Celebrated by whom?
When DID the Jews return?
by Doug Mason 73 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
neverendingjourney
I think this matter is actually pretty simple if you think about. On one hand you have a long line of qualified, disinterested historians who all have reached the conlusion that Jerusalem was first destroyed arond 587 B.C.E. On the other hand you have a bunch of unqualified, interested religious leaders and their sympathizers whose theology rests upon the validity of their 607 B.C.E. date. Hmmmm. Who should I believe? I think the answer is obvious.
-
davegod
History is not iperfect and even the Bible does contain all of the facts that we moderns demand of such a record. Chronology is not an exact scienc ebut must rely on documents or an imperfect record so as to provide a framework in which the reader cam understand that record. Regarding the history of the Return there are some details that we simply do not know and one must make certain assumptions in order to utilize what data or facts are available. In this case we have two basic facts namely that the Decree was made in the first year of the reign of Cyrus which most if not all authoriies agree ran from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537 BCE. The other fact is that the Jews returned home by the seventh month but it is not stated in what year.
I have consulted much information concerning this event of the Return and all of these authorities make assumptions as does the WT writers so that is the nature of the beast however our approach using all of the available evidence 'proves' that 537 BCE was the year of the Return. In your thesis you develop a number of scenarios to show that the WT model is unprovable and you too use assumptions but you prouce no result.
I believe that what the WT society has written on this subject over many decades and encompasssing all facts and assumptions have well and truly proven their case. Carl Jonsson who is a much more thorough critic of WT chronology and the sacred date of 607 BCE has left 537 BCE more or less alone. If he felt for one moment that the WT was 'weak' in this specific matter then he would have exploited this grevious error to the full. At best he finds in favour of 538 BCE which differs from your 'probable' 536 or 535 BCE. You are the onlyperson that I am aware of who has spent so much research on this subject and I have been involve with chronology for nearly forty years.
I cannot add more to this matter than what has already been published by 'celebrated' WT scholars but I can vigourosly defend their position. In my opinion 537 BCE is provable and is the precise year for the Return which in turn leads to 607 BCE as the precise year for the Fall of Jerusalem beginning the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE.
Chronology is imperfect as I have stated but one works with what facts are availabel, adhering to the integrity of God's Word rather than profane secular souces and Holy Spirit which is our Helper, all work together in constructing a chronology that produces faith and inspires prophesying.
There is little value gained by simply 'throwing stones' at something unless you offer something better or thruthful. You say you seek truth then you should produce a result, a precise year for that epochal event is now demanded of you. If you cannot produce the goods then perhaps humbly acknowledge the work of others because truth is found in a community not from an isolated one. Criticism for the sake of criticism is not wisdom but amounts to foolishness even though it appeals to our vain intellect. Wisdom is present with that faithful slave who traditionally established that 537 BCE is the date of the Return despite the darkness that pervades Christendom and her scholars.
scholar JW
This post just unproved 537. You should try reading what you post.
-
scholar
Alan F
Post 5063
At last you are here; You have big problem with Doug Mason because you dogmatically assert that 538 BCE was the date of the Return whereas Mason asserts in his thesis 'By the Rivers of Babylon: The Jews Return Home, June 2007, p.2 "No one knows exactly when the Jews returned to their homeland/ It possibly happened in 536 BCE but it could have been as late as 535 BCE". So much for the apostate date 538 BCE!!!!
When the careful research of the celebrated WT scholars is ignored then confusion abounds as well demonstrated by the above.
scholar JW
-
AlanF
It matters not what various people say, scholar pretendus -- it matters a great deal what people prove. I've proved, using nothing but Ezra and Josephus, that the Jews returned in 538 BCE. Neither you nor your stupid WT 'scholars' have proved anything at all. WT publications merely declare that 537 is correct; you do the same. The fact that you steadfastly refuse to comment on Josephus' decisive statement connecting statements in Ezra with the date of the return of the Jews proves that you know you cannot disprove this connection.
AlanF
-
AlanF
Doug,
I think your essay is quite good overall, except for the dating of the return of the Jews. In a number of posts, I've shown that Ezra and Josephus together strongly indicate that the return was in 538 BCE. If one accepts that the statements by Ezra and Josephus are correct, then this indication constitutes proof. You can find one such discussion here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/118291/1.ashx
One thing that I think you're incorrect about is stating that Ezra used Tishri/accession year dating. My own conclusion, based on a good deal of reading scholarly material, is that most Bible writers, including Ezra, used Tishri/non-accession year dating.
With that in mind, Cyrus' 1st year according to Ezra would have run Tishri, 539 to Tishri, 538 BCE. Then the Jews could easily have been back in Judah by Tishri, 538 BCE.
Note that my discussion in the above link implicitly assumes Nisan dating, but I specifically point out that the arguments work perfectly well with Tishri dating by Ezra and Josephus.
AlanF
-
Doug Mason
Dear JW Scholar,
Thank you for the discussion. It has been most revealing.
I am certain others will gain from seeing the significance of the issue. They will see that, as you say, the date is "traditionally established" by the WTS.
I am not interested in a Popish "tradition", but others might be. When they next see 607 BCE trotted out, people will know that the date depends on a "tradition" of 537 BCE for the return of the Jews.
You have done a great service, and shown the feebleness of the WTS's position.
There is no need for me to replace the date, since it is inconsequential. It is a non-issue for me. These dates are only of concern to the WTS, even for its very existence. For others like me, they provide a means for showing how the WTS behaves, and to illustrate the WTS for what it is.
You have confirmed for me the dictum that "Witnesses believe the WTS because of who it claims to be, not because of what it says".
Next time.
Regards,
Doug -
Doug Mason
Alan,
Thank you for your thoughts and support.
I will have a good look through the outcomes of your research and if I find solid evidence, I will amend my material. I have not stopped learning, nor lost the desire to learn.
I will do the same if Scholar is able to furnish proof.
Regards,
Doug -
AlanF
I look forward to your further comments, Doug.
In the meantime, you pointed out correctly that the 537 date is "traditionally established" by the WTS, just as I've pointed out to scholar pretendus here (as well as other JW apologists) dozens of times. However, this tradition only goes back to the 1940s. Prior to that, they used 536 BCE, based on claims they now admit were faulty (and were known to be faulty by good scholars at least as far back as the 1860s). A careful study of WTS literature from the 1940s onward shows that the only reason the WTS changed this date was because they changed 606 BCE to 607, and they needed to retain the 1914 date at all costs.
AlanF
-
scholar
Alan F
Post 5064
In matters of chronology any so called 'proof' is relative to methodology and interpretation of history so yes you have 'proved' that 538 BCE is the date for the Return just as 'celebrated' WT scholars have also 'proved' that 537 BCE is tthat date. Similarly, Mason has also proved that there is no 'proof' for any date whatsoever.
Why not just stick to the basic facts and those assumptions that are made necessary in order to historize the Return. Those facts as presennted in the WT publications over decades demonstarate that 537 BCE is the only p;ossible date that accommodates all relevant factors namely the acknowledgement of the reign of Darius, the first year of Cyrus counts from Nisan, journey home, and that the end of the seventy years was synchronistic with Cyrus' first year and not at Babylon's Fall.
You have proved nothing but your fantasy that 538 BCE is the date for ignores relevant matters of history for all that you have done is sketched a model or calendation. Mason proves that there are are no models that work according to his bias against the WT. It is that same bias that prevents you from acknowledge those simple historicisms that are only acknowledged by the 'celebrated' ones.
scholar JW