The missing 20 years and Jehoiachin's exile

by AuldSoul 28 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AuldSoul

  In my attempt to make this issue as simplified as possible, I have set out to determine exactly wherein the WTS' missing 20 years must be found (607 BC versus 587/86 BC). I think I have done it, and I would like some confirmation/correction from Alleymom, Leolaia, Narkissos and any others who consider themselves scholarly types.

  First, using the KISS method Alleymom posted some time back I regressed the accession years of the kings. Since the Hillah Stele astronomically confirms the first regnal year of Nabonidus in 555 BC, and since the WTS unqualifiedly agrees with this date (although they neglect to inform WHY they agree), Nabonidus' accession year was 556 BC. Per both the WTS regnal year regression and secular history the following is true:

  Labashi-Marduk only ruled during 556 BC.

  Neriglissar ruled from 560 BC to 556 BC.

  Evil-Merodach ruled from 562 BC to 560 BC.

  And stop. Why? Because this is as far as we need to go. Somehow, WT apologists must explain why we have to stuff 20 extra years between 562 BC and 556 BC. Enter Jeremiah and 2 Kings.

  Jeremiah 52:31-34
  
  31 At length it came about in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin the king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-fifth day of the month, that Evil-merodach the king of Babylon, in the year of his becoming king, raised up the head of Jehoiachin the king of Judah and proceeded to bring him forth from the prison house. 32 And he began to speak with him good things and to put his throne higher than the thrones of the [other] kings that were with him in Babylon. 33 And he took off his prison garments, and he ate bread before him constantly all the days of his life. 34 And as for his allowance, there was a constant allowance given him from the king of Babylon, daily as due, until the day of his death, all the days of his life.

  2 Kings 24:12
  
  . . .and the king of Babylon got to take him in the eighth year of his being king. . .

  From the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar to the end of the ascension year of Evil-Merodach is 36 years (it was IN the 37th that the events of Jeremiah 52 are reported to have occurred). Secular history holds that Jehoiachin was exiled in 597 BC. The Watchtower Society has this date:

  *** Insight Volume 1, p. 1267 Jehoiachin *** "His rule ended, however, a mere three months and ten days later, when he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 617 B.C.E. (in the month of Adar, according to a Babylonian chronicle)."

  Whichever date is correct, 36 years later was Evil-Merodach's accession year.

  Therefore, in order for the Watchtower Society chronology to be correct we must account for an extra 20 years between secular history's dates for Evil-Merodach's accession year and Nabonidus' accession year. Somehow a period of only 6 years (7 at the outside limit) must be stretched into 26 years.

  I don't think this can be done, but I am willing to examine any evidence mustered by ANY supposed scholar in favor of the WTS chronology given this line of argument.

  Is this reasoning correct? If not, why not?
• 

  yesidid

  Very good thinking and research AuldSoul.

  Comon Neil, what's your answer? This is your big opportunity to show yourself a "celebrated scholar".

  yesidid
• 

  stillajwexelder

  I am posting on behalf of scholar.

  Celebrated Watchtower Scholars have no need to refute this. Bible and WT Chronolgy is superior to that from you wily poztates. Jeruslam fell in 607 BCE and the land kept Sabbath until 537 BCE.
• 

  Sheri

  Per phone conversation with society on the 607 vx 586:

  "its only 20 years difference"

  When presenting list of kings and calculating the years of each as to the pitoval date of 539

  "you are doing traditional math"

  When asking if they were not forcing a date to get to 1914 then 1918 for being appointed over all by Christ

  "We go by what the Bible states and that is why 607 is correct and not secular dates"

  You can put as much as you want in front of them and they will not accept it because to do so would take away their power, I believe they can see it but it is the "control", "power", and "$$$$" that blinds them to show love to the flock, who are in fear of leaving the Society, opps I mean Jehovah.

  Peace,

  Sheri
• 

  Alwayshere

  Auidsoul, My "Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary" says Jehoiakim begin to rule in 609. Jehoiachin finished the last few months of his 11 years. Zedekiah was the last ruler who ruled 11 years. 609 -22 = 587. 587 - 537 = 50 years that Jerusalem was desolated.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Alwayshere,

  I believe you will find that secular history holds Jehoichin as having been dethroned in 597 BC (as the three months and ten days spanned the turning of the year), while WTS holds the date as being 617 BC (a difference of exactly 20 years, and the key to the puzzle of exactly where the WTS inserted the 20 year difference to make their "Chronology" work).

