I am half way through this book by Carl O. Jonsson and the more I read the more certain i become that the 607BCE date for the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon is nothing more than a fabrication designed to uphold 1914 and hence the "authority" of the Watchtower leadership.It makes me sick to think of how they have duped millions of people with their phoney chronology.It makes sitting through studies that mention these dates irritating to say the least.Especially when all the heads nod in unison at the mention of the "Magic 607"
Gentile Times reconsidered
by confused and lost 50 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Rooster
Hocus-pocus 607 BCE.
-
Gopher
C & L,
Posts like yours make me so glad I'm away from the JW's. I hope your fade continues successfully.
As far as the 607 vs. 587 BCE controversy, I was mostly unaware of it as a JW except for the part where they explained that Jerusalem couldn't have fallen in 587 ("as some historians claim") because that would have violated their view of Bible chronology. I sensed something was wrong there, but I didn't really learn more about it until after I was out.
As Don Cameron (who posts here too) put so well in his book Captives of a Concept, the WTS bases its authority on supposedly being selected by Jesus as God's channel of communication in the year 1919. Therefore, if you don't have 1914, you don't have 1919. And the basis for WTS crumbles. And that's why the WTS will not drop the 1914 date or the 607BCE date.
-
inkling
I am half way through this book
Hey, me too! Seriously, the book just makes me want to throw something at the wall. Or the GB. Excellent piece of work.
[ink]
-
JCanon
AH! This is a WONDERFUL book! You'll love it! And COJ is such a good writer too. Lots of practical applications throughout. It is not necessarily "pro-Biblical," but it does show some flaws in the JW chronology. Great! Plus he's just a darling man. I have had the great privilege of debating with him on some issues and there's just something about him that makes you want to embrace him, hug him. He's just... POPULAR.,, what can I say? He's one of my favorite writers. I think I told him once that if it wasn't for my damn need to be such an anol-retentive bitch for accuracy and truth, I'd embrace everything he said with open arms, just because he's so charming and darling.
Regardless, this book is a MUST-HAVE for any library for anyone interested in ancient chronology and/or Biblical chronology.
JCanon
-
Doug Mason
If you want to see some of the background behind Carl Jonsson's book, he has made available the correspondence between himself and the WTS during 1977-1980, while he was still a JW.
Go to the following page and follow the link.
http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/epage.htmDoug
-
justhuman
Great Book
-
James Free
An excellent book. As you read it, remember that this information was sent to the GB and Ray Franz confirmed they read it. Their response, to disfellowship the author. Ray also confirmed that during his research for the Aid book, he and his researcher could not find any evidence to back up 607. But the WT still promotes it as historical fact to this day. This is why Ray Franz and I disagree on one main thing - he says not to be too hard on the GB - I say they should get what they deserve for the lies they spread, especially as they had ample opportunity to study all the evidence against 607 and deliberately ignored it.
-
JCanon
James Wrote: An excellent book. As you read it, remember that this information was sent to the GB and Ray Franz confirmed they read it. Their response, to disfellowship the author. Ray also confirmed that during his research for the Aid book, he and his researcher could not find any evidence to back up 607. But the WT still promotes it as historical fact to this day. This is why Ray Franz and I disagree on one main thing - he says not to be too hard on the GB - I say they should get what they deserve for the lies they spread, especially as they had ample opportunity to study all the evidence against 607 and deliberately ignored it.
It's not that simple. Some of the things in COJ's book is more accurate than what the WTS claims; for instance the deportation of Daniel in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar which is matched to year 3 of Jehoiakim is a no-brainer. For some reason the WTS needs to interpret year 3 of Jehoiakim as not his actual rulership year but some other reference with respect to his vassalship under Nebuchadnezzar. I agree with COJ that Daniel was deported in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar.
