Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE? (page 45)

scholar

Alan F

I place my faith on what the Bible clearly states that the land was desolate, without an inhabitant. It does not get any clearer than that so it completely devasates the Jonsson hypothesis.

scholar JW

AlanF

Why the Watchtower Society Chooses 537 Rather Than 538 B.C. As the Year of the Return of the Jews to Judea

The Watchtower Society, since 1944, has claimed that the Jews returned to Judea and Jerusalem in the fall of 537 B.C. However, the evidence is at least as good, if not better, that the return was in 538 B.C. How does the Society choose one date over the other?

First, a bit of history. From the earliest writings of C. T. Russell, he and his successors claimed that Babylon fell in 538 B.C., that Cyrus' first year of rule over Babylon was 536 B.C., and that the Jews returned to Judea in 536 B.C. Thus they claimed that the 70 years of Jeremiah ran from 606 to 536 B.C.

In 1944, the Society changed the date of Jerusalem's destruction from 606 to 607 B.C., and also changed the date for Cyrus' first year, and for the return of the Jews to Judea, to 537 B.C. In 1955 the Society changed Cyrus' first year to 538 B.C.

For a full discussion of these date changes, see http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/606.htm .

How does the Society today explain its doctrine that the Jews returned to Judea in 537 B.C.?

The Insight book provides one partial explanation. Under the subject "Cyrus", subsection "Cyrus? Decree for the Return of the Exiles", it states (Vol. 1, p. 568):

The proclamation was made "in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia," meaning his first year as ruler toward conquered Babylon. The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to "the first year of Darius," and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and "the first year of Cyrus" over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus' first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius' rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus' first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus' decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E.

There we have it: Cyrus' decree was "likely" made late in 538 or early in 537. How does the Society know this? By the unsupported, bald declaration: "in view of the Bible record". One can equally well make the claim that, "in view of the Bible record, Cyrus' decree was likely made in early 538 B.C."

Under the subject "Chronology", the Insight book similarly gives a "likely" explanation (Vol. 1, p. 458):

During Cyrus' first year his decree releasing the Jews from exile was given. And, as considered in the article on CYRUS, it is very probable that the decree was made by the winter of 538 B.C.E. or toward the spring of 537 B.C.E.

The 1981 book "Let Your Kingdom Come" is similarly unable to come up with a solid argument for the 537 date (p. 189):

Historians accept that Cyrus conquered Babylon in October 539 B.C.E. and that Cyrus? first regnal year began in the spring of 538 B.C.E. If Cyrus' decree came late in his first regnal year, the Jews could easily be back in their homeland by the seventh month (Tishri) as Ezra 3:1 says; this would be October 537 B.C.E.

Under the subject "Captivity" in the Insight book, this "likely" event has become certain (Vol. 1, p. 417):

Early in 537 B.C.E., Persian King Cyrus II issued a decree permitting the captives to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. (2Ch 36:20, 21; Ezr 1:1-4)

Under the subject "Ezra, Book of", the Insight book gives the same very bad argument, but adds a 2nd and a 3rd (Vol. 1, p. 800):

Ezra begins by relating the decree of Cyrus for the restoration of the Jews from Babylon. It was in the first year of Cyrus that this Persian king issued a restoration proclamation. (Ezra 1:1) Judah and Jerusalem had been left desolate of inhabitants, in the autumn of 607 B.C.E., when those left by Nebuchadnezzar moved to Egypt. The 70th year of Jerusalem?s desolation, the last enforced sabbath on the land, would end in the autumn of 537 B.C.E. Cyrus' decree must have been issued late in 538 B.C.E. or early in 537 for two reasons. The desolation had to last until the 70th year ended,

This is the 2nd bad argument. Readers will note that the Society's reasoning is completely backwards: The decree had to have been in late 538 or early 537 for no other reason than that it's necessary to retain the all-important 537 date for the return of the Jews to Judea. This is rank special pleading, and is not an argument at all. Insight continues with a 3rd explanation:

and the released Israelites would not be expected to travel in the winter rainy season, as would have been the case if the decree had been made a few months earlier.

Of course, this statement applies equally well to Cyrus' decree having been issued early in 538 B.C., which by the Society's (probably valid) reasoning would put the Jews back in Judea in the fall of 538 B.C. So this explanation is again not a valid one, since it applies equally well to 538 or 537 B.C.

