The WTS's endpoint of the "70 Years"?

by Doug Mason 44 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    Thanks JD,

    My objective is to tease out the rank inconsistencies of the WTS with the positions it holds. Sometimes they equate the end with the "return" while at others they speak about the gathering on the first of the seventh month (which clearly took place some time after the Return).

    I will read your piece slowly with interest, but I wonder if you address the fact that Ezra never uses the expression "seventy years"?

    The book of Chronicles was likely written some 200 years after the events by a community who had a religious agenda when it created that historical account. (The writer of Kings had a different agenda from the Chronicler, hence the inconsistencies in the outputs of those two communities.)

    Another thought that should be teased out regarding the return is that the record claims it was Zerubbabel ("seed of Babylon"), Jehoiachin's legal heir, who brought them back. As we know, the exiles and many in Jerusalem still recognised Jehoiachin as their King, even though in exile. Even the Babylonian record calls him "King of Judah". Zedekiah was seen as a usurper, a Babylonian stooge. Puts a bit of a damper on the WTS's insistence that the kingdom finished when Zedekiah was deposed.

    Perhaps you have done this already in your piece; I have not yet read through it.

    Doug

  • scholar
    scholar

    Doug Mason

    Post 693

    My comments on the end of the 70 years in Tishri, 537 BCE are largle taken from the publication Babylon The Great Has Fallen God's Kingdom Rules, 1963, pp.354-375.

    Regards

    scholar JW

  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    Another thought that should be teased out regarding the return is that the record claims it was Zerubbabel ("seed of Babylon"), Jehoiachin's legal heir, who brought them back. As we know, the exiles and many in Jerusalem still recognised Jehoiachin as their King, even though in exile. Even the Babylonian record calls him "King of Judah". Zedekiah was seen as a usurper, a Babylonian stooge. Puts a bit of a damper on the WTS's insistence that the kingdom finished when Zedekiah was deposed.

    And that fits with Ezekiel 17 where a sprig from the majestic cedar (Jehoiachin's line) would be replanted and survive, and where (in contrast) Zedekiah is described as a 'low growing vine.' The prophecy indicates that the kingdom of Judah was brought low and was 'unable to grow again' when Jehoiachin and the leading men of the land were carried off to Babylon.

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    Ann,

    I don't know if you have read the book, but here is an appropriate excerpt from page 157 of "How the Bible Became a Book", by William M Schniedewind:

    The prophet Ezekiel was apparently, along with Jehioachin, among those exiled in 597 bce (cf. Ezek 1:2; 2 Kgs 24:16). Unfortunately for Ezekiel, he was not taken to Babylon to live in the royal palace like Jehoiachin and the royal family. Ezekiel was settled along with the other exiles in a work camp along the Chebar canal, just north of Babylon. The Book of Ezekiel shares many things with Jeremiah. Most importantly, Ezekiel acknowledges the legitimacy of Jehoiachin as the king of Judah. In keeping with this, from its beginning the book is dated according to the ruling years of Jehoiachin rather than of Zedekiah (Ezekiel 1:2).

    Some have suggested that Ezekiel may have held out hope that the imprisoned king would one day return to rule. But such date formulas are part of the editorial structure; thus, they reflect the views of the editors, that is, the exiled Judean royal family in Babylon - views of their own legitimacy.

    Within the Book of Ezekiel, the prophet's ministry is dated primarily between 593 and 585 bce – that is, after the first exile (in 597 BCE) but before the third exile (in 581 BCE). Like his contemporary, Jeremiah, Ezekiel counsels acqui escence to the Babylonians (12:1-15; 17:1-22; 21:18-32). The exile was inevitable. Moreover, the royal regent in Jerusalem, Zedekiah, is reviled by Ezekiel as "the vile, wicked prince of Israel" (Ezek 21:25).

    Ezekiel also apparently blames the exile on the sins of Manasseh (as we observed with Jeremiah and the conclusion to the Book of Kings), although the point is made less directly. All this points us again to the exiled Judean royal family's role in editing and preserving literature that (1) supported their royal claims, (2) absolved Jehoiachin from direct blame for the Babylonian exiles, and (3) counseled submission to the Babylonians.

    (“How the Bible Became a Book”, William M Schniedewind, page 157)

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    It is interesting to note that the Jewish web site

    http://www.jewishgen.org/databases/GivenNames/ancient.htm

    calls him PRINCE Zerubbabel. The dates given by this Jewish site for the period are also interesting.

