Scholar pretendus wrote:
: I have not forgotten about you
Probably one of the few true statements you've made in your sorry history on this board.
: and will attend to your nonsense regarding 538 shortly and your misuse of Josephus.
LOL! "misuse of Josephus"? I've simply quoted what he said, and applied it to the inspired words of Ezra. How can that be a "misuse"?
Oh, I know. It's like what my braindead JW mom told me many years ago: "I won't allow you access to my old Watchtower publications because you'll misuse them."
How can anyone misuse a publication when they simply quote what it says? Of course, the quotation must be in context and not misrepresent the position of the author -- a criterion that Watchtower writers and apologists (such as scholar pretendus) routinely ignore. This deliberate ignoring of context, and the writer's overall view which determines context, will be fully illustrated in the material below.
: I am well pleased that you have Applegate's article
I did not say that I have Applegate's article, you moron. I said that it will be arriving at my door within a couple of weeks.
: which of course you owe a debt of gratitude to scholar
Not really. Applegate's article turns out to be a non-starter. It doesn't support anything at all that you claim, and it contradicts a great deal else that you claim. All of which goes to show that most decent scholars, like Applegate, reject virtually everything that you and your Mommy claim about biblical chronology.
: and will look forward to other piece of scholarship that you are excited about. Scholar says 'bring it on'!
Done. See below, you moron.
I had expected to have to wait for my own sources or Leolaia's to come through, but I received some comments from a correspondent who was already in posession of the Applegate article, and I'm now in a position to make some critical comments about scholar pretendus' usual misrepresentation of source references. In the material below, you'll see many such misrepresentations. I'm largely directing my comments to scholar pretendus.
Ok, scholar pretendus, although I've not yet received the book containing John Applegate's article, I've received some comments from a correspondent regarding his evaluation of the article. My correspondent has known of the article for several years. Paraphrasing his comments, with permission, and adding my own, I post the following:
John Applegate belongs to the category of exegetes who believe that the Biblical documents are the end result of a long history of editorial activity, during which period the original documents were changed, added to, and so on. His comments on the 70 years in Jeremiah reflect this approach. In other words, according to the Watchtower Society's definitions, Applegate is an apostate. So scholar pretendus' quoting of Applegate is a violation of his own precepts.
With the above in mind, anyone who believes that the Bible is the direct result of plenary inspiration has no choice but to reject Applegate's approach, on general principles. Since Jehovah's Witnesses claim to believe that today's Bible accurately reflects God's thoughts, scholar pretendus must reject Applegate's overall approach to the Bible. Therefore, to be self-consistent, if scholar pretendus wants to promote some of Applegate's ideas, he must do so based, not on Applegate's scholarly authority, but on the validity of Applegate's conclusions, which in turn must be based on a variety of other criteria, including and most especially including the data upon which we can calculate various ancient dates. In short, Applegate cannot be an authority for Jehovah's Witnesses, because he rejects the direct inspiration of the Scriptures. Therefore, anything Applegate says must be evaluated, by all loyal Jehovah's Witnesses, in terms of its adherence to the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. A better example of special pleading on the part of JW defenders can hardly be found.
A close reading of Applegate's article shows that his comments are sometimes confusing, and sometimes contradictory. He seems to agree with modern scholars who, following J. G. Janzen's work from 1973 (Studies in the Text of Jeremiah), believe that the LXX text of Jeremiah was translated from a no longer extant Hebrew text that was older and therefore closer to the original than the Masoretic text, which the Watchtower Society accepts as authoritative. However, this theory has been heavily criticized. For example, S. Soderlund (The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis, 1985) and Jack R. Lundbom (in his thorough and extensive 3-volume commentary on Jeremiah in the Anchor Bible series, about 2300 pages; the last two volumes were published in 2004) clearly don't accept Applegate's claims. Lundbom states explicitly that the 70 years in Jeremiah refer to the period of Babylonian domination.
