Posts by scholar

33

Seventy years Desolation- History or Myth

by scholar in

a new book has just been published on judean history in the neo- babylonian period.

the title is judah and the judeans in the neo -babylonian period by obed lipschitz joseph blenkinsopp, april, 2003. it is hardcover of over 600 pages and is published by eisengraums.

the isbn is 1575060736 and can be purchased from amazon books.. this book is based on a colloquim of international scholars who met at a conference at the university of tel aviv, may, 2001 and discussed the above subject.

scholar

hilary_step

Glad you are ordering this large book as you will fing it very interesting. I came across the book quite by accident whilst doing some research on chronology at Moore Theological Library last Thursday. The book had just arrived and had been catalogued before its relocation in the main library so if I had not sighted it then who knows when it would have been discovered. I immediately photocopied the Introduction and one chapter which I thought would be of interest. So, I have not read it in its entirety but will purchase it and I do have access to it at anytime because I live within walking distance from the library. It is my custom to visit this library and check through the journals particularly, so as to copy any articles relevant to studies in chronology.

The book has many many matters of interest and these are as follows: No mention of Carl Jonsson and his hypothesis including his nonsensical interpretation of the seventy years. The date 586 rather 587 is preferred and there is no mention of the Witness position either. It stresses the importance of theology and historiography in relation to this critical period of Judean history. The bibliography at the end of each chapter makes further research possible and necessary and refers to those current scholars who do in fact postulate the desolation hypothesis. Although the book does not support the Society's view as far as I can tell ,it seems to repudiate the idea that Judah was desolated and describes such a view as the 'Myth of the Empty Land'. Nevertheless, this research excites me because for the first time this subject is now a scholarly debate which shows the need to be cautious before dismissing biblically based interpretations.

Further, in regards to 2 Chronicles 36:21 this interesting point is made: "The theory of the myth of the empty land capitalizes on 2 Chr. 36: 21, according to which the land was desolate for seventy years. The Chronicler took "another step towards the final establishing of the myth of the empty land" (Barstad 1996: 41). He created the myth of the empty land in order to faclitate a return of the people to repopulate the land, "the imagined land of Ancient Israel" (Carroll 1998: 68). See page 63 in the article by B. Oded.

In the Introduction to this volume the following point is made om page ix: "Without a doubt, the issue that has proved to be the most contentious and recalcitrant is that of continuity in the material culture of Judah between the Fall of Jerusalem and the fall of Babylon almost half a century later. The debate generally starts out from the position that the murder and mayhem of the Babylonian conquest, and the deportations that followed, left the land virtuall depopulated. This view is inscribed in the idea, expressed in the book of Chronicles and Leviticus, that after the fall of Jerusalem the land observed its Sabbaths for seventy years (2 Chr 36: 20-21; Lec 26:34-35).

Enjoy

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

'

33

Seventy years Desolation- History or Myth

by scholar in

a new book has just been published on judean history in the neo- babylonian period.

the title is judah and the judeans in the neo -babylonian period by obed lipschitz joseph blenkinsopp, april, 2003. it is hardcover of over 600 pages and is published by eisengraums.

the isbn is 1575060736 and can be purchased from amazon books.. this book is based on a colloquim of international scholars who met at a conference at the university of tel aviv, may, 2001 and discussed the above subject.

scholar

A new book has just been published on Judean history in the neo- Babylonian period. The title is Judah and the Judeans in the Neo -Babylonian Period by Obed Lipschitz Joseph Blenkinsopp, April, 2003. It is hardcover of over 600 pages and is published by Eisengraums. The ISBN is 1575060736 and can be purchased from Amazon Books.

This book is based on a colloquim of international scholars who met at a conference at the University of Tel Aviv, May, 2001 and discussed the above subject. For thos who are interested in the subject of the seventy years, 606-539/7 and 586/7 debate will find this book an essential resource. The book in some of the essays discusses the 'Myth of the Empty Land ' and how this fits in contemporary biblical scholarship, this hypothesis is advocated by the Society that Judah lay desolate for sevent years. However, it directs supporters of this view to those recent scholars who advocate the desolation argument.