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    Scholar,

    Thank you for putting me on to those pages in the “Babylon” book. Analysis of these pages shows me why I could not determine whether the WTS ends the “70 years” with the repopulation of Judah or when the Returnees worshiped at the site of the Temple. The reason for my confusion is now clear.

    This is my reconstruction of Franz’s argument. If I am wrong, please spell out my mistakes.

    1. Jerusalem was destroyed in the fifth month of a year.

    2. Two months later, Judah was left without a single inhabitant, following the departure to Egypt of Gedeliah’s assailants and their cohorts. This moment marked the start of the 70 years.

    3. The land was repopulated a few months less than 70 years later, when the people settled into their respective towns. This repopulating and settling into their towns did not mark the end of the 70 years.

    4. In the seventh month, the people worshiped at the site of the Temple. It was at this event that the end of the “70 years” was formally declared.

    This means that the “70 Years” could not commence until the land was cleared of people and domestic animals, yet the period did not finish when people returned and resettled in their towns. Quiet some inconsistency there.

    The returning exiles travelled to their respective towns with sufficient time to unpack and be settled in before they went to Jerusalem to meet in the 7th month (Tishri/October) at the temple site.

    Apart from lacking symmetry, Franz’s arrangement meant that residents and their animals were absent from Judah for a few months short of 70 years. So Franz had to make the 70 Years end at the meeting in Jerusalem. That meeting of course is not the counter to its destruction, since the city and the temple were still in ruins, desolated.

    Franz addressed his problem by saying the period ended when its end was officially declared when they met at the temple site:

    Since the desolation had begun in the seventh month [with the departure of Gedeliah’s murderers and cohorts into Egypt], the desolation of the land ought to end officially in that same month; and Ezra 3:1 officially declares that it ended in that month. (Babylon, page 372, emphases mine)

    So let’s read the record of the “official declaration” in Ezra.

    When the seventh month came and the Israelites had settled in their towns, the people assembled as one man in Jerusalem. (Ezra 3:1, NIV)

    The record at Ezra 3:1 does not sound like an official declaration. The expression “when the seventh month came” shows that some time had passed since they had arrived and settled down. Besides, the word "seventy" never appears in Ezra.

    What did they do after they assembled? Let’s read on.

    Then Jeshua son of Jozadak and his fellow priests and Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and his associates began to build the altar of the God of Israel to sacrifice burnt offerings on it, in accordance with what is written in the Law of Moses the man of God. Despite their fear of the peoples around them, they built the altar on its foundation and sacrificed burnt offerings on it to the LORD, both the morning and evening sacrifices. Then in accordance with what is written, they celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles with the required number of burnt offerings prescribed for each day. (Ezra 3:2-4, NIV)

    No mention of an official declaration that this month marked the end point of the 70 years. Rather, they had a busy bee building an altar and then sacrificing the offerings required in the Law of Moses. Then they celebrated Tabernacles (Booths) which commences in the middle of the month and runs for several days.

    How can it be said that the desolations of Jerusalem’s sanctuary were declared to have ended when there was no declaration? Or that people assembling at a ruin is an official declaration?

    This meeting at the ruined temple was not the answer to Daniel’s prayer (Dan 9:2).

    The returnees were in fear of the residents of Judah who had not been sent into exile.

    While reading these pages of the “Babylon” book, I was interested to see Franz resorting to selective quotations; it’s a pity for him that the 11th edition of the Britannica, which he claimed to cite, is freely available on the www, so we can see that not only did he quote just part of an article, he also quoted part of a sentence.

    It’s also interesting to see his reliance on Parker and Dubberstein for his dates, and his total dependence on secular sources for the date 539 BCE. And to once more see his complete incompetence at trying to work out the first year of Cyrus.

    Doug

  • scholar
    scholar

    Doug Mason

    Post 702

    The Bible is quite specific that the seventy years ended at the beginning of Tishri, 537 BCE whereas their exile in Babylon ended on the specific month of their Return which time is not stated either in the Bible or secdular history. The Babylon book I would have thought is quite specific about these matters including the time to the very month of the beginning of the seventy years in Tishri, 607 BCE.

    Your reconstruction by means of those four points is correct.

    There is no inconsistency because it was the timing and celebration of the festal months in the year 607 and 537 BCE which would have been more important as as Jehovah God was concedrned so the seventy years began right on time, ended right on time spanning the complete period of seventy years in harmony with the cycle of sabbaths.

    Ezra 3:1 does not need to have some sort of official sanction from a secular authority to narrate the significance of the festal month for that month Tishri began with a New Moon which informed the Jews that this sacred month had begun and now it was the time to worship Jehovah rejoicing now at their release to their homelamd.

