So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander 163 Replies latest watchtower bible

AlanF

Hi Earnest,
: What is this anyway...a Watchtower Study ? Read the question, read the answer...oh well, done it often enough so I won't quibble now.
The reason I'm playing a game here is because I've been down this same path with a number of JWs. If I simply play the trump card out straight, they always disappear or come back with some amazingly stupid dismissive comments. I just wanted to see what would happen if I used game tactic on a straight shooter like you. Sorry to string you along.
: The Jewish captives remained servants to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign (or, came to power). As verse 22 then speaks of the first year of Cyrus king of Persia that would be the year they ended their servitude to Nebuchadnezzar. There seems to be a consensus that this was in 539 B.C.E.
Correct. And that completely blows away the Society's chronology, in view of Jeremiah 25:11, 12, which reads:
*** Rbi8 Jeremiah 25:10-12 ***
11 'And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 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 Chalde'ans...'
So according to this prophetic passage, "these nations" including the Jews would be servants to the king of Babylon 70 years, and when the 70 years were over, or fulfilled, Jehovah would "call to account", or punish, the king of Babylon. 2 Chronicles 36:20 is a direct statement that this prophecy was fulfilled when the "royalty of Persia" came to power and the Jews no longer were servants to the king of Babylon. Therefore, the period of 70 years foretold by Jeremiah ended when the Persians conquered Babylon, and the king of Babylon was punished, in 539 B.C.
Since we have here Biblical proof that the 70 years of Jeremiah ended in 539, and not 537 B.C. as the Society claims, the Society has no case.
QED
Farkel said:
: Rolf Furuli has been caught in scholarly dishonesty in the past.
: I do not doubt your word on this but wonder if you could be more specific as it has the appearance of mud-slinging without any tangible mud. Thanks.
Farkel is remembering several things. For one thing, Carl Olof Jonsson has written about some of his dealings with Furuli in the late 1980s. See below for the material. Also, Carl discussed this material with me in more detail in private correspondence during the 1990s. I got the impression that he felt that Furuli's discussions bordered on a misrepresentation of his own views and of some of the chronological evidence. I have told Farkel about this. You can read the material below and decide for yourself. I will also write to Jonsson and ask him about his present view of Furuli's scholastic honesty. Finally, Furuli took part in some online discussions about the blood transfusion issue a couple of years ago, indicating that he was in some way specially qualified to comment. In my opinion his comments were sometimes thoroughly dishonest, and misrepresented what his opponents said.
Here are Jonsson's comments, from The Gentile Times Reconsidered (Third Edition, 1998, pp. 308-9):
Rolf Furuli is a Jehovah's Witness who lives in Oslo, Norway. He is a former district overseer and is regarded by Norwegian Witnesses as the leading apologist of Watch Tower teachings in that country, and Witnesses often turn to him with their doctrinal problems. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that he has seen it as an important task to "refute" my work on the Watch Tower Society's Gentile times Chronology.
Furuli's first attempt of that sort, a paper of more than one hundred pages called "Den nybabyloniske kronologi og Bibelen" ("The Neo-Babylonian Chronology and the Bible"), was sent to me by Witnesses in Norway in 1987. Like the Watch Tower Society in its "Appendix," Furuli attempted to undermine the reliability of the historical sources for the Neo-Babylonian chronology presented in my work. To meet the wishes of the Norwegian Witnesses (who had contacted me in secret), I decided to write a reply to Furuli's paper.
The first 31 pages of my reply (which in all finally amounted to 93 pages) were sent in the spring of 1987 to the Norwegian Witnesses, who soon provided Rolf Furuli with a copy, too. Furuli quickly realized that his discussion had been shown to be untenable, and if he continued to circulate his paper, my reply would be circulated, too. To prevent this, he wrote me a letter, dated April 23, 1987, in which he described his paper as just "private notes" which "not in all details" represented his "present views" but was solely an expression of the information available to him at the time it was written. he asked me to destroy my copy of his paper and never quote from it again.[48]
[48] As I later found out that Furuli continued to share his paper with Witnesses who had begun to question the Society's chronology, I saw no reason to stop the circulation of my reply to it.
A main point in Furuli's argumentation was that the dates on some cuneiform documents from the Neo-Babylonian era create "overlaps" of a few months between some of the reigns, which he regarded as proof that extra years must be added to these reigns. These "overlaps" are discussed in the Appendix for chapter 3 of the present work.
Three years later Furuli had prepared a second paper aimed at overthrowing the evidence presented in my work. For some time Furuli had been studying Hebrew at the university in Oslo, and in his new paper of 36 pages (dated February 1, 1990) he tried to argue that my discussion of the seventy years "for Babylon" was in conflict with the original Hebrew text.
It was evident, though, that Furuli's knowledge of Hebrew at that time was very imperfect. Having consulted with a number of leading Scandinavian Hebraists, I wrote a reply of 69 pages, demonstrating in detail that his arguments throughout were based on a misunderstanding of the Hebrew language. As Furuli in his discussion had questioned the reliability of the Hebrew Masoretic text (MT) of the book of Jeremiah, my reply also included a defence of this text against the Greek Septuagint text (LXX) of the book.[49]
[49] The most important of these comments on the Hebrew text of the seventy-year passages have been included in chapter 5 of the present work ...
I think that the charge of "scholarly dishonesty" is supported by Furuli's actions as described in footnote 48 in the above quotation. If he indicated to Jonsson that he was withdrawing his paper because it had been refuted, then to turn around and continue offering it as a valid refutation to fellow JWs is thoroughly dishonest. What do you think?
AlanF
Earnest

