Hi hamsterbait: You note:
The Egyptian historical records also show 587 as the date of Jerusalem being sacked. Their records also confirm that the land was too valuable for agriculture, as trading of goods continued with the region throughout the "desolation" alleged by the WT Babble and Trash. The Babylonians also record figs, dates and other foods being brought from Judah.
Would you mind being more specific? Archaeologists have also claimed there was a continued occupation of some cities after Jerusalem was destroyed and thus the land was not left totally desolate. The Bible says it was and so does Josephus.
Archaeologically, we have proof from Ashkelon, one of the cities specifically mentioned as drinking the cup of Nebuchadnezzar as being desolated for 70-80 years ending in the Persian Period!!! So at least one city is confirmed by archaeology not to have continued habitation. Archaeologists on the other hand can only guess to a certain extent based on what they find what actually happened. You know, if some people left for 70 years and then used the same pottery they were using 70 years ago, an archaeologist would presume a continuous, uninterrpted period, which isn't necessarily the case. So it is subjective.
However, it is an interesting point of reference as far as the Biblical story. Thus if you have a more SPECIFIC reference as to confirming the land was still occupied after year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar, I would like to discuss it, otherwise, it may not really be absolute proof the Bible is incorrect about the desolation for 70 years.
Fortunately, thanks to the VAT4956's references to 511 BCE, we can correct both the RELATIVE as well as the ABSOLUTE chronology. That is, Josephus dates the 70 years from the last deportation, year 23. That means there are 70 years from the 1st of Cyrus back to year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. If year 37 falls in 511 BCE per the VAT4956, then year 23 falls in 525 BCE. 70 years later in 455 BCE. Funny to me an ancient though cryptic astronomical text reflects the Bible's own chronology for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar! But no big surprise, the pagans revised their chronology all the time. In fact, the end chronology we get is only what the revisionists leave us, right?
It would be interesting, however, to really see specifically what there is, archaeologically or based on records that there were still people in the region of Judea during the period of time it was supposed to be desolated for 70 years. Now I do know some references might note that some people were left in the land after Jerusalem was destroyed, but the Bible confirms that! The critical text here would not thus be that reference, but whether or not there is a reference of continued occupation after year 23.
IN the context of the WTS, indeed I think this reference is used to confirm some people were still in the land immediately after the fall of Jerusalem. But the WTS is incorrect to start the 70-year desolation the same year. Josephus starts it with the last deportation, which was from Judea. Jeremiah likewise notes those who ran down to Egypt would return to Jerusalem, if only for a few months (Jer 44:14,28).
So YES, definitely the WTS is wrong about the 70 years beginning the same year Jerusalem was destroyed. And a reference noting some being left in the land after the destruction would contradict that false and non-Biblical reference. But it would not necessarily contradict the Bible or Josephus which both begin the 70-year desolation in the 23rd year.
As far as the idea of valuable agriculture, etc. Again, this was precisely the reason for leaving the "poor people" in the land to continue the crops originally. So without more specific information, I see no contradiction with the Bible for that reference for that intent.
But again, we at least have one city with clear-cut archaeological findings, Ashkelon, that definitely was desolated for 70-80 years.
Since I'm asking for a specific reference, I'll do the same. Here is the excerpt from BAR on Ashkelon:
One thing is clear: this large, sophisticated Philistine metropolis of the late seventh century B.C.E. was thoroughly destroyed. The destruction of Philistine Ashkelon was complete and final. The Iron Age, in archaeological terms, had ended.
Archaeology cannot be so precise as to date the destruction of Ashkelon to 604 B.C.E., but the Babylonian Chronicle leaves little doubt that the late seventh-century destruction we found all over the site, followed by a 75- to 80-year gap in occupation until the Persian Period, was the work of Nebuchadrezzar in 604 B.C.E.
BAR 22:01, Jan/Feb 1996
Thanks for your reference.
BUT I'll again note in passing. Everything will fall not on the revised tests from the NB Period but on whether or not it can be proven that Xenophon was hired by the Persians to revise Greek history. When he added the 58 years it obviously caused lots of problems. Many of those problems are where people are doing things before they were born. Or in the case of one student of Archytas, the student dying before Archytas was born! This is what happens when you expand the timeline that greatly. When you remove those years, though, then these lives overlap and we understand the contextual reference that these people knew each other, etc. I have a whole list of contradictions all pointing to an unorthodox expansion of the Greek Period.
