JCanon,
Those business documents, the ORIGINAL ONES, don't affect anybody's chronology. ...They are RELATIVE chronology and so simply don't matter. It's not the documents that were allowed to survie we're concerned about but the MISSING TEXTS we are concerned about.
You might be concerned. I haven't seen evidence of the MISSING texts yet, so I'm obviously not ready to decide what they must have said.
Furthermore, it's JOSEPHUS who claims there were 70 years for this period, right?
There WERE 70 years he had to account for in this period. But Josephus, until finally convinced otherwise, thought those 70 years were marked by events that didn't fit. He was in the same trouble the WTS is in, because he misinterpreted the Bible and/or gave his interpretation too much weight. I'm sure he looked for anything he could to make 70 years fit a time that seemed like it would make Jeremiah and Daniel appear correct. Most true believers will go to some length to be dishonest with the facts. Witnesses have noticed it about most other religions, and we've noticed it about the JWs. As you mentioned before however, in Apion, Josephus also finally admits only 50 years to a period that he had previously called 70 years.
So you have to fill in the years someplace.
Exactly. Josephus thought he was supporting the Bible over the Gentile records so he stuck his neck out a bit, but JWs are too afraid of the body of evidence to even hazard a guess where those extra years should go.
It is Josephus in Antiquities who says that Evil-Merodach ruled for 18 years!!!
It wasn't the only time Josephus would have been caught playing loosely with numbers. Besides, if the LXX of Jeremiah represents a Hebrew "vorlage" text earlier than the Masoretic, then obviously the same issue of ambiguity over the start of the 70 years had already been discussed in other circles, too. The changes between the LXX and MT are precisely of the kind that would move the focus away from Judea and it's temple, (producing a 50 year span of desolation) to the entire Babylonian period of supremacy (producing a 70 year spree of desolation among nations). The ambiguity may have caused problems for Jeremiah himself, or at least for the writer of Chronicles, and Josephus, and Barbour/Russell. But ultimately the 50 years was accepted by Josephus over the 70 for the period he had originally chosen, and the same must have been finally understood by the editors of Jeremiah who finally left us with a much clearer evidence that had previously been ambiguous in the LXX and DSS.
Further as far as destroying the "extra texts" I suppose you believe that is a SCIENTIFIC IMPOSSIBILITY, right?
Under the right circumstances it would have been possible. The evidence so far says that they didn't have the right circumstances. Too many scribes, too many people, too much area to cover, too much clay, too much sand, too much dry climate, too few reasons to go to the trouble.
I mean, you'd only need to find one or two libraries to have thousands of documents on your hand and consistent documeents, say, from every year of the king in a central archive. You're suggesting that no such central records were found.
That's the opposite of what I said. But I added that mentioning thousands doesn't get rid of the hundreds (maybe thousands) of non-centralized records. But even the word "centralized" is subjective; we have no criteria. Any two records found together may be argued to be therefore "centralized" if someone is fanatical about it. If the point was to smash the offending records, it strains credibility to believe that the Persians would be so careful to protect exactly 68/94ths of the time period covered, often right down to the very day. Why make this a harder job than it had to be. Your theory has Occam's blunt-bladed corollary written all over it.
...Thus the VAT4956 does that! It is a record that reflects two chronologies for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar existed during the Seleucid Period and one dated his year 37 to 568BCE and one to 511BCE. That's EVIDENCE of the conspiracy, and that also EXPLAINS why Josephus was claiming there were 26 years more in the Neo-Babylonian period than the REVISED documents show.
I haven't seen the direct evidence of this. If this theory can be agreed upon by competent people willing to publish and explain the findings thoroughly, I will be happy to follow up on the theory then. Right now, I don't have enough background or knowledge to evaluate the scant evidence you've shared.
So talk about the business documetns all you want to. It might be interesting to finally see just how many came from miscellaneous sources and how many were logged in from central archives. That would be a matter of research; something that I think could be confirmed. I wouldn't mind knowing more specifics. Can you find out? Since you brought up the business documents. Ask AlanF if he knows and provide us with a reference!!! Should be interesting.
It's of more interest to me that you didn't know yourself, but may have made some assumptions. Doesn't mean you are wrong, of course.
This is about what the RECORDS SAY. Olof Jonsson has a concept of what the "70 years" means in the Bible. That's fine. That has NOTHING to do with the RECORD that Josephus claims in Anterior. 11.1.1 that 70 years occurred in the 23rd of Nebuchadnezzar to the 1st of Cyrus. That's a RECORD that is there. And that's ALL I'm saying: "Hey, Josephus says seventy years was here? Strange. Why would he say that?"
For the same reason many other Bible interpreters come up with ways to make their interpretations fit. We see it happen every day.
[Sorry to skip over the astronomical discussion. I'll wait on the book.]
