'scholar':
You have alleged that the NWT 2013 edition provides a better rendering than the previous edition whereas in fact there is no significant difference between both editions with the exception that the former omits the clause 'he ruled' thereby now providing an 'improved rendering' for this verse.LOL.
I have already clearly indicated the significance of the alternative rendering in my initial post. If you don't understand, there's nothing I can do about your poor comprehension skills.
Celebrated WT scholars
Your anonymous 'scholars' are not 'celebrated', which would be undue honour to humans anyway.
have dutifully assigned two dates for the beginning of the reign of Hoshea according to the history of the period as outlined in Chronicles and Kings and on several Bible passages such as 2 Kings 15:30 and 2 Kings 17:1.
They're wrong, so it wasn't particularly 'dutiful'.
Both of these passages are the subject of much scholarly discussion in the scholarly literature Hoshea began a reign in c.758 BCE according to 2Kings 15;30 which is properly referred to as a interregnum then later in c.748 BCE his reign of nine years was established ending with the Fall of Samaria in 740 BCE.
The 'scholarly literature' doesn't support the 'interregnum' (your word) inserted by the Watch Tower Society prior to Hoshea's 'recognised' reign (though the Watch Tower Society never calls this an interregnum), which has no basis in the Bible or extra-biblical sources. You are trying to make this 'interregnum' sound quite 'definite', whereas the Watch Tower Society merely claims, "It appears that Hoshea was not fully recognized as king over Israel until sometime later, however. Second Kings 17:1 states that, in the 12th year of Ahaz, Hoshea “became king in Samaria over Israel for nine years.” So, it may be that at this point Hoshea was able to establish full control from Samaria. Possibly Assyrian backing at this point aided him" (Insight, volume 1, page 1149; formatting added). It also claims, "it seems that his control became fully established or possibly he received the backing of the Assyrian monarch Tiglath-pileser III" (Insight, volume 1, page 466; formatting added). Far from being 'scholarly', it's blatantly obvious that they're trying to make it fit, and in so doing, completely ignore the fact that the year they assign for starting Hoshea's 'recognised' reign isn't Ahaz' 12th year in their own chronology.
Obviously, a measure of interpretation is involved but that is the nature of doing chronology, it is the way in which all chronologists have to makes sense of the data. Your claim that 'They're just wrong' does not mean that they are wrong for that is simply your opinion, nothing else.LOL
It's not merely 'my opinion'. It's basic arithmetic. Despite your desperate appeal to an abandoned JW publication from 1971, Ahaz' 12th year simply isn't when they Hoshea's rule began. (It's funny how it's okay to cling to a publication from 32 years ago when convenient but JW publications from 10 years ago do not contain 'present truth' about the 'faithful slave' or the 'generation' or the 'Anglo-American world power' or the 'sheep and goats'. Let alone the great volume of 'old light' in older publications including Aid.)
In fact the chart on Chronology presented in Aid to Bible Understanding was not the first chart presenting a schema for the Divided Monarchyin WT publications for the first such chart was published in The Kingdom Is At Hand, 1944,pp.161 ff. The chart in the Aid book has not been discredited but has since been simplified, its presentation of the data is most useful in explaining this most technical subject -Chronology. Even yourself have produced a chart on Chronology subject as with all such charts to revision and correction.
I've made a chart in my spare time while elsewhere gainfully employed, yet my chart is far superior (even with its initial errors in older versions) to anything the Watch Tower Society has ever offered, even though 'Bible truth' is supposedly their core duty. Worse still, in your desperate attempt to defend your idol, you defer to their old chronology which is not even what they currently teach.
The fact of the matter that the Kings of the Divided Monarchy were subject from time to time to various World Powers and the Kings of both Judah and Israel became a vassal to a foreign power thus when computing the reigns of such kings such as Hoshea then this historical fact must be considered by any modern-day competent chronologist. This is done in the case of Hoshea for he was a vassal to Tilgathe -pileser.
Being a 'vassal' isn't something unique to 'Kings of the Divided Monarchy'. Kings of minor nations routinely paid tribute to more powerful nations. They didn't start counting their reign from when they first happened to pay tribute to any particular king. The start of a king's reign is sometimes expressed from either a co-regency or sole reign, but there's no basis at all from counting from some arbitrary gift to the king of another nation. That's just something the Watch Tower Society made up in order to massage their faulty chronology at points where the actual start of a reign doesn't fit.
