539 BCE

by Zico 142 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Alleymom

  The difference of sixteen years in the reign of Amel -Marduk

  Neil ---
  
  The cuneiform tablets show that Amel Marduk reigned two years.
  "Celebrated Watchtower scholars" also tell us that Amel Marduk reigned two years.
  

  Secular scholars and the WTS agree: Amel Marduk reigned two years.

  Why do you disregard the regnal information given by the Society?
  Did the "celebrated Watchtower scholars" make a mistake?

  Are you seriously suggesting that we should reject the regnal lengths given by both the WTS AND modern critical scholarship and accept, in their place, readings from centuries-old, non-contemporary manuscripts of Josephus, who was himself writing many centuries after the Babylonian exile?

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/117184/2058310/post.ashx#2058310

  Regards,
  Marjorie
• 

  gymbob

  Scholar~

  I'm kinda' new here, but, geez.........get a life!

  IP's right, why would a person have to go to such means to prove a point that is STILL in question?! In all your "studies", did it ever occur to you that most people on this side of the GALAXY shouldn't really have to (and DON'T) care?
• 

  Alleymom

  Josephus who is the only source for the claim of Berossus that Evil-Merdoch's reign was two years also stated that the reign was eighteen years which creates a difference of sixteen years at least. You should consult the later refernces on Evil Merodach in the Aid and Insight publications because they were written after the 1965 WT which simply repeated a common viewpoint but was further clarified from 1969 forward with the Aid research.

  Sorry, Neil, our messages crossed. I had not seen this reply when I posted my last message.
  
  So are you saying the 1965 WT was wrong?
  
  It does not seem to me that the Insight book contradicts the 1965 WT.

  *** 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.

  ** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***
  
  Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.

  The contemporary cuneiform tablets establish Amel Marduk's reign beyond any matter of doubt.

  Have you read Ronald H. Sack's Amel-Marduk: 562-560 B.C.; a study based on cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and rabbinical sources?

  Have you read Stefan Zawadzki's "Political Situation in Babylonia during Amel-Marduk's Rule," in Sulmu IV: Everyday Life in the Ancient Near East, Papers presented at the International Conference, Poznan 19-22 September 1989, (ed. J. Zablocka, S. Zawadzki), Poznan 1993 ?

  Regards,
  Marjorie Alley
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  Marjorie

  The cunieform tablets presently as understood assign two years for Evil-Merodach but the historian Josephus contradicts such testimony. I and the celebrated WT scholars cannot be held responsible for this contradiction for it simnply shows that secular evidence can be unreliable as it plainly is in this case.

  It is not a matter of a mistake for the earlier WT simply repeated current knowledge of the Babylonian period but with the advent of more detailed bibl,ical research it is simply drawn to the attention of Bible students what the position actually is. We can be ever grateful for such illustrious and careful research by the 'celebrated' ones. There is a fact that in the case of this Babylonian ruler that is reign is subject to some uncertainty.

  As I have said many times bad history equals bad chronology and there are many examples where current scholarship shows bad history. The best example of this is the subject of the seventy years by current scholarship which is sadly ignored or at best trivialized.

  scholar JW
• 

  AlanF

  scholar pretendus goatus buggerus continues to ignore the fact that Josephus clobbers Watchtower chronology.

  In Against Apion I,21, Josephus says concerning the temple that "in the second year of the reign of Cyrus the foundations were laid". The 2nd year of Cyrus spanned 537-536 B.C. (March/April 537 to February/March 536). Ezra 1-3 states that the temple foundations were laid in the 2nd month (Iyaar; April/May) of the year after which the Jews returned to Judah. If the Jews returned to Judah in Tishri (September/October) 538, then the temple was begun to be rebuilt in the 2nd month of the Jewish year that began in 537 B.C., namely, Iyaar (April/May). Again, this was in Cyrus' 2nd year, which is consistent with what Josephus stated, and so the Jews' return in 538 is established by Josephus.

  But if the Jews returned in September/October of 537 B.C., then the "2nd month" of the year after their return was April/May of 536, which Josephus disconfirms because this would have been in Cyrus' 3rd year. This is the only available secular evidence on this question, and it contradicts the Watchtower's claims.

  Let's see if scholar pretendus can deal with the actual evidence, rather than dismissing it with the usual transparently stupid denials. He's fooling no one but himself.

  AlanF
• 

  jayhawk1

  SCHOLAR,

  I am serious about what I said before, who are these celebrated scholars so I can use their papers as references in any of my college classes they might apply in. Nobody else on this board seems to know who they are, and I sure don't know who they are. But you seem to know their names, and I want to see what scholastic papers they have published.
• 

  AlanF

  scholar pretendus goatus buggerus said to AuldSoul:

  : can you explain the following:

  I certainly can comment.

  : 1. Seven missing years of Nebuchadnezzer's madness.

  What's to explain? You have not asked a question or posed a problem that needs explaining.

  : 2. Twenty year gap between biblical and Neo-Babylonian chronology

  There is no gap. The gap is only between secular/biblical chronology and Watchtower chronology, as a host of scholars and other commentators have proved.