So the Bible's just a book of fantasies for you? Fine. Whatever. That's the Bible and you.
Hardly. The Bible is not just a book of fantasies. The Bible is exactly what it is -- another set of records. Much of it is very valuable, even for history and chronology. Much of it is very valuable to present evidence for exactly the kinds of historical and chronological cover-ups you have been talking about. I love the Bible because it combines puzzles and truths and myths and beliefs. It's the ultimate mystery novel, because people still believe it, so much so that they are still literally digging up new information on it every day. We still have piles of untranslated texts that can help us understand it better. Understanding it helps us understand the minds of many believers today. That includes the psychology of religion, cults, nationalism, mysticism, guilt. It includes sociology, science, anthropology, etc. etc. etc. I love the Bible; it's a treasure.
. I like discussing chronology and exposing liars, that's my thing. But you know, Gam, you have just told us how frustrated you are with the Bible. This is just your psychological way of dealing with it.
I am not frustrated with the Bible. It may have frustrated me the first time I read it in full around 1976. I needed answers around 1977. I gave it every benefit of the doubt until around 1980. But since then, I have enjoyed it thoroughly for over 20 years. It's made perfect sense to me and I'm interested in seeing that I try to evaluate all new evidence about it that I can. I'll evaluate your evidence as soon as I'm able -- but like I said, I won't be able to without the help of those who are more capable of understanding the type of evidence you are proposing.
So my PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THIS DISCUSSION IS: You felt a comfort level with the lines of evidence that would seem to contradict the Bible rather affectively. Now that those same records confirm absolutely that the Bible's chronology is true, which just means the Jews kept good records (no biggee, right?) and that the Persians were good at changing theirs, your little comfort level has eroded just a bit and you're feeling a bit embarrassed. You need to repeat to yourself that "this is not REAL"... because if it is, it's too much to comprehend.
No, I would love it if the Bible was a better historical record. If your evidence turns out to have any merit and it fits the Bible that would be truly remarkable. It would make it even more valuable for understanding a lot of things. I am no more comfortable or uncomfortable with the Bible's contradictions than I am with that of any other document. (I'm a little more uncomfortable with contradictions in papers coming out of the White House, of course, because they have a better chance of affecting me personally.) If it is "real," it would not be too much to comprehend, I'd think we could all comprehend it. But we all know about how easy it is to play with numbers and find whatever we are looking for. Russell and Barbour accepted what they understood (and misunderstood) from Elliott and others who worked much harder on it than they did, and they found nearly 10 evidences that indirectly pointed to 1874. They were so confident it led them to dates that they could never change "even by a year". The mind loves these kinds of tricks that see more in something than actually is there. That interests me, too.
You're like many others who seem to be frusted and angry with the Bible and with God for nothing being more cooperative in doing things YOUR way, I know. But that's YOUR EXPERIENCE and you're entitled to it.
Let's not "project" too much here, OK? If that were my experience I guess I would be frustrated. I have a completely different experience. My interest in this so far is like the interest in how Morman leader Joseph Smith, bought several papyri and immediately could tell that 100% of these came directly from the hand of three famous Biblical personages. Well, of course they did, and he "created knowledge" to prove it. So far that's my experience with your ability to re-manage the numbers in nearly 100% of the astronomical diaries. But I'm quite willing to give anything the benefit of the doubt when all the evidence is there.
IN my case, on this issue, I'M THE WINNER and the BIBLE is a winner.
I will try hard not to see any psychological explanations for that statement. I promise.
I'm into AHKENATON now, the Egyptian pharoah who became a monotheist!!!
Excellent. I have a couple great books about him. Also there was a great opening chapter in a book called "Heresy" or something like that I read in a library a couple years ago. I meant to find that book and finish it. Seems to be a lot of website material, too. It's of interest to me to see what factors have ultimately moved polytheistic peoples toward monotheism. Elaine Pagels also has some interesting thoughts on how the Christian version of monotheism is little more than a moralizing of the many "gods" we still accept. Angels of many kinds and the Holy Ghost, and the Word/Jesus/Christ, and the Father versus the "Devil" and demons of several types and abilities.
Take care, Gam... Sorry you feel you're in the dark. But I'm glad I'm in the light!! It's great!!!
I'm still trying hard not to read the typical psychoogical explanations into such statements. Here's to your success in convincing an expert about your theory. I'd hate to see how much more frustrating it will be for you to convince people if you have to add yet another conspiracy to your list. (I speak of course, of the commonly summoned "conspiracy of the experts" who want to hold to the status quo and don't want to embarrass themselves in front of their colleagues by standing behind the new evidence for whatever reasons. L Ron Hubbard had the psychologists, Rutherford had his "clergy of Christendom", etc.)
Cheers,
Gamaliel