Perhaps you are unaware of this basic fact.
Idiot.
The reference to a possible 14th year for Ahaz is indeed convenient for it is an attempt to explain the data and that is what scholars do, they seek to explain the data and make sense of it and
The 'reference to a possible 14th year' is just making it up, based on absolutely nothing. There is no precedent at all.
yes it is a 'fabrication' but that is what all Chronology is - a Fabrication. That is chronology at its basic level.
Tedious semantics. 'All chronology' is only a 'fabrication' in the sense of being constructed or manufactured. My chart is manufactured in the same sense that a car is manufactured. Your chronology is fabricated in the sense that it is false. Explicitly, the Watch Tower Society's reconstruction is a fabrication in the sense that it is falsely manipulated to fit preconceived beliefs.
James Ussher was the first chronologist to explain the earlier phase of Hoshea' reign as an interregnum and others have followed this methodology and our scholars have made a similar decision of matters.
Yes, I am aware that the basic structure of the Watch Tower Society's chronology was ripped off from Ussher—basically a nod to their Protestant origins—and then tweaked according to their own doctrines.
You raise the matter that we do not assign any specifics for the reign of Tilgath -pileser but that is because there is no data that would make this possible for example the length of his reign is subject to some dispute even though it is the opinion that his reign was 18 years but this is too short. His reign covered the reigns of Menahem-Pekahiah-Pekah-Hoshea which covered a span of far more than 18 years. Yes your chart(fabrication) attempts a harmonization but so does the chart(fabrication) in the Aid book.
My chart doesn't 'attempt a harmonization' with Tiglath-Pileser. I didn't even look at the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III when determining the reigns of those kings. In fact, in early versions of my chart I had Menahem's reign earlier than Tiglath-Pileser coming to the throne. However, upon decision-table analysis of the calendation for the kings of Judah and Israel—and without any consideration of Tiglath-Pileser's reign—I realised the relative reigns were impossible, and then determined the only way (mathematically) the reigns of Judah and Israel can fit together.
You defer once again to the Aid book, even though the explanation therein is not consistent with the Watch Tower Society's current chronology.
There is no inconsistency between the two texts in 2 Kings for our interpretation correctly observes an interregnum following the assassination of Pekah by Hoshea which exact length remains unknown.
I suppose I should mention that you're misusing the term interregnum, which actually refers to a period without a king, whereas you really mean that Hoshea was king but was not 'recognised' in some sense because he was't yet a vassal to Tiglath-Pileser III. (Even though that isn't actually a method by which reigns were enumerated.)
Even in your chart (fabrication) you show this period as 'Hoshea's disputed reign'.
No I don't. You're making reference to error I fixed some time ago. The current version of the chart is here.
There are good reasons for suggesting that the list of reigns for the Kings of Judah are more certain than the reigns for the Kings of Israel and that very fact is shown by the use of the symbol 'c' in setting out the reigns for Israel. It is simply being honest about the matter and I would have thought to be self-explanatory or self-evident. The 390 year period was applicable to the line of Judean kings for it was through those kings that the Promised Seed, Jesus Christ would come so the integrity of the Monarchy was essential until the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.
If there are 'good reasons' for additional 'certainty' for kings of Judah than for those of Israel, you certainly haven't provided any. Instead, you've deferred to numerology and magical thinking.
You raised the matter of the translation of 2Kings 17:1 as a point of issue and you are correct in doing so for that is what it is - a point of issue. Your dogmatic claim that this verse describes not the beginning but the end of Hoshea's reign based on syntax is most unwise and foolish because the matter cannot be decided by grammar but by context and that is what WT scholars have done.
Wrong. I've determined that the calendation employed by the Watch Tower Society is mathematically impossible, and therefore their 'interpretation' is wrong. But worse than just being an honest mistake, it's very clear that the spurious period prior to Hoshea (in addition to the equally false spurious period prior to Zechariah) correspond with the missing 20 years from the Watch Tower Society's Neo-Babylonian chronology. Specifically, because the Watch Tower Society shifts the end of Ezekiel's '390 years' from 539 BCE back to 607 BCE, they correspondingly extend the period from Rehoboam to Zedekiah by 68 years. Because there were actually only 50 years from the destruction of Jersualem until the year they assign for the Jews' return, and therefore only 48 years from the fall of Jerusalem until the actual end of Babylon's 70 years, the Watch Tower Society must make up the difference of the missing 20 years when aligning the reigns of Judah with those of Israel.