Furthermore, Applegate argues, as many other scholars have, that the references to the 70 years in 2 Chronicles, Daniel, and Zechariah represent later reinterpretations of the original prophecy. This completely contradicts Watchtower teachings.
In view of the above, neither the Watchtower Society nor scholar pretendus ought to refer to Applegate as an authority worth quoting, even if Applegate occasionally makes some statements that, isolated from context, might to some extent be used in support of their view. And because scholar pretendus gets his marching orders from Mommy Watchtower, neither can his claims properly be evaluated apart from his association with the JW cult. At least, not logically.
Below are quoted some of the most important statements in Applegate's article, including those that scholar pretendus seems to have had in mind. I don't take responsibility for any typos that my correspondents might have made; close editing by me will have to wait until I receive the complete article. The reference is: John Applegate: "Jeremiah and the Seventy Years in the Hebrew Bible," in A. H. W. Curtis and T. Römer, The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception (Leuven: Leuven University Press; Utgeverij Peeters, Leuven, 1997), pp. 91-110.
Here we go:
p. 92: The book of Jeremiah mentions the "seventy years" on three occasions; 25:11, 12 and 29:10. In each case the "seventy years" is given a different emphasis. In Jer 25:11 the emphasis is on seventy years of desolation and servitude for Judah and her neighbours. In 25:12 it moves to the punishment of Babylon after seventy years. In 29:10 it moves to Yahweh's visitation after seventy years and the restoration of Judah.
As seen in the above quotation, Applegate claims that Jer. 25:11 speaks of 70 years of desolation for Judah and her neighbors, -- which is simply not true -- look at the text below for proof -- that it speaks of 70 years of servitude for Judah and her neighbors -- which is true -- and that verse 12 speaks of Babylon's punishment after the 70 years -- which is true. Note how the NWT phrases these passages:
11 '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.'
12 'And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'their error, even against the land of the Chaldeans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite.'
Verse 11 states that various nations would be devastated, which does not mean completely desolated. It also states that various nations would serve Babylon for 70 years. Verse 12 states that Babyon would be punished at the completion of 70 years, which most certainly occurred when the city of Babylon was conquered by Cyrus in 539 B.C. To claim that this conquering was not a punishment is ludicrous. Verse 12 also, in the light of the historical fact that Babylon was not in a state of desolation until some 800 years after 539 B.C., indicates that at some unknown time after the 70 years ended, the city would become desolate.
More on Applegate:
pp. 92-3: Numerous attempts have been made to determine the meaning of the seventy years in the Hebrew Bible. Although it has not gone uncriticized, the current concensus on Jeremiah's use appears to be that, by convention, ancient near eastern peoples anticipated seventy years of divine displeasure for a city or land that fell foul of its god, and that an actual period of seventy years may also be in view. As to which period of seventy years is in view, this varies from writer to writer. In the context of the letter to the first deportees, the 'seventy years' in 29:10 would seem to date from 597 BC. The reference to Judah's devastation in 25:11, 12, set as it is in the reign of Jehoiakim, would appear to have either 597 or 587 BC in view. Many urge that Jeremiah's seventy years refer primarily to the period of Babylonian hegemony, dating its beginning to the fall of Ninevah [sic] in 612, the battle of Carchemish in 609 [sic], Nebuchadnezzar's accession to the throne in 605 or the first conquest of Judah in 597, and dating its ending to Cyrus' 'liberation' of Babylon in 539. This view takes up the emphasis of 29:10. Others follow the lead of 25:11 emphasising the devastation of Judah and dating the beginning of the period to the deportation of 597 or 587, or to the destruction of the temple in 587, and ending either with Cyrus' decree allowing the exiles to go to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple in 538 or with the rededication of the temple in 515. There is little concensus on this matter and it may be that Jer uses the term only loosely or to symbolise the fullness of time or simply to mean 'a long time' (cf. Jer 28; 29:3-10) -- perhaps the duration of one or more generations (cf. Ps 90,10; Job 42,16; Jer 27,7).
The above quotation contains a number of comments that are devastating to the Watchtower Society's claims, and of course, to those of scholar pretendus.