Insight adds to the above with the "likely" explanation:

Likely it was issued in the early spring of 537 B.C.E. in order to give the Jews a chance to travel during the dry season, arrive in Jerusalem, and set up the altar on the first day of the seventh month (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E., September 29 according to the Gregorian calendar. -- Ezr 3:2-6.

So what do we have so far, from the Watchtower Society's supposedly definitive Bible dictionary, the Insight volumes? Nothing more than special pleading, arguments that apply equally well to 538 or 537 B.C., and a bald declaration. This would of course be laughed at in any scholarly circles.

Earlier Watchtower publications, however, were both more definite that Cyrus' decree occurred early in 537 rather than late in 538 B.C., and gave the real reason that the 537 date is necessary: only it allows the Society to retain the all-important 537 date as the end of the 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah, and to calculate backwards to 607 B.C. These publications also gave explanations that have been abandoned, in view of the fact that the Insight book does not give them.

For example, the September 15, 1965 Watchtower states (pp. 566-568):

Considering the events that are recorded in the ancient Hebrew Scriptures, there is one date that fully satisfies these requirements for a pivotal date. About other historical events mentioned in those times there are many disputes, but this date is one that can be well established from historical records. It provides us with a starting point by which we can place in our calendar the events referred to in the Hebrew Scriptures and also have corroboration for the fulfillment of some of the prophecies. That date is 537 B.C.E., the date of the decree of Cyrus the Persian giving permission to the Jews to return to their native land. The record of this event is found at Ezra 1:1-4: . . .
WHEN KING CYRUS' REIGN BEGAN
. . . Secular historians give us the date 539 B.C.E. as marking the downfall of Babylon, the Third World Power, to the Medes and Persians, the Persian Empire becoming the Fourth World Power. At Daniel 5:30, 31 it is shown that Darius the Mede ruled first at Babylon immediately after its fall. Daniel, at Babylon, speaks of the "first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes, who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans." (Dan. 9:1; 11:1; 6:1, 6, 9, 25, 28) The liberation decree was not made in this year, for it was in this year that Daniel studied the release to come at the end of the seventy years. (Dan. 9:1-18) So with at least one year and possibly a part of a second year for Darius the Mede, the first year of King Cyrus the Persian may not have begun until the year 538 B.C.E., to extend into the following year, 537 B.C.E.
The Jews, of course, left Babylon as quickly as possible after Cyrus' decree, for, by reason of their knowledge of Jehovah's prophecies by Jeremiah and Isaiah, they had prepared in advance for departure. But it would take some time to complete all preparations for 49,897 people, and it was a good four months' journey back to the land of Judah. They arrived there just before the seventh month, Tishri. (Ezra 2:70; 3:1) Therefore, the decree of Cyrus must have been made toward the close of winter and the beginning of spring of 537 B.C.E. This date plays a very important role for all Bible students, for by it we can fix the time of the beginning of the desolation of the land of Judah and the beginning of the "times of the Gentiles," or, "the appointed times of the nations." -- Luke 21:24, AV; NW.

Again we find no solid arguments given for 537, but only vague suggestions and bald declarations. There is also another bit of special pleading, in the claim that "Daniel studied the release to come at the end of the seventy years". But a careful reading of Daniel 9 shows that it is more likely that Daniel studied the release from servitude to Babylon that had already come when Babylon fell in 539 B.C. So the Society is again giving "explanations" that can at least as equally well be applied to 538 or 537 B.C., and which, according to the majority of scholars, apply best to 538 B.C.

As a side point, the Society now admits that the question of who Darius the Mede really was, and the length of his rule, and his actual position in terms of being a ruler, are quite uncertain. Insight can at best state (Vol. 1, p. 582) that "some scholars consider it likely that Darius the Mede was in reality a viceroy who ruled over the kingdom of the Chaldeans but as a subordinate of Cyrus, the supreme monarch of the Persian Empire."

The fact that the Society's real -- and in fact, ONLY -- reason for deciding upon 537 rather than 538 B.C. as the date of the return of the Jews is clearly stated in the February 1, 1964 Watchtower (p. 80):

Jehovah God had decreed that their land should rest without inhabitants for seventy years. Its seventieth year of sabbath-keeping began in the early autumn of 538 B.C., about the time of the Jewish Day of Atonement. Cyrus' decree of liberation was published in the first year of his reign. Babylon fell before him in 539 B.C., and Bible chronologers figure that his first regnal year began in the spring of the year following, on Nisan 1, 538 B.C., which would be six months before the seventieth year of sabbath-keeping of the land of Judah began. If Cyrus had issued his decree early in 538 B.C. as his first regnal year, the exiled Jews could have made the journey back to their land before its seventieth year of sabbath-keeping began, which would have been contrary to Jehovah's prophecy. Or they might have had to journey through the rainy winter months of the year, which would be from October through March. This would not be too good.
By the calculation above, Cyrus' first regnal year would end on March 5 of 537 B.C., or toward the end of the rainy season. Doubtless he considerately issued his decree near the end of the rainy season, shortly before March 5 of 537 B.C., and in that way the exiled Israelites could make arrangements to travel in the convenient dry season from April through September. They evidently made the four-month-long journey from Babylon during the dry months, for by October they were back and settled in their beloved homeland, before the first day of their seventh lunar month. -- Ezra 3:1.

Note clearly the reasoning: the return could not have been in 538 B.C. because it "would have been contrary to Jehovah's prophecy". What prophecy? Why, the prophecy of Jeremiah that the Society claims ended in 537 B.C.! So we again see the totally backwards, self-serving, special pleading shown in one reference above.

In view of the above references, it is clear that the Watchtower Society's many claims, along with those of scholar pretendus, that it is solidly proved by both Bible and secular history that the Jewish exiles returned to Judea in the fall of 537 B.C., are so much smoke. Except for the Society's special pleading, exactly the same claims that lead to 537 also lead to 538 B.C. So it is impossible to be certain in which year the Jews actually returned from exile.

However, the majority of scholars prefer 538 B.C. In The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Carl Jonsson writes (4th edition, p. 90, ftn. 2):

The first year of Cyrus extended from the spring (Nisanu 1) of 538 to the spring of 537 B.C.E. If Ezra followed the Jewish method of counting the accession-year as the first year, he may have reckoned 539/38 as the first year of Cyrus. However that may be, the evidence is that Cyrus issued his edict not long after the fall of Babylon. The so-called Cyrus Cylinder shows that Cyrus, soon after the conquest of Babylon, issued a decree that allowed the different peoples that had been deported to Babylonia to return to their respective home countries. (James B. Pritchard [ed.], Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament [ANET], Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1950, p. 316.) Most likely the edict permitting the Jews to return to Jerusalem was a part of this general release of exiled peoples. As shown by the book of Ezra, the Jews who responded to the edict immediately began to organize themselves for the homeward journey (Ezra 1:5-2:70), and in "the seventh month" (Tishri, corresponding to parts of September and October) they had settled in their home cities. (Ezra 3:1) The context seems to imply that this was still in the "first year of Cyrus" (Ezra 1:1-3:1). Most authorities, therefore, conclude that this was in the autumn of 538 B.C.E. and not in 537 as the Watch Tower Society insists. (See for example Dr. T. C. Mitchell's discussion in The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed., Vol. III:2, Cambridge: Cambridge Universty Press, 1991, pp. 430-432; also the thorough discussion of the historicity of Cyrus' edict by Elias Bickerman in Studies in Jewish and Christian History, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976, pp. 72-108.) The Watch Tower Society, however, cannot accept the 538 B.C.E. date for the return, as that would move the beginning of their seventy-year period back to 608 B.C.E. This, of course, would destroy their Gentile times calculation.

In summary, then, the Watchtower Society establishes 537 B.C. as the date of the return of the Jews from exile, not on the basis of solid history, but on the basis of its need to retain 537 as part of the "Gentile times" chronology that in turn requires 607 B.C. as the date of Jerusalem's destruction, which in turn is dictated by its need to retain 1914 A.D. as the lynchpin of the doctrinal claim of its leaders to spiritual authority. Historically, the original dates for the 70 years of Jeremiah were 606 to 536 B.C., but in 1944 through 1955, these were changed to 607 to 537 B.C., and reasons given for the dates were changed several times during that time. So, because 606 was changed to 607, 536 was required to change to 537 in order to retain the "Gentile times" chronology. The Society has given no other real reason for its acceptance of the 537 date over the 538 date for the return of the Jews. This is special pleading of the worst kind. As I stated in a previous post:

Bad scholars use methods that include:

O Forming a hypothesis based on a pre-existing agenda
O Selecting only data that supports said hypothesis
O Failing to discuss data that does not support said hypothesis
O Misrepresenting data
O Failing to fairly discuss other hypotheses
O Dismissing the arguments of critics unfairly
O Ignoring the arguments of critics altogether

From the above discussion, it is clear that the methods of biblical interpretation, and of arguing a point generally, used by the Watchtower Society and by scholar pretendus include all of the above.

