Chronology is all about methodology and interpretation believe you me. It is good that you acknowledge the reliability and fixity of 539 and 597 is not the correct date but 617 is the one you must mean. This date for the first year can be used as part of a regnal based methodology but an event based approach is preferable so celebrated WT scholars avoid potential problems by using the 70 years from the Return which directly produces the eventful 607 for the Fall. The principle is that if it works and is easy then that is the best sure-fired method to take.
The seventy years witha precise beginning and end is described in Jeremiah, Daniel, Zechariah and the Chronicles, the relative texts are well known to you and do not need a repetition for you.
Believe you me celebrated WT scholars have carefully examined the Egibi documents and others that you like but from a close inspection of the material it was found that these materials have little impact upon biblical chronology but are of great value to the secular chronologist. The reason why these documents are of minimal importance is because these materials cannot account for the twenty year gap when compared to biblical chronology. Therefore, their significance can only be cultural not chronological.
The pivotal date of 539 is a derived from astronomical dates concerning the seventh year of Cambyses II followed by evidence for the ninth year of CyrusII with his acc. year539 BC. In addition, the Nabonidus Chronicles furnishes information for the Fall of Babylon in 539
Here scholar means "astronomical dating good".
There are many other astronomical dates for the Neo-Babylonian period but when these are utilized then there is a twenty year gap between such secular and biblical chronology. The 539 date is superior to other dates in that it bstands outside the square with its support base from Persian chronology and that it is more definable from a secular, biblical and theological standpoint.
Here scholar means "astronomical dating bad" or more loosely, "when we use all of the other secularly established years, our interpretations fall over in a heap".
Chronology is all about methodology and interpretation believe you me. It is good that you acknowledge the reliability and fixity of 539 and 597 is not the correct date but 617 is the one you must mean.
Let me think... No... no... I mean 597, but thanks for double-checking. Anyway, have you realised your misuse of "methodology" yet. Yes, I accept 539. It is only the Society's methods that would suggest rejecting it because it's based on that "unreliable" astronomical dating.
This date for the first year can be used as part of a regnal based methodology but an event based approach is preferable so celebrated WT scholars avoid potential problems by using the 70 years from the Return which directly produces the eventful 607 for the Fall. The principle is that if it works and is easy then that is the best sure-fired method to take.
You seem to fail to realise that real scholars employ both regnal-based and event-based "methods", as both form part of the "methodology" of chronology. The Society's method is extremely weak and instantly fails when cross-checked by any other methods. The "principle" that 'if something seems to work, you ignore any other evidence to the contrary and doggedly cling to it no matter what' is not "sure-fired", it's just stupid. (Good work on 'sure-fired' though... Sure, the expression is actually "sure-fire" with no "d", but I think that's the first time you've properly hyphenated something.)
The seventy years witha precise beginning and end is described in Jeremiah, Daniel, Zechariah and the Chronicles, the relative texts are well known to you and do not need a repetition for you.
But none of them say it was in 607. Of course this same precision that the Society applies to the desolation of Jerusalem must also be consistently applied to Tyre; that it must have been "forgotten seventy years", but no! The Society admits that it was only for a subset of that period, and that " the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination." (Isaiah's Prophecy I, page 253)
Believe you me celebrated WT scholars have carefully examined the Egibi documents and others that you like but from a close inspection of the material it was found that these materials have little impact upon biblical chronology but are of great value to the secular chronologist.
On what basis do you state that the supposed WT scholars have "carefully examined the Egibi documents". Are you one of these scholars? Did one of them tell you they have "carefully examined the Egibi documents"? Or are you just trying to pass off assumptions as facts like the Society does? They only have "little impact" in that the Society ignores them because the facts are fatal to the Society's interpretations.
The reason why these documents are of minimal importance is because these materials cannot account for the twenty year gap when compared to biblical chronology. Therefore, their significance can only be cultural not chronological.
This really is laughable reasoning. It amounts to "Because these documents prove us wrong, the documents must be wrong." It has been shown previously that the bible is perfectly consistent with secular chronology in the matter of the 70 years, but the Society's interpretation is completely unworkable, so the Society must make the rediculous claim that all source that remove their fictitious 20-year gap are wrong.
Sorry, I forgot to mention the fact that in establishment of the pivotal date of 539 BCE from later astronomical dates in the Persian period, a regnal based methodology is employed by scholars. I do anticipate your question and the answer is that scholars prefer a regnal based methodology but celebrated WT scholars opt for a event-based methodology where applicable.
So it seems that the Watchtower Society has full 100% confidence in modern scholarship, astronomical texts, king lists and cuneiform business and administrative documents that confirm 539 BC, but totally dismisses the same evidence and scholarship for any date before this.
I would not have expressed the matter as you have done. Rather, when it comes to a construction of a ny chronology it simply boils down to two issues: methodology and interpretation which the chronologist employs as he or she deems applicable. This accounts for the large variation of biblical chronology in Christendom.
