Scholar said in part of this forum
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/98966/1708416/post.ashx#1708416
the following:
Not at all. There is no way that the fifty years can fit into the context of seventy years. Scholars of Josephus have opined that the original reading was seventy rather fifty and this would harmonize with the seventy years not fifty years mentioned in the previous paragraph 19 of chapter One. In addition there is no chronological construct applicable for a fifty years but of course there is for the seventy year period. In short, the fifty year period is a nothing period.
Anybody knows who are the scholars that opined that in the orginal reading of Contra Apionem, 1.21. should be read seventy rather fifty and there is any shcholar that disagrees?
I put the paragraph:
21. These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius. I will now add the records of the Phoenicians; for it will not be superfluous to give the reader demonstrations more than enough on this occasion.
Thank you in advance
Jose45xyz