Scholar,
We know how the WTS accommodates the difference of 20 years between its date for the destruction of Jerusalem and the conventionally accepted date – it assumes that one or more Babylonian kings ruled longer than is accepted. In particular, they hint that Nabonidus reigned for longer than the accepted 17 years.
I had expected that this difference of 20 years would be maintained with the earlier dates, but my Table suggests this is not so. It appears that the difference between the WTS’s dates and the conventional dates keeps increasing.
If this is so, I would like to know the precise points where the difference is increased, and the exact reason that the WTS gives.
Doug
An apparent drift in WTS dates
by Doug Mason 16 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Doug Mason
-
scholar
Doug Mason
Post 424
Your question is simply answered. It should come as no surprise that the the missing twenty years is only located within the bounds of the Neo-Babylonian period wherein the last Judean kings reigned and whence the pivotal dates are established then it simply a matter of adding the regnal data over the Monarchic period to determine the approximate years for the respective reigns for Judah and Israel. So. it is the case that the celebrated WT scholars have developed a consistent chronology of the Divided Monarchy that approximates the 390 prophetic period specified by Ezekiel.
However, you err in assuming that the twenty years must govern throughout the period the position of the regnal years rather it is the case that each respective reign is positioned by the scriptural data alone. Further, you are mistaken in using only one column for so called 'conventional dates'. There is no such thing as a tabulation of conventional dates. I assume because of your SDA influence that you adopt the chronology of Edwin Theile but there are equally many other scholars that have their own chronologies for the period so there can be no conventional chronology.
The reason for this is because scholars such as Thiele, Hooker, Hayes, Bright, Cogan and Tadmor and others have foolishly adopted a methodology that creates confusion, contradictions by allegiance to Neo-Babylonian chronology and ignoring the Scriptures such as the historical fact of the seventy years. In illustration of this confusion is shown by conslting the chart ' The Kings of Judah' on page 30 in Chronological And Background Charts of the Old Testament by John H. Walton, 1994, Zondervan Publishing House.
The chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah as presented in the WT publications succeeds where others fail simply because it is simpleand wholly upon history and the Bible. Nothing succeeds more than truth.
scholar JW
-
Doug Mason
Dear Scholar,
Thank you for your response, and I hope that with your knowledge and information you will now be prepared to answer my questions.
I did not ask, “who is correct?” Instead, I asked for the precise point where an increased divergence occurs, and the reasons for that increase.
Since you say I am mistaken in using one column for the “conventional” dates, I have added some columns to the Table. I have emailed it to you in Word format so that you can fill in the details for me.
Despite your assumptions, I did not obtain dates that might suit any prior religious association. Your affiliation determines your thinking, but my affiliations never control mine. Besides, my association with the SDAs ended over 25 years ago.
I do not know or nor did I consult the dates provided by Theile or the others that you listed, so I need you to help me. I will be interested to see how they impact the Table.
I actually got the framework for the dates from a book that I believe you also own: “The NIV Study Bible”.
Could you please provide me with the page you refer to?
I find it interesting that you focus on WHO said something rather than detail WHAT they said. I also find your two uses of “approximate” quite interesting.
The “Seventy Years” and the neo-Babylonian chronology are actually irrelevant to my enquiry. I simply mentioned that we already know the cause of the divergence for that period, so I am interested in the prior period.
Regards,
Doug -
searcher
*celebrated WT scholars* I love that joke :D Doug, Interesting chart.
-
scholar
Doug Mason
Post 426
Have been out of town these last few days so have now the time to post a response. I have your email and will reply to that separately.
The reasons for the divergence between WT/Bible chronology and other systems is simply the fact that Ezekiel provides a prophetic framework of the history of Israel and Judah of 390 years. Therefore, celebrated WT scholars having established a 'pivotal date' simply count back with the regnal data of the kings found in the OT. Other chronologies employ a different methodologies hence producing widely different results. Our approach is simple and that is its strength whereas the others are too complex and fail to inspire confidence. The point of difference would be the choice of the pivotal or Absolute Date and whereas we accept 539 BCE other systems have different dates alltogether.
You are the misconception that there is only one conventional chronology which you have taken from the NIV Bible, this chronology is most likely that of Edwin Thiele but his system is simply one amongst many. So, it is most unwise to compare our chronology with simply numerous systems which in themselves are problematic. All of these fall well short of the '390 years yardstick' so my scholarly advice is to ditch the the other nonsense and utilize WT chronology. I have already given the page number of the cited reference as page 30 and you can obtain this book from Koorong Books at about the princely
sum of ten dollars at time of purchase some years ago.
scholar JW
If you require a detailed explanation of each and every king then you should consult the charts of the Divided Monarchy, pp.340-347 in the publication Aid to Bible Understanding
-
Doug Mason
Thanks for your email reply and your post.
I will look into this further, but at this stage it looks like a long study, since I want to detail the precise points of departure and the reasons.
Doug -
Jeffro
OMG, is 'scholar' still alive??? ('alive' in the sense of 'being active on this website' in case anyone imagines I'm making some kind of threat)
The supposed '390 year yardstick' is irrelevant and of not help to JWs because it is entirely relative to itself. On the other hand, the tabulation I have previously presented complies completely with the '390 year yardstick', and is also compatible with secular records of the period, including the reconciliation of “the interval of one hundred and eighty-two years and a half. From the captivity of the ten tribes to the first year of Cyrus” indicated by Josephus; the WTS model fails completely on this yardstick, and all others. 'scholar' loses again.