Hi Alan,
2 Chronicles 36:20 is a direct statement that this prophecy [Jeremiah 25:10-12] was fulfilled when the "royalty of Persia" came to power and the Jews no longer were servants to the king of Babylon. Therefore, the period of 70 years foretold by Jeremiah ended when the Persians conquered Babylon, and the king of Babylon was punished, in 539 B.C.
Yes, that much was clear to me when I answered your question about the year that the royalty of Persia began to reign.
However, I wondered how the WTS reconciled this and so did a bit of research. The book Babylon the Great Has Fallen! - God's Kingdom Rules!, 1963, pp.364-366 had this to say:
In calculating the "first year of Cyrus the king of Persia," we must faithfully proceed according to the inspired Word of Jehovah God. We accept from secular historians the year 539 B.C. as a fixed date, marking the downfall of Babylon, the Third World Power. But the Bible introduces, immediately after the fall of Babylon in that year of 539 B.C., the reign at Babylon of Darius the Mede. (Daniel 5:30, 31) The prophet Daniel, who was there at Babylon, speaks of the "first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes, who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans." (Daniel 9:1; 11:1; 6:1, 6, 9, 25, 28) In harmony with the Bible we must accept at least one year, with possibly part of a second year, for King Darius the Mede. Hence, at the earliest, the first year of King Cyrus the Persian may not have begun till late in the year 538 B.C. to extend over into the following year of 537 B.C.
Cyrus decree was evidently not issued before the first year of Darius the Mede was disposed of and Cyrus became sole ruler of Babylon. The Bible does not say that it was in the first year of the reign of King Darius the Mede that Cyrus issued his decree, nor does the Bible say that Jerusalem's desolation came to an end in the first year of King Darius' reign. It was in the first year of his reign that the prophet Daniel studied Jeremiah's prophecy concerning Jerusalem's desolation, and this study on Daniel's part must have been before Cyrus issued his decree in his own name in his own first year of his reign aside from Darius the Mede. Daniel 9:1-18.

In view of the time that it took the homesick Jews to get ready and then make the trek back to Judah and Jerusalem, the decree of Cyrus must have been made toward the close of winter and the beginning of spring of 537 B.C.
[Footnotes]
On page 404 of Volume 4, The Jewish Encyclopedia
says: "Cyrus always conformed to the traditions of the thrones he usurped, and, together with his son Cambyses, rendered homage to the native deities. On the first day of the year, Nisan 1 (March 20), 538, in conformity with Babylonian custom, he grasped the hands of the golden statue of Bel-Marduk, and thus became consecrated as monarch. From this ceremony dates the first year of his reign as King of Babylon, King of all the Lands." Cyrus thus had himself proclaimed as king of Babylon and as the legitimate successor to the deposed King Nabonidus. By doing this he did not have to reconquer the Babylonian Empire. Babylon's foreign possessions, Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine and the borderlands of the desert, all came to be tributary to Cyrus.See The Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible (1956), page 75, paragraph 3.
If we proceed according to the cuneiform inscriptions, rather than the Bible, we have to take the position that Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian reigned concurrently for a time. According to this, the accession year (an incomplete lunar year) of Cyrus as king of Babylon began on October 23 of 539 B.C.E., when he entered the city (by day) after its capture by his troops. Hence his first regnal year (a full lunar year) began on Nisan 1 of 538 B.C.E., or on March 17/18 of 538 B.C.E., Gregorian time.

The cuneiform tablet entitled "Strassmaier, Cyrus No. 11" mentions Cyrus' first regnal year. By this tablet it is calculated that this year began March 17/18, 538 B.C.E., and it ended on March 4/5 of 537 B.C.E., Gregorian time. So Cyrus' second regnal year began the next day, on March 5/6, 537 B.C.E. In this case Cyrus decree must have been made before this latter date that is, late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. See pages 14, 29 of
Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. - A.D.75, edition of 1956, by Parker and Dubberstein.
Now if I had remembered that (I last studied the Babylon book when I was a schoolboy) I would not have been quite as dogmatic that the year "the royalty of Persia [i.e. Cyrus] began to reign" was 539. The Hebrew word meaning "began to reign" is malak and means to become a king or to be made a king and so I guess it could refer to the regnal year.
Alas, Alan, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. It's late now so I will try to complete my reply tomorrow and address the rest of your argument then.
Best wishes,
Earnest
Edited by - Earnest on 9 January 2003 0:17:13
AlanF

