This is such an old joke. But I'll play the Devil's advocate here in support of the witnesses since everybody else seems to be having a field day congratulating themselves.
For background, the "anti-chronology" that the Watchtower Society has been promoting, literally from its inception, includes an historically unsupported date for the destruction of Jerusalem's Temple by Nebuchadnezzar. Accepting the dates 606 BCE (now, 607 BCE) instead of 587 or 586 BCE for that event has bequeathed an embarrassing situation upon Jehovah's Witnesses.
The witnessed won't be "embarrassed" by their 607BCE dating because they feel compelled to date the fall of Jerusalem in 607BCE because of the BIBLE. The ever-so-charming AlanF calls this reference "vague", which means he certainly understands why some would get the idea that the land had to be desolate for 70 literal years. But when it comes to Bible versus secular records, the witnesses have been trained to believe the Bible and dismiss as fraudulent or erroneous the pagan records. They don't quite have the dating right, but they do have this scripture correct:
2 Chronicles 36:20-21: "Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword [who had ran down to Egypt 4 years previously] captive to Babylon, and they care to be servants to him and his sons [including Darius, the Mede, the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar] until the ROYALTY OF PERSIA [i.e. 1st of Cyrus the Persian, not Darius the Mede] began to reign. 21 To fulfill YHWH's word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the LAND PAID OFF ITS SABBATHS. All the days of LYING DESOLATED it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."
Now it is this single scripture which they read as referring to 70 years of the land paying back their sabbaths that they get the 607BCE dating from. They presume the land was desolate when those who ran down to Egypt left the land and the 70 years began. When they use the pivotal date from secular records of 539BCE for the fall of Babylon, plus the astronomical text of the SK400 for dating year 7 of Kambyses in 523BCE, they feel confident that 537BCE was the date for the return from Babylon and thus they add 70 years to that.
Point being, they won't get past this scripture's reference for 70 years of desolation of the land to pay back it's sabbaths.
And just to prove that it is understood this way entirely, they quote from Josephus, a Jewish historian who claims the same thing! Only not exactly, the same thing. Josephus dates the 70 years in terms of "servitude" of the people of the last deportation. Thus Josephus' 70 years differs from the JW 70 years by 4 years. Here is Josephus' own statement from his own Jewish history about the 70 years:
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. And these things God did afford them; for he stirred up the mind of Cyrus and made him write this throughout all Asia "Thus saith Cyrus the king: Since God Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that God which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem in the country of Judea."
Therefore, there is really no choice for them, it would seem. The Bible and Josephus introduce this 70 years just before the return from Babylon. So they and critical Biblicalists have no choice but to presume the Babylonian records must have been revised. This is not a new position. In Olof Jonsson's wonder book, GT3, in fact he references a lot of the history of these chronologies and mentions Martin Anstey who, likewise, when finding comflict between the Bible's own chronology and that of the secular references, simply preferred the Bible as a better historical source. And that is all this is about. BABYLONIAN POST-DATED (REVISED?) RECORDS (i.e. Babylonian Chronicles, Cyrus Cylinder, Nabonidus Chronicle) plus ZERO contemporary astronomical texts, only Seleucid Period astronomical texts as the key references (i.e. VAT4956 and SK400) vs the Bible and the Jewish history.
So it's a draw as to whether one will be influenced by the pagan records or the Bible. There is no embarassment. Just matter of opinion. For instance, Jonsson claims the "seventy years" was really a rounded off reference to the nations conquered by Babylon. So are we going to take him seriously? Hardly! What about the 70 years for the land to pay back the sabbaths? Isn't that text quite clear? It's clear enough for a CONTRADICTION!
Now I'm not taking sides with the Bible or secular records, but merely noting there is definitely a conflict. If Josephus thinks the 70 years occurred and he's a Jewish historian who would have known from his own history, then you can't blame others for interpreting the scripture the same way.
So there's no embarrassment -- just a matter of choice.
They are forced to deny one of the most well-documented of all periods in ancient history: the entire Neo-Babylonian period.
Sorry, but this is real OLD NEWS. Turns out that the VAT4956 which called the "most important" astronomical document by O.J. was recharted recently using modern astronomy programs. The entire text. Not only was it discovered that the original translators inserted false information into the translation of the text (which AlanF discovered himself), but two references that can be matched to 511BCE suggesting that 511BCE was the original chronology for the fall of Jerusalem. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, the VAT4956 is clearly a fraudulent document and 568BCE a manipulated date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. So persons who are informed are not going to accept that text as a credible reference now. This text was one of the several levels of evidence that O.J. offered to help validate the 586BCE chronology for the fall of Jerusalem in support of the pagan documents. But now that the pagan documents themselves claims the original date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar was really 511BCE, Jonsson's entire argument is not only out of date but irrelevant.
Interestingly enough, Martin Anstey did one better than the witnesses. The witnesses claim to be Biblicalists but are on the fence. They don't mind dismissing a few years here and there to assert their own Biblical timeline, but believing that 82 years of Persian history was faked was a bit too much for them apparently. That's how many years you'd have to displace to date the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE so that Cyrus fulfills the 70 weeks prophecy. But MARTIN ANSTEY had no problem doing this, trusting the Bible fully. The reason I mention this is because if you date the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE then add 70 years per the witnesses, you arrive at 525BCE for the fall of Jerusalem. But when you apply Josephus' reference that this was really the year of the last deportation and thus the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, then guess what? His 37th year falls in none other than 511BCE.
Now, I'm not promoting this as the truth or anything, but you can see why it's hard to just simply jump on the pagan chronology bandwagon simply because it's the popular chronology without a reference to the new discoveries that have been made, and the apparent chronology from their own source (VAT4956) that the original dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar was really 511BCE.
Now I know some people will argue against this, but you MUST UNDERSTAND why some will simply not trust the pagan chronology. You have the Bible and Josephus claiming the 70 years quite clearly took place and now these confusing astronomical texts with double dating which now can be used to support Josephus' chronology.
So while the witnesses are likely wrong about 607BCE, they do have some ligitimate reasons for thinking that date is correct because of what the Bible says and because they believe the Bible is more reliable than the Babylonian records.
The attempt to promote this 20-year difference even creates issues with synchronizing Assyrian and Egyptian historical touchpoints to the Babylonian period.
This is not even true. A well-informed Biblical chronologist will tell you that a lot of this chronology is quite flexible. You've got Rohl and Courville, for instance, with all kinds of wild ideas about Egyptian dating. Egyptian dating, is basically based upon the Assyrian dating. And Assyrian dating is basically based upon a critical single astronomical reference, a solar eclipse in month 3 mentioned in the Assyrian eponym list that is dated to 763BCE. Turns out though that eclipse is part of a pattern of eclipses that happened every 54 years and 1 month apart! What is significant about that is the first month of the year was dated differently by different cultures. Some began the 1st month of the year if the spring equinox fell between the 1st and the 14th of the month, that is, as long as it was before the full moon. But another culture would not begin the first month until the actual first month after the equinox, that is, the natural-occurring first month (first new moon) after the equinox. In the case of dating that eclipse in 763BCE, it falls in the third month by early dating, that is, the first month of the year was began before the equinox. But that would mean 54 years and 1 month later you had a solar eclipse occurring in the 3rd month again based upon the late dating. In other words, the 763BCE would have been dated in month 2 instead of month three in the succesion of these eclipses which occurred one month later every year. That means that the entire Assyrian dating could be correctly matched to either eclipse, the 763BCE or the 709BCE eclipse, a 54-year difference. Since the Neo-Babylonian period would occur 57 years later per the VAT4956, there would be no appreciable contradiction with Assyrian chronology timeline since you have the option of dating the eponym eclipse 54 years later. The 3-year difference between 57 years and 54 years is neglible in a timeline that long.
So this F&S (fantasy and seizure) or how structured and absolute the Egyptian and Assyrian chronology are is just a joke to those who know the facts and have actually studied the chronologies. Interestingly enough, though, not laughing at the witnesses mind you, not a single date in ancient history do the witnesses agree on per secular records except 539BCE for the fall of Babylon. They have an excuse for dismissing every other reference, including this 763BCE ecilpse. But just wanted to show that even though it's literally "written in stone" there are still options for coordinating the Neo-Babylonian, Persian and Egyptian chronologies when you redate year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II to 511BCE which you must do per the VAT4956. The text was actually designed to hide a secret reference to the original chronology. All their other astronomical texts were either destroyed for fraudulently changed to reflect the revised chronology.