On the other hand, the WTS criticizes the VAT4956 as being potentially inaccurate simply because it was written close to 200 years after the fact during the Seleucid Period. The text is dated to year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. It was "copied" so much later that even the writing style had changed. The WTS claims that while the astronomical observations are accurate for 568 BCE, the historical information may not be reliable at this late date. That is, anybody 200 years later can copy astronomical information for any given year and then place any king's year they wish on the side of the tablet whether that was the original king ruling that year or not. In this case, the WTS is absoluely right. That's why any late-dated "copy" of either an astronomical text or a narrative historical text is automatically presumed to be a revision until proven otherwise.
But then the WTS turns right around and uses a similar text, also written during the Seleucid Period, the SK400, to add validity to the dating of the 7th of Kambyses to 523 BCE which supports the dating of the return of the Jews in 537 BCE and the "pivotal date" for the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. But as COJ points out, that is quite hypocritical, since if the VAT496 is suspected of revisionism because of coming from a much later period and reflecting a revised chronology, then that should apply also to the SK400, the only astronomical text used by JWs in support of their timeline. COJ is absolutely correct; if the WTS is going to dismiss late-dated astronomial text copies from the Seleucid Period, that has to be applied acorss the board for both the VAT4956 and the SK400, not just one of them.
But there are other issues as well where the WTS is more Biblically correct than COJ that involves 607BCE, regardless of what Ray Franz' research showed that was suppressed in the Aid To Bible Understanding book. The 607 BCE dating is based upon the 70 years of desolation mentioned in the Bible that occurs from the time of the last deportation (year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar) until the 1st of Cyrus. Both the Bible and Josephus date these 70 years from the last deportation (Jer. 52:30) whereas the WTS dates it from year 18 of Nebuchadnezzar, thus there is a 5-year discrepancy between when the 70 years begins as far as the Bible and Josephus vs the WTS. But even so, the 70 years are clearly there and contradict the shorter NB Period dating. Per the NB records, year 18 falls in 587 and the 1st of Cyrus falls in 538 BCE, a 49-year Period. The Bible represents this period as being 75 years, thus the's Bible's chronology is 26 years longer than the NB Period records. So even though Ray Fanz research didn't show anything from the NB records that supported this longer period, that doesn't change the Bible or Josephus' inclusion of these 70 years for this period. So the contradiction still exists, historically speaking. Either the Jews revised their timeline and added 26 more years, or the Babylonians or Persians removed 26 years from their records. COJ tries to deal with the discrepancy by claiming the 70 years is not precise but can be rounded down a few years and that it applies to the period of Babylonian dominance over the first nation it conquered. But that's just a joke. Why? Because of Josephus. Josephus represents the traditional Jewish chronology for this period and interprets the 70 years as precisely occurring beginning with "when the people went off their land" (Antiquities 11:1:1), which is the time of the last deportation, year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. COJ does not address the Jewish traditional history of when the 70 years occurs. When you compare COJ's explanation, which doesn't even deal with a specific 70 years, with that of Josephus, Josephus is more compatible with what the Bible says. Thus JWs quote from Josephus to establish that traditional Jewish history do indeed introduce these 70 years between the fall of Jerusalem and the 1st of Cyrus, only as noted, JWs date the years from year 18 of Nebuchadnezzar rather than year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar as do both the Bible and Josephus. So it doesn't matter if Ray Franz didn't find any secular support for the longer NB Period, which he wouldn't if they revised their records well, since the shorter NB Period, regardless of the surviving records, still contradict the Bible's timeline for this period and also the traditional Jewish history regarding the 70 years.
This is where COJ's book fails most startlingly, though, by ignoring Josephus' interpretation of the 70 years, something he was aware of before he re-wrote the new edition of his book. I know because I debated with him on this point years ago. Now COJ refuses to enter into any debate with me. He claims it is because I'm unreasonable, but obviously this is an argument already lost. Here is Josephus' reference to the 70 years, where he combines the years of 1) "servitude" and 2) Jeremiah's prophecy with the 70 years, with the last deportation.
Antiquities 11.1.1 IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon. God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity.
