Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros 264 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AlanF

  "scholar" said to Gamaliel:

  : I read with interest your post and the nonsense by Alan F who provides a dogmatic interpretation concerning 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21 which lies outside contemporary biblical scholarship.

  Whether it does or not is irrelevant, because "if we just stick to the Scriptures", as I did in the discussion above with Analysis and Euphemism, the interpretation is dogmatic simply because the language is obviously completely unambiguous. Since these passages are irrefutable, and completely consistent with standard secular chronology -- which Jonsson did not invent but merely summarized -- there is no choice: Watchtower chronology is wrong.

  : Thus far ,it is only Jonsson and a couple of SDA scholars that promote such a view.

  Nonsense. While the view is not often stated directly, it is certainly implied by the fact that virtually all modern scholars accept the standard chronology for the Neo-Babylonian period. For example, in the book that you recently told us about (Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period; talk about shooting yourself in the foot!), the Introduction gives background on the conference and colloquy that gave rise to the book. On page vii it states:

  This ongoing colloquy, one of the truly successful efforts at collaborative scholarship involving (but not confined to) biblical studies, deals with various aspects of the history and culture of the western regions of the Perian Empire, including Judah, more or less corresponding to the Neo-Babylonian empire taken over by Cyrus II in 539 B.C.E...

  No one doubts the importance of the Neo-Babylonian period for Judah. It witnessed the extinction of the Judean state and its institutions, including the religious institutions that had legitimated and sustained the state and the monarchy. Though Judeans had settled outside of Judah before the Neo-Babylonian period, the successive deportations of 597, 586, and 582 B.C.E., and perhaps others unrecorded, set up the contrast between homeland and diaspora as a permanent feature of Jewish life and consciousness. The larger context in which these events took place was the final eclipse of the Assyrian Empire in the last decade of the seventh century B.C.E., the defeat of the Egyptian effort to fill the vacuum, and the emergence of the Babylonian Empire under Nebuchadrezzar. The Babylonian epoch dates formally from the accession of Nabopolassar in 626 B.C.E., but effectively, as far as Judah was concerned, it ran from the Egyptian defeat at Carchemish in 605 B.C.E. to the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C.E.. These, then, are the chronological parameters within which the issues were discussed at the conference.

  Note that the above statements completely disprove "scholar's" claim that these dates are merely part of an unproved and unscholarly "Jonsson hypothesis".

  While many of the scholars whose writings appear in the book disagree on many details of events in the Neo-Babylonian period, they all accept "the chronological parameters" of the established Neo-Babylonian epoch. Explicitly or implicitly, because the Neo-Babylonian epoch ended in 539 B.C.E., they admit that, as I said in my previous post, "after the royalty of Persia began to reign, the Jews were no longer servants to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons."

  : A direct reading of those texts shows that the land lay desolate for seventy years concluding with the decree of Cyrus.

  A direct reading of other texts "shows" that the sun goes around the earth and the earth is the unmoving center of the universe. But a consideration of all biblical texts, along with secular information, shows that such "direct readings" result in internal contradictions or in conflicts with the irrefutable fact that the earth is not the center of the universe.

  So it is with a direct reading of "those texts". A reading of all relevant texts along with a consideration of solid secular information results in no conflicts -- something that Jehovah's Witnesses will not accept because, and only because, of their worship of the Watchtower Society and its leaders.

  : Support for this view can be discerned in that recent publication on Late Judean history that I have mentioned.

  Only by some authors, and even those authors certainly do not accept Watchtower views on this topic. Indeed, author Charles E. Carter, writing in the chapter "Ideology and Archaeology in the Neo-Babylonian Period", states in his conclusion (pp. 317-8):

  2 Chronicles 36 and to a lesser extent Leviticus 26 propose an empty land that enjoyed that sabbath rest it had been denied through years of unfaithfulness to the covenant. This ideology is not at all consonant with the archaeological record, for as we have seen, life went on in some manner in Judah after the destruction and deportations of 597 and 586.

  If the archaeological record indicates that Judah was still populated after Jerusalem's destruction, right down until the return of the Babylonian exiles, then the Watchtower's claim that the 70 years of Jeremiah were years of complete desolation of the land is disproved, and there is no need for further discussion of any Watchtower claims about the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period.

  : Simply turn to the Scripture index and read how these verses are discusssed.

  I did. They do not support your claims.

  : I have not found the implied endorsement on this texts by WT critics within the literature because scholars cannot agree as to the beginning and end of the seventy years and that and only that fixes 607.

  Nor are you ever going to find it, because it does not exist for the reasons I explained above.

  : You can have all of the so called seculat evidence which is always subject to revision bu if it conflicts with the direct interpretation othe land being decolate for seventy years then you may as well pu it in the rubbish bin

  True enough, but that's a false dilemma. The facts are as I have stated above.

  : with the Jonsson hypotheisis.

  I wonder when it will sink into your thick head that you've invented a myth here. Read the above material from the introduction until you understand it.

  : Please be in mind that Greg Stafford also showed that that text has an alternative interpretation in his Three Dissertations.

  Nonsense. Stafford wrote (p. 252):

  2 Chronicles 36:20-21 tells us that the land kept sabbath while desolate "to fulfill seventy years." Here again, as is the case with Daniel 9:2, we find the term mal'ot, "to fulfill." Does this term relate to the length of time Jerusalem would be desolated, or does it refer to the period of Babylonian supremacy within which the desolate state of Jerusalem would come to an end? 2 Chronicles 36:20 certainly provides support for Jonsson's view since it refers to the serving of Babylonian kings "until the reign of the kingdom of Persia." But as with Daniel the ambiguous grammar of verse 21, which mentions seventy years in relation to the desolate state of Jerusalem, allows for alternative explanations. It seems the best solution is the one that is in harmony with the context of the verse in question, and the historical data that best supports the explanation offered.

  Conclusion

  Jeremiah 25:10-12 refers to the condition of the land of Judah and Jerusalem as "devastated." But there is some uncertainty about whether the period of time mentioned (seventy years) refers to the length of time the land would be in this condition or simply to the period of servitude to Babylon, or both. Daniel 9:1-2 and 2 Chronicles 36:20-21 offer interpretations of Jeremiah's prophecy that are grammatically ambiguous in terms of whether or not the seventy-year period mentioned refers to the length of time that Jerusalem would be desolated, or the the fulfillment of time for Babylonian supremacy, after which Jerusalem would no longer be desolate.

  So, far from showing "that that text has an alternative interpretation", Stafford merely said that the text of 2 Chronicles 36:20-21 "allows for alternative explanations" but never gave one. On the contrary, his most direct statement was that '2 Chronicles 36:20 certainly provides support for Jonsson's view since it refers to the serving of Babylonian kings "until the reign of the kingdom of Persia."' In the final paragraph he even admits that the Watchtower interpretation is not conclusive, contrary to the claims of JW apologists.

  Interestingly, on the next page (I will not quote this here), Stafford has the intellectual integrity actually to castigate the Society for its dishonest scholarship in several areas of chronology. Take a lesson, "scholar", and change your ways.

  AlanF
• 

  scholar

  Earnest

  Why don't you check up the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary on all of the relevant texts on the 70 yeara and compare such commentary with the Word Biblical commentaru on 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Jeremiah and Daniel. You ask these scholars who attended this conference why is there so much confusion regarding this period: its nature, beginning and end. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS AMONGST SCHOLARS AS TO THE SEVENTY YEARS DESPITE THE jONSSON HYPOTHESIS. You ask these people to explain this enigma.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies of Religion
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  Please read the introduction in Jews and the Judeans and note the commen on page ix: The debate generally starts out from the position that the murder and mayhem of the Babylonian conquest, and the deporstations that followed, left the land virtually depopulated. This view is inscribed in the idea , expressed in the book of Chronicles and Leviticus , that after the fall of Jerusalem the land observed its sabbaths for seventy years. (2 Chron 36:20-21; LEV.26:34-35). On page xi it shows that the participants at that conference had much further work to do in this period so although there are at best current views expressed concerning the history of Judah this book based on the conference indicates further research is needed. Your opinion of the text is simply your interpretation, others would read it differently as shown in many commentaries.

  Stafford's research highlights the problematic interpretation of all of those relevant texts and yet you expect others to follow your dogmatic reading particularly Chronicles. The context indicates Cyrus' first year after the land was desolated for the seventyyears.

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  AlanF

  Hi Euphemism,

  : Thanks, AlanF... it's good to know you're human.

  Damn straight!

  : Let me state first of all that I agree that the evidence against 607 is overwhelming; and I also agree with your interpretation of 2 Chron 36:20.

  Good!

  : But just to play devil's advocate here... I seem to recall reading that the Greek word translated 'until' carries the sense of 'up to', but not necessarily 'terminating at'.

  I don't see a distinction.

  : I don't know whether this is the case for Hebrew or not, but are you certain that the Hebrew preposition here conveys the exact same nuance as the English?

  Yes. I've done my homework on this.

  According to BDB (the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon) the meanings can refer to space ("as far as, up to, even to," and so forth) or time ("even to, until, unto, up to," and so forth). It is the time sense we're concerned with. Here are a few examples from the NIV Exhaustive Concordance for 2 Chronicles:

  26:21 King Uzziah had leprosy until the day he died.
  29:28 All this continued until the sacrifice of the burnt offering was completed.
  29:34 so their kinsmen the Levites helped them until the task was finished and until other priests had been consecrated.
  36:16 But they ... despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy.

  Anyone who disagrees is certainly free to offer counterevidence. However, no JW apologist, like our resident "scholar", has ever even tried to do so. They either run away or offer excuses as to why they should not.

  AlanF
• 

  AlanF

  "scholar" said:

  Please read the introduction in Jews and the Judeans and note the commen on page ix: ...

  I'm perfectly well aware of all that. It changes nothing, because standard secular chronology for the period is solidly established and minor matters such as you are concerned with are not going to change that.

  I'm also well aware that you did not address a single issue I brought up. So what else is new? You know you have no arguments; only excuses.

  : Stafford's research highlights the problematic interpretation of all of those relevant texts and yet you expect others to follow your dogmatic reading particularly Chronicles.

  As I pointed out, Stafford carefully avoided giving any opinions on "my" interpretation of 2 Chronicles 36:20. Just as you carefully avoid it.

  To date, not a single JW apologist I have ever encountered has even attempted to offer a rational interpretation for this text. A few, like Stafford, sort of allude to the text and perhaps claim there are alternative explanations, but I have yet to see one. Most telling is that the Society itself has never offered any explanation at all -- which is a coded message to JWs: "Don't you dare touch this!" Some years ago, the Watchtower Society's foremost expert on ancient chronology, a supposed "anointed one" and close associate of the Writing Department, admitted to me that the only explanation the Society has ever attempted to give about the problem of Jeremiah 25:12 was nonsense. Of course, he couldn't offer anything else.

  : The context indicates Cyrus' first year after the land was desolated for the seventy years.

  Not at all. The direct statement, that the Jews served the Babylonian kings "until the reign of the kingdom of Persia" precludes that. You'll have to find an understanding of the rest of the context that doesn't conflict with this plain statement. But that's easy. Just reread Jonsson's book. As Stafford admits, because the rest of the passage is ambiguous, a proper Bible scholar will interpret the rest in terms of the unambiguous one.

  Your statement is not even consistent with Watchtower claims. According to them, Cyrus issued his decree freeing the Jews somtime in late 538 or early 537 B.C.E. Some months later the Jews returned to Judah, by about September, 537, and ended the desolation. You've got it backwards. Don't you think about what you write?

  AlanF
• 

  onacruse

  Hi Euphemism! I haven't yet taken the opportunity to welcome you to the forum, though I've followed your comments with increasing interest. I'm not particularly into chronological issues these days, but I saw you raise the question:

  I seem to recall reading that the Greek word translated 'until' carries the sense of 'up to', but not necessarily 'terminating at'.

  There are three primary Greek words typically translated into English as "until." They are heos, acri, and mecri. Heos is the most common, and also most generic, including either the thought of 1) "up to the point of and including the current event," and 2) "up to the point of and excluding the current event."

  Mecri tends more toward 1), for example:

  Matthew 28:15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

  That is to say, this rumor not only has been rampant for years, but even today ("up to and including the current day") it's still rampant.

  Acri tends more toward 2), for example:

  Matthew 24:38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;

  In this case, the indication would be that everybody did these normal things until the flood started, and then (since they were up to their necks in water), ceased ("up to and excluding the current day").

  At 2 Chron. 26:20, 21 the LXX has heos. In simply grammatical terms, it would be a serious challenge to assert that 1) or 2) was the intended meaning.

  Now, I have absolutely no idea whose position this info might support (like I said, I've not been into chron stuff lately). I'll follow this conversation, and comment back if asked to do so.

  Craig
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  Your understanding of the text at 2 Chronicles 36:20 is simply ridiculous. It simply states that the Jews were captive in Babylon until a new regime of Persia began to rule about 538BC under the title of King of Babylon, in Cyrus first year the decree releasing the captives followed by their release in 537 which ended the seventy years. Jonsson's interpretation is strained and is not supported by any commentaries that I am aware of. In fact the International Critical Commentary on pages 524-525 for the expression:'Until the reign of the kingdom of Persia- until the conquest of Babylonia by Cyrus in 538'. So careful commentary analysis links the end of the seventy years with cyrus' first year.

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  logansrun

  "scholar",

  Stop lying to us -- you really got a BS in religion, didn't you?

  B
• 

  Gamaliel

  scholar,

  Thanks for answering. I know the scriptural exegesis of the verses in question by the WT publications pretty well. But I am trying to start from a "tabula rasa" so to speak. I can accept the WT at face value without question for now, unless or until something comes up that necessarily contradicts them. Even then, I wouldn't necessarily dismiss the WT explanation unless evidence against it becomes critical. What I'm trying to focus on is that you said: "Afterall, [607] is a calculated date based on the evidence of scripture and secular history."

  Since I know the Scriptural evidence, I'm trying to test as clearly as possible what that secular evidence is. As I said, I'm not worried about AlanF's discussion of Chronicles at the moment. Outside of that discussion, here is our entire discussion so far with reference to my request:

  Gamaliel: "First, what secular history shall I start with?"

  Scholar: "Fall of Babylon in 539 and 537 for the decree of Cyrus allowing the captives to returning thus ending the seventy years of desolation"

  It's a bit slight as to secular references, so my only questions will be simple:

  1. What secular reference(s) do you trust that say the Fall of Babylon was in 539?

  2. What secular reference(s) do you trust that say the decree of Cyrus was in 537?

  Also, since you have told me that secular references for the period can be off by something like 20 years, I have a couple more questions:

  3. What criteria are you using to trust that the secular reference is correct with respect to 539 and 537? How do you know that it isn't, say 20 years off?

  4. Do you accept all of the dates for period in question by this particular secular reference? And, if not, what criteria do you use to reject certain dates from the same reference for which you accept other dates?

  I wanted to keep this first post all secular but I noticed a scripture in the first link on Google when I searched for: "decree of Cyrus in 537"

  Jer 25:12

  12'Then it will come to pass, when seventy years are completed, that I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity,' says the LORD;'and I will make it a perpetual desolation.

  Naturally, based on this scripture, I have a question:

  5. Was the King of Babylon punished when the 70 years were completed or before they were completed?

  Gamaliel
• 

  Winston Smith :>D

  Hi scholar, Alan, and others,

  It has been very interesting reading all of the points here. I have to admit that I am a bit disappointed in scholar though because I was very interested in hearing his case backed up with proof. But he hasn’t really done so yet. He just keeps on noting different books without citing specific quotes that refute Alan’s and others points. I just may be stupid, but I like the way that Alan uses specific quotes from references and then comments on it. That helps me see his viewpoint easily.

  I really would like a balanced discussion here, and I have to admit that I am unfamiliar with the books that scholar is referring to, so it would be helpful it he could quote these books as Alan F is.

  Scholar, you cited 2 Chronicles 36:20-21 and Leviticus 26:34-35. I am really sorry, but I just don’t see your point being backed up in these scriptures. Maybe you could quote some of the references that you cited to help me out?

  For me, once the WTS blinders were off, things regarding what the 70 years meant seemed clearer to me. I just started looking at this on Monday of this week, so I don’t have a lot of history [pun intended] in dealing with this subject. But I am very interested in hearing everyone’s viewpoints to have more of an educated opinion.

  I have to admit that earlier this week when I reviewed this info, I find myself coming to the same conclusions that Alan states regarding the end of the seventy years. I have not read the book by COJ, so I don’t really know if my new understanding even comes close to COJ’s explanation or not.

  But when I look at the scriptures you cited:

  *** Rbi8 Leviticus 26:34-35 *** 34 “‘At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying desolated, while YOU are in the land of YOUR enemies . At that time the land will keep sabbath, as it must repay its sabbaths. 35 All the days of its lying desolated it will keep sabbath, for the reason that it did not keep sabbath during YOUR sabbaths when YOU were dwelling upon it.

  Here it seems clear to me that the desolation was to include the time that the captives were taken from Jerusalem into Babylon. That happened before the destruction of Jerusalem AFAIK.

  *** Rbi8 2 Chronicles 36:20-21 *** 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.

  Here there are a few key words that stand out to me. Until seems to indicate to me what Alan has already stated. If Babylon fell, they are no longer in power. The one who has conquered is now in power. I think that it is a moot point debating the accession year or regnal year of Cyrus over Babylon because all we need to know here is when Babylon fell, they were no longer in power and Persia then was in power.

  A big key word here is to me is servant. 2 Chronicles tells us that we are to understand this scripture in light of what was spoken by Jeremiah. And Jeremiah continually spoke of servitude in his prophecy, and even made a yoke showing how the seventy years meant servitude to Babylon. .

  Jeremiah simply states that the seventy years were up when:

  *** Rbi8 Jeremiah 25:11-12 *** 12 “‘And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘their error, even against the land of the Chal·de'ans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite.

  It was made a desolate waste when the Medes and Persians conquered it. I guess one can debate about what dates correspond to what event. But to me the above scriptures reveal the following basic facts:

  1. The seventy years started when the Jews were made servants of Babylon, not when Jerusalem was destroyed.
  2. The seventy years ended when Babylon was destroyed, and not when the Jews were returned to Jerusalem

  Now all of the above conclusions are based on the Bible alone. But without going into dates that archaeology has confirmed, IMHO it seems evident that there are a few holes in the WTS chronology.

  Winston.