Also, while one could expect Bible believers to latch onto any small glimmer of historical evidence that upholds the Bible, Witnesses have created a situation for themselves in which they are required to deny a wealth of evidence that actually supports the Bible record very well during this period.
You know, it's a little ironic, that before the VAT4956 double-dating was found, perhaps Bible believers did have to have a lot of faith if they believed the chronology that dated the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE and that 70 years of desolation really did occur and thus presumed that the Persians revised the Neo-Babylonian chronology. They had valid reasons to do so as well, since so many of the records were not contemporary. But now that we know for a fact that the Persians revised year 37 from 568BCE to 511BCE per their own document, there is no problem believing the Bible now. That is, the VAT4956 has made a difference in not just dismissing the current chronology as revised, but also reaffirming that, indeed, it was revised to such a great extent, but that the Bible's chronology is SPECIFICALLY CORRECT per the original chronology.
In other words, let's say there was MILD PANIC among the Biblicalists with all this "evidence" regarding 568BCE. They would have still had faith. Well the double-dating to 511BCE would have been a MAJOR PANIC since it implies the original chronology was indeed originally in 511BCE. The increased panic would be because that would challenge the Bible more effectively than the 568BCE dating, now proven to be false. But it turns out that since the Bible's chronology is the true chronology, the 511BCE dating and the Bible totally agree. So now the Bible believers have their own direct proof that the Bible's chronology is absolute true and.....that the Persians absolutely not only revised their chronology but their astronomical texts as well.
Now the only thing the pagan chronology believers can do now is call us Biblicalists "crazy" and "idiots" and all that, but we just laugh, because there is no recovery with a reference like this. And as long as we can refound the Assyrian ecilpse to a compatible chronology, then there is no conflict with the "relative chronology" between the Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylonian chronologies.
So it's good times for Bible believers thanks to the VAT4956.
REQUIRED NOTE: Since this Biblical dating simply presented still might cause some confusion, I always quickly explain where the original chronology goes for the Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods. Basically the Neo-Babylonian period was reduced by 26 years in order to add years to the Persian kings. The total years added to the Persian kings was 82 years. All chronology is back on track between the Bible and secular records during the Persian by the 1st of Artaxerxes III (358BCE).
26-YEAR EXPANSION OF NEO-BABYLONIAN PERIOD:
Nebuchadnezzar II - 45 vs 43 years, (+2)
Evil Merodach, 18 vs 2 years, (+16)
Nabonoidus, 19 vs 17 years (+2)
Darius, the Mede, 6 vs zero (+6)
Total 26 years
82 YEAR REDUCTION OF PERSIAN PERIOD
Kambyses, 7 years vs 8 years, 1 year co-ruled with father Cyrus (-1)
Darius I, 6 vs 36 years (per Bible, Ezra. 6:14,15) (-30)
Xerxes who was Artaxerxes, zero vs 21 years (-21)
Artaxerxes II, 17 versus 47 years (way too long!) (-30)
Total years: 82
So folks, believe what you want. Since we don't need the Bible now to date year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511BCE but can use the VAT4956, we feel no need to regard the current "conventional" chronology of Olof Jonsson claiming Jerusalem fell in 586BCE as anything but the joke that it is. We have the VAT4956 now. Since it preempts ALL....there is no longer any credible challenge to the Bible's chronology which correctly dates year 1 of Cyrus to 455BCE per the "70 weeks" prophecy.
587 fall of Jerusalem?
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!!!
607BCE fall of Jerusalem?
BWAAAAAAAAHHHHH ! HA! HA! HA!!!
70 years of "servitude" rounded needs rounding off to 66 years to work?
BWAAAAAH!!!! HAAAA!! HA!!! HA!!!
Call a doctor!!!! I'm having a heart attack!!!!
JC
