Scholar pretendus wrote:
: I am entitled to defend and advocate whatever model I choose and I have chosen the model traditionally adopted by the celebrated WT scholars concerning the validity of 537 BCE as the only possible date for the Return.
Duh.
: You say that their model is based on nothing but speculation. This is sheer nonsense, it is based upon facts attested by scholars and relevant scriptures.
Nonsense. Here, I'll prove it. Under the subject "Cyrus" the Insight book states (Vol. 1, pp. 568-569):
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.
So far so good, since all the WTS writer is doing is stating exactly what the Bible states. However, the writer is completely unclear about what Cyrus' "first year as ruler toward conquered Babylon" means. Is it the first year in terms of Jewish dating, i.e., non-accession-year / Tishri dating? Or is it in terms of Babylon dating, i.e., accession-year / Nisan dating? This is touched on somewhat in the next several sentences, but nothing definite is concluded.
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.
Obviously, the WTS writer has no idea whether "Darius" ruled alone before Cyrus' first year began, or "Darius" ruled concurrently with Cyrus. The writer again does not address the problem of which dating method either Daniel or Ezra uses. So the WTS writer cannot say when Cyrus' reign began, nor when "Darius'" reign ended.
Having established nothing more than what the Bible says -- that in Cyrus' first year, whenever that was, Cyrus issued a decree freeing the Jews -- the WTS writer engages in pure speculation, pretending actually to know something by using the weasel-phrase "in view of the Bible record":
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.
Obviously, nothing whatsoever has been established about the dates in question. Nevertheless, the Insight book's article on "Chronology" use the above speculation to speculate again (Vol. 1, p. 458):
During Cyrus’ first year his decree releasing the Jews from exile was given. And, as considered in the article on CYRUS, it is very probable that the decree was made by the winter of 538 B.C.E. or toward the spring of 537 B.C.E.
Speculation, speculation, speculation.
: Certainly a degree of uncertainty is involved
LOL!
: but this is the nature of the historical record and we have to work with what we have.
Clearly, the WTS engages in pure speculation while working with what it has.
: Your model also indicates speculation in which you carefully disguise.
My model hinges on three things: (1) Ezra's clear statements, which you don't disagree with; (3) Josephus' clear statement, which you don't disagree with; (3) the assumption that Ezra and Josephus use normal Jewish non-accession-year / Tishri dating, which you cannot disprove, and for which I can provide a good deal of evidence.
: I believe our model because it is well proven
Via the above speculations!
: and is far superior to any others that I have examined including yours.
What nonsense. For nearly a year and a half you've completely ignored all of the problems for WTS claims that my argument brings up. The only reason you reject it is because it contradicts Mommy's speculations.
: Your model fails for the following reasons:
: 1. Fails to account for the reign of Darius
False. I've clearly stated that I believe Darius was a viceroy of Cyrus and the two ruled concurrently, just as Belshazzar and Nabonidus did.
: 2. Compresses the time necessary from your speculative time for the Decree until the Return allowing for a mere six months which is does not give sufficient time for the proclamation of that Decree.
False. You keep making this claim and I keep disproving it. It's simple: the Jewish captives knew very well that Cyrus was in the habit of freeing captives, and when Cyrus captured Babylon in October 539, they knew it was only a matter of time before they were set free. Daniel immediately understood (Dan. 9:1,2), when Babylon fell, that the 70 years "for Babylon" were over (Jer. 29:10), and he very likely used his high position in the Babylonian government to get an audience with Cyrus to show him the prophecy in Isaiah 44-45 that he would free the Jews. So when the beginning of Cyrus' 1st regnal year (according to Babylonian dating) rolled around in the spring of 538, the Jews were already ready to go home, and preparations almost certainly had already begun. With a trip time of 3-4 months, 2-3 months are left over for preparations before the trip and for the Jews to get settled in their cities after the trip. You can claim all you like that this isn't enough time, but you're demonstrably wrong. Furthermore, since Ezra, as a Jew, would have used Jewish dating, Cyrus' first year, according to Ezra, would have begun as soon as Cyrus began ruling over Babylon shortly after his army conquered it. Therefore the decree might have been issued even earlier than Nisan 538 BCE.
: 3. You speculate that the Decree was issued in the first month of the first year but there is no evidence for this as Ezra does not give the month in which the Decree was proclaimed.
The evidence is implicit in the fact that there is enough time for all the necessary events to take place between Nisan 538 and Tishri 538, along with Ezra's and Josephus' statements.
But you're a gross hypocrite here, as usual, because the WTS writer quoted above engages in pure speculation about the decree being issued in late 538 or early 537. Where is the evidence for that?
: 4. You speculate that the Jews arrive in Judah by the sixth month namely Elul which Ezra does not specify.
This is not speculation. Ezra clearly states that the Jews were settled in their cities by the seventh month. It doesn't take a genius to understand that the Jews must have arrived in Judah before the seventh month, namely, Elul or earlier. But you do need a lot of hand holding.
: Your model is simply one of many and if you truly believe it then you should get Jonsson to referee it and then submit it for publication in a scholarly journal so that the international community of scholars and benefit from Alan F's new found wisdom.
I don't need anyone else to tell me whether the facts I've set forth are facts. I can see them for myself.
But once again you're a gross hypocrite. If you think the Society's speculations are right, then you ought to ask the Society to submit them "for publication in a scholarly journal so that the international community of scholars and benefit from" its wisdom. You can do this yourself, too. Along with this wisdom should be published the Society's history of speculation on these dates. But of course, neither you nor the Society would do this, since you'd be laughed off the scholarly stage.
: I reject all other models because these do not work,
Wrong. You reject non-WTS claims because if you didn't, you'd have no Mommy to pat you on the head.
: are false to history
My argument is entirely in line with history. You have never -- not ever! -- provided the least bit of evidence to the contrary.
: and do not account for the termination of the seventy years celebrated at the Return in the seventh month.
My "model" accounts perfectly for the 70 years, as touched on above. It is the WTS "model" of the 70 years -- really, its tradition -- that is completely unscriptural. Once again, no modern biblical scholars go along with this claim because it twists the scriptures completely and ignores the clear meaning of passages such as 2 Chronicles 36:20, which clearly states that the Jews were no longer captive when the Persian royalty, namely Cyrus, began to reign. No one disputes that he began to reign when his army conquered Babylon. No one aside from Watchtower apologists and the like claim that the 70 years ended a long time after Cyrus began to reign. And so it goes with the rest of the scriptures.
As usual, scholar pretendus, your arguments are pure bluster and contain nothing of value -- not the least bit of real evidence or valid reasoning. But you've learned well from Mommy, haven't you.
AlanF
