Hi Earnest,
: 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:
That's right, and that's because the 70 year period was neither of these things. Rather, it was exactly what Jer. 25:11b states: "... these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." The scripture says nothing about 70 years of captivity of any of "these nations" at Babylon, and it says nothing about 70 years of desolation for any land. It says clearly: 70 years of servitude to the king of Babylon. Therefore the prophecy is that Babylon would have supremacy over Judah and the surrounding nations for a period of seventy years. And this is precisely what a proper translation of Jeremiah 29:10 says:
For this is what Jehovah has said, In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years for 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.
We'll get back to this scripture later, but for the moment, note the emphasis: "70 years for Babylon, i.e., 70 years of Babylonian supremacy.
According to Jeremiah's prophecy, the 70-year period of servitude was inevitable. According to other portions of his prophecies, whether that servitude was to be fulfilled while a nation stayed in its own land, or was at Babylon, was entirely up to the people. If they surrendered peacefully to Babylon, they would stay on their own land. If not, then many would be destroyed and the remainder would be led captive to Babylon. Here is what Jeremiah stated about this in Jer. 27:4-18:
""This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said; this is what YOU should say to YOUR masters, 5 I myself have made the earth, mankind and the beasts that are upon the surface of the earth by my great power and by my stretched-out arm; and I have given it to whom it has proved right in my eyes. 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.8 ""And it must occur that the nation and the kingdom that will not serve him, even Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon; and the one that will not put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, with the sword and with the famine and with the pestilence I shall turn my attention upon that nation, is the utterance of Jehovah, until I shall have finished them off by his hand.
9 ""And as for YOU men, do not listen to YOUR prophets and to YOUR practicers of divination and to YOUR dreamers and to YOUR practicers of magic and to YOUR sorcerers, who are saying to YOU: "YOU men will not serve the king of Babylon." 10 For falsehood is what they are prophesying to YOU, for the purpose of having YOU taken far away from off YOUR ground; and I shall have to disperse YOU, and YOU will have to perish.
11 ""And as for the nation that will bring its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and actually serve him, I will also let it rest upon its ground, is the utterance of Jehovah, and it will certainly cultivate it and dwell in it.""
12 Even to Zedekiah the king of Judah I spoke according to all these words, saying: "Bring YOUR necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him and his people and keep on living. 13 Why should you yourself and your people die by the sword, by the famine and by the pestilence according to what Jehovah has spoken to the nation that does not serve the king of Babylon? 14 And do not listen to the words of the prophets that are saying to YOU men, YOU will not serve the king of Babylon, because falsehood is what they are prophesying to YOU.
15 "For I have not sent them, is the utterance of Jehovah, but they are prophesying in my name falsely, to the end that I shall disperse YOU, and YOU will have to perish, YOU men and the prophets that are prophesying to YOU."
16 And to the priests and to all this people I spoke, saying: "This is what Jehovah has said, Do not listen to the words of YOUR prophets that are prophesying to YOU, saying: "Look! The utensils of the house of Jehovah are being brought back from Babylon soon now!" For falsehood is what they are prophesying to YOU. 17 Do not listen to them. Serve the king of Babylon and keep on living. Why should this city become a devastated place? 18 But if they are prophets and if the word of Jehovah does exist with them, let them, please, beseech Jehovah of armies, that the utensils that are remaining over in the house of Jehovah and the house of the king of Judah and in Jerusalem may not come into Babylon."
In the above passage Jeremiah is explicit that if the Jews would serve the king of Babylon willingly, they would not be made captive and their land would not become a devastated place. Do you see how the Bible itself makes a distinction? This is something that the Watchtower Society, and JW apologists like "scholar" and Rolf Furuli never deal with. Why? Because it is obvious that they cannot reconcile these clear scriptures with JW tradition.
JWs also ignore the problem I brought out: they gloss over the simple fact that if their notion of "70 years of desolation" is exactly 70 years, then their notion of "captivity" must necessarily be no more than 69 years and four months. Yet Watchtower publications never deal with this problem, and like Furuli, use obfuscatory language to cover it over. The 70 years cannot refer both to a period of exactly 70 years of desolation and exactly 70 years of captivity. I'm not sure that you understood this point.