    There is nothing wrong in a selective quoting of a source for that is the prerogative of the writer but I would be interested in having a copy of that older EB article if you have it to hand. There is again nothing wrong with the use of other secular writers in order to construct chronology or history and this is what the celebrated WT scholars does.

    scholar JW

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    Scholar,

    Page 364 of the “Babylon” book quotes only the final sentence in the following quote from the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

    Three separate occasions are mentioned (Jeremiah 52:28-30). The first was in the time of Jehoiachin in 597 BCE, when the temple of Jerusalem was partially despoiled, and a number of the leading citizens were removed. After eleven years (in the reign of Zedekiah) a fresh rising of the Judaeans occurred; the city was razed to the ground, and a further deportation ensued. Finally, five years later, Jeremiah records a third captivity. After the overthrow of Babylonia by the Persians, Cyrus gave the Jews permission to return to their native land (537 BCE), and more than forty thousand are said to have availed themselves of the privilege. (emphasis added)

    This means that Franz accepted part of the Britannica article as authoritative, but hid the rest because it did not fit his prejudice.

    In another citation from the Encyclopedia at page 364 of BF, it dates of the return as “537-536 BC”. Not a ringing endorsement for 537. The sentence in article in the Encyclopedia reads thus:

    “The period of history covered by the books of Ezra and Nehemiah extends from the return of the exiles under Zerubbabel in 537-536 B.C. to Nehemiah's second visit to Jerusalem in 432 B.C.”

    When you read the citation in BF, you will notice that Franz finishes the sentence early at the word “Jerusalem”. The full article of the Britannica cited by Franz is available at: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Books_of_Ezra_and_Nehemiah which includes the statement:

    The chronicler's account of the destruction of Jerusalem, the seventy years' interval and the return of 42,360 of the exiles represent a special view of the history of the period. The totals, as also the detailed figures, in Ezr., Neh. and i Esdr. v. vary considerably; the number is extremely large (contrast Jer. lii. 30); it includes the common people (contrast 2 Kings xxiv. 14, xxv. 12), and ignores the fact that Judah was not depopulated, that the Jews were carried off to other places besides Babylon and that many remained behind in Babylon. According to this view, Judah and Jerusalem were practically deserted until the return.

    (I removed some Scriptural references for purposes of clarity. Emphases added.)

    The citation from Price, Sellers and Carlson says “about 538 or 537 BC”. Franz says this relates to Cyrus’ decree. It may well do but I have not been able to verify or deny that. In any case, the word “about” is not a ringing endorsement. Franz cites a second time from that book: “537-536 Hebrew exiles return”, which not a ringing proof for October 537.

    Doug

  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough
    This following quotation does not explain whether it was the actual release of the Jews by Cyrus that ended the 70 years, or whether it was the “return” that ended the 70 years. But if it was the “return” that ended the 70 years, then it was not ended when they met later at the temple site about “October 1”.
    The 70 years expired when Cyrus the Great, in his first year, released the Jews and they returned to their homeland. (Chronicles 36:17 - 23)

    It ended in 539. Yes, I know it is long. Is this a quote from 2 Chr 36:17-23? I don't think so. The end of the 70 years marks the end of a period of time only, the end of the Babylonian dominant era.

    http://144000.110mb.com/607/i-3.html

    So, in light of Jeremiah’s detailed explanation in chapter 25 and elsewhere that the seventy years of servitude applied to the nations of the earth that came under the domination of Babylon, the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory, what did he intend to convey in his letter to the exiles at Jeremiah 29:10? Did he mean that after the nations collectively finished serving Babylon seventy years when the empire fell he would turn his attention to the exiles and return them home? Or did he mean, as Jehovah’s Witnesses argue, that after the exiles returned home to Judah after having served at Babylon seventy years, beginning with the destruction of Jerusalem, he would turn his attention to them and bring them home from Babylon? That is precisely what they are arguing, but on its face it is quite obviously illogical. None-the-less, even assuming that their interpretation is correct it fails repeatedly under a simple test.

    Under the test, if the seventy year period ended in 539 B.C.E. when Babylon fell and the Persians and Medes began to reign while the exiles were still in Babylon the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Return theory fails in three significant ways: a) the seventy years obviously did not end upon their return in 537 B.C.E., b) their seventy year period amounts to only 68 years from 607 B.C.E. to 539 B.C.E., and c) from the fall of Babylon in October 539 B.C.E. to the exiles’ return to Judah in 537 B.C.E. there was no king of Babylon to serve. So when exactly did the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11 end, whereby “these nations” would stop serving the king of Babylon seventy years? It ended in October, 539 B.C.E., not upon their return in 537 B.C.E..