Hi Earnest,
:: 2 Chronicles 36:20 is a direct statement that this prophecy [Jeremiah 25:10-12] was fulfilled when the "royalty of Persia" came to power ...
: Yes, that much was clear to me when I answered your question about the year that the royalty of Persia began to reign.
Ok.
: However, I wondered how the WTS reconciled this and so did a bit of research. The book Babylon the Great Has Fallen! - God's Kingdom Rules!, 1963, pp.364-366 had this to say:
Well, in this stuff they never actually dealt with the 2 Chron. 36:20 problem. They simply ignored it. And the discussion you quoted didn't even implicitly deal with the problem, as I will show. I'll keep the stuff you quoted in the usual yellow board-quoting style.
Note that the material was written largely by Fred Franz. I'll point out some areas where he's simply wrong in certain statements. It's evident that he didn't really know what he was talking about to a goodly extent.
In calculating the "first year of Cyrus the king of Persia," we must faithfully proceed according to the inspired Word of Jehovah God.
Nice in principle, but Franz doesn't always do this.
We accept from secular historians the year 539 B.C. as a fixed date, marking the downfall of Babylon, the Third World Power. But the Bible introduces, immediately after the fall of Babylon in that year of 539 B.C., the reign at Babylon of Darius the Mede. (Daniel 5:30, 31) The prophet Daniel, who was there at Babylon, speaks of the "first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes, who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans." (Daniel 9:1; 11:1; 6:1, 6, 9, 25, 28) In harmony with the Bible we must accept at least one year, with possibly part of a second year, for King Darius the Mede.
Franz was wrong in this last conclusion, and the Society has changed its views on the length of reign of Darius. Note the following excerpts from Insight under the heading "Darius" (Vol. 1, pp. 580-3):
*** it-1 580 Darius ***
Darius the Mede, successor to the kingdom of the Chaldean king Belshazzar following the conquest of Babylon by the forces of Cyrus the Persian
*** it-1 580 Darius ***
Some consider it possible that "Darius" may have been used, at least in the case of Darius the Mede, as a title or throne name rather than a personal name.
*** it-1 582 Darius ***
Along this line, Professor Whitcomb points out that, according to the Nabonidus Chronicle, Gubaru, as Cyrus district-governor, "appointed . . . (district-governors) in Babylon," even as Daniel 6:1, 2 shows that Darius "set up over the kingdom one hundred and twenty satraps." Whitcomb therefore holds that Gubaru, as a governor over governors, was likely addressed as king by his subordinates. (Darius the Mede, pp. 31-33) And, referring to the extensive region over which Gubaru (Gobryas) exercised dominion, A. T. Olmstead says: "Over this whole vast stretch of fertile country, Gobryas [Gubaru] ruled almost as an independent monarch."--History of the Persian Empire, 1948, p. 56.
In harmony with the above, some scholars consider it likely that Darius the Mede was in reality a viceroy who ruled over the kingdom of the Chaldeans but as a subordinate of Cyrus, the supreme monarch of the Persian Empire. A. T. Olmstead observes: "In his dealings with his Babylonian subjects, Cyrus was king of Babylon, king of lands. By thus insisting that the ancient line of monarchs remained unbroken, he flattered their vanity, won their loyalty . . . But it was Gobryas the satrap who represented the royal authority after the kings departure." (History of the Persian Empire, p. 71) Those who hold that the Biblical Darius was indeed such a vicegerent point to the fact that Darius is stated to have "received the kingdom" and that he was "made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans" as evidence that he was indeed subordinate to a superior monarch.--Da 5:31; 9:1; compare 7:27, where "the Supreme One," Jehovah God, gives the Kingdom to "the holy ones."
While in many respects the information available concerning Gubaru appears to parallel that regarding Darius, and while Darius may have been a viceroy under Cyrus, still such identification cannot be considered conclusive. The historical records do not tell us Gubarus nationality nor his parentage to show thereby that he was a "Mede" and "the son of Ahasuerus." They do not show that he had kingly authority to the extent of being able to make a proclamation or edict of the nature described at Daniel 6:6-9. Additionally, the Bible record appears to indicate that Darius rule over Babylon was not of long duration and that Cyrus thereafter took over the kingship of Babylon, though it is possible that they ruled concurrently and that Daniel made special mention of only the year that Darius came to prominence in Babylon. (Da 6:28; 9:1; 2Ch 36:20-23) Gubaru continued in his position for 14 years.
Insight also quotes a secular record showing that Cyrus was viewed as the king of Babylon after he conquered it:
*** it-1 566 Cyrus ***
Following his conquest of the Babylonian Empire, Cyrus is represented in the cuneiform document known as the Cyrus Cylinder as saying: "I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four rims (of the earth), son of Cambyses (Ka-am-bu-zi-ia), great king, king of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus , . . . descendant of Teispes . . . of a family (which) always (exercised) kingship."
Insight also acknowledges that any way you look at it, Cyrus' "first year" was 538 B.C.:
*** it-1 568 Cyrus ***
Cyrus Decree for the Return of the Exiles. By his decreeing the end of the Jewish exile, Cyrus fulfilled his commission as Jehovahs anointed shepherd for Israel. (2Ch 36:22, 23; Ezr 1:1-4) The proclamation was made "in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia," meaning his first year as ruler toward conquered Babylon. The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to "the first year of Darius," and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and "the first year of Cyrus" over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.
This shows that Franz's dogmatic view has been dropped by WTS writers.
In order to establish the 539 date for the fall of Babylon, Insight acknowledges that Cyrus had an accession year in 539 B.C.:
*** it-1 453 Chronology ***
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. . . this tablet establishes the seventh year of Cambyses II as beginning in the spring of 523 B.C.E. This is an astronomically confirmed date.
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.--A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.
If Cyrus had an accession year, it had to begin before Nisan 1, 538 B.C., which puts it anywhere from Nisan 1, 539 B.C. through the day before Nisan, 538 B.C. Thus it is entirely possible, according to the Society (and many secular historians) that Cyrus acceded to the throne of Babylon shortly after his army conquered it in October, 539 B.C.
Finally, Insight acknowledges the fact that the Medes and Persians had, in effect, a dual rulership over Babylon and every other land they conquered:
