scholar,
I would have thought that the question as to whether the method for calculating 596/587 and 539 is rather a stupid one because if you have to ask that question then I cnnot but wonder about your state of knowledge about chronology.
No problem. I wanted to start with a clean slate, to try to figure out how YOU, a scholarly JW would suggest that we arrive at proof or evidence of 539BCE. But I'm glad I finally read through the references. For years while pioneering even I just kind of accepted that JW chronology was right. My first year at Bethel, I realized that something was wrong. At Bethel, because I started reading Russell, I noticed that the 2,520 years were also used for the time of ISRAEL's "desolation" in 721 BCE to reach to 1799, the last days, which began then because of Napolean. A second 2,520 years was used to prove that Armageddon would happen around 1914. (During the time I was reading the old lit, it was clear I had already found about 15 "lies" in the "ka" book we were using for the Book Study, so I didn't need any specifics on chronology to know that it had very little chance of being correct.)
Firstly, the society has well explained why and how 539 is widely accepted by historians and scholars.
I thought the Aid book was too vague, but I now have it from finally from the Insight book.
The calculation and secular evidence is as I have stated in numerous publications. I would suggest that you get pencel and paper and take good notes and record these in a journal. Now, your next step is to determine how 586/587 is reckoned, its method and the specific evidence used for thes dates. Write this material in your journal and compare your findings. Do the same with 607 and now in your journal pade you will have three parallel columns and then you will see the difference and points of agreement.
This was an excellent idea. I'm not being facetious. It's exactly what I needed to do.
For starters, 539 has direct secular evidence and the biblical narrative to support this date as the fall of Babylon,
We must have a different view of "direct secular evidence." Why do you call it "direct"?
the fall of Jerusalem also has many scriptures which fo[retol]d? and described the event similar to Babylons. fall.
The Bible also mentions which year(s) in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar that Jerusalem fell, so if you trust the Bible, we could tie it to the same secular evidence, couldn't we?
The main difference between the fall of both cities is that there is no direct secular evidence for Jerusalem as there is with Babylon. The fall of Jerusalem can only be calculated with scripture only with a secular fixed date which is not the same with the calculation of Bavylon.
Now I'm not sure whether you yourself have ever tried your 3 column notebook experiment. You are right when you say that a secular source actually refers directly to the fall of Babylon, (but it doesn't give a year) I guess you are saying that no similar secular source refers directly to the fall of Jerusalem. But Jer 52:12 says: On the tenth day of the fifth month, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard, who served the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem, so we really just have to see if we can find the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, in the same way we find the 1st year? Also we have similar evidences all mentioned in Insight but also on this site: (Lachish letters, Babylonian chronicle, Jehoiakin seal, Eliakim seal, Gedaliah)
http://www.bible-history.com/map_babylonian_captivity/map_of_the_deportation_of_judah_archaeology_and_the_babylonian_captivity.html
Note their translation of the Babylonian Chronicles with respect to the intial invasion of Jerusalem, not the one that destroyed the Temple:
"In the seventh month (of Nebuchadnezzar-599 BC.) in the month Chislev (Nov/Dec) the king of Babylon assembled his army, and after he had invaded the land of Hatti (Syria/Palestine) he laid seige to the city of Judah. On the second day of the month of Adara ( 16th of March) he conquered the city and took the king (Jehoiachin) prisoner. He installed in his place a king (Zedekiah) of his own choice, and after he had received rich tribute, he sent (them) forth to Babylon."
In short, it is only the fall of Babylon that that has an independent chronological base.
I can't agree. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar, above, is tied "secularly" to the attack on "the city of Judah" that took Jehoiachin is just as close chronologically, to the chronological base for Cyrus taking Babylon.
In each case, the actual years are not calculated directly. In Cyrus' case (according to the Insight book) it's "a Babylonian clay tablet [which] contains ... astronomical information...[about lunar eclipses tied to the 7th year of Cambyses]. "SInce the seventh year of Cambyses II began in the spring of 523 BCE, his first year of rule was 529 and his accession year was 530" Then we have to know that Cambyses II was the (son and) immediate successor of Cyrus II. Then, according to the Insight book, we must rely on the fact that no clay tablets have been found that are dated anytime after Cyrus II's 9th year. Then we assume that, if his 9th year was his last, and was 530 then his first year was 538 and his succession year must have been 539. (Scholar, does that methodology sound vaguely similar to the way Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year is determined? What's the difference?)
For this reason the fall of Jerusalem is not regardeda as a absolute or pivtal date as with the fall of Babylon in 539. Also, this is the reason why scholars cannot determine whether it is 586 or 587 for Jerusalem' fall. The society under the guidance of holy spirit and holy writ has determined that 607 is the only possible choice and we can all thank Jehovah and his Son for this amazing understabding.
Now it is very clear that we are relying on exactly the same types of evidence for Cyrus 1st year as we use to rely on Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. If one is pivotal, and we have as many lines of independent evidence leading to it, then the other is pivotal too. Saying scholars cannot determine if Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587 is silly. Would you say that Jerusalem fell in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar or the 19th? If you pick the 19th then your silly argument goes away, because scholars do know Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year using the same lines of evidence they use for Cyrus' 1st year.
It's only if you have no respect for the choices of years the Bible offers for this event that you could still say 607 is more established than 586 or 587. So scholar, what did you think I was going to find? Can you still not answer the question correctly? What types of evidence are used for 539 that are truly different that the types of evidence used for establishing 586?
Gamaliel
