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

[JW Insider]

59 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

The  acc. year of Cyrus is not in dispute for it is a date universally recognized dating the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE.

And the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar is not in dispute, either, for it is a date universally recognized as 605 BCE.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

Jonsson fails to discuss BM 21946.

Do you think people will just believe you without checking?

Jonsson even has pictures of it. This is from page 101 of Jonsson's book: (Gentile Times Reconsidered, 4 edition).

• The Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946
• This chronicle covers the period from Nabopolassar’s 21st year (605/04 B.C.E.) to Nebuchadnezzar’s 10th year (595/94 B.C.E.). Photo used courtesy of D. J. Wiseman (shown in his Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, Plate VI).

Here is from page 102:

• The extant (actually existing) parts of Chronicles 2-7 cover the following regnal years: TABLE 2: EXTANT PARTS OF THE NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONICLES 2–7
• CHRONICLE NO.         RULER                   REGNAL YEARS COVERED
• No.2 = B.M. 25127      Nabopolassar     acc.-year – 3
•       3 = B.M. 21901      Nabopolassar     10 – 17
•       4 = B.M. 22047      Nabopolassar     18 – 20
•       5 = B.M. 21946      Nabopolassar      21
•              ” ” ”                   Nebuchadnezzar  acc.-year – 10
•        6 = B.M. 25124    Neriglissar             3
•        7 = B.M. 35382    Nabonidus             1 – 11
•               ” ” ”                  Nabonidus             17
• In all, the Neo-Babylonian period (625–539 B.C.E.) includes a total of eighty-seven regnal years. As is seen in the preceding table, less than half of these years are covered by the preserved parts of the chronicles. Yet some important information may be gathered from them.
• Chronicle 5 (B.M. 21946) shows that Nabopolassar ruled Babylon for twenty-one years, and that he was succeeded by his son Nebuchadnezzar. That part of the text says: For twenty-one years Nabopolassar ruled Babylon. On the eighth day of the month Ab he died. In the month of Elul Nebuchadnezzar (II) returned to Babylon and on the first day of the month he ascended the royal throne in Babylon.

Jonsson also mentions it on page 199, 201, 207, 208, 209, 254 (7 times on that page), 296, 315, 338, 339, 342, 347, 349, 506, 512, 514 and 515.

[scholar JW]

Insider JW

Thank you for the correction and the relevant page numbers for BM 21946. I cannot find it listed in the General Index which some mention in that place would have been expected. Perhaps what I meant to say is that Jonsson fails to discuss this tablet in connection with the date 597 BCE and Neb's 7/8th yr in connection with that date or his seventh years according to the Chronicle as to its elevation of status in Chronology. What is puzzling is that Jonsson's treatment of this event and the date 597 BCE should warrant such to be considered to be a Pivotal or Absolute Date when in fact WT Chronology places the same features in 617 BCE My remarks about this are made in the context as to whether 597 BCE can have the same status in scholarship as 539 BCE and I would argue most definitely not.

My copy of GTR is the 4th edn. and it does not exceed p.390. From whence do pages 506, 512, 514 and 515? Are these later pages on the online edition at his website?

scholar JW

 

 

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

The date for the acc. year of Nebuchadrezzar is in dispute because it needs to put back twenty years to 624 BCE.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

I cannot find it listed in the General Index which some mention in that place would have been expected.

It's there too, of course (in your 4th edition):

• Chronicles: Neo-Babylonian, 100-105, 148; nature of, 100; reliability of, 104, 105; BM 21946, 101 (picture), 102, 201-203, 207, 295, 296, 339,340, 342, 343; Nabonidus Chronicle, 102, 103 (with picture); BM 21901, 233; BM 22047, 346

But this sort of begs the whole question about what you have been doing for the last few decades. From what I can see on J-W Discussion, you have apparently made a kind of multi-decade career out of Jonsson-bashing, and yet you don't even know what's in his book? Have you ever read his book? I could quote a dozen other times from J-W Discussion where you talk about how Jonsson fails to do this or that, and now I have to wonder whether any of this has been honest.

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Perhaps what I meant to say is that Jonsson fails to discuss this tablet in connection with the date 597 BCE and Neb's 7/8th yr in connection with that date or his seventh years according to the Chronicle as to its elevation of status in Chronology.

That's not true either, of course. At the end of this post I'll add an image from page 254 which includes it among all the most important documented activities of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. A longer discussion of how BM 21946 relates to Nebuchadnezzar's 7/8th yr takes up several paragraphs on page 296. An even longer discussion of the importance of BM 21956 as it relates to his 7/8th yr is on page 342 and 343 of Jonsson's book. Here's a portion of pages 342-3:

• Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem during the reign of Jehoiachin is also described in the Babylonian chronicle B.M. 21946. For the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar this chronicle says: From Dec. 598 (or Jan. 597) to March 597 B.C.E.: ”The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king. A king of his own choice he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.”[68]
• NebuchadnezzarÂ’s army left Babylon “in the month of Kislev,” which was the ninth month, and seized Jehoiachin “on the second day of the month Adar,” that is, the twelfth month.[69] This means that even if the army left Babylon in the beginning of Kislev (which this year began on December 18, 598 B.C.E., Julian calendar), the interval between the day it left Babylon until the city was captured and its king (Jehoiachin) seized, on the second Adar (which corresponded to March 16, 597), was three months at the most.[70]
• Footnotes:
  • [67] It is interesting to note that in this first deportation Nebuchadnezzar brought only “some” of the vessels from the temple in Jerusalem to Babylon, and these were not even the “valuable” vessels. This strongly supports the conclusion that the siege of Jerusalem at this time did not end up in the capture of the city. If it did, why did he not take the valuable vessels from the temple? If, on the other hand, the siege was raised because Jehoiakim capitulated and paid a tribute to Nebuchadnezzar, it is quite understandable that Jehoiakim did not include the most valuable vessels in the tribute.
  • [68] A. K. Grayson, op. cit., p. 102. The chronicle is in complete agreement with the description of this siege given in the Bible. (2 Kings 24:8–17; 2 Chronicles 36:9–10.)
  • [69] The Babylonians had a second Ululu (an intercalary month) in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, thus making Kislev and Adar the tenth and thirteenth months respectively that year, although they were normally the ninth and twelfth calendar months . This fact does not affect the discussion above.
  • [70] If the Babylonian army left Babylon some time after Jehoiachin had ascended the throne, the siege was of very short duration, two months at most and probably less, as the time the army needed to march from Babylon to Jerusalem has to be subtracted from the three months from Kislev to Adar. Such a march took at least one month. It is possible, however, that a part of the army had left Babylon earlier, as 2 Kings 24:10–11 indicates that Nebuchadnezzar arrived at Jerusalem some time after the siege had begun. The reason for the short duration of the siege was JehoiachinÂ’s surrender to Nebuchadnezzar on Adar 2 or March 16, 597 B.C.E., Julian calendar. (2 Kings 24:12) For an excellent discussion of this siege, see William H. Shea, “NebuchadnezzarÂ’s Chronicle and the Date of the Destruction of Lachish III,” in Palestine Exploration Quarterly, No. 111 (1979), pp. 113f.

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

What is puzzling is that Jonsson's treatment of this event and the date 597 BCE should warrant such to be considered to be a Pivotal or Absolute Date when in fact WT Chronology places the same features in 617 BCE

I suspect you are not truly puzzled in the least by his treatment of that point. If you really were you should certainly not try to pass yourself off as any kind of student of chronology. It's the entire Neo-Babylonian period that is now "pivotal" through "absolute" chronological dating. The entire period is known through established, chronometric (calendar) dating. The entire range from Nabopolassar through Cambyses and beyond is considered "absolute" in this sense by chronologists who study this historical period.

Yes, it's true that WT "chronology" places the events of 597 in 617. That's easy to understand though completely outside the context of chronology:

It's because the writers at the WTS created a never-ending problem for themselves by adding 20 years to 587 to get 607 to force it to fit 1914. So they are stuck adding it to every date prior to 607, too. They clearly haven't yet figured out how or when or if they are going to fix the problem. It's no more about real chronology than 1874 was really one of "God's dates, not ours" just because it was claimed to be such in the Watch Tower publications. But remember, the Watchtower kept 1874 on the books for 64 years, until finally it no longer was one of "God's dates, not ours."