*** it-1 583 Darius ***
The dual form of the Medo-Persian rule presented in the Bible must therefore be given its proper weight. (Da 5:28; 8:3, 4, 20) Though secular history accords overwhelming prominence to Cyrus and the Persians, the Bible record shows that the Medes continued in an apparent partnership arrangement with the Persians, and the laws continued to be those of "the Medes and the Persians." (Da 6:8; Es 1:19) The Medes played a major part in the overthrow of Babylon. (Isa 13:17-19) Note, too, that Jeremiah (51:11) foretold that "the kings [plural] of the Medes" would be among Babylons attackers. Darius may well have been one of these kings.
This indicates that whether the Bible says that a Mede or a Persian was on the throne is immaterial to the important fact that a king from the Medo-Persian empire was ruling.
Back to your quotation of the Babylon book:
Hence, at the earliest, the first year of King Cyrus the Persian may not have begun till late in the year 538 B.C. to extend over into the following year of 537 B.C.
In view of the above, it is evident that the Society no longer goes along with this view.
Cyrus decree was evidently not issued before the first year of Darius the Mede was disposed of and Cyrus became sole ruler of Babylon. The Bible does not say that it was in the first year of the reign of King Darius the Mede that Cyrus issued his decree, nor does the Bible say that Jerusalem's desolation came to an end in the first year of King Darius' reign.
The material I quoted above renders this moot.
It was in the first year of his reign that the prophet Daniel studied Jeremiah's prophecy concerning Jerusalem's desolation, and this study on Daniel's part must have been before Cyrus issued his decree in his own name in his own first year of his reign aside from Darius the Mede. Daniel 9:1-18.
In view of the time that it took the homesick Jews to get ready and then make the trek back to Judah and Jerusalem, the decree of Cyrus must have been made toward the close of winter and the beginning of spring of 537 B.C.
Nothing relevant to my point about 2 Chron. 36:20 in the above. In fact, by now it should be evident that the Society has said nothing so far in these quotations that bears on it.
[Footnotes]
On page 404 of Volume 4, The Jewish Encyclopedia says: "Cyrus always conformed to the traditions of the thrones he usurped, and, together with his son Cambyses, rendered homage to the native deities. On the first day of the year, Nisan 1 (March 20), 538, in conformity with Babylonian custom, he grasped the hands of the golden statue of Bel-Marduk, and thus became consecrated as monarch. From this ceremony dates the first year of his reign as King of Babylon, King of all the Lands." Cyrus thus had himself proclaimed as king of Babylon and as the legitimate successor to the deposed King Nabonidus. By doing this he did not have to reconquer the Babylonian Empire. Babylon's foreign possessions, Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine and the borderlands of the desert, all came to be tributary to Cyrus.See The Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible (1956), page 75, paragraph 3.
The above material indicates that Cyrus' accession year technically ran from Nisan to Nisan, 539 to 538 B.C. Thus, in some way he was regarded as king of Babylon before Nisan, 538 B.C., and most likely was regarded so upon his entry into Babylon in late October, 539 B.C.
Franz seems to grudgingly admit of all this in the next quotation, but in view of the above writings, he doesn't really believe it:
If we proceed according to the cuneiform inscriptions, rather than the Bible, we have to take the position that Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian reigned concurrently for a time. According to this, the accession year (an incomplete lunar year) of Cyrus as king of Babylon began on October 23 of 539 B.C.E., when he entered the city (by day) after its capture by his troops. Hence his first regnal year (a full lunar year) began on Nisan 1 of 538 B.C.E., or on March 17/18 of 538 B.C.E., Gregorian time.
I should point out that all king's years were reckoned from Nisan to Nisan, so that the accession year was reckoned the same. So Franz's statement that Cyrus' accession year would have begun on October 23 is incorrect.
The cuneiform tablet entitled "Strassmaier, Cyrus No. 11" mentions Cyrus' first regnal year. By this tablet it is calculated that this year began March 17/18, 538 B.C.E., and it ended on March 4/5 of 537 B.C.E., Gregorian time.
Once again we have evidence that the Persians reckoned Cyrus as having an accession year, since for a first regnal year to occur, it must have been preceded by an accession year.
So Cyrus' second regnal year began the next day, on March 5/6, 537 B.C.E. In this case Cyrus decree must have been made before this latter date that is, late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. See pages 14, 29 of Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. - A.D.75, edition of 1956, by Parker and Dubberstein.
Again this says nothing relevant to my point about 2 Chron. 36:20.
: Now if I had remembered that (I last studied the Babylon book when I was a schoolboy) I would not have been quite as dogmatic that the year "the royalty of Persia [i.e. Cyrus] began to reign" was 539.
I'm sure you can see by now that doesn't make any difference. Any way you look at it, the "king of Babylon" that was to be the last of Nebuchadnezzar's line to hold the Jews in servitude was no longer on the throne after October, 539 B.C. That this servitude would end, not with a Medo-Persian king but with a king from Nebuchadnezzar's line, is stated explicitly in Jeremiah 27:6, 7:
6 And now I myself have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.
When did "the time even of his own land come" and when did "many nations and great kings" begin to "exploit him as a servant"? In 539 B.C., of course.
Thus, several scriptures, along with the historical evidence, prove conclusively that "the royalty of Persia", i.e, kings of the Medo-Persian empire, began ruling over Babylon in 539 B.C. and thus the line of Babylonian kings, including Nebuchadnezzar's "son and his grandson" (whoever they were; Belshazzar almost certainly was a grandson), ended then. Therefore the servitude of the Jews to "the king of Babylon" ended in 539 B.C.
I should also point out that, even if the latest date given for Cyrus (as a Persian ruler) to begin ruling was very early in 537 B.C., that still means that someone from "the royalty of Persia" was on the throne of Babylon a minimum of six months before the Jews actually arrived back in Judah (assuming they actually did this in 537; a number of secular historians now suggest with good reason that the Jews were actually back in Judah in 538 B.C.), and so according to this reasoning the 70 years [i]still ended six months earlier than the Society claims. No matter how you cut it, 2 Chron. 36:20 is fatal to the notion that the 70 years of Jeremiah ended in the autumn of 537 B.C.
: The Hebrew word meaning "began to reign" is malak and means to become a king or to be made a king and so I guess it could refer to the regnal year.
Whatever terminology you use, it refers to the actual year in which a king began to rule. In the Babylonian system of reckoning kings' reigns this was called the "accession" year, and in the Jewish system it was called the "first" year. Of course, sometimes it's difficult to impossbile to tell for sure which system a Bible writer uses. Jeremiah contains instances of both.
: Alas, Alan, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. It's late now so I will try to complete my reply tomorrow and address the rest of your argument then.
Looking forward to it.
AlanF
Earnest