Now let's consider the scriptures you quoted:
: 2 Chronicles 36:21 "...All the days of lying desolated [the land of Judah] kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."
This scripture does not actually equate the period of lying desolated with a 70 year period. It can be understood this way, but it can also be understood in other ways. Here is the point: 2 Chron. 36:20 is absolutely unambiguous in stating that the servitude of the Jews to the king of Babylon ended at the fall of Babylon, which was in 539 B.C. If we attempt to say that 2 Chron. 36:21 means that a 70-year period of desolation ended in 537 B.C., then we have a contradiction. Watchtower apologists have always ignored this contradiction. I do not. Because verse 20, as we have seen, is not ambiguous, but verse 21 is, the only way to avoid a contradiction is to understand verse 21 in a way that avoids a contradiction with verse 20. Carl Jonsson explains very well how verse 21 ought to be understood so as to avoid a contradiction (The Gentile Times Reconsidered; third edition, pp. 221-2):
D-1: The sabbath rest of the landA cursory reading of verse 21 could give the impression that the Chronicler states that the land had enjoyed a sabbath rest of seventy years, and that this had been predicted by Jeremiah. But Jeremiah does not speak of the seventy years in terms of allowing the land to pay off its sabbath years. In fact, there is no reference at all to a sabbath rest for the land in his book.
Therefore Ezra's words, "until the land had paid off its sabbaths; all the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath," could not be a fulfillment of "Jehovah's word by the mouth of Jeremiah." The two clauses about the sabbath rest are, as has been observed by Bible commentators, a reference to another prediction, found at Leviticus, chapter 26.
Among other things, this chapter forewarns that, if the people did not obey the law of the sabbatical years (discussed in the preceding chapter, Leviticus 25), they would be scattered among the nations and their land would be desolated. In this way the land would be allowed to "pay off its sabbaths":
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. 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. -- Leviticus 26:34-35, NW.Like Daniel earlier, the writer of the Chronicles understood the desolation of Judah to be a fulfillment of this curse predicted in the law of Moses. He therefore inserted this prediction from Leviticus 26 to show that it was fulfilled after the final deportation to Babylon, exactly as was predicted through Moses, "while you are in the land of your enemies." By inserting the two clauses from Leviticus 26, the Chronicler did not mean to say that the land enjoyed a sabbath rest of seventy years, as this was not predicted, either by Moses or by Jeremiah. He does not tell explicitly how long it rested, only that "all the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath." -- 2 Chronicles 36:20.[37]
As with Daniel, the main interest of the Chronicler was the return of the exiles, and therefore he points out that they had to remain in Babylonia until two prophecies had been fulfilled: (1) that of Jeremiah on the seventy years of supremacy "for Babylon," and (2) that in Leviticus on the desolation and sabbath rest for the land of Judah. These prophecies should not be mixed up or confused, as is often done. Not only do they refer to periods of different character and different lengths; they also refer to different nations. But as the two periods were closely connected in that the end of one period was contingent on the end of the other, the Chronicler, like Daniel, brought them together.
Footnote [37]: The actual length of the land's sabbath rest was 49 years, from the final desolation and depopulation in 587 B.C.E., until the return of the exiles in 538. Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but this was also the maximal period during which a Hebrew could be deprived of the proprietorship of his ancestral inheritance, according to the law of land tenure. If he became so poor that he had to sell his land, it could not be sold beyond reclaim. If it could not be bought back, the purchaser had to return it to him at the next jubilee. -- Leviticus 25:8-28.
If the 49 years of sabbath rest corresponded to the exact number of sabbatical years that had been neglected by the Israelites, the whole period of violation of the law would be 49 x 7 = 343 years. If this period extended to 587 B.C.E., its beginning would date from about 930 B.C.E. Interestingly, modern chronologers who have carefully examined both the Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence, usually date the division of the kingdom to 930 B.C.E. or thereabouts. (F. X. Kugler, for example, has 930, E. R. Thiele and K. A. Kitchen 931/30, and W. H. Barnes 932 B.C.E.) As this national disaster resulted in a massive break away from the temple cult in Jerusalem by a majority of the people, it is not unreasonable to think that an extensive neglect of the sabbatical years also dates from this time.
