scholar pretendus told many lies once again. As usual, I'll prove this thoroughly. He wrote:
: There is no evidence biblical or secul;ar that the Jewish exiles returned in 538
I already stated that there is no evidence whatsoever that they returned in 537, but that there is indirect biblical evidence that they returned in 538. What is this evidence? Let me first quote Carl Jonsson, writing in the 4th edition of The Gentile Times Reconsidered (p. 90, ftn. 2). You are well aware of this information, having specifically dismissed it a number of times:
The first year of Cyrus extended from the spring (Nisanu 1) of 538 to the spring of 537 B.C.E. If Ezra followed the Jewish method of counting the accession-year as the first year, he may have reckoned 539/38 as the first year of Cyrus. However that may be, the evidence is that Cyrus issued his edict not long after the fall of Babylon. The so-called Cyrus Cylinder shows that Cyrus, soon after the conquest of Babylon, issued a decree that allowed the different peoples that had been deported to Babylonia to return to their respective home countries. (James B. Pritchard [ed.], Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament [ANET], Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1950, p. 316.) Most likely the edict permitting the Jews to return to Jerusalem was a part of this general release of exiled peoples. As shown by the book of Ezra, the Jews who responded to the edict immediately began to organize themselves for the homeward journey (Ezra 1:5-2:70), and in "the seventh month" (Tishri, corresponding to parts of September and October) they had settled in their home cities. (Ezra 3:1) The context seems to imply that this was still in the "first year of Cyrus" (Ezra 1:1-3:1). Most authorities, therefore, conclude that this was in the autumn of 538 B.C.E. and not in 537 as the Watch Tower Society insists. (See for example Dr. T. C. Mitchell's discussion in The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed., Vol. III:2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 430-432; also the thorough discussion of the historicity of Cyrus' edict by Elias Bickerman in Studies in Jewish and Christian History, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976, pp. 72-108.) The Watch Tower Society, however, cannot accept the 538 B.C.E. date for the return, as that would move the beginning of their seventy-year period back to 608 B.C.E. This of course, would destroy their Gentile times calculation.
Anyone who carefully reads the texts of Ezra cited by Jonsson can easily see that there is no indication of delay from when Cyrus issued his decree until the Jews picked up and left for Judah. Since Cyrus' 1st year began either on March 24, 538 B.C. (assuming that Ezra used the Babylonian system of reckoning the years of a king's reign; see Babylonian Chronology: 626 B.C. - A.D. 75, Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Brown University Press, 1956, p. 29), or around September 27, 539 B.C. (assuming that Ezra used the Jewish accession system; ibid, p. 29), the Jews would have had a reasonable amount of time to prepare for their journey home, which would have taken three to four months. Now, Ezra 3:1 clearly states that "when the seventh month arrived the sons of Israel were in their cities." The "seventh month" of 538 B.C. began on September 17 (ibid, p. 29), so there was a minimum of six months between the beginning of Cyrus' 1st year and the latest date by which the Jews arrived back in Judah. Subtracting out the three to four months of travel time, this leaves two to three months for Cyrus to issue his decree and the Jews to prepare for their journey home. While this is certainly a short time frame, it is well within possibility.
: for it would have been impossible to do so unless they chartered a jet aircraft.
I've just shown that your claim is nonsense.
On the other hand, the Society has provided absolutely no actual arguments whatsoever that Cyrus issued his decree late in his first year, or that it is reasonable that there was up to a year and a half of delay between the beginning of his 1st year and the Jews' return.
Now, Jonsson cites a couple of good modern scholars in support of the 538 date for the Jews' return. Such scholars, as opposed to celebrated Watchtower pseudo-scholars, know how to argue a case with facts and always fully explain their reasoning to their readers. On the subject of the date of return of the Jews to Jerusalem, the Watchtower Society has only given speculation. Its argument boils down to a mere "in view of the Bible record" but it gives no actual arguments as to why that Bible record supports its claim. The clearest words the Society has written on this subject are found in the Insight book, Vol. 1, p. 568, under the subject "Cyrus". Note the complete lack of supporting evidence for the conclusion, and how the writer turns pure speculation into a supposedly solid conclusion:
Cyrus’ Decree for the Return of the Exiles. By his decreeing the end of the Jewish exile, Cyrus fulfilled his commission as Jehovah’s ‘anointed shepherd’ for Israel. (2Ch 36:22, 23; Ezr 1:1-4) The proclamation was made "in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia," meaning his first year as ruler toward conquered Babylon. The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to "the first year of Darius," and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and "the first year of Cyrus" over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E.