Hi Alan,
I have taken some time over my response as I've found the field of biblical chronology a difficult one to comprehend. Your detailed response to the extract from the Babylon book was very helpful and it seems to me that you have provided an elementary response to an elementary argument, namely that if it can be shown the seventy years captivity did not end in October 537 then the Gentile Times did not end in October 1914.
In my previous post I queried whether the royalty of Persia began to reign the same year Babylon was conquered (539 B.C.E.). It seems that Persian chronology of the time called the initial period following the death/abdication of the previous ruler the accession year but that the first official year started the following month of Nisan. Perhaps we could compare this to the sovereignty of the Queen. Her father, King George VI, died on 6 February 1952 but Elizabeth was only crowned on 2 June 1953. In the terms we are using to describe the rule of Cyrus, 1952 would have been the accession year and 1953 would have been the first regnal year. So I think it can be argued that the first regnal year would be counted as the beginning of his reign. This would be from Nisan 538 providing he was the immediate successor to Belshazzar.
Your extract below corroborates both that the king's years are counted from the first regnal year and that, in the case of Cyrus, that year was 538.
*** it-1 453 Chronology ***
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. . . this tablet establishes the seventh year of Cambyses II as beginning in the spring of 523 B.C.E. This is an astronomically confirmed date.
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.--A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.
So on that score alone I would agree with you that all the calculations would be shifted back a year. But your argument goes beyond that because the end of the seventy years servitude is when they stop serving the king of Babylon regardless who else it may be on the throne. As you say:
Any way you look at it, the "king of Babylon" that was to be the last of Nebuchadnezzar's line to hold the Jews in servitude was no longer on the throne after October, 539 B.C. That this servitude would end, not with a Medo-Persian king but with a king from Nebuchadnezzar's line, is stated explicitly in Jeremiah 27:6, 7.
The Watchtower of 1979 9/15, page 24, has this interesting viewpoint:
He [Cyrus] proclaimed himself "king of Babylon" and at first did not alter the policy of the Babylonian dynasty of King Nebuchadnezzar. Thus the nations subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar continued to serve "the king of Babylon" 70 years [i.e. until 537 when Cyrus changed the policy and returned the captives to their own lands].
I am not inclined to accept this interpretation myself as it is not the plain meaning of the text and is undoubtedly an artificial extension of Babylon's rule.
The other scripture you refer to is Jeremiah 25:10-12:
11 'And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 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 Chalde'ans...'
This scripture does not allow for equivocation as the clear meaning is that the king of Babylon was first "called to account" when the city was overthrown.
Interestingly, Furuli seems to agree with this in his synopsis of his forthcoming book(s) on the "Oslo chronology" (http://www.geocities.com/yhwhbible/oslo_chronology.htm) :
The year 539 B.C.E.is taken in the Oslo chronology as the time when Cyrus conquered Babylon, although there can be some uncertainty with that year, due to the witness of the tablet Strm Kambys 400, which is not as good as we would have wished. However, if we accept the year 539 and at the same time accept the unambiguous witness of the Bible, we also must accept that the Babylonian exile began about 70 years before the year 539, and not 49 or 50, which is what B&D allows for.
The only way that 607 can still be maintained as the destruction of Jerusalem would be to argue that Babylon was destroyed in 537 rather than 539. Furuli is obviously aware of this as he says the "Babylonian exile began about 70 years before the year 539" and that "there can be some uncertainty with [539]". It will be interesting to see if he makes a stronger case for this in his forthcoming book.
The other course one could follow is to throw out the baby with the bath water and simply say the bible chronology is dubious and it is simply a matter of faith. In The Gentile Times Reconsidered, by C.O.Jonsson (Second edition, pp.215,216), he has a footnote to Jeremiah 25:20-12 :
The Greek Septuagint Version (LXX) says: "and they will serve among the nations," instead of: "and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon." There are many differences between MT and LXX with respect to the text of the book of Jeremiah. The LXX text is about one-eighth shorter than the MT text. In Jeremiah 25:1-14 of the LXX, for some unknown reason, all references to the king of Babylon are omitted. (See verses 1, 9, 11 and 12.) It is well known that LXX adds about 1,500 years to the chronology from Adam to Christ, that period becoming c. 5,500 years instead of c. 4,000 years (MT).
Of course reliance on the LXX chronology would mean that 6000 years ended in the time of Justinian (which is described as the most brilliant period of the later empire). So there's a thought. Maybe the thousand years ended with Satan's release and the Reformation where many were misled!? The serious point that I am making is that the alternative to depending on a date is to say that on this matter the bible is unclear and we simply have faith. My question to "scholar" was that due to this uncertainty is it not likely 1914 would have been discarded, just as 1874 and 1975 have been, if the year had not been distinguished by the outbreak of war.
I think that the charge of "scholarly dishonesty" is supported by Furuli's actions as described in footnote 48 in the above quotation. If he indicated to Jonsson that he was withdrawing his paper because it had been refuted, then to turn around and continue offering it as a valid refutation to fellow JWs is thoroughly dishonest. What do you think?
I hesitate to condemn anyone without hearing their side of a story but agree it appears Furuli was less than honest in this example. On the other hand, I have found his book 'The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation' to be invaluable, if not entirely without bias, and so will be interested to read what he has to say about chronology in his forthcoming books.
Earnest
Edited by - Earnest on 11 January 2003 16:13:38
scholar

