CO Jonsson is a very charming man and I'm glad he seems well. But this is just a joke to someone who is familiar with the entire issue of the 70 years.
To put it bluntly, whether or not a 70-year period can be applied loosely to the domination of Babylon over some non-Jewish nations, the Bible is quite clear that those last deported out of Babylon were to serve Nebuchadnezzar and his sons for seventy years. In addition, the traditional Jewish history of when the 70 years occurred and their interpretation is given to us by Josephus in Ant. 11.1.1. Here is it:
ANT 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.
Now this is problematic for COJ since here Josephus also mentions the prophecy of "Jeremiah the prohpet." So if this is the same 70 years that fulfills Jeremiah's prophecy, per the Jews themselves, whom ought to know better than anybody else, the 70 years was understood to be the period served by those lasted deported to Babylon in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II.
Now think about this. There were several deportations starting with Daniel in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar. Then another in year 7 when Ezekiel was deported. Another in year 8 at the very end of the year when king Jehoiachin was deported. Then another deportation in year 18 and in year 19 and then in year 23. So who would serve 70 years? Only one group would serve exactly 70 years. The WTS is wrong in thinking those deported in year 18 would serve the 70 years, meaning those deported in years 19 and 23 would obviously serve less than 70 years. This also contradicts Josephus who links the 70 years with those last deported who were deported out of Judea. Jeremiah 44:14 and 28 clearly note that those "remaining from the sword" would return again to Judea. Thus it was these who specifically were to serve the 70 years.
Ant. 11.1.1 is a paraphrase of 2 Chronicles 36 which also mentions Jeremiah's prophecy but also notes those deported were those who "escaped from the sword" which is a reference to the official remnant of Jews who had run down to Egypt and been spared, obviously including Jeremiah and Baruch. Note this specific reference at 2 Chronicles 36:
20 Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years. "
So here is the problem with COJ's 70-year application. There may very well have been 70 years of domination by Babylon of the nations per the secular timeline but that has nothing to do with the requirement that this specific group of Jews who were deported out of Egypt via Judea are the ones who serve the 70 years as prophesied by Jeremiah, completely in line with traditional Jewish historical interpretation of when and who served these seventy years. So whether or not COJ has great arguments and match-up for a 70-year period of domination by Babylon of the nations, we still have to deal with both Josephus and the Bible assigning the 70 years to those who "escaped from the sword" who were deported out of Egypt in year 23 of Neb2, the final deportation.
Now to confirm this, you need only compare Zechariah 1 and 7 where in chapter one we find 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem ending in year 2 of Darius the Mede. But we still find the Jews in exile at this point! Remember Daniel being subjected to humilation and the Lion's den during the reign of Darius the Mede? He had not yet been released. Then when we go to chapter 7 of Zechariah we find 70 years has expired since the mourning for Gedaliah in the 7th month. That means Gedeliah died a year after the fall of Babylon and began to be mourned, therefore, the following year, year 20. Based on this, though, if the 70 years of the last deportees did not begin until year 23, it clearly coincides with the fact that the Jews would still be in exile another 2 years. Thus this confirms that Darius the Mede not only ruled for six years, but that he was a "son of Nebuchadnezzar." In actuality, he was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar through a state marriage between the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar and the king of the Medes, Cyaxares/Ahasuerus.
This is why another specific reference to when the 70 years ends must be considered. That is, the 70 years would end when the ROYALTY OF PERSIA begins to rule. The Medo-Persians conquered Babylon and Darius the MEDE became king over Babylon First. It was not until six years later when Darius the Mede abdictated to Cyrus that the "ROYALTY OF PERSIA" began to rule. This is why the Bible clearly distinguishes "Darius the MEDE" vs. "Cyrus the PERSIAN." Thus after a 6-year rule under Darius the Mede, a legitimate Babylonian king, Cyrus came to the throne and ended the 70-year exile of those last deported in year 23.
All of the above have absolutely nothing to do with the nations fulfilling a servitude to Babylon. The nations come into the picture because they occupied the Northen Kingdom and had to be deported to in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. Josehus records a 23rd year campaign into the region all the way to Egypt. It was this year he thus deported everyone out of the land and it became a desolated waste for 70 years to pay back its sabbaths.
At this point the WTS must be commended for at least being honest about 2 Chronicles 36 and the reference the land paying back its sabbaths and being desolate for 70 years. COJ has to gloss over this clear reference to the land being desolated for 70 years, which does not fit the popular Babylonian chronology.
Bottom line is, Josephus and the Bible reflect the NB Period as being 26 years longer than the current secular records which come out of the Persian Period and thus must have been revised. Thus whether or not COJ decides that the current secular records are more reliable than either Josephus or the Bible is his choice, but trying apply the prophecy of Jeremiah to any other than the last deportees is just ignoring the obvious contradiction between the Bible and traditional Jewish history and the secular records. This is a point he doesn't deal with, nor really the WTS. The WTS is in a catch-22 since they imply the Babylonian records are false or revised but don't really come out and say that. But once they do, how is it that they claim 539 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem wasn't revised or distorted?