Further, Xenophon is clearly the culprit agent here, but he enlists the help of Plato, Aristotle and Plato's students to help with the revisionism. It's quite clever. Ever wonder why Xenophon and Plato are the primary publishers of Socrates' dialogues. How nice of them, we think at first until we realize Socrates, who moved back in time with the PPW had to be edited! So immediately Plato is implicated in the conspiracy as well. But why not? They were admirers of Themistocles to upon fleeing to Greece decided to remain there and live the life of a rich man. Athens was always ostracizing every one of their great heros so they often flip-flopped in their loyalties. Persia was playing politics as well, so it was not a stretch to sell out. In the case of Xenophon who was sympathetic to Sparta, his revising the timeline could have been in part in exchange for monetary support from Persia for the Spartans whom the Persians were playing against the Athenians.
In the meantime, now that we've discovered that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king, YOU would be hard pressed to explain why "Artaxerxes" is buried between Darius I and Darius II at Naqshi-Rustam. Of course, obviously, this IS "Xerxes" only he had adopted a new title when he became king like all the other kings. And guess what?
Along with your promotion of the Egibi texts you need to consider this one below. It's dated year 38 of a king "Arses also known as Artaxerxes":
Unfortunately comparison with the dating formulae of the Astronomical Diaries does not help very much. In these formulae the name of the father of the reigning king is never mentioned. The formula used here is: PN ša PN2 (LUGAL) MU-šú na-bu-ú, "PN, who is called king PN2." See for example AD I, p. 152, no. -346, left edge: MU 12.KAM mÚ-ma-kuš šá mÁr-tak-šat-su LUGAL MU-šú na-bu-ú, "year 12 of Ochos, who is called king Artaxerxes (III)"; MU 38.KAM mÁr-šú LUGAL šá mÁr-tak-šat-su LUGAL MU-šú [na-bu-ú], "year 38 of king Arses, who is called king Artaxerxes (II)" (AD I, p. 136, no. -366 B lower edge; on tablet A left edge the title LUGAL, "king," added to both names, has been omitted in both cases); mÚ-ma-kuš šá mDa-a-ri-muš MU-šú SA 4, "Ochos, who is called Darius (II)" (AD I, p. 66, no. -391 B obv. 1).
What king called "Arses" is also "Artaxerxes" who ruled up to year 38? This proves that Xerxes (Arses) and Artaxerxes were, indeed, the same king as the Bible claims.
You also have the issue of the faces chiseled off the images at Persepolis which sports all three kings, Darius, Xerxes and Artaxerxes. You cannot distinguish Xerxes from Artaxerxes, but Artaxerxes did have this famous longer right hand! In that regard, XERXES changes his right hand position from holding onto the back of the throne, suggesting he's a co-ruler, "sharing" the throne, to vertically in a meaningless gesture. IF this is the famous longer right hand of "Artaxerxes, LONGIMANUS" then it would explain the change in hand posture!! It is at least very strong circumstantial evidence that Xerxes was already famous for this longer right hand, which became his trademark as "Artaxerxes, Longimanus." Check it out:
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/xerxeshand.html (Xerxes hand position)
So the bottom line NOW is, there is plenty of evidence showing Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king, right in line with the Bible, we have more than enough basis for linking Xenophon with additions to the Greek timeline, and the VAT4956 alternatively dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to both 568 and 511 BCE, the significance of the 511 BCE dating being that it creates a relative 70-year interval between the last deportation in year 23 and the first of Cyrus, and an absolute dating as well dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE as the Bible requires. So unless you can explain why Artaxerxes is buried between Darius I and Darius II, or why Plato is being consulted in 431 BCE when he wasn't born until 428 BCE, all your focus on the revised Babylonian texts, Ptolemy and any other non-contemporary Babylonian reference is not relevant any more. Plus now we have RC14 dating confirmation for a lower date for Solomon and David and Shishak!!! You can't beat it. Like I said, EVENTUALLY the scholars will come around, they have no choice. But in the meantime it's just incompetent to still date the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. There is too much to ignore from the Greek and Persian Periods relating to revisionism. Sorry. In the meantime, the VAT4956, coming from the Seleucid Era, was always a dismissible text anyway. It just so happens it was designed to actually "hide in plain sight" the original 511 BCE dating that had been revised.
Thanks, so much, if you have that reference about "continued" occupation, versus simply immediately after the fall of Jerusalem, which is perfectly consistent with the Bible, though not JW teaching.
JC