Earnest
Your posts provide interesting reading as you are having a running debate with Alan F,. It is good that you appreciate the complexity of biblical chronology particularly the seventy years. This subject has attracted discussion in the scholarly literature but to this day the situation the situation remains as clouded as ever. This obvious facy has been lost on Alan F who simply states a certain test, provides an interpretation and then proclaims this or Jonsson.s view of those texts as absolute truth. I have said time and time again that the seventy years needs to fully explored in its entirety which can onlly be properly done in a suitable academic way. You cannot interpret this subject just by one or two texts but all must be brought together in order to make sense, I believe that 607 through to 537 is the only possible solution. It thus begins with a dramatic historical and biblical event namely the Fall of Jerusalem and terminates with an equally dramatic historical event, namely the release of the exiles from Babylon to a desolated land.
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
AlanF

Hi Earnest,
: I have taken some time over my response
I can see that, and I appreciate it.
: as I've found the field of biblical chronology a difficult one to comprehend.
No question about that.
: Your detailed response to the extract from the Babylon book was very helpful and it seems to me that you have provided an elementary response to an elementary argument, namely that if it can be shown the seventy years captivity did not end in October 537 then the Gentile Times did not end in October 1914.
That's exactly the point.
: In my previous post I queried whether the royalty of Persia began to reign the same year Babylon was conquered (539 B.C.E.). It seems that Persian chronology of the time called the initial period following the death/abdication of the previous ruler the accession year
More precisely, the entire year in which a king began to rule was called the accession year. However, this entire year was counted as if it were a complete year belonging to the previous king. This was to simplify the counting of years in a long period by making it easy to count the number of years attributed to successive kings. Thus, if a king died on the 1st day of Nisan, the entire rest of the year was called his XXth year, and it was also called the accession year of his successor. However, the dating of specific events was always to something like "Year 3, month 5, day 22 of Nebuchadnezzar", or if in the accession year, "Accession year, month 5, day 22 ..."
: but that the first official year started the following month of Nisan. Perhaps we could compare this to the sovereignty of the Queen. Her father, King George VI, died on 6 February 1952 but Elizabeth was only crowned on 2 June 1953. In the terms we are using to describe the rule of Cyrus, 1952 would have been the accession year and 1953 would have been the first regnal year. So I think it can be argued that the first regnal year would be counted as the beginning of his reign. This would be from Nisan 538 providing he was the immediate successor to Belshazzar.
I understand all this. However, even if one could successfully argue that the phrase "until the royalty of Persia began to reign" referred, not to the day on which Darius the Mede (a ruler of king of the Medo-Persian empire) began to actually rule, but to Nisan 1 of 538 B.C., there is still a gap of a year and a half to fill from this point to when the Society reckons the Jews arrived back in Jerusalem, namely, Sept/Oct 537 B.C.
Your extract below corroborates both that the king's years are counted from the first regnal year and that, in the case of Cyrus, that year was 538. ...
Right.
: So on that score alone I would agree with you that all the calculations would be shifted back a year. But your argument goes beyond that because the end of the seventy years servitude is when they stop serving the king of Babylon regardless who else it may be on the throne. As you say:
:: Any way you look at it, the "king of Babylon" that was to be the last of Nebuchadnezzar's line to hold the Jews in servitude was no longer on the throne after October, 539 B.C. That this servitude would end, not with a Medo-Persian king but with a king from Nebuchadnezzar's line, is stated explicitly in Jeremiah 27:6, 7.
That's really the key point. This also argues strongly in favor of understanding 2 Chron. 36:20 as referring to the very beginning of Medo-Persian reign, namely, on the very day that Cyrus' army conquered Babylon.
There is another aspect to this. The Society argues that the captivity at Babylon (Jer. 29:10; NWT) and the desolation of Judah both lasted precisely 70 years. You can look up references for yourself on this. But there is a big problem: Because of the four-month trip time between Jerusalem and Babylon, if the desolation of Judah lasted precisely 70 years, the captivity at Babylon would have been only about 69 years and four months -- which contradicts the Society's claims. In Furuli's little blurb you'll note that he glosses over this problem, just as the Society does.
: The Watchtower of 1979 9/15, page 24, has this interesting viewpoint:
He [Cyrus] proclaimed himself "king of Babylon" and at first did not alter the policy of the Babylonian dynasty of King Nebuchadnezzar. Thus the nations subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar continued to serve "the king of Babylon" 70 years [i.e. until 537 when Cyrus changed the policy and returned the captives to their own lands].
Yes, I'm quite familiar with this bit of nonsense.