This is where COJ's argument about the 70 years falls apart. He spends lots of pages hanging the interpretation on whether the years of "servitude" was IN vs AT Babylon, as if that were the key deciding factor in a mystery, when in fact, there was never any mystery as to when the Jews apply this 70-year period. So it's not about COJ's theory that the 67 years from 605-538 BCE is the actual fulfillment of the prophecy, but whether or not the traditional Jewish history regarding this specific prophecy and the 70 years beginning with the last deportation matches the Bible's representation of those 70 years. So COJ is talking to no one at this point because he ignores our primary source for when the 70 years is to applied.
So in the end, maybe COJ does comes ahead of the WTS a bit in the chronology debate over 607 vs 587 BCE, but who said those were the only dates in question? Bottom line is that both 607 BCE and 587 BCE are based on the same basic Babylonian records which dates the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE, but that dating is contradicted by Jews (via Josephus) and also the Bible, which gives a different "relative" history for the NB Period, with the Bible representing this period as 26 years shorter, regardless of what dating one finally settles on (i.e. 537 or 455 BCE for year 1 of Cyrus).
WORK CURRENTLY OUT OF DATE: Finally, there are new issues that COJ needs to address that he doesn't which affects the chronology debates now. These include:
1) The RC14 dating from Rehov which shows that city fell c. 871 BCE by Shishak. This is another form of independent "absolute" dating now in the mix. This late date for Shishak's invasion aligns perfectly with the chronology when the 1st of Cyrus falls in 455 BCE rather than 537 BCE.
http://www.geocities.com/ed_maruyama/rehov872.html
2) The SK400 "9th year" reference. COJ definitely discounts the SK400 text as much as possible compared to the other astronomical texts he introduces. But for good reason. The text is a fraud. It has a reference to "year 9" of Kambyses a king that only ruled 8 years at best. The reference in the text though, is matched to year 9 of Cyrus. Further, the interval between two lunar eclipses establishes a 2:46 period whereas the 523 BCE date (year 7 of Kambyses) interval is 2 hours longer at 4:46. This is a problem, suggesting at the very least fraud and manipulation of Seleucid Period texts.
3) The VAT496 which COJ claims is the "most important" text of all, is fraught with errors. First the original translators lie about what's in the text, making incorrect star assignments (Line 18, 3 and 14) and two "errors" in the text for Lines 3 and 14 mysteriously belong to the same lunar cycle and the same lunar year of 511 BCE. That is especially curious since when the 1st of Cyrus is dated to 455 BCE (which is where Martin Anstey and others date that event, claiming the Persian Period is 82 years too long), then year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar falls in 511 BCE as well. That is, add 70 years to 455 BCE to get 525 BCE for year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar, and year 37 falls in 511 BCE. So you have a potential confirmation of the original chronology surviving in this text. This alone would table this text as potentially fraudulent and thus discredit it even further as effectively challenging the Bible's or Josephus' chronology.
So in other words, COJ's words are smooth and make a lot of sense, but he's not one to reflect on all the issues out there. And when confronted, he refuses to comment or defend his own position. So COJ's book is great for bashing WTS vs secular issues, but it doesn't really go that far with respect to Bible vs secular issues. Keep in mind that the rules of the chronology game now, is good "PD"--plausible deniability. If you don't correspond or debate with anyone about some of these issues, then later on when someone int he academic world rats out the system for money or fame then everybody can say they were busy doing other things or "this is not my area of expertise" and they can keep their reputations as honest and responsible scholars. So when scholars start to run from discussions and debates or even refuse to depend their own position that is legitimately challenged by others, then you know that they know they've already lost their argument and to avoid embarrassment or revision, they stay away going on record for many of the really critical issues they can't overcome.