: 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..."
As I said above, I believe that a proper translation of this passage should read "for Babylon" instead of "at Babylon". I won't get into details of Hebrew language here, since people more knowledgeable than I have already done so (Carl Jonsson in The Gentile Times Reconsidered, pp. 209-214; Greg Stafford in Three Dissertations on the Teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, pp. 243-9). However, I want to note a few points in favor of the reading "for Babylon".
I've checked about 50 different English Bibles on this passage. Only the King James Version and its derivatives, and a couple of other translations have "at Babylon". The rest have "for Babylon" or something along that line.
The most important point in favor of "for Babylon" is that it is consistent with Jer. 25:11 and the other points I've brought out. We've already seen that the servitude of the Jews to Babylon ended in 539 B.C. with the fall of Babylon -- and there is simply no getting around this. But the Jews remained in Babylon at least another year or two (538 or 537 B.C. are the dates preferred by historians for the return from exile). Therefore the Jews would have been "at Babylon" for a year or two after the 70 years of servitude ended -- a direct contradiction of Watchtower teaching. But even if one rejects this argument, a careful consideration of the entirety of verse 10 forces rejection of the Society's claim for a reading "at Babylon". Note the NWT rendering:
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.
The Society claims that the 70 years were not years of captivity of the Jews "at Babylon", but were precisely 70 years of desolation of Judah. They back this up by explaining that the desolation began about Sept/Oct of 607 B.C., shortly after Gedaliah was murdered and the last of the Jews fled Judah, and that they ended about Sept/Oct of 537 B.C., when Ezra states that the Jews were back in their cities (Ezra 3:1). But, as I have mentioned several times now, if the desolation of Judah were exactly 70 years, then the captivity at Babylon could only have been about 69 years and four months, at the most.Further, look carefully at the last part of verse 10, which I put in bold above. If the captivity at Babylon ended when the Jews departed for Jerusalem, and the 70 years ended four months later when the Jews arrived in Judah, then the 70 years cannot refer to the captivity at Babylon. Thus, by the Society's own reasoning with respect to the period of desolation, the phrase "at Babylon" cannot refer to the 70 years. However, the reading "for Babylon" is perfectly in line with Jer. 25:11, 12 and everything else I have so far considered. Verse 10 says that "in accord with" or "in connection with" the fulfilling or completion of the 70 years for Babylon, Jehovah would turn his attention to his people and bring them back to Judah.
What then, do you think is a more likely understanding of Jer. 29:10? One that is self-contradictory and that contradicts other scriptures? Or one that seamlessly reconciles all of the scriptures and is internally consistent? I think you know the answer.
: 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" ' "
This scripture is perfectly in accord with the explanations I've given above.
: 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"
Ok, fine. But Josephus also wrote in Against Apion I, 21, that in the Hebrew Scriptures:
... it is recorded that Nabochodonosor in the eighteenth year of his reign devastated our temple, that for fifty years it ceased to exist, that in the second year of Cyrus the foundations were laid, and lastly that in the second year of the reign of Darius it was completed.
Carl Jonsson comments on this as follows (GTR, p. 299):
... it should be observed that Josephus' statement about the "fifty years" at Against Apion I, 21 is preceded by his presentation of Berossus' figures for the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings, and these figures show there was a period of fifty years, not seventy, from the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar to the second year of Cyrus. Josephus himself emphasizes that Berossus' figures are "both correct and in accordance with our books." Thus the context, too, requires the "fifty years" at Against Apion I, 21.
I've checked Jonsson's statements against my own copy of Against Apion, which is the translation by H. St. Thackeray published in the Loeb Classical Library volumes. His comments are correct.
