Posts by Jeffro

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

True, 1 Esd. 2:18 adds "of the temple" when talking about the foundations, but Ezra 4:12 is the earlier version upon which the later Greek Esdras was based. Josephus' beliefs may well have relied on those later traditions. As you said earlier:

It has not been conclusively established that Ezra is the older version. And even if 1 Esdras came after, it was obviously understood then that the 'foundations' at Ezra 4:12 referred to the foundations of the temple. It's never specified as the foundations of anything other than the temple.

So, while it's interesting that Josephus took Ezra's 'Ahasuerus' to be Cambyses, it doesn't mean Josephus was correct.
Antiquities is a mix of history he gets right (and approximately right) and history he gets jumbled. If what he says can be corroborated elsewhere - especially independently - then we're on to a winner. Otherwise I'm a little more cautious.

Actually, Josephus took Ezra's 'Artaxerxes' to be Cambyses, which is indeed probably in error, but still in the correct period, prior to Darius. Ezra's 'Artaxerxes' - the recipient of the letter - would more likely refer to Bardiya, after complaints were sent to Ezra's 'Ahasuerus', who would more logically refer to Cambyses.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. To me, the plain reading is that Ahasuerus/Xerxes and Artaxerxes were meant and that Ezra (or later redactor of Ezra-Nehemiah) wanted to summarize all the opposition to both temple- and city-building, from Cyrus, through Darius through to Artaxerxes in that one slot.

1 Esdras chapter 2 corresponds with much of Ezra chapter 4, and includes the letter sent to 'Artaxerxes'. 1 Esdras 2:18, which corresponds to Ezra 4:12, specificially says they were building the foundations of the temple.

Josephus believed this 'Artaxerxes' to be Cambyses, and Josephus' rendition of the letter sent to 'Artaxerxes' also includes reference to building the temple foundations.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

Jeffro

kepler:

Despite a number of references to Ezra, I don't think there was any mention of this Ez 6:15-18:
The Temple was completed on the 23rd day of the month of Adar in the sixth year of the reigh of King Darius. The Israelites - the priests, the Levites and the remainder of the exiles - joyfully celebrated the dedication of the Temple of God - for the dedication of this Temple of God they offered one hundred bulls, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs... They installed the priests in their orders and the Livites in their positions for the ministry of the Temple of God in Jerusalem, as prescribed in the Book of Moses.
In other words, the Temple was not complete until it was dedicated on a specific date.
What was the date? That was about 1 April 515 BC according to a footnote in my Bible. Elsewhere I have seen it described as 516. E.g., Wikipedia.
Now what was going on 70 years earlier?
Elsewhere Jews have interpreted this 70 year desolation accordingly.

That may seem convenient, but completion of the temple hardly bares any resemblance to 'all the nations serving Babylon'. And the temple's completion in early 515 BCE (it was completed in their twelfth month,prior to Nisan, and so it was the year that started in our 516 BCE per some sources) is more than 70 years after mid 587 BCE anyway.

However, you may be alluding to the other 70 years - the 70 years of fasting mentioned in Zechariah. That period runs from 587 BCE until Darius' fourth year, 518 BCE (after the fasts had been held in that 70th year).

Strangely enough, if we take the present era dating and the second temple's destruction, we get another 70 year interval.

That's what we call a coincidence. Usage of AD wasn't introduced until the sixth century. (CE became widely used in the 20th century but has been used since at least the 19th century.) The start of the 'era' is based on a supposed date for the birth of Jesus that is wrong even if Jesus actually existed. The correlation you're making is therefore entirely arbitrary.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

Hi Jeffro.

Hi

The letter to Artaxerxes involves objections to rebuilding the city:

On the other hand, objections and schemes to halt the rebuilding of the temple were occurring between Cyrus' and Darius' reigns:

The distinction between building the temple and the city in Ezra chapter 4 does not confirm that the letter relates to a later period. It is understandable that those who opposed reconstruction might object to broader repairs on the city, since the argument about building a fortified city would be more compelling than building the temple. Reconstruction on parts of the city other than the temple also happened during the period prior to Darius' reign (compare Haggai 1:3, 9) so it's not as though only the city or the temple has any reconstruction done at any particular time.

So I still don't see good reason to assume that the chapter does not present events in chronological order. The plain reading of Ezra 4:21-24 is fairly straightforward that an order was sent to halt work, then people forced the Jews to stop work, and then work was halted until Darius' second year.

If it were actually Artaxerxes I who caused construction work to be halted, it would be spectacularly poor writing to leave out such significant events out of the the narratives in Ezra chapters 7 & 8 and in Nehemiah.

Of course, none of this has any bearing on the JW dogma. I like to think of it as the adults talking while the JW apologists play in the sandbox.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

And your assumption that Ezra attributed different names to Cambyses and Bardiya isn't circular?

Correct. It's not circular reasoning to suggest that a textual narrative probably means largely what it says.

On the other hand, suggesting that part of an uninterrupted passage 'must' refer to a later period of time merely because it has some characters with the same names (which aren't even the persons' names) as in a later period is assuming a great deal.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

Jeffro

Ezra says Artaxerxes supported the opposition to rebuilding the city and said it could only resume on his say-so. The letter is undated. Was it early in his reign? All we know is that, apparently, because of Nehemiah's good standing at court (and God's intervention), in his 20th year Art. has a change of heart. It doesn't mean all the neighbors were happy about it, though.

What you're asserting is circular reasoning, based on the assumption that verses 6 to 23 are parenthetical.

