I do not agree with your summation of matters for Jonsson makes the extravagant claim that in connection with Zechariah 1and 7 with reference to a 'seventy years' there is no reference to Jeremiah's prophecy.
You are not addressing my point. You cited a brief statement in Applegate that refers to literary dependence on Jeremiah by one of the author(s) of Zechariah (i.e, "Jeremianic influence"). This is not the same matter as claiming that a specific feature of the text, namely the "seventy years", is an allusion to Jeremiah. I was pointing out that what you cited does not establish what you say it does. Note that I am not saying that you have mischaracterized Applegate (I don't know since I don't have the article), my observation is that you should have selected a quote that better shows that Zechariah is alluding to Jeremiah's "seventy years". Second, I found it amusing that you feel this statement of Applegate is "remarkable," as if it were exceptional in some way, when "Jeremianic influence" has been noted and described for over a hundred years in the critical literature!
Such a conclusion is rejected by Applegate and other leading commenators and perhaps you should read Applegate's article before venturing an opinion based upon your ignorance.
You demonstrate your poor reading skills again. I was not venturing any opinion about Applegate's article. What I was saying is that since we don't have the luxury of having Applegate's article at our disposal as you do, it is your responsibility to give us a clear picture of what it says. Your quotation did not establish what you said it does. I asked for a citation where he discusses the "seventy years" in Zechariah specifically and how it depends on Jeremiah, but you have declined to do this.
It is good that you publicly admit that Jonsson is no scholar so his hypothesis is simply the conjecture and opinion of an amateur who has a vendetta against WT chronology.
LOL!! You continue to amaze me. I was sketching out your own procedure of "proof-texting" Applegate (in which Applegate automatically trumps Jonsson because in your view he is a scholar while Jonsson is not; your reference to "proof" and "vindication" makes no reference to the evidence and reasoning that Applegate uses), not offering my own evaluation of Jonsson's merits. And while you believe that he is "an amateur who has a vendetta against WT chronology," I do not believe the same. This does not mean that I have not been critical of some of his conclusions (since I disagree with his evaluation of 2 Chronicles and Daniel, as I have noted in earlier posts; I believe these works present a later reinterpretation of Jeremiah's prophecy, and I wonder if Applegate claims the same as well since this is the opinion of some scholars), but I entirely reject your assumption that a work can only be scholarly through the author's status as a degreed "scholar".
You seem to misunderstand how scholarly literature is used by scholars because I have stated that I do share or agree with all of Applegate's conclusions therefore I should not use those points that I agree with. Such reasoning is unscholarly and I have the academic freedom to use the latest scholarship as I see fit
You have proof-texted Applegate with the caveat that you do not agree with everything he says. Scholars do not cherry-pick the statements and evidence favorable to their views and disregard the rest without discussion. I have been asking you to give us some picture of what Applegate's general argument is and how you evaluate it; if there is something you disagree with, tell us what it is and explain why you view his reasoning or support as inadequate. Instead you tell us to just read Applegate....well, that does not wash because we don't have Applegate, so you should explain to us at least what Applegate says (as an abstract normally would), so at least we know how it "proves" what you claim it proves. There is nothing scholarly about the way you have been mentioning this work; in fact, you withheld from us at first even the name of the author or anything that could clearly identify the work.
For example, in my previous post, I specifically asked questions like these about the work: "Tell me, what exegesis does Applegate give of the 70 years within the context of Jeremiah 25 and the later reference in Jeremiah 29? How about give us a clear picture of what Applegate's analysis is, rather than quote tiny snippits of it. Does the author actually say that the 70 years are construed as still running after 539 BC, or rule out an interpretation that views the events of 539 BC as corresponding to the 'punishment'? " And this is your reply:
You ask questions about Applegate's study of Jeremiah 25 and 29:10 and he does discuss such relationships and if you are so interested then Why not study the article as I have done.
I will most certainly do so when I am able to get the article, but as I have said already, I do not have the article. So for the benefit of others on this message board who do not have it and want to know what is says and how it handles these questions, why can't you just tell us? A "real scholar" on a message board would have no problem giving a straightforward answer to such a request.
And here is some really contorted thinking:
I believe you are either confused about the seventy years or are being deliberately deceptive. The seventy years of Jeremiah 25 apply to Judah alone and was a fixed historic period from the Fall in 607 until the Return in 537. Such a period was of an exile, desolation and servitude. Jeremiah in 25:12 said that the nations would also serve Babylon and so they did but Jeremiah applied no fixed historic period to those Nations however Isaiah certainly applied aseventyh year period to that of Tyre as one of thos Foreign Nations but although this was a period of servitude akin to Judah's seventy years of servitude, no historic limits were stated. Therefore, scholars conclude that in the case of Tyre's seventy years were rounded whereas Judah's seventy years were fixed even though a period of servitude under Babylon was held in common as prophesied.
Who is being "deliberately deceptive"? Jeremiah 25:11 (not v. 12 as you say) states, according to the NWT: "And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." Who will have to serve the king of Babylon? "These nations". How long will they have to serve the king of Babylon? "Seventy years". Yet this is what you say:
"The seventy years of Jeremiah 25 apply to Judah alone". FALSE. The passage plainly says that "seventy years" is the length of time "these nation s" serve the king of Babylon.
"Jeremiah in 25:12 [actually 25:11] said that the nations would also serve Babylon but Jeremiah applied no fixed historic period to those Nations". FALSE. How long will "these nations" have to serve the king of Babylon? "Seventy years".