WHY THE BIBLE VS SECULAR DISCREPANCY? Easy. After Xerxes invaded Greece he became a laughingstock and an assasination target for the racist Greeks. When Themistocles fled there from Greece and discovered Xerxes was now also going by the name of Artaxerxes (Ezra 6:14,15, compare with Daniel 11:2) he convinced Xerxes he could pull a fast one over on the Greeks by claiming he had died and his "son" was now on the throne under the name of Artaxerxes. It worked! The Greeks never caught on. Themistocles accomplished this by leaking his famous letter to "Artaxerxes" asking for asylum and promising to defect to Persia. That was hot tabloid news in those times, but the letter was a historical fake since Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king. But it worked! Assasination plots against Xerxes were nipped in the bud; he had already met a violent death at the hands of his son, who conveniently gets killed by his "brother" Artaxerxes, now the new legitimate king on the throne. Of course, Darius didn't die and came to the throne after Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes is even buried in the right place between Darius I and Darius II as Naqshi-Rustam, so the archaeological evidence that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king is out there, but of coruse, archaeologists don't like talking about Persepolis. At any rate, to keep the story valid, the Persians changed their historical records, first adding 30 years to the 6-year rule of Darius I, and removing 26 years from the NB Period to do this. Later when Thucydides wrote his Greek history, noting the death of Artaxerxes in year 8 of the Peloponnesian War (PPW) and noting only a 20-year interval between the battle of Salamis and the beginning of the PPW, the Persians paid of Xenophon who then employe Aristotle (the boy lover of Socrates) and Plato to revise Greek history and destroy the works of other historians and writers during that time, including those of Socrates, though his dialogues were edited and preserved by both Plato and Xenophon. A new character for Aristotle, Socrates' boy lover, was created for the new chronology since now Socrates dies before Aristotle was born (i.e. Phaedo). This was at the request of Artaxerxes II whom Xenophon added an extra 30 years to his reign, expanding it from 17 to 37 years. As a result, Xenophon added 56 extra Greek and Persian years to the timeline and combined with the previous 26-year reduction of the NB Period, the discrepancy between the true date for the 1st of Cyrus in 455 BCE and the new date in 537 BCE is 82 years.
So in the end, it really depends on what you want to get in regards of Bible chronology from COJ's book. If you don't believe the Bible and are secular minded and think the Bible writers were just up to revising all their works whenever they wanted, then COJ's book should add some comfort, providing more secular evidence to challenge the WTS 607 BCE dating as well as the Bible itself. But if you are interested in why there are discrepancies between the Bible and secular history and what the original true chronology is, then COJ's book will not help you in that regard; you'll have to examine other theories and do research elsewhere. It's up to you.
BEWARE OF REVERSE MIND CONTROL: COJ and other XJW scholars will be the first to claim the WTS runs from them and refuses to answer critical Bible questions in defense of their beliefs. Yet COJ has written a book bashing both the Bible and the WTS and refuses to defend his position on issues he has chosen to skip in his book. So it's the same thing. People who refuse to defend their position or avoid challenge after they're written a book accusing the Bible and others of false teachings are not credible.
Final word: Use the COJ was a great REFERENCE book, but hold him liable for his interpretations and conclusions based on that evidence. And just because there is plenty of evidence that the Babylonians want to date the fall of Jerualem in 537 BCE, doesn't mean that date is correct, nor that the Bible supports that date. If you're a secularist, you'll love COJ. If you are a Biblicalist, COJ is still lovable but skips over too many things to effectively answer Bible vs secular issues.
JCanon
-
scholar
confused and lost
You certainly will be confused if you accept the Jonsson hypothesis published as Gentile Times Reconsidered for it contains at least major historical blunderin connection with modern history and is very fuzzy regarding the biblical ;seventy years'.
A scholarly rebuttal of Jonsson's research by Rolf Firuli is now available in two volumes dealing with secular chronologies of the ancient world and a linguistic analysis of the seventy years. Further, this recent scholarly research demonstrates the reality of a twenty-year gap between biblical chronology as endorsed by 'celebrated' WT scholars and the secular chronology proposed by Jonsson and higher critics.
scholar JW