  Zedekiah was established as vassal ruler in the place of Jehoiachin and reigned well into his 10th regnal year. Albright dates his reign 597 BC - 587 BC. Thiele offers 597 BC - 586 BC. The discrepancy is a result of uncertainty regarding a few months that also spanned the turning of a year, and that freely admitted minor uncertainty is challenged by Jehovah's Witnesses as grounds to add in the missing 20 years and simultaneously assert that secular ANE chronology is bogus. However:

  (1) Both scholars agree that 597 BC is the date for Zedekiah's reign to begin.

  (2) Both agree that 597 BC was the date of Jehoiachin's exile.

  (3) For the purposes of determining that 607 BC could not possibly be the correct date, we do not need to consider Zedekiah at all.

  That is the reason for my presenting this. I figured out where the 20 years HAD to be stuck in order for the WTS chronology to work. The WTS must explain why 6 years should become 26 years to make 607 BC the date for Jerusalem's destruction.

  I am not sure why you brought Jehoiakim or Zedekiah into the discussion, since (as far as I know) neither of them have much bearing at all on the point of the thread.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Borgia

  Stillajwexelder, dn´t you forget to mention the admonition to joyfully consider the abundance of fine spiritual food provided by the S-class?

  Auldsoul, Did you take into account the 7 times of Nebu? No? oh, well, if you use the 3 day period of Jonah being in the fish, you´ll agree that it is a prophetic period, multiply this by seven and behold: there´s your 20 years. (yes, we don't count accension years for obvious reasons)

  Spot on, man, another hole in the WT chronology. It start me wondering why Jesus, Paul, Peter, the Pharisees etc, have ever come up with an explanation like that. I mean Midrash has the ability to go to great lengths. But then again, it limits itself by the rule that the obvious explanation my not be taken away from the scripture or may contradict any other. Here´s for the 7 time "prophesy". Cut and dried.

  cheers

  Borgia
• 

  Leolaia

  According to M.J., Babylonian king Nevawuzza ruled from 576-556 BC, just before Nabonidus.
• 

  M.J.

  Thanks, and yes, I challenge all you naysaying apostates to prove Nevawuzza didn't exist!!!

  Let’s see what Insight on the Scriptures says on the matter. It actually sets up a definitive succession of Babylonian kings up through Neriglissar:

  Nebuchadnezzar-->Evil-Merodach-->Neriglissar

  Here's where it says Evil-Merodach followed Nebuchadnezzar, and Neriglissar followed Evil-Merodach:

  *** it-1 pp. 238-239

  Finally, after a 43-year reign , which included both conquest of many nations and a grand building program in itself, Nebuchadnezzar II died in October of 582 B.C.E. and was succeeded by Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach ). This new ruler showed kindness to captive King Jehoiachin. (2Ki 25:27-30) Little is known about the reigns of Neriglissar, evidently the successor of Evil-merodach, and of Labashi-Marduk.

  *** it-1 p. 283 Belshazzar ***

  A cuneiform tablet dated as from the accession year of Neriglissar, who followed Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach) on the Babylonian throne.

  Then, Insight explains that Nabonidus followed Labashi-Markduk:

  *** it-2 p. 458 Nabonidus ***

  Nabonidus’ ascension to the throne followed the assassination of Labashi-Marduk

  In addition, Insight also sets the lengths of reign for both Evil-Merodach and for Neriglissar:

  *** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***

  For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found . For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year .

  Ok, so doing the math,

  43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar = 582 BCE (based on Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE)

  582 BCE

  - 2 (E.M.'s length of rule—remember we’re subtracting years to move forward in time)

  - 4 (Neriglissar's length of rule)

  576 BCE

  So therefore, the twenty year gap according to Insight on the Scriptures most likely happens after 576 BCE, and before the reign of Nebonidus. Insight also insinuates that Nebonidus may have reigned for 17 years,

  *** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus ***

  Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire; father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.). He was given to literature, art, and religion.

  but leaves open the possibility that he may have ruled for more years later in the article.

  So it appears that the greatest possibilities according to the WTS for the twenty year gap would be either: Labashi-Marduk reigned for twenty years (“secular” evidence demonstrates he only reigned 9 months), or there was a missing king in between the reigns of Neriglissar and Labashi-Marduk.

  Missing king:
• 

  SirNose586

  Per phone conversation with society on the 607 vx 586:
  "its only 20 years difference"
  Wooooooooow! 20 years difference, no big whoop, right? Try selling history books wherein you claim that George W. Bush became president in 1980. I'm sure the Org. will buy them from you.
  When presenting list of kings and calculating the years of each as to the pitoval date of 539
  "you are doing traditional math"
  Ooooohhhh, I'm sorry. I know what the problem is. I'm doing "traditional" math. See, when you're a Dub, you don't need to do traditional math, where the figures add up and everything makes sense. You can do Watchtower TM math, and make up whatever numbers you want!
  There was another guy who confronted the Org. with a mountain of research, and here's how they responded to him: 607vs.587.com