The book does not support the Jonsson hypothesis in relation tho the date for the destruction of the First Temple. This recent scholarship supports 586 rather than 597. I recommend this book for Watchtower scholars and scholar who support current biblical chronology. The book highlights the importance in the historiography for this most critical period, a matter that I have mentioned to many on this board. If the history iand theology is not correct then ypu cannot get the chronology right.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

9

The "Times Of The Gentiles"

by rocketman in

luke 21:24 reads, in the american standard version: "and jerusalem shall be trodden down of the gentiles until the times of the gentiles be fulfilled".

the nwt refers to this period, as we all know, as the "appointed times of the nations".. i've always wondered about the application of this verse, even when i was a jw elder.

the society applies the beginning these "times" to the destruction of jerusalem by the babylonians in 607 bce (according to jw understanding, of course).

scholar

rocketman

Your query concerning the validity of the Society's application of the Gentile Times is best understood in the context of eschatology and historiography. There have been numerous scholarly studies on Luke-Acts which describe Lukan eschatology and provide a context for the Society's view on Luke 21:25.

You ask for a good Bible commentary on this subject and I would recommend the Word Biblical Commentary Series: Luke 18:33-24:53, Volume35c by JohnNolland, 1989, Word Books, Dallas, Texas.

I repeat that many prominent theologians have emphasized the eschatological character of Luke's Gospel and you will find that the Bibliographical entries in the forementioned commentary most helpful.

scholar, BA MA Studies in Religion

44

Need a little help on 607 586/587....

by undercover in

i remember reading somewhere a quote from a wts publication that more or less said that the bible was wrong when it came to one of the regnal years or how many years a certain king had ruled.

something like that anyway(i've got to start copying and pasting or bookmarking or something).

somehow if you take the society at it's word about 607 it creates a problem with the rulership length or starting rulership date of somebody and in one of their publications it actually says something about that time period having to be incorrect.

scholar

Gamaliel

I have long since claimed that a scholarly presentation of 607 and the Gentile Times is long overdue. The matter of the Seventy Years could be subject of a dissertation or thesis because such a subject warrants some scholarly attention. The subject has been covered in some journals but a comprehensive overview is in my opinion long overdue. I believe Furuli's research will at least be valuable contribution to the debate on 607 but will have wait see how and if he treats the seventy years. I am not surprised that such issues are treated in the manner that appears in the WT publications as such publications are not written for the scholarly community.

Jonsson's GTR is as you say an exposure of WT chronology but it also is an hypothesis as it presents an interpretation of both biblical and secular evidence and presents some radical views in support of his hypothesis. There is no way that the view that 586/587 and 607 can be viewed as Absolute Dates and no reputable scholar would make such a claim.

If you believe that Fred Franz had misgivings about 607 then that is your right as you claim to have conversed with him. I cannot imagine for a moment how or why he would have had such doubts. Methinks your imagination has overtaken your excitement and privilige with having such a dialoque with a distinguished Bible scholar.

Yes I obtained my undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in Religious studies long after my baptism as a Witness in fact exactly 30 years. I was caused to do so becuse of a series of radio programs on the ABC hosted by the late Professor Eric.J. Sharpe at the University of Sydney.

scholar

44

Need a little help on 607 586/587....

by undercover in

i remember reading somewhere a quote from a wts publication that more or less said that the bible was wrong when it came to one of the regnal years or how many years a certain king had ruled.

something like that anyway(i've got to start copying and pasting or bookmarking or something).

somehow if you take the society at it's word about 607 it creates a problem with the rulership length or starting rulership date of somebody and in one of their publications it actually says something about that time period having to be incorrect.

scholar

logansrun

You state that Alan F is a XJW. Does this mean that he is disfellowshipped or disassociated? If not, Why not?

scholar

44

Need a little help on 607 586/587....

by undercover in

i remember reading somewhere a quote from a wts publication that more or less said that the bible was wrong when it came to one of the regnal years or how many years a certain king had ruled.

something like that anyway(i've got to start copying and pasting or bookmarking or something).

somehow if you take the society at it's word about 607 it creates a problem with the rulership length or starting rulership date of somebody and in one of their publications it actually says something about that time period having to be incorrect.

scholar

drawcad_1

The scriptural references in Jeremiah pertaining to the nature and length of the seventy years are well known. If you are having some difficulty with this then read the chapter on the Seventy Years in GTR. The fact of the matter that any scripture needs interpretationand therefore there will be a multiplicity of views and interpretations. Which the correct view: Jonsson's hypothesis or Societys? Only you can answer that question.