  : 3. Egypt's missing forty years of desolation

  Egypt was never desolated for forty years. There is no secular evidence whatsoever for such a claim. The only biblical evidence is a minor statement in the book of Ezekiel, which is highly open to interpretation, just as the biblical statement of 70 years of desolation for Tyre is open to interpretation.

  : 4. The difference of sixteen years in the reign of Amel -Marduk

  That difference is only between two contradictory claims of Josephus. Josphus demonstrably makes many statements that are self-contradictory and that contradict facts of history reliably established by other means. For example, he made several statements that seem to say that the temple was desolate for 70 years, but he also cites and agrees with figures from Berossus that the temple was desolate for 50 years. Statements from a historian who often contradicts himself cannot be taken as gospel without confirmation from other sources.

  : 5. Seventy years of Judean captivity missing from the Babylonian Annals

  The Jews as a whole were not captive for 70 years, but only for about 50. A few Jews, such as Daniel, were captive to Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty from 605 B.C. forward, but when said dynasty was destroyed in 539 B.C., they were no longer captive to it. That's a total of 66 years.

  Your points are entirely self-serving and posed from the viewpoint that Watchtower chronology is undeniably correct. Since it is not, your points are easily shown to be silly.

  AlanF
• 

  Alleymom

  The cunieform tablets presently as understood assign two years for Evil-Merodach but the historian Josephus contradicts such testimony. I and the celebrated WT scholars cannot be held responsible for this contradiction for it simnply shows that secular evidence can be unreliable as it plainly is in this case.

  The dated cuneiform business tablets recording transactions for each year of Amel Marduk's reign are primary evidence.

  The readings from late manuscripts of Josephus (copied hundreds of years after Josephus died) are not primary evidence, they are tertiary at best. Even if we did have Josephus's original manuscripts, signed and dated by Josephus personally, these would not constitute primary evidence, because Josephus was writing about events that occurred more than half a millenium before he was born. Josephus did not have access to the primary evidence, the dated contemporary cuneiform records.

  It is not a matter of a mistake for the earlier WT simply repeated current knowledge of the Babylonian period but with the advent of more detailed bibl,ical research it is simply drawn to the attention of Bible students what the position actually is. We can be ever grateful for such illustrious and careful research by the 'celebrated' ones. There is a fact that in the case of this Babylonian ruler that is reign is subject to some uncertainty.

  This is just nonsense, Neil. None of the cuneiform tablets published after the 1965 WT article changed the regnal years of the neo-Babylonian kings! On the contrary, the publication of each cuneiform tablet since 1965 has only served to further confirm the regnal years of each king.

  And it is certainly not the case that the reading in Josephus was "discovered" for the first time after the 1965 WT article.

  You are suggesting that the 1965 WT article was wrong when it said that Amel Marduk reigned two years. You suggest that the 1965 WT authors were not acting under divine guidance, but were merely repeating current information about the Babylonian period. You suggest that some type of new information came to light after the 1965 article was published.

  So what new "illustrious and careful research" came to light after the 1965 WT article was published?

  Regards,
  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  Your Neo-Babylonian chronology is shonky, it is wobbly because there is confusion over the precise length of the reign of Amel-Marduk or Evil-Merodach. Some authorities give his reign two years whereas Josephus gives him eighteen years so this makes your supposed list of conjectured 66 or 67 years useless. Try again and try harder!

  I meant to ask you before, can you tell me what the word "shonky" means? I take it this is an Aussie term?

  And since the 1965 WT says that Amel Marduk reigned for two years, does this mean that the 1965 WT scholars were guilty of presenting a "shonky" chronology?

  Marjorie
• 

  Leolaia

  The reason why celebrated sectarian WT scholars writers prefer the Persian chronology over the Neo-Babylonian chronology invent their own chronology is because the pagan Babylonians people who lived in Neo-Babylonian times ignore were altogether ignorant of the biblical 'seventy years' a period of 'seventy years' between the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish exile which creates a twenty year gap between biblical chronology and secular chronology leads WT writers to insert an extra twenty years into the period.
  

  Also, Neo-Babylonian chronology records of chronological importance left by Neo-Babylonians has poor history omitting significant biblical events naturally knew Neo-Babylonian history far better than events pertaining to a foreign people and the regnal data for some of the Babylonian monarchs is unreliable and the regnal chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period is especially well attested and confirmed by multiple sources.

  Finally, as I have repeatedly informed you failed to note with respect to the WT that chronology is dependent upon methodology and interpretation, so it is that the 'ceelbrated' the WT as well have simply chosen has adopted as well a different a flawed methodology from other scholars that inadequately accounts for a majority of the evidence. The same 'celebrated' writers have expained the fact of even place the Return in 537 BCE which is not explained to the same degree by other wordly scholars who simply fuse the Decree of Cyrus and the Return in c. 538 BCE in spite of the evidence from the Chronicler and the Cyrus Cylinder. Such scholars WT writers have no interest in assert 537 BCE as the precise time of the Return of the Exiles because it is the only date that will still produce 1914 even tho this date was originally calculated from 536 BCE, the date originally thought to be the first year of Cyrus when the Decree was made.

  scholar JW pseudo-scholar JW apologist