by Bart Belteshassur 100 Replies latest watchtower bible
The Society published "The Book of Truthful Historical Dates" (8/15/1968 WT)
In that book the WT has a very long list of scholars who support the pivotal date of 539 BCE.
What they never tell you, and what most Witnesses will never find out, is that those same scholars all agree on 586/587 for the fall of Jerusalem.
Hi,
I have old editions of the encylcopedia's that my Mom bought for me way way back....I'm a baby boomer..1950's & up...& they say a different date, 586 or something like that...they are very old editions...now, I have seen in WT literature that they quote from the Encyclopodia's when they want to make a point that they researched the subject. That's that only proof I have.
Guess that is secular, uh ? But I could defend myself by saying, I'm just quoting what the encyclopedia is saying, & if I'm not mistaken you do too...
Legacy
Bart,
I'm not sure why you think the second year in which the temple foundation was laid was Darius I's rather than Cyrus'. Ezra does not indicate that this was Darius' Year 2. Ezra 3:8f. says work began on the foundation "in the second year after they came to the house of the true God at Jerusalem" which links with Ezra 3:1, 6.
Jeffro has done a nice chart. http://jeffro77.wordpress.com/607-for-dummies/#exileend
Work on the temple then got interrupted and came to a halt for about 18 years until Darius' Year 2 when Haggai was commissioned to give the Jews a kick up the behind. Cf. Ezra 4:3-5, 24.
I think your discussion on Isa. 61 is too convoluted to be easily digested (let alone accepted) by your target audience IMHO.
AnnO Haggai, during the 2nd year of Darius, claims that Jehovah states that his house is still a waste whilst the returnees have build their own own homes 1:9. This shows that the returnees have made no effort to build his house but have built their own instead, and planted crops which Jehovah with held the dew from. He continues to say that Jehovah then rouse up the spirit of Zerubbabel and Joshua and all the people and then they began the work on his house. This indicates that this was the first they did any work on the house, other wise he would have said continued.
This is made clear by Jehovah's statement at 2:15 from the 24th/9th/2nd " from this day forward, before there was the placing of a stone upon a stone in the temple". No work had been done no stone on stone, unti the foundation stone was laid on that day 2:18.
From Haggai it is clear that work on the temple started in the second year of Darius for the first time.
I agree with you that Ezra 3:8 links directly with 3:1,6, however Ezra does not state that the event after chapter 1 were during the reign Cyrus they are in fact undated and therefore we must look elsewhere for the date, but he does states that the returnees of chapter 2 did not include Sheshbazzar the govener, in those lead by Zerubbabel, but again Ezra does not tell us his capacity, which agrees with their later arrival , and Haggai.
As regards chapter 4 the chronology is a mess due to very poor redaction, and I do not know how this viewed in WT land. However what is clear is that 4: 1-4 follows the chrono of Haggai. As Sheshbazzar was made governer by Cyrus Ezra 5:14, why do the adversaries of 4:1-2 speak to Zerubbabel and not Sheshbazzar, this does make perfect sense though if this happens when Zerubbabel is governer as sated at Haggai 2:21.
(1 Esdras from the LXX gives a much better understanding of the true timing of events.)
I take your point regarding the second arguement re the Jubilee, but it does work and is more justified for 587 if the laws regarding release from Deuteronomy are applied for an exact timing, pointless to use that here as you say the 586 basic explaination is complicated enough.
Thanks for your input thus far,
BB
There is more proof secularly for 587BCE than there is for 539BCE so why didn't they use 587BCE as their starting point?
If their calculations were right then 1914 would be right. The fact that 100 years have passed and the generation is long dead proves it all wrong. Conjuring up an 'overlapping generation', smacks of desperation.
How about the fact the 70 years applies to Babylon and not to Jerusalem?
Hi Bart,
In the absence of a king's name, it is still an assumption to believe a far later king's time (i.e. Darius) was meant. He's first mentioned in chapter 4. Yes, it is hard to untangle the timeline with all the parentheses added to the book, but it is more natural to think the writer, having not specified a new king's name, was still referring to the time of Cyrus.
I find Dr. Constable's online commentary helpful here (noting the table on p. 10).
Regarding Hag. 2:15. Maybe he's using prophetic hyperbole - after all, Haggai 1:12-15 indicates that the people had listened and had already started work on the temple a few weeks earlier than his statement at 2:15, so surely some stones had already been placed on other stones. Yes, 2:18 is phrased awkwardly and must be seen in the light of Ezra and Haggai's earlier statements.
As regards chapter 4 the chronology is a mess due to very poor redaction, and I do not know how this viewed in WT land.
The WT has a very outdated view on this.
*** w06 1/15 p. 18 Highlights From the Book of Ezra ***
PERSIAN KINGS FROM 537 TO 467 B.C.E.
Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1) died in 530 B.C.E.
Cambyses, or Ahasuerus (Ezra 4:6) 530-22 B.C.E.
Artaxerxes—Bardiya (Ezra 4:7) 522 B.C.E. (Assassinated after
or Gaumata reigning only seven months)Darius I (Ezra 4:24) 522-486 B.C.E.
Xerxes, or Ahasuerus 486-75 B.C.E. (Ruled as
coregent with Darius I from
496-86 B.C.E.)Artaxerxes Longimanus (Ezra 7:1) 475-24 B.C.E.
[Footnote]Xerxes is not mentioned in the book of Ezra. He is referred to as Ahasuerus in the Bible book of Esther.
Instead of renaming kings (without any support from history) and squashing them in in chronological order before Darius, it makes more sense to understand that the writer of Ezra began a giant parenthesis at 4:6 - as if he's saying, 'While we're on the subject of opposition to our temple rebuilding, I might as well mention what happened later in Xerxes' and Artaxerxes' reigns about our city rebuilding.' Then at 4:24 the writer resumes the narrative about the temple rebuilding.
As Sheshbazzar was made governer by Cyrus Ezra 5:14, why do the adversaries of 4:1-2 speak to Zerubbabel and not Sheshbazzar, this does make perfect sense though if this happens when Zerubbabel is governer as sated at Haggai 2:21.
There are different ideas about this, including one that the two names refer to the same person, but 1 Esdras 6:18 and 1 Chron. 3:17-19 suggest otherwise. Sheshbazzar (var. Shenazzar) appears to have been Zerubbabel's uncle so they both could have been the 'go to' guys, or for some reason Zerubbabel took over responsibility.
Bart Belteshassur:
AnnO Haggai, during the 2nd year of Darius, claims that Jehovah states that his house is still a waste whilst the returnees have build their own own homes 1:9. This shows that the returnees have made no effort to build his house but have built their own instead, and planted crops which Jehovah with held the dew from. He continues to say that Jehovah then rouse up the spirit of Zerubbabel and Joshua and all the people and then they began the work on his house. This indicates that this was the first they did any work on the house, other wise he would have said continued.
It's easy to have this mistaken impression if Haggai is read in isolation. However, when all the available sources are considered together, it is evident that work on the temple foundations began in Cyrus' second year, then construction was interrupted, and was later resumed with greater impetus in Darius' second year.
Ezra 4:1-7 explicitly states that temple work began during the reign of Cyrus, and then was halted during Cyrus' reign, remained on hold throughout the the reigns of 'Ahasuerus' (Cambyses II) and 'Artaxerxes' (Bardiya), and then resumed in Darius' second year.
When the enemies of Judah and Benjamin heard that the returned exiles were building a temple to Jehovah the God of Israel, 2 they immediately approached Ze·rub′ba·bel and the heads of the paternal houses and said to them: “Let us build along with you; for like you, we worship your God and we have been sacrificing to him since the days of King E′sar-had′don of As·syr′i·a, who brought us here.” 3 However, Ze·rub′ba·bel and Jesh′u·a and the rest of the heads of the paternal houses of Israel said to them: “You have no share with us in building a house to our God, for we alone will build it to Jehovah the God of Israel, just as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us.”
4 Then the people of the land were continually discouraging the people of Judah and disheartening them from building. 5 They hired advisers against them to frustrate their plans all the days of King Cyrus of Persia until the reign of King Da·ri′us of Persia. 6 At the beginning of the reign of A·has·u·e′rus, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. 7 And in the days of King Ar·ta·xerx′es of Persia, Bish′lam, Mith′re·dath, Tab′e·el, and the rest of his colleagues wrote to Ar·ta·xerx′es the king; they translated the letter into Ar·a·ma′ic, writing it with Ar·a·ma′ic characters.
Josephus (Against Apion Book I, chapter 21) also states: "in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius."
If deferring to a claim of 'scriptural infallibility' (without basis), interpreting Haggai 2:15 literally means calling Ezra a liar, invalidating the premise anyway. On the other hand, hyperbole is frequently used in the Bible, and there is no reason why it should not be applied to Haggai's description.
AnnO - Silly me, I forgot than in la la land when history does not agree the the NWT and WT truth, then just make it up, oh the intellect they show!!!
Good points thuogh apart from that, thanks.
Jeffro - Is that the WT view on it? I am sure they wouldn't use Jopheus though, that would leave them open to his contraditions of 607? It is possible because they will quote Jopheus were he does not contradict them, however they miss represent his context.
And meanwhile back in the real world, the Ezra/Nehemiah scroll contains much that we could debate primarily whether Nehemiah came to Jerusalem before Ezra which is the I would tend to go.
BB
Hi Jeffro,
Ezra 4:1-7 explicitly states that temple work began during the reign of Cyrus , and then was halted during Cyrus' reign, remained on hold throughout the the reigns of 'Ahasuerus' ( Cambyses II ) and 'Artaxerxes' ( Bardiya ), and then resumed in Darius ' second year.
As explained above, equating Ahasuerus with Cambyses and Artaxerxes with Bardiya is an outdated view. It mainly comes from older commentaries where they had less archaeological data to go on. There is no indication from history that Cambyses was ever given the name Ahasuerus or that Bardiya was also named Artaxerxes. So 'Ahasuerus' is Xerxes (the Gk. form of the name) and Artaxerxes naturally refers to Artaxerxes I. Ezra talks about the opposition to rebuilding the temple and then digresses to the later opposition, in Xerxes' and Artaxerxes' reigns, concerning the rebuilding of the city walls, before returning to the subject of the temple.
Hi Bart,
AnnO - Silly me, I forgot than in la la land when history does not agree the the NWT and WT truth, then just make it up, oh the intellect they show!!!
In this instance, it's unfair to say they made up those identifications - they are just relying on older scholarship. If they changed their minds on it, I don't think it would affect the bigger chronological picture as far as they are concerned.