Applegate states that the 70 years in Jer. 29:10 would seem to date from 597 B.C. That indicates that Applegates agrees that the 70 years cannot have begun with the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. -- and this obviously applies also to the Watchtower's claim that the destruction occurred in 607 B.C.
Applegate states that Jeremiah's reference to Judah's devastation (here he gets the word correct) would appear to refer either to 597 or 586 B.C. This shows that he agrees with all other scholars, including Carl Jonsson, that the word "devastation" does not mean or even imply complete desolation. In this, Applegate appears to be inconsistent with his statements quoted above concerning Jer. 25:11.
Applegate seems to suggest that the Jews returned to Jerusalem in 538 B.C. -- rather than 537 -- via this statement: "Others follow the lead of 25:11 emphasising the devastation of Judah and dating the beginning of the period to the deportation of 597 or 587, or to the destruction of the temple in 587, and ending either with Cyrus' decree allowing the exiles to go to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple in 538."
p. 94: Any analysis of Jer 25 is complicated since it is clearly the result of extensive redactional activity as witnessed by the major differences between the Septuagintal and Massoretic texts and its function both as a summary of Jeremiah's ministry and as an introduction to his prophecy against the nations. Critical scholarship has raised a number of queries over the Massoretic text of both verses 10 and 11. There is substantial agreement among recent English-language commentators that MT 25:11 is the result of two or three levels of editing. The identification of Judah's foe as 'the King of Babylon' is missing from the Septuagint which is thought to preserve an older form of the text.
Here, Applegate clearly shows his liberal leanings (not necessarily a fault) by indicating his agreement with claims that the text of Jeremiah has been edited a good deal, and therefore cannot be the product of direct inspiration by God.
p. 95: MT Jer 25:11 has two parts: first it prophecies that the land will be a desolation and a horror; second that 'these nations', Judah and her neighbours, will serve the King of Babylon for seventy years. The emphasis in this verse is upon the punishment of Judah and the surrounding nations.
Here, Applegate fleshes out his view on the passage in question, and is again inconsistent with his statements on page 92, as shown above. But he has it right this time.
pp. 95-96: Jer 25:12 again has a number of grammatical inconsistences and again differs widely in the LXX and MT. Again, the MT is longer than LXX and introduces specific references to the King of Babylon and the Chaldeans. Most recent English-language commentators regard the verse as being based on Jer 29:10. This argument is based upon the two verses speaking of the 'completion' or 'fulfilment' of the seventy years.
25:12 [Hebrew letters for "and when will be fulfilled seventy years"]
29:10 [Hebrew letters for "when by my mouth seventy years for Babylon are completed"]
Nevertheless, the emphasis of these two verses are quite distinct. 25:12 prophesies that Babylon will be punished and desolated after seventy years. Holladay remarks that the punishment of Babylon can not have been an issue for Jeremiah at the point in his ministry defined by 25:1 and is therefore a redactional addition. However, the thought that Judah's punisher will be punished is present in LXX 25:12 indicating that it must have been a relatively early addition. Similarly, the early dating of some of the oracles against the nations and of the narrative of the cup of Yahweh's wrath does not make it at all implausible that Jeremiah might have shown some interest in the punishment of Babylon. Jer 29:10 prophesies that after seventy years Yahweh will 'visit' his people in order to do them good and restore them to their land. This verse is set in the context of a letter of Jeremiah to the exiles in Babylon advising them to settle down and prosper., either. Otherwise you'd be crowing loudly about trouncing "apostate higher criticism". This again illustrates your dishonesty and double standards.
Then follows a discussion of whether the letter is authentic or not. Applegate quotes a few scholars who have argued that parts of it are not, but Applegate seems to disagree.
The above quotations are again devastating to the claims of scholar pretendus and his Mommy, the Watchtower Society.
First, since the book of Jeremiah, according to the Watchtower Society, is "God-breathed", it cannot contain errors of any sort, never mind "grammatical inconsistencies". Therefore, Applegate can hardly be cited as a solid source of biblical commentary by the Society or scholar pretendus.