Now, it seems to me that your quotations of Josephus are taken from the "Appendix to Chapter 14" in the Society's 1981 book Let Your Kingdom Come. One wonders why they failed to mention that Josephus' latest work Against Apion seems to contradict the two earlier works. This smacks of still more scholastic dishonesty. At best, the Society ought to dismiss Josephus' testimony on this point. However, because Against Apion is Josephus' latest work, and in this work he gives actual figures for various king's reigns that add up to the 50-year figure, whereas in the earlier works he simply states a 70-year figure (and a careful consideration of his statements indicates that he may well have been talking about the entire period where Jerusalem was dominated by Babylon, i.e., 605 through 538/7 B.C., which adds up to 69 or 70 years if we count inclusively), it can be argued that Josephus actually supports the fact that the actual desolation of Judah lasted 50 years. So, no matter which way you cut it, Josephus does not support the Society's chronology.
: 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.
In principle I completely agree. The problem with "scholar" and other JW apologists is that they are simply not honest about applying this principle. Have you seen "scholar" ever even attempt to address any of my arguments? No. Has he, in the two or so years he has been coming on this board, ever attempted to address my point about 2 Chron. 36:20? No. He has consistently done what you've seen him do in this thread, namely, offer excuses as to why he should not. This is gross intellectual dishonesty.
I think that you can see by now that the discussions I have presented do not gloss over important points. Of course, most of what I've learned about Neo-Babylonian chronology, I've learned from Carl Jonsson and from a few other references. Nevertheless, I've checked out Jonsson's claims as thoroughly as I can (and have spent thousands of dollars on source references to do this) and so I do not simply parrot what he says -- I check it thoroughly before I present his or my arguments.
: 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.
I suppose that's true, even when Russell began his publishing career. Of course, they were wrong before 1914 and after 1914 about both the chronology and the supposed "signs of the times". Russell claimed that all of these "signs" were evident as early as about 1880, and he kept it up until he died. Rutherford updated these claims around or shortly after 1923, when he began claiming that the signs were evident after 1914 (and he reinterpreted Russell's "earthquake sign" from being "political upheavals" to literal earthquakes) whereas Russell claimed that they were all evident before 1914. And today we have enough information to understand that these supposed signs are entirely imaginary, because they are either of the same intensity, or less, than before 1914.
: 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)
No, you misunderstood what I wrote. Let me quote it for you:
If the Society's criticism of the astronomical diaries were valid, it would also apply to Strm.Kambys.400. Like the astronomical diary VAT 4956, this is a copy of an earlier original. In fact, it may hardly even be termed a copy. The eminent expert on astronomical texts, F. X. Kugler, pointed out as early as 1903 that this tablet is only partly a copy. The copyist was evidently working from a defective text, and therefore tried to fill in the gaps in the text by his own calculations. Thus only a portion of Strm.Kambys.400 contains true observations. The rest are additions by a rather unskilled copyist from a much later period. Kugler commented that "not one of the astronomical texts I know of offers so many contradictions and unsolved riddles as Strm.Kambys.400." Nevertheless, it supports the 539 B.C. date and so the Society uses it. This is entirely proper, because it is supported by many other lines of evidence.
Note the last two statements in the quoted passage. The point is that, despite a number of deficiencies, the text is not defective with respect to establishing the 539 date. Why? Because it is consistent with many other lines of evidence that lead to that date.
Furuli is again hedging his bets.
Note that the material in the link you provided was largely borrowed from the 2nd edition of The Gentile Times Reconsidered and was compiled around 1993.
: 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.
I seriously doubt that his "doubts" are genuine. He's hedging his bets because he knows very well that using a text like Strm.Kambys.400, that has many problems, in order to establish the 539 date, while at the same time rejecting much better texts such as VAT 4956, is hypocritical and inconsistent. He knows that the only reason, ultimately, that he accepts the one and rejects the other, is that the Society tells him that this is what he must do in order to remain a Jehovah's Witness in good standing. This is why I remain convinced that Furuli and most other JW critics I've encountered are intellectually dishonest.
: Whether or not he has been dishonest in other matters I wish to withdraw my criticism above.
Fair enough. But with the additional information I've provided here, perhaps you'll change your mind again.
AlanF