This is where I agree with COJ and others. That is, the WTS uses the SK400 astrotext to support the return in 537 BCE but ignore a similar text, the VAT4956, which dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 568 BCE. You can't have it both ways. The true Biblical chronology dates year 1 of Cyrus to 455 BCE to fulfill the "70 weeks" prophecy. If you then follow Josephus and add 70 years back to year 23, you get the last deportation in year 525 BCE. That means year 37 of Neb2 falls in 511 BCE. Of interesting note, lines 3 and 14 have lunar matches to 511 BCE! Those two lines are non-matches for 568 BCE. So apparently the revisionists wanted to maintain some secret references for themselves to the original timeline and created a diary aligned to the revised timeline as a camouflage to observations from the original date of 511 BCE. So there is secular support of 455 BCE being the original date for year 37 of Neb2. Of course, the double dating to 511 BCE in Lines 3 and 14, dismiss 568 BCE as clearly the revised date.
So in conclusion, COJ needs to deal with the implied 6-year rule of Darius the Mede during which the Jews were still in exile per Zechariah 1 and 7. He thinks Darius the Mede and Cyrus began ruling at the same time and, in fact, that Darius the Mede must have been another name for Cyrus. He needs to comment on the fact that "Darius the MEDE" is technically not part of the "royalty of PERSIA", at least not as much as "Cyrus the PERSIAN" is. Thus the 70 years does not end when the Medes and Persians overthrow Babylon and kill Belshazzar. Belshazzar was just #2 in the kingdom and the #1 king, Nabonidus was still at large in Borshippa. Further the Babylonians considered Darius the Mede as a legitimate heir to the Babylonian throne since he was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar II. That's why that transition was so smooth--think about it. All that happened was that one cousin killed another to gain the throne. Thus the Babylonian empire continued via both Darius the Mede and Nabonidus until Cyrus came to the throne. When Cyruus, the PERSIAN (the royalty of PERSIA) began to rule is when the 70 years ended for those last deportees.
Now that's ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE.
So as wonderful as it was for COJ to address the two joke articles in the Watchtower magazine, he doesn't touch the real issues and questions the more informed have about the 70 years, nor acknowledge that there was never a question when the 70 years began and ended per Jewish traditional history.
Adding back 26 years to the NB Period
Bottom line is the Bible's timeline for the NB is 26 years longher than that of the current secular records, confirmed to have been "copied" during the Persian Period or even later, so there is no context. The Persians revised the Babylonian records and removed 26 years.
So also for COJ to consider is the Biblical indication for those 26 years. Confirmed by the Bible is the 6-year rule of Darius the Mede as above. But also, the Bible assigns a 45-year rule to Neb2. Note that Jehoiachin is deported on the very last day of year 8. That means Zedekiah's rule basically begins and parallels year 9 of Neb2, which begins in the spring. Thus there is an 8-year difference. Year 1 of Zedekiah corresponds to year 9 of Neb2. Thus when Babylon is destroyed in year 19, it is year 11 of Zedekiah. Likewise the exile of Jehoiachin parallels this as well, so when Neb2 dies in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile, we just add 8 years to get a 45-year rule for Neb2.
With regards to Evil-Merodach, Josephus notes that he ruled for 18 years. So there is a secular reference for that. If we add the 2 years from Nebuchadnezzar II plus the 16 years for Evil-Merodach, plus the 6 years for Darius the Mede, it leaves just 2 years to make up the 26 years, which apparently reflects in a 19-year rule rather than 17-year rule for Nabonidus.
Neb2 2, Evil-Merodach 16, Nabonidus 2, and Darius the Mede 6 = 26 years. The VAT4956 reflects this "relative chronology" of 70 years from year 23 to the 1st of Cyrus if 455 BCE dates the 1st of Cyrus. Thus the VAT4956 not only gives us a credible reference to the "absolute" chronology for the reign of Neb2, but also it fits the "relative chronology" of the 74-year interval for the fall of Jerusalem in 529 BCE to the 1st of Cyrus in 455 BCE.
The above proves the WTS is now cast out of Jehovah's favor and is in spiritual darkness. The GB fulfills the prophecy of the "man of lawlessness" and they were notified on November 10, 1992 that they would be cast into spiritual darkness. IOW, the GB was "disfellowshipped" themselves from Jehovah's Heavenly Organization. This occurred exactly 45 days from the 2nd coming on December 25, 1992, which fulfills the "7 times" prophecy of 2520 years from the fall of Jerusalem (529 BCE) to the second coming in 1992.
Clearly, some of us are living in a fantasy world and in darkness and some of us are dealing with reality. I'll let each try and figure out which is which.
In the meantime, COJ does provide us good background discussion of this issue. The "70 years" is a throne in the side of those supporting the secular timeline but they avoid the traditional Jewish explanation of the 70 years and Jeremiah's fulfillment, of course, since the Jew's own interpretation of their own 70 years will preempt all other guesses. As I noted, there has never been a historical question when the 70 years occurred; now there is no Biblical question either.
I would like to thank COJ for his discussion and wish him well. I've had the privilege of debating about chronology with him over many years now. He's very charming and persuasive but you have to check his work at every turn.
LS