Yes, I admit that I am excited about Furuli's forthcoming books. I have profound respect for people who are educated and have worked for their degrees like Furuli. Such people are an exception to the rule whereupon people who post on this board do not have degrees relevant to the the matters they claim to have knowledge.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

44

Need a little help on 607 586/587....

by undercover in

i remember reading somewhere a quote from a wts publication that more or less said that the bible was wrong when it came to one of the regnal years or how many years a certain king had ruled.

something like that anyway(i've got to start copying and pasting or bookmarking or something).

somehow if you take the society at it's word about 607 it creates a problem with the rulership length or starting rulership date of somebody and in one of their publications it actually says something about that time period having to be incorrect.

scholar

undercover

The charts in the Aid book demonstrate how the regnal years of the Divided Monarchy can be reconciled with all of the biblical data and in harmony with an interpretation of Ezekiel's prophecy and Jewish tradition. In other words it is about methodology. Other scholars have different methods for this historical period and thus come up with varying results. In my view it is about credibilty and faithfulbess to God's Word. If the Society can get it right with a difficult problem of chronology and history such as this then it behooves one to pay more than the usual attention to other vexing matters such as the latter period of Judean kinship, the chronology of Jesus' life etc.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

44

Need a little help on 607 586/587....

by undercover in

i remember reading somewhere a quote from a wts publication that more or less said that the bible was wrong when it came to one of the regnal years or how many years a certain king had ruled.

something like that anyway(i've got to start copying and pasting or bookmarking or something).

somehow if you take the society at it's word about 607 it creates a problem with the rulership length or starting rulership date of somebody and in one of their publications it actually says something about that time period having to be incorrect.

scholar

logansrun

Perhaps you should put that same question to the likes of Alan F.

scholar

44

Need a little help on 607 586/587....

by undercover in

i remember reading somewhere a quote from a wts publication that more or less said that the bible was wrong when it came to one of the regnal years or how many years a certain king had ruled.

something like that anyway(i've got to start copying and pasting or bookmarking or something).

somehow if you take the society at it's word about 607 it creates a problem with the rulership length or starting rulership date of somebody and in one of their publications it actually says something about that time period having to be incorrect.

scholar

Alan F

I am back again. I have not run away with my tail between my legs as you claim. You have not and cannot prove that there were three deportations as bo scholar has yet published such a fanciful claim as this excepting Jonsson and the authors for the Seventh Day Adventist Bible commentary. The plain fact is that the biblical record attests to only two deportations as you only know too well.

You certainly are presumptuous in ridiculing Furuli's forthcoming book when it has not yet been published. You cannot and should not make any comment until those books are published. I do not believe that your leader namely Carl Jonsson would stoop to such a dismal intellectual level. You also ridicule Furuli's academic qualifications when you do not possess any academic credentials in the fields in which you claim to be an expert. Rolf Furuli is a post graduate Semitic scholar and a university lecturer. What are your qualifications? Carl Jonsson has no university qualifications in the subjects that he claims to be expert at. My advice is for you to listen and learn or stick to your electronics and computers.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

44

Need a little help on 607 586/587....

by undercover in

i remember reading somewhere a quote from a wts publication that more or less said that the bible was wrong when it came to one of the regnal years or how many years a certain king had ruled.

something like that anyway(i've got to start copying and pasting or bookmarking or something).

somehow if you take the society at it's word about 607 it creates a problem with the rulership length or starting rulership date of somebody and in one of their publications it actually says something about that time period having to be incorrect.

scholar

drawcad_1

The Society calculates the date of 607 from the available secular and biblical evidence as presented in its many publications. Chronology when all is said and done amounts to interpretation. The Society uses exegesis to determine aspects pertaining to 607 as does all other scholars. At this stage nobody has found any artifact with the date 586/587 or 607 inscribed thereupon. thus, you are dependent upon scholarly opinion for any date in history.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion