Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur 100 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  Hi Jeffro.

  Hi

  The letter to Artaxerxes involves objections to rebuilding the city:

  On the other hand, objections and schemes to halt the rebuilding of the temple were occurring between Cyrus' and Darius' reigns:

  The distinction between building the temple and the city in Ezra chapter 4 does not confirm that the letter relates to a later period. It is understandable that those who opposed reconstruction might object to broader repairs on the city, since the argument about building a fortified city would be more compelling than building the temple. Reconstruction on parts of the city other than the temple also happened during the period prior to Darius' reign (compare Haggai 1:3, 9) so it's not as though only the city or the temple has any reconstruction done at any particular time.

  So I still don't see good reason to assume that the chapter does not present events in chronological order. The plain reading of Ezra 4:21-24 is fairly straightforward that an order was sent to halt work, then people forced the Jews to stop work, and then work was halted until Darius' second year.

  If it were actually Artaxerxes I who caused construction work to be halted, it would be spectacularly poor writing to leave out such significant events out of the the narratives in Ezra chapters 7 & 8 and in Nehemiah.

  Of course, none of this has any bearing on the JW dogma. I like to think of it as the adults talking while the JW apologists play in the sandbox.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  It is understandable that those who opposed reconstruction might object to broader repairs on the city, since the argument about building a fortified city would be more compelling than building the temple. Reconstruction on parts of the city other than the temple also happened during the period prior to Darius' reign (compare Haggai 1:3, 9) so it's not as though only the city or the temple has any reconstruction done at any particular time.

  And yet the walls and gates were still a shambles in Art's 20th year. Sure, there was other building going on before Darius but it looks as if it was centered on people's own homes and comforts.

  So I still don't see good reason to assume that the chapter does not present events in chronological order. The plain reading of Ezra 4:21-24 is fairly straightforward that an order was sent to halt work, then people forced the Jews to stop work, and then work was halted until Darius' second year.

  Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. To me, the plain reading is that Ahasuerus/Xerxes and Artaxerxes were meant and that Ezra (or later redactor of Ezra-Nehemiah) wanted to summarize all the opposition to both temple- and city-building, from Cyrus, through Darius through to Artaxerxes in that one slot.

  If it were actually Artaxerxes I who caused construction work to be halted, it would be spectacularly poor writing to leave out such significant events out of the the narratives in Ezra chapters 7 & 8 and in Nehemiah.

  Why mention it again? It was already mentioned in ch. 4 and that was all the information the writer/redactor was able to or chose to share. As the letter was undated, rather than omit it or place it somewhere else which could have been equally out of chronological sequence, he decided to include it in the 'history of opposition' section.

  Of course, none of this has any bearing on the JW dogma. I like to think of it as the adults talking while the JW apologists play in the sandbox.

  LOL.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  I missed this one:

  Correct. It's not circular reasoning to suggest that a textual narrative probably means largely what it says.

  Nice dodge. You have no basis for asserting Ezra really meant Cambyses and Bardiya when he actually wrote Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes.

  On the other hand, suggesting that part of an uninterrupted passage 'must' refer to a later period of time merely because it has some characters with the same names (which aren't even the persons' names) as in a later period is assuming a great deal.

  As I say, we'll agree to disagree. We've both made our case for each viewpoint.
• 

  kepler

  Despite a number of references to Ezra, I don't think there was any mention of this Ez 6:15-18:

  The Temple was completed on the 23rd day of the month of Adar in the sixth year of the reigh of King Darius. The Israelites - the priests, the Levites and the remainder of the exiles - joyfully celebrated the dedication of the Temple of God - for the dedication of this Temple of God they offered one hundred bulls, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs... They installed the priests in their orders and the Livites in their positions for the ministry of the Temple of God in Jerusalem, as prescribed in the Book of Moses.

  In other words, the Temple was not complete until it was dedicated on a specific date.

  What was the date? That was about 1 April 515 BC according to a footnote in my Bible. Elsewhere I have seen it described as 516. E.g., Wikipedia.

  Now what was going on 70 years earlier?

  Elsewhere Jews have interpreted this 70 year desolation accordingly.

  Strangely enough, if we take the present era dating and the second temple's destruction, we get another 70 year interval.

  Of course, we also have Herod the Great remodeling the daylights out of it and Antiochus IV desecrating it in manners that are recorded by history rather than what is inferred about Nebuchadnezzar's destruction, but when one deals with numerological predictions and prophecies, all is fair.
• 

  Jeffro

  kepler:

  Despite a number of references to Ezra, I don't think there was any mention of this Ez 6:15-18:
  The Temple was completed on the 23rd day of the month of Adar in the sixth year of the reigh of King Darius. The Israelites - the priests, the Levites and the remainder of the exiles - joyfully celebrated the dedication of the Temple of God - for the dedication of this Temple of God they offered one hundred bulls, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs... They installed the priests in their orders and the Livites in their positions for the ministry of the Temple of God in Jerusalem, as prescribed in the Book of Moses.
  In other words, the Temple was not complete until it was dedicated on a specific date.
  What was the date? That was about 1 April 515 BC according to a footnote in my Bible. Elsewhere I have seen it described as 516. E.g., Wikipedia.
  Now what was going on 70 years earlier?
  Elsewhere Jews have interpreted this 70 year desolation accordingly.

  That may seem convenient, but completion of the temple hardly bares any resemblance to 'all the nations serving Babylon'. And the temple's completion in early 515 BCE (it was completed in their twelfth month,prior to Nisan, and so it was the year that started in our 516 BCE per some sources) is more than 70 years after mid 587 BCE anyway.

  However, you may be alluding to the other 70 years - the 70 years of fasting mentioned in Zechariah. That period runs from 587 BCE until Darius' fourth year, 518 BCE (after the fasts had been held in that 70th year).

  Strangely enough, if we take the present era dating and the second temple's destruction, we get another 70 year interval.

  That's what we call a coincidence. Usage of AD wasn't introduced until the sixth century. (CE became widely used in the 20th century but has been used since at least the 19th century.) The start of the 'era' is based on a supposed date for the birth of Jesus that is wrong even if Jesus actually existed. The correlation you're making is therefore entirely arbitrary.
• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. To me, the plain reading is that Ahasuerus/Xerxes and Artaxerxes were meant and that Ezra (or later redactor of Ezra-Nehemiah) wanted to summarize all the opposition to both temple- and city-building, from Cyrus, through Darius through to Artaxerxes in that one slot.

  1 Esdras chapter 2 corresponds with much of Ezra chapter 4, and includes the letter sent to 'Artaxerxes'. 1 Esdras 2:18, which corresponds to Ezra 4:12, specificially says they were building the foundations of the temple.

  Josephus believed this 'Artaxerxes' to be Cambyses, and Josephus' rendition of the letter sent to 'Artaxerxes' also includes reference to building the temple foundations.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Hi Jeffro,

  True, 1 Esd. 2:18 adds "of the temple" when talking about the foundations, but Ezra 4:12 is the earlier version upon which the later Greek Esdras was based. Josephus' beliefs may well have relied on those later traditions. As you said earlier:

  Josephus incorrectly refers to Artaxerxes I as Xerxes in Antiquities of the Jews Book XI, so it's evident that there may have been some confusion about the sequence of these throne names .

  So, while it's interesting that Josephus took Ezra's 'Ahasuerus' to be Cambyses, it doesn't mean Josephus was correct.

  Antiquities is a mix of history he gets right (and approximately right) and history he gets jumbled. If what he says can be corroborated elsewhere - especially independently - then we're on to a winner. Otherwise I'm a little more cautious.
• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  True, 1 Esd. 2:18 adds "of the temple" when talking about the foundations, but Ezra 4:12 is the earlier version upon which the later Greek Esdras was based. Josephus' beliefs may well have relied on those later traditions. As you said earlier:

  It has not been conclusively established that Ezra is the older version. And even if 1 Esdras came after, it was obviously understood then that the 'foundations' at Ezra 4:12 referred to the foundations of the temple. It's never specified as the foundations of anything other than the temple.

  So, while it's interesting that Josephus took Ezra's 'Ahasuerus' to be Cambyses, it doesn't mean Josephus was correct.
  Antiquities is a mix of history he gets right (and approximately right) and history he gets jumbled. If what he says can be corroborated elsewhere - especially independently - then we're on to a winner. Otherwise I'm a little more cautious.

  Actually, Josephus took Ezra's 'Artaxerxes' to be Cambyses, which is indeed probably in error, but still in the correct period, prior to Darius. Ezra's 'Artaxerxes' - the recipient of the letter - would more likely refer to Bardiya, after complaints were sent to Ezra's 'Ahasuerus', who would more logically refer to Cambyses.
• 

  kepler

  Jeffro,

  Reflecting on your reply, I think I will keep Ezra 6:16-18 in mind if this topic should come up again, especially if anyone should knock on my door.

  So if we are to assume that 607 BCE is the date of the Temple's destruction, then the temple was literally out of commission until the ceremony the verses in Ezra describe.

  That's more like 90 YEARS than 70 YEARS.

  Rationales for so-called "70 years of desolation" based on an end date in the 530s are all over the calendar with presumed points of initiation: Accession of Nebuchadnezzar? Treaties of alliance or hegemony with this or that Middle Eastern power?

  You have to be in a cult to take any of them seriously.

  The whole Northern Kingdom was obliterated and removed by Assyrians a century earlier and the chroniclers of these mishaps or their latter day interpreters hardly give a rat's ass about what happened to the tribes there or whether they appear on the historical stage ever again.

  What bothers the chroniclers who compiled this story was the fate of the Temple. And it was out of commission for 70 years if presume it was demolished by Nebuchadnezzar according to the conventional historical chronology.

  As to our aside about 70 AD being another 70 year milestone, I am aware of chronological uncertainties for Christ's birth. But then again, there is that obvious interval in the calendar. That you should dismiss that one as "what we call a coincidence" , then what should be done with the fabricated interval of 2520 years which is the topic of all this discussion?
• 

  Bart Belteshassur

  Meanwhile back in the sand pit.............

  If the JW hisorty states that the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7 and 8 is Bardiya, then it follows that as chapters 2,3 and 4 are a continuation of each other that the first year of the returnees who come with Zerubbabel must have been 523 BCE at which time the foundation was laid and then halted. Evidently of the narrative we can asume that Sheshazzar had continued as governer throughout the reign of Cyrus, and Cambyses,however the work could not get started due to complaints,and was still governer at the time the foundation was laid in 522BCE, as this work was initially attributed to him at Ezra 5:16, although Zerubbabel organized the work. Zerubbabel became governer sometime before the sixth month 520BCE.

  Therefore Ezra chapter 2 can not be used to date the return of the Jews exiles that came with Sheshazzar the details of which are unknown, and as shown above the first building of the alter took place seventh month 522BCE Acc Darius. With no fixed date for a return there can be no date calculated for the start of the seventy years.

  Now we shall continue with the adult conversation.LOL.

  BB