: I am not inclined to accept this interpretation myself as it is not the plain meaning of the text and is undoubtedly an artificial extension of Babylon's rule.
Exactly. It contradicts the plain meaning of Jer. 27:6, 7, and assumes that "the king of Babylon" was Cyrus. It also contradicts the plain statement in Jer. 25:12 that the king was going to be called to account, or punished, at the end of the 70 years. The Society argues that the fact that Cyrus voluntarily let the Jews go was some form of punishment, but this is patently ridiculous.
: The other scripture you refer to is Jeremiah 25:10-12: ...
: This scripture does not allow for any equivocation as the clear meaning is that the king of Babylon was first "called to account" when the city was overthrown.
Exactly. Funny how we peons can see this, but the great minds in Bethel, who are "divinely directed" to write such things, cannot.
: Interestingly, Furuli seems to agree with this in his synopsis of his forthcoming book(s) on the "Oslo chronology" (http://www.geocities.com/yhwhbible/oslo_chronology.htm) :
The year 539 B.C.E.is taken in the Oslo chronology as the time when Cyrus conquered Babylon, although there can be some uncertaintywith that year, due to the witness of the tablet Strm Kambys 400, which is not as good as we would have wished. However, if we accept the year 539 and at the same time accept the unambiguous witness of the Bible, we also must accept that the Babylonian exile began about 70 years before the year 539, and not 49 or 50, which is what B&D allows for.
Furuli is deliberately being fuzzy here. It will be interesting to see if he ever deals with the subject matter of our thread.
: The only way that 607 can still be maintained as the destruction of Jerusalem would be to argue that Babylon was destroyed in 537 rather than 539. Furuli is obviously aware of this as he says the "Babylonian exile began about 70 years before the year 539" and that "there can be some uncertainty with [539]". It will be interesting to see if he makes a stronger case for this in his forthcoming book.
I doubt that he will. He's under the constraint that anything he publishes can't contradict standard Watchtower teaching. First, he's under the self-imposed constraint that he can't bring himself to publicly disagree with it. Second, he knows that if he does disagree, he'll be censured and at best lose his position within the JW organization, and at worst be disfellowshipped for apostasy.
: The other course one could follow is to throw out the baby with the bath water and simply say the bible chronology is dubious and it is simply a matter of faith.
That would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater bigtime! Then one would wonder what the basis was for the 1914 chronology at all. What the Society would have to claim is that the date was established with a faulty chronology, and that they now realize that the scaffolding upholding the date is gone. What would hold it up? The claim that JW leaders are "divinely directed"? That would be such a bootstrapped house of cards that even Watchtower writers would have to balk at going with it. The date would be based purely on their claim to divine direction, which in turn is based on the validity of the date.
I agree that using the LXX gets the Society nowhere.
: My question to "scholar" was that due to this ambiguity is it not likely 1914 would have been discarded, just as 1874 and 1975 have been, if the outbreak of war had not taken place.
Of course it would. In fact, it's quite unlikely that there would be a JW organization at all.
At this point, the Society no longer tries to defend the date via chronology. They use only the supposed "signs" that they claim have been in evidence since 1914. Trouble is, as I've explained ad infinitum to various JWs, the Society now admits that the "earthquake sign" is not any worse than before 1914, which throws into question the entire stupid interpretive structure. A thing is not a sign if it's the same as it's always been.
:: I think that the charge of "scholarly dishonesty" is supported by Furuli's actions as described in footnote 48 in the above quotation. If he indicated to Jonsson that he was withdrawing his paper because it had been refuted, then to turn around and continue offering it as a valid refutation to fellow JWs is thoroughly dishonest. What do you think?
: I hesitate to condemn anyone without hearing their side of a story
Furuli has had ample opportunity to present his side. The fact that he has not seems to me to be proof that he knows Jonsson's claims are true, and that he knows that he would be demolished by Jonsson's documentation if they engaged in a public debate. Besides, Furuli's contempt for honest scholarship was extremely evident in his online defense of the JW blood doctrine a year or so ago. I've had a good deal of private communication with Jonsson over the years, and he has proven to be scrupulously honest, even though we have disagreed on certain topics.
: but agree it appears Furuli was less than honest in this example. I have also noted his obfuscation of 539 (above) which confirms the impression of not being altogether on the level.
I'm glad you stated this explicitly.
: On the other hand, I have found his book 'The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation' to be invaluable, if not entirely without bias, and so will be interested to read what he has to say in his forthcoming books.
Having published the book for the world to read, he'd better have tried to be honest. Otherwise his position as a professor would be in jeopardy.
AlanF
Edited by - AlanF on 11 January 2003 18:13:1
Grout