    First, nowhere in the Bible does it state that the return of the Jews marked the end of the seventy years. Second, Leviticus 26:32-35 whereby Moses prophesied the pending curse and punishment that befell the Jews states that Jehovah would scatter them among the nations and that the land would become a desolation, and Judah would pay off its Sabbaths all the days of its lying desolate while the exiles were in the land of their enemies, Babylon, and not after they returned.

    32 And I, for my part, will lay the land desolate, and YOUR enemies who are dwelling in it will simply stare in amazement over it. 33 And YOU I shall scatter among the nations, and I will unsheathe a sword after YOU; and YOUR land must become a desolation, and YOUR cities will become a desolate ruin.

    34 “‘At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying desolated, while YOU are in the land of YOUR enemies. At that time the land will keep sabbath, as it must repay its sabbaths. 35 All the days of its lying desolated it will keep sabbath, for the reason that it did not keep sabbath during YOUR sabbaths when YOU were dwelling upon it.

    So even though the exiles had not reoccupied the desolated lands and were still in Babylon, the seventy year prophetic curse ended.

    Third, Jeremiah 25:12 states that only after the seventy years had ended, or been fulfilled, Jehovah would call to account against the king of Babylon, which he did beginning with its fall to Cyrus in October 539 B.C.E., one date Jehovah’s Witnesses and everyone else seems to agree on. The seventy years ended when Babylon fell, not two years later when the exiles stepped foot back on the soil of Judah.

    12 “‘And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘their error, even against the land of the Chal·de´ans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite. 13 And I will bring in upon that land all my words that I have spoken against it, even all that is written in this book that Jeremiah has prophesied against all the nations. 14 For even they themselves, many nations and great kings, have exploited them as servants; and I will repay them according to their activity and according to the work of their hands.’”

    Fourth, Jeremiah 29:10 likewise concludes the end of the seventy year period of servitude while the Jews were in Babylon, not after they returned.

    10 “For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.’

    11 “‘For I myself well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward YOU,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give YOU a future and a hope. 12 And YOU will certainly call me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to YOU.’

    13 “‘And YOU will actually seek me and find [me], for YOU will search for me with all YOUR heart. 14 And I will let myself be found by YOU,’ is the utterance of Jehovah. ‘And I will gather YOUR body of captives and collect YOU together out of all the nations and out of all the places to which I have dispersed YOU,’ is the utterance of Jehovah. ‘And I will bring YOU back to the place from which I caused YOU to go into exile.’

    After the seventy years ended Jehovah would turn his attention to his people and bring them back. The seventy years had to end first, in 539 B.C.E., in Babylon, and only then would his people be gathered together and brought back.

    Fifth, 2 Chronicles 36:20 states that the captives removed to Babylon would be servants to the king “until the royalty of Persia began to reign,” which began October 539 B.C.E., and not until the exiles physically returned to Judah two years later.

    "Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; ... "

    Both sides agree that Babylon fell to the Persians in October 539 B.C.E.. That fall signaled the beginning of Persia’s reign. The prophet Daniel foretold its sudden collapse when he interpreted the writing on the wall for Babylon’s king Belshazzer. “This is the interpretation of the word: MENE, God has numbered [the days of] your kingdom and finished it.” And he did in 539 B.C.E..

    Sixth, Jehovah’s Witnesses, at page 24, contradict themselves because they also claim that Ezra wrote that the seventy years ran until the first year of Cyrus which they submit was his first regnal year, which would actually be his second year of having power.

    "... the inspired Bible writer Ezra reported that the 70 years ran until “the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia,” who issued a decree allowing the Jews to return to their homeland. (Ezra 1:1-4; 2 Chronicles 36:21-23)"

    At Ezra 1:1, reference is made to “the first year of Cyrus,” not “the year Cyrus became king” (or accession year), so he was speaking of the first regnal year of Cyrus, which cuneiform documentation places in 538/537B.C.E. Jewish historian Josephus corroborates by referring to “the first year of the reign of Cyrus.”—Antiquitiesof the Jews, Book XI, Chapter I.

