.C.E. Babylon has fallen, and Darius the Mede has become ruler over the kingdom of the Chaldeans

*** w05 5/1 p. 12 par. 18 The Resurrection—A Teaching That Affects You ***

• he received a vision in 536 B.C.E., the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia. (Daniel 1:1; 10:1) Some time during that third year of Cyrus, Daniel received a vision of the march of world powers

So Babylon fell in 539, and Cyrus therefore had the power and authority to declare Babylon's captives to be free immediately: in 539. In fact, one Biblical meaning of "first year" as you know (and as you yourself have pointed out previously) can refer to the accession year, which in this case would be 539. But notice that the "Insight" book, in the first of the three quotes above, pushes his "first-year" decree all the way out into 537 or "toward" 537, but in the last quote his third year is 536.

Older Watchtower publications placed Cyrus first year in 536, or even his accession year when Babylon was destroyed, in 536. So in Watchtower terms, both his first year and his third year have, at times, been stated to be 536.

*** Watch Tower, 6/1/1905, p.183

• In accordance with the Edict of Cyrus (536 B.C.) many of the Israelites returned from Babylon and laid the foundations of the Temple. Ezra 4:24, however, states that the work then "ceased unto the 2nd year of the reign of Darius, king of Persia." The length of time from the Edict of Cyrus in 536 B.C. . . .

Throughout all of the earlier publications the statements were always consistent with these examples below:

• All students of chronology may be said to be agreed, that the first year of Cyrus was the year 536 before the beginning of our Anno Domini era. (Watch Tower, 5/1896, p.113)
• With these facts before us, we readily find the date for the beginning of the Gentile Times of dominion; for the first year of the reign of Cyrus is a very clearly fixed date--both secular and religious histories with marked unanimity agreeing with Ptolemy's Canon, which places it B.C. 536. (The Time Is At Hand, p.79-80)

So the THREE YEARS of "fuzziness" in the Watchtower's explanations of this date have all been necessary in order to keep 1914 afloat. At first, it could have been that the Jews began returning in the year of the Edict, 536, back when all students of chronology supposedly agreed that the first year of Cyrus was 536. Then, when all students of chronology must have supposedly realized that "Ptolemy's Canon" actually would have placed the destruction of Babylon by Cyrus in 539, that's when some scrambling began. The solution was to try to push the Edict as close to 537 as possible (see "Insight," above) nearly two years after Cyrus had destroyed Babylon.

Then we still needed an extra year for 1914 to work, so we thought there would have to be a few months of preparation time, and then about 4 more months of travel. Perfect!! We resolved the three years of fuzziness with some conjecture.

You already know that something very similar happened when it was discovered that "all students of chronology" realized that there was no ZERO year. The destruction of Jerusalem had to be moved from 606 to 607 in order for 1914 to work. So it was a "fuzzy" date anyway, and moving it just one year was not a problem.

Therefore in Watchtower chronology, BOTH ends of this period were considered very fuzzy and flexible.

[Ann O'Maly]

13 hours ago, scholar JW said:

After I had made a post to you this morning I was sitting on the throne ...

 Ah ha. That explains the subsequent bout of verbal ... um ... outpourings.

12 hours ago, scholar JW said:

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?

Yes, it is impressive ... but for all the wrong reasons.

 

[scholar JW]

Ann

Sitting on the throne gives time to review  another's foolishness and to refute nonsense.

At least we agree on one thing-It is impressive.

scholar JW

 

 

 

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

17 hours ago, scholar JW said:

After I had made a post to you this morning I was sitting on the throne whereupon much inspiration and meditation can be entered into for knows how great minds have constructed ideas which have altered the course of history or civilization. . . . See, I have most dutifully corrected the problem.

Well, I'll look into how dutifully the problem has been corrected. Let's hope it's duty-free, considering where you've been.

17 hours ago, scholar JW said:

I thought of you and your need for some insertion regarding the 20 years Babylonian Gap. So, I propose that in view of the fact that NB Chronology is silent regarding Neb's 18th year when he destroyed Jerusalem and King Zedekiah's 11 th year that it should be at that time and event the 20 years could be inserted thus altering the traditional 587 or 586 BCE to 607 BCE.

So, you are saying that the 20 years can be inserted altogether in one piece starting in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, which was also the same point as King Zedekiah's 11th year. This would, of course, mean that Nebuchadnezzar did not just rule for 43 years, but for 63 years. This is where those 10,000 tablets could really help out your theory. There are plenty of tablets representing every year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign from his first to his 43rd, but you have absolutely zero for every one of these extra 20 years.

The evidence from thousands of tablets is actually definitive enough. But you would also have an  bigger problem, the Bible itself:

Notice that if your dates were correct then Jehoiachin would have surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 597 which you would call 617, assuming this 20-year gap theory was correct. This is admitted in the "Insight" book:

*** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin ***

• It appears that Jehoiakim died during this siege and Jehoiachin ascended the throne of Judah. His rule ended, however, a mere three months and ten days later, when he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 617 B.C.E.  . . . 

  In fulfillment of Jehovah’s word through Jeremiah, he was taken into Babylonian exile. (Jer 22:24-27; 24:1; 27:19, 20; 29:1, 2) Other members of the royal household, court officials, craftsmen, and warriors were also exiled.—2Ki 24:14-16;

• (2 Kings 25:27) 27 And in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoi?a·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 27th day of the month, King E?vil-mer?o·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, released King Je·hoi?a·chin of Judah from prison.

*** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin ***

• In the fifth year of JehoiachinÂ’s exile, Ezekiel began his prophetic work. (Eze 1:2) About 32 years later, evidently in 580 B.C.E., Jehoiachin was released from prison by NebuchadnezzarÂ’s successor Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk) and given a position of favor above all the other captive kings. Thereafter he ate at Evil-merodachÂ’s table and received a daily allowance.—2Ki 25:27-30; Jer 52:31-34.

In other words, the Bible shows that your theory is impossible because the Bible confirms that the secular tablets are correct in giving Nebuchadnezzar only 43 years. You can't squeeze out more than 43 years in his reign, if Evil-Merodach became king in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile. The Bible also, therefore, agrees with "Ptolemy's Canon" and the evidence from all the astronomical tablets here, too.

[JW Insider]

31 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

In other words, the Bible shows that your theory is impossible because the Bible confirms that the secular tablets are correct in giving Nebuchadnezzar only 43 years. You can't squeeze out more than 43 years in his reign, if Evil-Merodach became king in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile. The Bible also, therefore, agrees with "Ptolemy's Canon" and the evidence from all the astronomical tablets here, too.

Again, I will quote from a source that attempts to support the Bible, but evidently with no particular stake, one way or another, in the Watchtower's version. Below I am quoting two paragraphs from http://bibletruthsandprophecies.com/index.php?title=Jeconiah

Jeconiah is of course the same as Jehoiachin:

 

-------------- start of quote from website ---------------

Reign

Jeconiah reigned three months and ten days, from December 9, 598 to March 15/16, 597 BC. He succeeded Jehoiakim as king of Judah[2Ki.24:6] in December 598, after raiders from surrounding lands invaded Jerusalem[2Ki.24:2] and killed his father. It is likely that the king of Babylon was behind this effort, as a response to Jehoiakim's revolt, starting sometime after 601 BC. Three months and ten days after Jeconiah became king, the armies of Nebuchadnezzar II seized Jerusalem. The intention was to take high class Judahite captives and assimilate them into Babylonian society. On March 15/16th, 597 BC,[5]:217 Jeconiah, his entire household and three thousand Jews, were exiled to Babylon.

Release from captivity

According to 2 Kings 25:27, Jeconiah was released from prison "in the 37th year of the exile", in the year that Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) came to the throne. Babylonian records show that Amel-Marduk began his reign in October 562 BC.[8] According to 2 Kings 25:27, Jeconiah was released from prison "on the 27th day of the twelfth month", during March of 561 BC. This indicates the first year of captivity to be 598/597 BC, according to Judah's Tishri-based calendar. The 37th year of captivity was thus, by Judean reckoning, the year that began in Tishri of 562, consistent with the synchronism to the accession year of Amel-Marduk given in Babylonian records.

------------- end of quote from website --------------------

[scholar JW]

 JW Insider.

Honesty is a two-way street required by both sides in a debate therefore no need for any ;theocratic war strategy..

If the Gap does not exist then how do you account for the 20 year difference between 586/587 BCE and 607 BCE for the same event? No need for circular reasoning here.

Chronology is personal because most if not all schemes of Chronology are written up by individuals beginning with James Ussher also such is based on Methodology, personally selected and Interpretation again personally selected.

If there is no Gap then why or what are we discussing?

You talk honesty but your following comments replete with many references to earlier WT Publications finally concluding that some dates were or are fuzzy! Yet you begin your diatribe with the astonishing statement that the Babylonian Empire began in 609 BCE. What nonsense for nothing of any historical significance occurred in 609 BCE. Carl Jonsson in the 2nd edn of his Gentile Times Reconsidered produced a Chart on p.235. This Chart presents a' fuzzy' statement that the 70 years began with the Assyria crushed with no historical data in support to support this assertion.

Chronology is not an exact science for it is always a 'work in progress' and is simply a scheme or device that relates history into our modern  day calendation. It is based on  Methodology and Interpretation for these are the 'tools' of the Chronologist and explains why our dates in the past have been adjusted, a feature common to all modern-day chronologies. You only have to compare the different Chronologies for the Divided Monarchy and to examine the conflict over whether Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587 BEC.

One thing can be said about our wondrous Bible Chronology there is no room for 'fuzziness' or dogmatism.

scholar JW

 

[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