Scholar,
It's not that complex, really.
The astrological observations simply kicked your ass all over the calendar.
Be a mench and admit it already.
AlanF

Hi Earnest,
You'll note that "scholar" once again makes a post entirely free of useful information. He has no choice when his loyalty is to JW leaders rather than to the facts.
AlanF
Gedanken

Alan & Earnest,
Interesting discussion. As Alan alludes the Society is not interested in defending its chronology because it simply cannot do it. Instead it seems to hope that by not talking about such embarrasing matters the average Witness will forget that the chronology ever existed while 1914, they hope, will (perhaps) survive as a key date, hanging in mid air. This thoroughly dishonest tactic works. For example, my mother, a JW of some 50 years standing wrote several letters to Brooklyn Bethel asking a variety of pointed questions, mainly having to do with the policy changes on blood that have been slipped in unnoticed over the years. In one letter she also asked how long a creative day was since I'd challenged her to tell me what the current teaching was: she couldn't get answers from the elders so when she wrote to HQ she asked that as well. She received no answer to that question and so, in her next letter, at the end, she specifically asked that they at least tell her how long a creative day was. Was it still 7000 years long or not? Their response was a letter filled with a the usual mumbo jumbo on the blood issue; in the conclusion they said "we haven't answered all your questions but ...blah blah blah" Well, that was pretty damn clear. If you ask most JWs how long a Creative Day is they either have no clue at all or think that it is still 7000 years long. Given the number of publications and books produced by the WTS and the countless hours wasted at meetings and assemblies, you'd think that they could spend a bit of time actually explaining the most basic of their doctrines. In itself this is essential evidence that the WTS not only does not speak for God but is actually a fraud.
At Christmas I had occasion to ask an active, although self-described "spiritually weak" JW what they taught these days. This otherwise intelligent woman (in her late 30s) who's been a JW all her life had no answer to such a direct question. Most JWs simply don't know what they believe anymore. So I asked her how she felt about being labelled "weak." She was totally miserable, caught between the supposedly wicked and hostile "world" and the local goons at the KH who tell her she should "do more."
What a morally and intellectually bankrupt outfit this so-called religion is.
Gedanken
Earnest

Hi Alan,
Earnest : I've found the field of biblical chronology a difficult one to comprehend.

AlanF : There is another aspect to this. The Society argues that the captivity at Babylon (Jer. 29:10; NWT) and the desolation of Judah both lasted precisely 70 years. You can look up references for yourself on this. But there is a big problem: Because of the four-month trip time between Jerusalem and Babylon, if the desolation of Judah lasted precisely 70 years, the captivity at Babylon would have been only about 69 years and four months -- which contradicts the Society's claims.

scholar : You cannot interpret this subject just by one or two texts but all must be brought together in order to make sense
It does seem to me that there is some ambiguity as to whether the seventy years referred to the captivity at Babylon or the desolation of Judah:
2 Chronicles 36:21 "...All the days of lying desolated [the land of Judah] kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."
Jeremiah 29:10 "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..."
Ezra 1:1,2 "And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia [i.e. after the king of Babylon had been called to account], 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: 'This is what Cyrus the king of Persia has said, "...[Jehovah] himself has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusalem" ' "
Flavius Josephus, To Epaphroditus on the Antiquities of the Jews in Answer to Apion (Book I, section 19) "...he [the Chaldean historian Berosus in the third century B.C.E.] gives us a catalogue of the posterity of Noah, and adds the years of their chronology, and at length comes down to Nabolassar, who was king of Babylon, and of the Chaldeans. And when he was relating the acts of this king, he describes to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt, and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how, by that means, he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, untill the days of Cyrus king of Persia."
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews (Book X, chapter IX, paragraph 7) "...but the King of Babylon, who brought out the two tribes, placed no other nation in their country, by which means all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years"
So, I do see merit in scholar's advocating a broader consideration of the subject. That is true of most of what one reads in the Bible. When we are looking for both internal harmony and agreement with secular chronology then the whole picture is essential for understanding individual texts.
Earnest : The other course one could follow is to throw out the baby with the bath water and simply say the bible chronology is dubious and it is simply a matter of faith.
AlanF : That would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater bigtime!...The date would be based purely on their claim to divine direction, which in turn is based on the validity of the date.
Belief in 1914 has involved both chronology and faith that the sign of the times were fulfilled. I suggest that the majority have always accepted the chronology because they accepted the signs of the times too. It is not so great a leap to dismiss the chronology as unimportant and rely on faith in the signs of the times alone.
Earnest : I have also noted [Furuli's] obfuscation of 539 (above) which confirms the impression of not being altogether on the level.
AlanF : I'm glad you stated this explicitly.
After posting that I reflected on Furuli's statement that "there can be some uncertainty with [539], due to the witness of the tablet Strm Kambys 400, which is not as good as we would have wished". You also suggest that Strm Kambys 400 is defective in your 'Discussion of Historical Evidence' (http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/gentile2.htm) and so while I have no knowledge of this astronomical diary myself I concluded Furuli's doubts were genuine and edited that comment from my post. Whether or not he has been dishonest in other matters I wish to withdraw my criticism above.
Earnest
Edited by - Earnest on 12 January 2003 23:3:3

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

Share this