In contrast, note how the first scholar Jonsson cited above, T. C. Mitchell, writing in The Cambridge Ancient History (Second Edition, Vol. III, Part 2, "The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C." Ed. by John Boardman et al., Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 432 etc), clearly explains his reasoning and presents various facts to support it:
It is a reasonable hypothesis . . . that work was begun on the Temple site under the direction of Sheshbazzar as soon as the returning exiles reached Jerusalem, probably in 538 since, though Cyrus' first year ran from spring 538 to spring 537, he had taken Babylon in October 539, and it is unlikely that he would have allowed any great time to elapse before he issued the decree. According to the Book of Ezra, Zerubbabel, Joshua the high priest, and others assembled in Jerusalem in the seventh month. There they built an altar and re-established the giving of burnt-offerings on it, celebrating in particular the observances of the festival of Succoth (Booths or Tabernacles) (Ezra 3:1-6; I Esdras 5:46-52). In the Jewish calendar, Succoth was kept in the seventh month, Tishri, to mark the time of harvest (Lev. 23:33-6; Deut. 6:13-15). This strongly suggests that the `seventh month' in which Zerubbabel built the altar was Tishri in 538, rather than simply the seventh month after the return, and that the end of the summer, when the people had been able to collect some kind of harvest from the untended plants of many decades and perhaps from those inadequately tended by those who had remained in the land, was a time when the distractions of self-interest relaxed and thoughts could turn again to religious matters. It seems that the people also now made financial contributions towards the bringing of cedar wood from Lebanon (Ezra 3:7; I Esdras 5:53). This transaction presumably took several months, for Zerubbabel is said to have begun organizing the building operations in the spring of the following year (second month of the second year of the return), at which time the foundation of the Temple was laid to the sound of music and song (Ezra 3:8-11; I Esdras 5:54-9). This reconstruction would therefore see an initial symbolic foundation-laying by Sheshbazzar in the spring or early summer of 538, followed by a failure on his part to inspire the people to continue; then a renewal of the operation under Zerubbabel some four or five months later, with the building of the altar in the autumn; and, finally, the laying of the foundations in the spring of the following year, 537, after a winter during which arrangements were made for the supply of building materials. This event would have taken place almost fifty years after the destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadrezzar, and it is recorded that many of those present wept because they had seen the first Temple (Ezra 3:12-13; I Esdras 5:60-2), a strong indication that the `second year' in question (Ezra 3:8; I Esdras 5:54) was the second year after the return in 538, and not after a second return in 520 by which time it is unlikely that `many' would have remembered the first Temple.
The last point that Mitchell makes is telling as far as the length of the captivity is concerned. Since many Jews remembered the first temple, it is far more likely that many of them were in captivity for only 50 years rather than 70. At that time the average life span was significantly lower than the required minimum of about 80 years that would be necessary for "many" to remember the temple, but if the "many" were only about 60 years old and up, there is no problem. It is little details like this that Watchtower writers fail to account for, in addition to the bigger issues which they generally deliberately obscure and misrepresent, just as does scholar pretendus.
So, there, Oh you most pretentious of pretend scholars, scholar pretendus: Jonsson gives two citations of respected modern scholars who support the 538 date. What citations of modern scholars can you give who support the 537 date?
Obviously, none, because what I've posted above is nothing more than I've posted before, with which you've simply refused to deal.
: Whatever the case 537 is the only possible year for the return of the exiles
I've shown above why you're wrong, and because I've shown that you're wrong several times before and you keep repeating your disproved claim, your claim is a bald-faced lie.
: as Ezra 3:1 indicates that by the seventh month of that first year of Cyrus the exiles were at last home.
Precisely! The first year of Cyrus began in Nisan of 538, and the seventh month was Tishri of 538!
: There is no direct secular evidence on the basis of Josephus that alters the fact that 537 is the time of their Return.
Of course there is. That you continue to avoid addressing the actual data and arguments does not invalidate them -- it only goes to show your lack of scholarly integrity.
Let me repeat:
In Against Apion I,21, Josephus states that the foundations of the temple were laid in Cyrus' 2nd year. That year ran from Nisan (March/April) of 537 to Adar (February/March) of 536. Ezra 3:8 states that in the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Jews' return to Jerusalem, the temple foundations were laid. Thus, it was in the 2nd month of Cyrus' 2nd year that the foundations were laid. That was in Iyyar (April/May) of 537 B.C. Thus, the Jews' return must have been in Tishri (September/October) of 538 B.C.
: The year 538 is impossible
Demonstrably false.
: and so it is the case that scholars do not give this year for the actual Return to Judah,
Demonstrably false.
: in fact biblical historians are very coy on the specific year when the Jews actually returned home.
Aha, an admission that you have no modern scholarly backing for your claim. Indeed, only older Bible scholars say that the Jews returned in 537, but so far as I've been able to find out, they also wrongly claim that Babylon fell in 538 B.C.
: The year 537 allows sufficient time for the decree in Cyrus' first year 538 and the four month trek from Babylon to Judah.
As does the year 538. When faced with information that allows of two hypotheses, other data must narrow them down. As I've shown above, Josephus decisively narrows them to one: the Jews returned in 538. You cannot cite any such evidence in favor of 537.
: Even the apostate Jonsson
Based on the flagrant disregard for truth that you constantly display, readers must conclude that you've betrayed the very "God of Truth" you claim to revere and are therefore an apostate.
: in his hypothesis is rather coy about the specifics of this subject.
Not at all. The above cited material exposes your lie.
: Celebrated WT scholars are not coy or timid about this vital history
LOL! You don't think that a totally unsupported statement like, "in view of the Bible record" is "coy"? You're about the most self-deceived individual I've ever come across.
: and have determined the facts about the matter to the chagrin of opposers.
LOL! Then you should have no trouble refuting with facts the above arguments.
I won't hold my breath, since we've been over all this several times before.
: Celebrated WT scholars
More like "inebriated WT scholars".
: have published explanations as to fact that 537 was the year for the Return in harmony with Ezra and Josephus.
False. As illustrated above, the Society has published nothing more than special pleadings unaccompanied by actual arguments or data. This is trivial to prove: you can cite nothing more conclusive than their lame "in view of the Bible record".
AlanF