Second, Applegate clearly supports the translation of Jer. 29:10 as "for Babylon", not "at Babylon", the latter of which is a critical component of the arguments of the Watchtower Society and its apologists. This is especially devastating in view of Applegate's statement that most recent English-language commentators regard Jer. 25:12 as being based on Jer. 29:10. Therefore, Applegate agrees with the basic point that the 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah were years of servitude to Babylon -- not years of captivity to or exile in or "at" Babylon.
Third, Applegate agrees with my own contention that Jer. 29:10 proves that the fulfillment or completion of the 70 years preceded the return of the Jews to Judah. But according to the Watchtower Society, Jer. 29:10 (rendered with the phrase "at Babylon") says that the 70 years ended when the Jews returned to Judah, which means that the 70 years ended after the Jews returned to Judah. But Applegate says that "after seventy years Yahweh will 'visit' his people in order to do them good and restore them to their land." So in Applegate's view, the end of the 70 years preceded the Jews' restoration to their homeland.
With the above material in mind, let's take a look at how scholar pretendus handles Applegate's statements. In the post http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/112414/7.ashx titled and dated "Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 607 08-May-06 02:48" scholar pretendus said to Auldsoul:
An article dealing on the subject of the seventy years examining all of the principal texts was published in 1997 and is the most recent and exhaustive study on the subject unbeknown to the laziness and incompetence of Jonsson and his 'phantom' editors. On page 92 the scholar stated "In 25:12 it moves to the punishment of Babylon after seventy years" followed by the observation on page 96 " 25:12 prophesies that Babylon will be punished and desolated after seventy years". Nowhere in this study is an application of 539 BCE in reference to Jeremiah 25:12 so the interpretation of matters as presented by the celebrated ones and yours truly has at last been vindicated. This ground-breaking article was cited in a recent bibliography on Jeremiah in a recenly published reference work on the Old Testament, 2005.
Shortly after scholar pretendus posted this ridiculous bit of verbiage, I replied in the post "Re: 607 08-May-06 12:06"
<<<
: On page 92 the scholar stated "In 25:12 it moves to the punishment of Babylon after seventy years"
This is perfectly consistent with a punishment in 539, where the death of Belshazzar and the dethroning of Nabonidus, along with the overthrow of Babylon itself, mark the end of the 70 years of Babylonian domination over the Middle East. So your reference is meaningless as to proving your claims.
: followed by the observation on page 96 " 25:12 prophesies that Babylon will be punished and desolated after seventy years".
Ditto. The statement allows that such punishment and desolation can take place anytime after Babylon's demise as ruler of the Middle East.
: Nowhere in this study is an application of 539 BCE in reference to Jeremiah 25:12
And I'm sure that there is no mention of 537
: so the interpretation of matters as presented by the celebrated ones and yours truly has at last been vindicated.
LOL! Not at all. And if you actually manage to set out a source reference for this article, it will be carefully examined by the various amateur scholars on this board, and again I have no doubt that it will contain information that blows away your claims. My statement is based on long experience with your dishonest "scholarship" and quoting practices.
>>>
I can add nothing to my above words, except that my last statement has been completely vindicated. Nothing that Applegate said supports what scholar pretendus claims. A number of things that Applegate said directly contradict the claims of scholar pretendus and his Mommy, the Watchtower Society. What more can be said?
Applegate also supports the arguments of other scholars, including those of Carl Jonsson, in the following matters.
