70 weeks - Xerxes, Artaxerxes: How weak is the WT position cmp. to 607?

by bohm 27 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  bohm

  So, in my bible study i can see we are approaching chapter 4 of "what does the bible really teach" about daniels profecy. The book says: "Another example is about the profecy of daniel 9:25, a profecy which many centuries in advance predicted exactly when messias would appear - in the year 29". There is a small appendix which ties this up to wether Artaxerxes 20th year was in 455bc (455bc + 7x69weeks, ie. 483years = 29ac). When i read that i thought that was pretty funny in a slightly creapy way, so i desided to look it up on wikipedia an lo and behold, the historians who all agree Artaxerxes 20th year was in 455 does not really agree at all, and it have to be supported by the same method of quote-mining and data-picking that gave 607. hmm. So we have:

  "The bible is true because its prophetic, since it correctly predicts the birth of Jesus in 29!"
  "We know 455bc is correct because while this may not be what the historians say, we trust the bible since we know its true and it gives the year".

  [actually i didnt know about this problem untill today!]

  So now im thinking what i should use this little gem for. Clearly its a lot of work to get into another aspect of chronology, and since i only got a very brief overview of the historical aspects on this year im not sure its worth it to really research it - 607 is the real target. On the other hand, well, its a chance to point out errors in Insights (which some seem to regard as the ultimate reference), and particularly poor scholarship and misinformation which is the angle i have desided to take on this study. I feel this question boils down to how easy it is to argue, ie. is there a lot of complicated, contradictory information that makes the topic hard to debate [like trinity], or is it relatively straight forward [like blood]. So thats my question:

  Compared to 607, is the date 455 less or more insane?

  ps. This is not a thread about 607. If someone wants to convince me of 607, please start a new thread and post a link to the thread here, and i will read what you write there.
• 

  PSacramento

  Bible prophecies have to be evaluated by secular history, how else is one going to see if the prophecy came true?

  The bible does not give any year for anything, not in the sense of current era dating ( BCE or AD), it makes notes of events and of time frames during reigns and such, but to corelate those events to a date we must always use secualr history, there is just no other way.

  The bible has never stated a historical date for anything.

  The WT does use secular history to date the dates it wants, it then disregards the rest of the evidence and what I like to call " Buffet Reasoning", they take what they like and disregard the rest, just like a buffet.
• 

  Alwayshere

  "They take what they like and disregard the rest." So very true.
• 

  bohm

  ps: yah, im aware of that - the 'dating' part of this particular beuaty is that the temple was rebuild in the 20th year of Artaxerxes, and was completed by jesus baptism. Then the usual thing happends - the events in history does not fit the interpretation so they are changed, in this case the wt want the 20th year of artaxerxes to fall in 455 instead of 445. I think thats pretty clear.
  What i wonder about is if this question is as rotten as the 607 issue, where its completely impossible to find 'proof' outside a special reading of the bible, or if there somewhere exist 'real' historians (not the celebrated type!) who actually support this date. The reason that i ask is that i dont have a full overview of the avaliable evidence, and i hope that someone would weight in on the issue so i know if i am on 'safe ground'.

  by the way, i love the phrase "buffet reasoning", though i think that the behavious of the wt at the buffet is like the ovio-lacto vegetarian who is only interested in the imaginary cabbage ;-) .
• 

  Narkissos

  This topic has been extensively discussed here in the past; unfortunately, without a real search function you can just pray for somebody to remember where... :(

  In short, I would say the problem of 455 is a bit more complex than 607 because applying the 70 weeks of years to the coming of THE (Christian) Messiah is not an exclusive JW doctrine (even though it goes against the clear meaning of the text imo). The WT is on this boat with a number of Evangelical commentators (mostly from the 19th- / early 20th-century) who have built similar theories and found the same interest in attacking the "mainstream" Persian chronology; so they have a number of arguments and quotes to offer against it (cf. the Insight book on "Persia"), which makes the issue anything but simple for a non-specialist. The big picture, though, you have already gathered: circular confirmation of a fanciful interpretation with highly questionable dates at both ends (btw, how come no NT writer thought of this wonderful argument to confirm Jesus as the Messiah?)
• 

  Narkissos

  Btw, the 20th year of Artaxerxes (by Nehemiah 2:1) has nothing to do with the reconstruction of the temple nor the city (which is what the "word" starting the 70 weeks in Daniel 9 is about) but the walls of Jerusalem. The temple had already been rebuilt 70 years before that.
• 

  bohm

  Narkissos: Thanks for your input (AGAIN!)!. I think from what you say i will wait for 607 to go into depth with one of those prophesies. However, there is a point which i feel is quite strong and i think i will draw forth: When i read "Insights" on persian chronology i found this quote:

  There is solid evidence for a coregency of Xerxes with his father Darius . The Greek historian Herodotus (VII, 3) says: “Darius judged his [Xerxes’] plea [for kingship] to be just and declared him king. But to my thinking Xerxes would have been made king even without this advice.” This indicates that Xerxes was made king during the reign of his father Darius

  To support the idea that Darious and Xerxes ruled together [background information for lurkers: The WT fix the chronology by postulating Darius and Xerxes ruled together for 10 years, so they can move Artaxerxes reign back 10 years and get the 455 date.]. Now, on this site

  http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/artaxerxes.htm

  by Carl Olaf i found the following quote:

  "If we look up Herodotus’ statement, however, we will discover that he, in the very next few sentences, directly contradicts the Watch Tower Society's claim that there was a ten year long coregency of Xerxes with Darius by stating that Darius died one year after this appointment of Xerxes as his successor. Herodotus says:

  "Xerxes, then, was publicly proclaimed as next in succession to the crown, and Darius was free to turn his attention to the war. Death, however, cut him off before his preparations were complete; he died in the year following this incident and the Egyptian rebellion, after a reign of thirtysix years, and so was robbed of his chance to punish either Egypt or the Athenians. After his death the crown passed to his son Xerxes." "

  The way i see it, thats one of the worst cases of quoting out of context in a WT puplication, and i point i feel should be made.. perhaps searching on that quote can bring up something so i can verify that its accurate.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Try Jonsson's essay.

  http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/artaxerxes.htm

  [edit - ahh, I see you have it already]
• 

  bohm

  Btw, the 20th year of Artaxerxes (by Nehemiah 2:1) has nothing to do with the reconstruction of the temple nor the city (which is what the "word" starting the 70 weeks in Daniel 9 is about) but the walls of Jerusalem. The temple had already been rebuilt 70 years before that.

  (reads the bible, slap hand on forehead). By now I should know that I should ALLWAYS check it when the WT says the bible says something, no matter how trivial and impossible to misread it seems.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Wait a minute. Neh. 2:3-5 suggests the rebuilding of the city was given Artaxerxes' blessing. Yes, they started with the wall (priority) and then the houses came after (Neh. 7:1,4).