    That statement is false - the inspired Bible writer Ezra never said that - and furthermore, their position contradicts the Jehovah’s Witnesses' own claim under its Return theory that the seventy years ran until the exiles returned to Judah in the fall of 537 B.C.E., long after the decree setting them free was issued, and after Cyrus began to reign. Not only is it a contradiction, but it is not correct. In the first place it contravenes 2 Chronicles 36:22 just quoted which pegs the end of the 70 years at the inception of the reign of Persian royalty, which began immediately when Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E., not one year later beginning with the second, or ‘regnal’ year of Cyrus’ rule. Again, common sense is in order. Setting the Record Straight at 24 claims “the first year of Cyrus” was his first regnal year which would be his second actual year of ruling Babylon. However that would create a one year gap between Babylon’s fall and the Persians’ reign, and surely no one could suggest that when Cyrus made his triumphant entry 16 days after Babylon’s fall in October 539 B.C.E. to his army that the reign of Persia had not yet begun or that the Babylonian Empire was still ruling and in control. Daniel said that the Babylonian kingdom was finished.

    Read Ezra 1:1-4 and 2 Chronicles 36:21-23 carefully. Ezra did not state that the seventy years ran until the first regnal (or second actual) year of Cyrus the Persian’s reign. Ezra did not say that in order for the seventy years to come to an end Cyrus had to issue his decree setting them free which was long after Persia began to rule. One of their contradictions ends in Babylon, the other in Judah, and it is strategically and scripturally not feasible to occur at the exact same time or in the same year.

    So what basis do the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim supports their belief that the seventy year prophecy ended upon the exiles’ return to Judah in 537 B.C.E. and not earlier when Babylon fell to Persia in 539 B.C.E.? Nothing, as it turns out, although they allude to their reasoning in Setting the Record Straight at p. 25, 26:

    “And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia so that he caused a cry to pass through all his realm.”—Ezra 1:1 (see also 2 Chronicles 36:22).

    The highlighted portion of the above-quoted verse serves as unimpeachable evidence that “Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah” had not yet been accomplished, even by the “first year of Cyrus,” proving conclusively that the conquest of Babylon by Persia was not the determining factor in fulfilling Jeremiah’s prophecy.

    All that this vague and convoluted assertion attempts to state is that the seventy year period allegedly ended when the Jews returned in 537 B.C.E. and not when Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.; that the Jews’ return had not happened by the time Babylon fell. Well, of course it hadn’t, but more importantly, it wasn’t a requirement because the seventy years ended in 539 B.C.E., not on their return. Because their return happened two years after Persia conquered Babylon the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory fails, they claim, because Babylon was conquered two years before their return.

    This false and distorted piece of logic begs the essential question “When did the seventy years end?” Had they been forthcoming and actually quoted Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah rather than force the reader to hunt for its meaning it would have been self-evident, but more importantly, it would have proven them wrong which is perhaps why they did not wish to bring it to the readers' attention in the first place.

    We can determine what Jehovah’s word was by reference to Ezra 1:1-4 and 2 Chronicles 36:22 which they quote in support of their position. And even though neither one of these verses specify what the word of Jehovah was either, the context and subject matter of those Scriptures indicates that it referred to Jehovah’s promise to return the Jews and Cyrus’ decree setting them free.

    1 And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia so that he caused a cry to pass through all his realm, and also in writing, saying:

    2 “This is what Cyrus the king of Persia has said, ‘All the kingdoms of the earth Jehovah the God of the heavens has given me, and he himself has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. 3 Whoever there is among YOU of all his people, may his God prove to be with him. So let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of Jehovah the God of Israel—he is the [true] God—which was in Jerusalem. 4 As for anyone that is left from all the places where he is residing as an alien, let the men of his place assist him with silver and with gold and with goods and with domestic animals along with the voluntary offering for the house of the [true] God, which was in Jerusalem.’”(Ezra 1:1-4 see also 2 Chronicles 36:22,23).

    Jehovah’s word related to the return of the Jews and is found at Jeremiah 29:10. But only after the seventy years had ended would he turn his attention to returning the Jews.

    10 “For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.’

    This, in actuality, is unimpeachable evidence that the seventy years of servitude came to an end first in 539 B.C.E. and only later, in 537 B.C.E. would the Jews return. Accordingly, it is not necessary or even possible that the ‘return’ occur before Babylon fell and the seventy years ended. Even with their improper rendering that the seventy years would be accomplished at Babylon, the Jehovah’s Witnesses' Return theory lacks merit. Jeremiah 29:10 supports the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory and disproves the Jehovah’s Witnesses' Return theory.

  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough

    Narkissus is right about this stuff.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit