Adding to my post 4563 for the benefit of scholar pretendus stupidus maximus:
The moron said:
: The first year of Cyrus is given by Jack Finegan in his Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 1998, p.180, Table 88 as 538/537 BCE. Therefore, that first year was evenly divided or lay equally between the 538 and 537,
Finegan neither implies nor states anything of the kind. This is his Table 88. titled "Babylonian Regnal Years of Cyrus at the Beginning of His Reign":
The table itself gives no indication whatsoever of how the Jewish calendar years are divided up among the Julian calendar years. To find that, you could have easily found how Finegan handles this division. He handles it exactly like all other modern scholars do, shown by his Table 10 on page 28, "The First Nineteen Years of Reign of Nebuchadnezzar II". This is essentially a duplicate of the table that I reproduced in my above post 4563 from his much earlier book Light from the Ancient Past. The Watchtower Society agrees with Finegan's splitting up of the months, as I showed with extensive references to the Insight book. Because you're too stupid and lazy to look up this information for yourself, I suggest that you examine the following information in Finegan's book:
Page 106. Table 50. "The Beginning of the Era of the Destruction of the Second Temple". This explicitly shows that Finegan divides the Jewish year unevenly in the Julian calendar year. One entry shows the following:
Year of the
Destruction Era__Beginning of the Year____End of the Year________A.D.
___2_____________Tishri 1 = Sept 25, 70___Elul 29 = Oct 13, 71___70/71
Page 254. Table 120. "The Transition from Josiah to Jehoahaz and to Jehoiakim, and the Regnal Years of Jehoiakim". This explicitly shows that Finegan divides the Jewish year unevenly in the Julian calendar year. One entry shows the following:
___Year 2___Tishri 1 (Sept 29) 607--end of Elul (Sept 18) 606
Page 26, Table 9. "The Babylonian Calendar".
Page 35. Table 13. "The Babylonian Calendar in Palestine". This provides an easy cross reference between the names of the months in the Babylonian and Jewish calendars.
Pages 66-67. Text and accompanying Table 33. "The Julian Calendar".
Page 77. Table 37. "Calendars and New Year's Days" and the accompanying discussion.
Page 76. Table 36. "Babylonian Regnal Years at the Transition from Nabopolassar to Nebuchadrezzar II".
Page 80. Table 38. "The Jewish Year with Nisan 1 as New Year's Day".
Page 80. Table 39. "The Jewish Year with Tishri 1 as New Year's Day".
Finally, scholar pretendus stupidus maximus, because you probably still won't be able to decipher the above complexities, I refer you to Edwin Thiele's New Revised Edition of The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Kregel Publications, 1983). On page 54, Diagram 6, "Regnal Years in Judah and Israel", Thiele presents graphically the same idea that Finegan does in tablular form: the division of Julian calendar years is graphically compared with Jewish Tishri and Nisan calendar years.
In post 1034 of the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/117184/2058562/post.ashx#2058562 Jeffro even provided a nice graphic illustrating the above principles. You've clearly demonstrated that you're too stupid to understand such difficult material. You have no business writing about chronology when you don't even understand basic principles. You're no scholar.
: this means that the seventh month would fall not on the side of 538 but as the beginning of 537 BCE.
: Celebrated WT scholars have said in former times that "Whether the time of their arrival and resettlement there be reckoned as in the first or second full year of Cyrus' reign makes no difference. In either case, as above shown, Cyrus' decree and the Jew's resettlement could both be in 537 BCE".
What these guys have said in some unspecified "former times" is irrelevant, in view of the "latest light" published in the Insight book, which I have referenced extensively in these posts. They agree that Cyrus' first regnal year began Nisan 1, 538 and ended with Adar, 537.
: If the Society's presentation of matters is impossible as you argur then how is that this is the first time that such claims have been raised?
First, it is most certainly not the first time these things have been presented. You contradict yourself when your very next few sentences admit that Jonsson discusses some of these things.
Second, even if it were the first time, that changes nothing about the facts presented -- facts which you're both too stupid and stubborn to admit.
: Carl Jonsson who is very familiar with calendation would seized upon such a blatant error if in fatc such an error is made. Even in Jonsson's recent fourth edition of his GTR he is not critical of the Society's explanation of 537 BCE as the year of the Return.
Of course he is, you twit. You even argue below why Jonsson's advocacy of the 538 date should be ignored.
: Jonsson in the footnote 2 on page 90 states "The context seems to imply that this was still in the "first year of Cyrus". Most authorities, therefore, conclude that this was in the autumn of 538 BCE and not in 537 BCE as the Society insists". However, Jonsson cites two authorities in support of this view but a close reading of that material does not clarify the matter greatly.
Of course it does. As I have pointed out by posting direct quotations from one of those authors, that author explicitly states that the Jews returned in 538. But we know all too well that you do not understand what you read in such posts.
: If you have conclusive proof that you are right and that 537 BCE is utterly and postively wrong then write to the Society and put your view forward
I most certainly have conclusive proof that Josephus and Ezra together indicate that the Jews returned in 538 B.C. But we all know very well that the Society will be no more able to refute it than you are. Thus, they would ignore such a letter -- just as they ignored Carl Jonsson's letter from the late 1970s where he conclusively demonstrated that much of the Society's chronological speculations were wrong.
: or further prepare and submit an article to some scholarly journal in order that all scholars can know for certainty the precise year for the Return.
Not being a member of the scholarly community, this would be difficult at best and take years. But it is another of your red herrings.
In conclusion, scholar pretendus stupidus maximus, it is evident that you have no real understanding of how the scholarly community handles the dating of ancient events. You're no scholar. The fact that you recognize this is proved by the fact that you are unable to post a table, as I have done, showing the Julian calendar dates along with Jewish dates and the relevant events. You've fulfilled my earlier challenge and prediction:
I challenge you to find fault with the tabulation. If you find fault, then post your own tabulation, along with source references justifying it. Of course, all readers already know that you'll never do this.
Because you have failed to provide a table, in my next post I will provide one showing how the events described by Ezra and Josephus fit in the timeline of Cyrus' accession through 2nd regnal years. Of course, we know that you'll spew lots of bile about it but be unable to present any arguments against the dating. Thus, the year 538 for the return of the Jews will be graphically proved.