In my experience with chronology over many decades has taught me at least one sobre lesson and that is that Simple is Best and that is based upon a sound principle in Philosophy- Ockham's Razor. I need say no more on this point.
Simplicity is great, but only if it's correct.
Your claim that 2 Kings 18:1,9,10 proves Judea and Israel were not both using Nisan-based dating systems because of the impossibility of Hezekiah's and Hosheas's reigns to have a difference of 2 years. Your assertion proves nothing for the chart (fabrication) in the Aid book reconciles the data nicely and not on the basis of different calendation but more on a sole calendation namely counting from Nisan. To prove otherwise you would need to consult with scholarship on this matter.
Obviously nothing prevents a difference 'of 2 years', which suggests you aren't really paying attention. However, it is impossible for two reigns using the same dating system to simultaneously have a difference of 2 years and 3 years. I don't need to consult 'scholarship' for basic arithmetic (though the decision-table method I've used is based on sound scholarship). And you ignore scholarship anyway, in deference to your idol.
It is not stupid to limit the requisite of a definite chronology for the Northern Kingdom in order to construct a definite chronology for the Southern kingdom for the chronology of the Northern Kingdom is adduced from the Southern Kingdom for they are not independent chronologies. However, because of the simple fact that the Northern Kingdom was much shorter than the Southern it is simply a fact that the longer chronology would and must take precedence in establishing the 390 year period. The Bible does as you say say provide synchronisms between the Southern and Northern Kingdoms and that is what makes a chronology for both kingdoms possible. There remains a clear superiority of the Southern Kingdom over the Northern Kingdom for both historical and the theological reasons.
'Establishing the 390 year period' is not a justification for asserting that years given for kings of Judah are 'definite', and 'theological reasons' do not trump reality. It merely shows your (and the Watch Tower Society's) desperation to 'make' a 'prophecy' 'fit'. However, I have in fact correctly accounted for 390 period anyway. And I wasn't every trying to.
Regardless of any coincidence your chart and that of the WT Society are in agreement over the length of the Judean Monarchy which amounts to approx. 390 years which is not the case with most other published tabulations by leading chronologists.
Wrong. An older version of my chart, prior to decision-table analysis of the reigns of Judah and Israel, had a period of 379 years. However, earlier versions also included notes in red that indicated where the tabulation could not be reconciled. Upon further analysis, I corrected various errors relating to co-regencies, and in all cases, I did not use any extra-biblical information to 'make' anything 'fit'.
My use of the Aid book is my business for it is a legitimate published work of the WTS
Studies in the Scriptures is also a "legitimate published work of the WTS". But it is not compatible with 'present truth' as taught by the Watch Tower Society. The special pleading about Ahaz' 14th year is not supported by any secular sources nor any current Watch Tower Society publication. Even when it was taught by the Watch Tower Society, it was nothing but speculation.
and IMHO remains a fine piece of scholarship serving as the basis for the later published Insight On The Scriptures, 1984.
Insight was published in 1988. Though it's a suitable resource for uncontroversial mundane matters (much of which is taken from other sources), it makes many dismal attempts to 'debunk' secular history that is not compatible with the Watch Tower Society's numerology. As such, it's an embarrassment.
Chronology is as I have previously told you on many occasions is about Methodology and Interpretation and these two principles govern any and all schemes of chronology including those proposed by celebrated WT scholars over many decades. You correctly point out the many difficulties with the beginning of the reigns of certain kings but that only confirms what caused Edwin Thiele way back in the forties to seek to harmonize and make sense of those Mysterious Numbers of the Divided Monarchy.
Your 'methodology' is wrong. And you're still misusing the word. Methodology includes interpretation; use of methodology when you are actually referring to methods therein is pretentious and technically inaccurate.
I have resolved all of the 'many difficulties' for the period. Scholarship in general has come a long way since the 1940s, but yet again you're deferring to an older source to try to prop up your tedious arguments.
...OUTLAW