Ezra 6:14 indicates nothing other than that Artaxerxes I (after Darius) was supportive of rebuilding work in Jerusalem.

If you're applying Ezra 4:12 to Artaxerxes I, then the arrival of Jews "from you to us" would best fit the timing of Ezra and others going to Jerusalem in the 7th year Artaxerxes I, which would require that the order to halt building would follow that. But that would plainly contradict the fact that Ezra had gone to Jerusalem after Artaxerxes I had given Ezra a letter specifically supporting them.

It would be odd for Ezra 4:12 to refer to Jews who arrived in Jerusalem over 70 years prior (from return of Jews in 538BCE until in or after the accession year of Artaxerxes I, 465 BCE), as would be the case if it is said to refer to some time prior to Ezra going to Jerusalem but during the reign of Artaxerxes.

The book of Esther presents Xerxes I as favourable toward the Jews, with no indication that he was the 'Ahasuerus' who prevented construction in Jerusalem either. It is unlikely that Persia would have a Jewish queen for several years, but that Artaxerxes I would be unfamiliar with the Jews, but would then quickly learn they were 'bad' from his 'investigation'.

It is therefore more logical that Ezra chapter 4 simply presents events in chronological order. Ezra 4:6-7 is consistent with complaints in fairly quick succession to two kings largely unfamiliar with the Jews during relatively brief reigns between those of Cyrus and Darius. Since Ahasuerus (Xerxes) and Artaxerxes are common throne names that are used alternately at various times in the Persian dynasty, it is not especially remarkable that the Bible writer might employ those names, even if erroneously.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

As you said, v. 6-23 is the parenthesis.

No. I didn't. I said you said it was.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

Instead of renaming kings (without any support from history) and squashing them in in chronological order before Darius, it makes more sense to understand that the writer of Ezra began a giant parenthesis at 4:6 - as if he's saying, 'While we're on the subject of opposition to our temple rebuilding, I might as well mention what happened later in Xerxes' and Artaxerxes' reigns about our city rebuilding.' Then at 4:24 the writer resumes the narrative about the temple rebuilding.

If you relegate verses 6 to 23 as a parenthetical statement, you're left with (verses 4-5, 25):

4 Then the people of the land were continually discouraging the people of Judah and disheartening them from building. 5 They hired advisers against them to frustrate their plans all the days of King Cyrus of Persia until the reign of King Da·ri′us of Persia. ... 24 It was then that the work on the house of God, which was in Jerusalem, came to a halt; and it remained at a standstill until the second year of the reign of King Da·ri′us of Persia.

It was then that the work came to a halt? In the reign of Darius? That doesn't make sense. On the other hand, there's no good reason to distinguish the 'they' in verse 5 from the 'they' in the verses that immediately follow.

In addition, the attitude of Artaxerxes I (in Ezra chapter 7 & 8, and in Nehemiah) toward reconstruction in Jerusalem is entirely different to that of the Artaxerxes posited in Ezra chapter 4. There is nothing said of Artaxerxes I in Ezra chapters 7-8 or in Nehemiah to suggest that Artaxerxes I ever opposed reconstruction in Jerusalem; rather, he provides resources. In Ezra chapter 4, Rehum, the "governor of the region Beyond the River" is opposed to Jerusalem's reconstruction, but in chapter 7, the "governor of the region Beyond the River" is assisting with reconstruction. In Nehemiah, Sanballat and others objected after Artaxerxes I commissioned work in Jerusalem, but there is no reference to any associated request to Artaxerxes to halt repairs. Instead, work on the walls continues and is completed despite Sanballat's complaints to Nehemiah.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

As explained above, equating Ahasuerus with Cambyses and Artaxerxes with Bardiya is an outdated view. It mainly comes from older commentaries where they had less archaeological data to go on. There is no indication from history that Cambyses was ever given the name Ahasuerus or that Bardiya was also named Artaxerxes. So 'Ahasuerus' is Xerxes (the Gk. form of the name) and Artaxerxes naturally refers to Artaxerxes I. Ezra talks about the opposition to rebuilding the temple and then digresses to the later opposition, in Xerxes' and Artaxerxes' reigns, concerning the rebuilding of the city walls, before returning to the subject of the temple.

It may seem reasonable to come to the conclusion that it refers to Artaxerxes I, however Ezra 4:23, 24 invalidates that view:

23 Now after the copy of the official document of King Ar·ta·xerx′es had been read before Re′hum and Shim′shai the scribe and their colleagues, they quickly went to Jerusalem to the Jews and used force to stop them. 24 It was then that the work on the house of God, which was in Jerusalem, came to a halt; and it remained at a standstill until the second year of the reign of King Da·ri′us of Persia.

Ezra's reference to 'Artaxerxes' explicitly pre-dates resuming construction of the temple in Darius' second year.

The fact that other sources don't call Cambyses or Bardiya by the 'biblical' names does not conclusively mean that Ezra did not use those names. Josephus incorrectly refers to Artaxerxes I as Xerxes in Antiquities of the Jews Book XI, so it's evident that there may have been some confusion about the sequence of these throne names.

30

JW.org down?

by jw07 in

i'm seeing tons of comments from sad jws on my facebook feed saying that the beloved golden calf jw.org is offline.. what are you seeing when you try it?

*crosses fingers* i wish it could never ever return.. are they getting too much traffic to support?.

work of hackers?

Jeffro

Ignoranceisbliss:

According to isitdownrightnow.com it has been down for over 9 hours.

According to isitdownrightnow.com, jw.org is still down 15 hours later, even though the site is actually available. That probably means Watch Tower have started blocking ping requests (ICMP).