That means that for  64 years, 1874 had come from God, and not from any private interpretation:

• (2 Peter 1:20,21) 20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by manÂ’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.

The Watchtower didn't fix that particular date problem until 1943, just a year after Rutherford died. Now we know it wasn't about real chronology, but it was a private interpretation after all.  Perhaps a hint about why can be found in this quote referencing Rutherford and those who agreed with him.

• "We understand . . [a person]. . who like Judge Rutherford is permeated with the real Biblical and prophetic spirit. . . ."  (g1924, December 17, p.179)

Rutherford had a very similar outlook on Russell which kept him from overcoming all of those previously-labeled "God's dates" for many years. That's why the discussion in the May 1922 Watchtower is so interesting in that it points to what Rutherford thinks is at the heart of the chronology problem: it's coming from those who are falling away from the faith they once put in Russell, who had died in 1916. Apparently Fred Franz in 1943 showed he had fallen from the faith he once put in the late Rutherford, who had died in 1942. Apparently, by the late 1970's, many more had fallen away from the faith they had once put in Fred Franz.

The 4th edition of Jonsson's book has been further expanded online, by about 130 pages, and this moves the index, too, but the index is still the original one, and the rest of the book, through page 380 is still exactly the same as the printed 4th edition. The index does not reference the added material.

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

Yes, I have spent time discussing Jonsson's research on the JWD forum for some decades and this is because of its impact on the JW community and its significance to WT Chronology.  i can see that it has made a huge impact on your faith as a Witness and has certainly undermined your belief in our Chronology. Certainly, I should have paid more attention to the General Index for its location but as I was looking for a specific context for 597 BCE and the Chronicle I simply did not find it where I expected to be and as I was in a hurry posted accordingly. Indeed,, I have read Jonsson's work over the years and have even an autographed copy of his 3rd edition so have no fear on that score.

You seem to misunderstand my point about 597 BCE in the context of Jonsson's discussion of it and you go on to post relevant parts of the discussion in his GTR. The point I am making is that Jonsson does not consider 597 BCE to be a Absolute Date having similar status to 539 BCE which is the pivotal date for WT Chronology. Jonsson has a stronger preference for 587 BCE and in this regard I believe he errs.

Your claim that the entire period of Neo-Babylonian Chronology is pivotal is nonsense and Jonsson errs in this by treating this period as Absolute Chronology because the evidence is lacking. Scholars are free to term it 'absolute' if they wish but claiming it as such does not make it so especially when the period ignores the seventy years a significant historic period within the NB Period. There also remains the missing 'twenty years' which is unaccounted for in NB Chronology so it is far from perfect.You must remember that Chronology is about interpretation and that nicely explains the many issues that arose in the early and later history of the WTS.

I will examine those additional pages available online if I have not already done so in the past as I have so many files that I need to take time to review what I have on hand.

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

Where are those pages from pp.506 onwards from GTR. online ? I cannot locate such a section of 130 pages. There is a supplement on Luke 21:24 which I have had already'.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Where are those pages from pp.506 onwards from GTR. online ? I cannot locate such a section of 130 pages.

 

[Edited to add that Ann O'maly has added information below that indicates that the single, full pdf was not put together by Carl Jonsson and contains spurious text. Therefore, I am removing the 4 links that likely pointed to that version.]

• http://kristenfrihet.se/english/gtr4/contents.htm
  • http://kristenfrihet.se/english/epage.htm
    • http://kristenfrihet.se/english/gtr4/gt of luke 21.24 .pdf
    • http://kristenfrihet.se/english/artaxerxes.htm
    • http://kristenfrihet.se/english/furuli.htm

I searched Google for "Gentile Times Reconsidered 4 pdf" and the above pages came up. I couldn't find a complete single pdf on kristenfrihet.se but the pieces seem to be there. I tried a download from all the others except scribd and all of them returned the full 559 page pdf. I don't know if all of these sites are making it available legally with permission, btw. Use your own judgment.

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The point I am making is that Jonsson does not consider 597 BCE to be a Absolute Date having similar status to 539 BCE which is the pivotal date for WT Chronology.