On Zechariah 1:12; 7:5:
pp. 102-3: Zechariah mentions the 'seventy years' on two occasions -- 1:12, part of Zechariah's first vision, and 7:5 which is part of the editorial framework to chs. 1-8. However, there is no reference to Jeremiah in either case. Zechariah 7:5 is dated by 7:1 to the fourth year of Darius, when the rebuilding of the temple was nearing completion but two years before its dedication (cf. Ezra 6,15). In response to a question posed by a delegation from Bethel about whether they should continue fasting because of the destruction of the temple, Zech 7:5 accuses the people of the land and the priests of serving their own ends during the fasts and feasts of the previous seventy years. This confirms that the 'seventy years' refers to the years of exile rather than a symbolic figure and also tends to confirm that Zech 7:5 understands the 'seventy years' as the period between the destruction of the temple in 587 and its rededication in 515. J.G. Baldwin comments that as the fast referred to did not begin until 587 BC, we may assume that the author of Zechariah is counting the seventy years from then. In this it follows the emphasis of Jer 25:11 that the land would be devastated for seventy years. The fact that Jeremiah is not mentioned suggests that the meaning of the phrase and its source were both well known and widely known."
So Applegate believes that the 70 years mentioned in Zech 1:12-15 is a reinterpretation of Jer. 25:11 (which he erroneously stated predicts a period of 70 years of desolation for Judah), and that it ran from 587 to 515 B.C. which is entirely reasonable. Once again, Applegate supports Jonsson's arguments and contradicts the Society's.
Applegate also blows away scholar pretendus' claim that Zechariah directly references Jeremiah. He simply states that "there is no reference to Jeremiah in either case." So much for scholar pretendus' claims that Applegate supports his notion that Zedekiah directly references Jeremiah.
Applegate continues in the same vein:
pp. 105-6: The 'seventy years' of the angel's question (1:12) clearly refer to years of desolation while the reference to Zion (1:14, 17), choosing Jerusalem (1:17) and the rebuilding of the temple (1:16) suggest that it is the temple's rebuilding which will bring this period to an end. Zechariah here, as in [106] 7:5 therefore interprets the seventy years as running from the destruction of the temple in 587 to the completion of its rebuilding in 515 during the reign of Darius. However, Zech 1:12-15 uses the reference to the seventy years of punishment as a starting point to reinterpret the degree of Yahweh's wrath against his people and against the nations and to reinterpret the meaning of the seventy years as punishment.
Once again we find that Applegate agrees with other modern scholars, against the Watchtower Society and scholar pretendus.
p. 109 [part of the "Conclusions"]: In Zechariah, Jeremiah is not mentioned, although the book has signs of Jeremianic influence. Here the precise chronological meaning of the seventy years is in view in both 1:12 and 7:5, which locate the beginning of the seventy years with the destruction of the temple in 587 BC. From this it is fair to infer that Zechariah saw the re-building of the temple in 515 BC as the end of this period, particularly since the re-building of the temple is one of the major themes of Zechariah. Zech 1:12 also reinterprets the seventy years in an attempt to reorientate his community towards future obedience to Yahweh, especially in rebuilding the temple. In the anachronistic vision-report of Daniel 9 the number seventy becomes the focus of interest as the writer seeks to reinterpret the meaning of the seventy years to provide a message of hope for the people of his own generation.
Applegate dates the book of Daniel to the time of the Maccabees, as do most other modern commentators. This date, however, is increasingly being questioned by conservative scholars, at least for large parts of the book. This again shows Applegate's liberal bias, which assumes that the Bible is not directly and completely inspired.
Applegate's unadorned statement, that "In Zechariah, Jeremiah is not mentioned, although the book has signs of Jeremianic influence", is virtually meaningless without a good deal of further explanation.
Far more poignant is Applegate's direct contradiction of the Society's and scholar pretendus' claims about the meaning of the "70-year passages" in Zechariah: Applegate directly states that these ran from 587 to 515 B.C., i.e., from about the time of Jerusalem's destruction to about the time of the temple's actual rebuilding around 515 B.C.
In view of the above quotations, it's pretty obvious that scholar pretendus, as usual, has entirely misrepresented his source references. The references simply do not say what he claims they say. Furthermore, his references often completely contradict his claims.
In sum, the pretensions of scholar pretendus and his Mommy the Watchtower Society, are shown yet again to be the product of a destructive cult mindset, a mindset that has plagued and destroyed many lives. May the above material help to prevent many potential converts to the JW cult to reconsider their paths.
AlanF