AlanF

Leolaia

"When the seventh month came and the Israelites had settled in their towns, the people assembled as one man in Jerusalem. Then Jeshua son of Jozadak and his fellow priests and Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and his associates began to build the altar of the God of Israel to sacrifice burnt offerings on it, in accordance with what is written in the Law of Moses, the man of God. Despite their fear of the peoples around them, they built the altar on its foundation and sacrificed burnt offerings on it to Yahweh, both the morning and evening sacrifices" (Ezra 3:1-3).

What "peoples" were living in the environs of Jerusalem who would have noticed the assembled exiles sacrificing to Yahweh at Jerusalem? Sure sounds like the land was already populated at the time the exiles returned. These would appear to be related to the "people of the land" of Ezra 4:4 who objected to the rebuilding of the Temple.

AlanF

Thanks for your posts, Leolaia and Narkissos! Very good information, which simply confirms my earlier post.

Scholar pretendus wrote:

: I place my faith on what the Bible clearly states that the land was desolate, without an inhabitant.

The Bible states no such thing. If you disagree, then PROVE IT! And be warned that if you tell your usual lies, you will be called on it.

If you cannot prove your claims, then it should be obvious -- even to as stubborn a JW apologist as yourself -- that your faith in the Watchower Society has no foundation.

: It does not get any clearer than that

No, it does not. The Bible and secular history together confirm that, while Judea was devastated to a large extent, it was not desolated, without any inhabitants.

: so it completely devasates the Jonsson hypothesis.

LOL!

AlanF

Narkissos

AlanF,

Excellent post (on 538/537) and article (on 607/606)... here we have the WTS' methodology at its very best.

Jeffro

scholar,

The Society's interpreation using 607 is far better because it alone combines the elements of exile, servitude and desolation from 607 to 537.

This may sound all very convincing. However it is only the Society's interpretation, and it is not "it alone" which fits the bible; and it is fundamentally flawed.

Please explain how the Watchtower's view is consistent with Jeremiah 25:12. Specifically how could the 70 years end 2 years after an event (the calling to account of Babylon's king - 539BC) which Jeremiah said would occur after the 70 years had been fulfilled.

hillary_step

Scholar,

I place my faith on what the Bible clearly states that the land was desolate, without an inhabitant. It does not get any clearer than that so it completely devasates the Jonsson hypothesis.

You place your faith on what the WTS states, not the Bible. At least be honest enough to admit that, especially as it has been proved to you more often than is decent.

You use the word 'devastate' as if its aliterative weight might impel readers to reject logic in favor of cultist dogma. Try again Scholar, you have received such a sound theological and historical thrashing on this thread that any reader who continues to side with the WTS on this issue deserves all that they get.

I once again thank you for helping to bring readers to an understanding of truth about 'The Truth'. You make more 'poztates' than any of us could ever aspire to. Keep up the good work.

Best regards - HS

EvilForce

To be honest .... as HS pointed out....

Your hollow arguments help all to see how 607 is not true. It makes a non historian really look at the evidence and shake their head as how the WTBS ever used this malarky.

So your work is helping create "poztates" as you call them. Keep up the good work Scholar!!!

Thanks again.

Leolaia

If pseudo-scholar had lived in the 1600s:

I place my faith on what the Church clearly states that the sun revolves around the earth, without any ridiculous heliocentism. It does not get any clearer than that so it completely devasates the Copernicus hypothesis.

Alleymom

On the previous page, Narkissos gave a link to a review of

ODED LIPSCHITS and JOSEPH BLENKINSOPP (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003). Pp. xii + 612. $49.50.

and Leolaia cited additional articles by Lipschits and Blenkinsopp.

I'd just like to mention that Neil ("Scholar") owns this book and has cited it in the past. However I do not believe he ever discussed any of the material covered in the first 93 pages of this 612-page book. Part I is called "The Myth of the Empty Land Revisited" and the four long articles by Barstad, Fried, Oded, and Japhet contain scores of bibliographic references. I own the book, and I just counted the references in the first article --- there were 72 entries in the bibliography at the end of the first article alone.

Neil, since you are the one who first recommended this book, would you consider giving an in-depth analysis of the positions taken by the scholars in this book?

If you disagree with Barstad, for instance, could you tell us what your points of disagreement are and what the grounds are for your rejection of his position?

(We already know that not one of the scholars referenced in this 612-page book agrees with the Society's date of 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem.)

Marjorie

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

Share this