Now I really wonder again if you have read his book, or if you just see this as a chance to bluster the less informed. You could have just read the chapter titles and known better than to make the statement just quoted. The opening page of Chapter 4, The Absolute Chronology of the Neo-Babylonian Era, says the following:

• In this chapter it will be demonstrated that the whole Neo-Babylonian period, including the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, may be established as an absolute chronology by the aid of astronomical cuneiform documents found in Mesopotamia.

Jonsson goes on for the rest of chapter showing why he considers dates like 597 to have the same status as 539, because they are all part of the same pivotal era. Of course, this also means that one way to double-check that 539 is 'absolute' is to count forward through each king's reign from 597. This also provides an excellent double-check that the entire era is "absolute," using the language of scholars of chronology.

As to your claim that there is not enough evidence, there are evidently about 1,600 of these astronomical texts, and about 1,300 of them help us specifically with the timeline from the Babylonian region, with several of them going back to the very centuries we are discussing:

• The greater part of the remaining texts, however, about 1,300 in number, are non-mathematical and principally observational in nature. The observations date from about 750 B.C.E. to the first century of the Christian era. The great number of observational texts are of the utmost importance for establishing the absolute chronology of this whole period. (p.156)

Your claim that there is not enough evidence is wrong, because not only do ALL of these 1,000 plus astronomical-related texts fix the entire B.C.E. period back to about 750, but there are another 20,000+ commercial tablets, contacts and receipts, that also perfectly support the entire period. They are each dated to the reign of the king and some even have valuable additional information that doubly confirms the absolute chronology with an unambiguous relative chronology. Do you have an idea what would be considered enough evidence? Maybe just one more contract tablet and one more astronomial diary? LOL

[Ann O'Maly]

19 hours ago, Anna said:

Yes, I realize there was an evolution of the scheme, but as you say, it got pretty much fixed with Rutherford. However, I do think that they genuinely believed that secular history was not to be trusted because it was from Satan. Quote from the May 1 WT you cited: "When did this period of the gentile times begin and when is the end thereof? These facts cannot be proven by profane history, because such history is made by men who acted as agents of Satan’s empire and hence were unreliable; for Satan is the father of lies"

But now, surely that is no longer the belief?

The publications may no longer assert that disconfirming secular history is satanic, but the argument is still made that much of the secular history for the NB period is untrustworthy and one is better trusting the Bible's record. There are two problems with this line of reasoning:

• We are being presented with a false dichotomy - secular history vs. the Bible. The choice is really secular history and the Bible (the two dovetail nicely) vs. Bible interpretation.
• The Org. relies on 'unreliable' secular history to date and corroborate Bible events in order to build confidence in the reliability of the Bible!

[Ann O'Maly]

52 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I searched Google for "Gentile Times Reconsidered 4 pdf" and the above pages came up. I couldn't find a complete single pdf on kristenfrihet.se but the pieces seem to be there. I tried a download from all the others except scribd and all of them returned the full 559 page pdf. I don't know if all of these sites are making it available legally with permission, btw. Use your own judgment.

Please only use the kristenfrihet source for the book, despite it being messy. It really should be in one pdf book form rather than in separate parts like it is, but this is the original scanned and authorized copy.

The pdfs from other sites will give you a corrupted copy that has been edited and added to by a person called Tönis Tönisson (look at the copyright page and you'll see his name). He has even dishonestly inserted some comments in the body text that COJ didn't write.

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, scholar JW said:

  i can see that it has made a huge impact on your faith as a Witness and has certainly undermined your belief in our Chronology.

Looking into these facts can be very faith-strengthening. For example, the Bible says that:

• (1 Thessalonians 5:1)  Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you.

However, if it's really true that we need to be able to trace the times and seasons to 539, but dismiss the same evidence that gave us 539 so that we can claim that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607, then obviously most of us don't have access to the evidence and the reasons why we do this. If we really need to have things written to identify the times and seasons when Jesus began his rule and his parousia, and if this is truly an important part of being on the watch for Jesus' parousia, then we make a mockery out of Paul's words and Jesus' words.

We say the opposite of what Paul said above, because I guess we just don't think that what he said has a "ring of truth." We prefer to contradict Paul.

So once we understand just a little bit more about the claim that is being made, our faith should be strengthened in the correctness of the Bible.