In view of the gross lies told by the poster that calls itself "scholar", I'll henceforth refer to him/it as "scholar-liar". The fact that it's a liar will be proved in this thread in spades.
Our resident scholar-liar has claimed that James Penton and Raymond Franz support his claim that the Watchtower Society's statement on page 134 of the Proclaimers book, with respect to "the 'seven times' of Daniel chapter 4", is correct, namely, that John Aquila Brown did "connect these 'seven times' with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24." I have already demonstrated conclusively that Brown did not equate the "seven times" with the "Gentile Times" and scholar-liar has admitted this (see the original thread on this topic "WTS Chronology(Oslo Hypothesis) from Vicar;Trinity College Fellow,Cambridge" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/1.ashx ) and " "SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/61024/1.ashx ) ), but he continues to claim that in some fuzzy and unspecified way Brown "connected" the two time periods. In the original thread I showed precisely how Brown "connected" the two time periods -- the "Gentile Times" were contained within the "seven times" and connected at their endpoints by a 75-year "prophetic period" measured in Brown's so-called "lunar years" between 1844 and 1917, the endpoints respectively of the "Gentile Times" and the "seven times".
Scholar-liar takes issue with the fact that in the 3rd edition of The Gentile Times Reconsidered Carl Jonsson stated (p. 36):
Brown calculated the 2,520 years as running from the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, 604 B.C.E., to the year 1917, when "the full glory of the kingdom of Israel shall be perfected." Brown did not himself associate this period with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24. Nonetheless his calculation for the 2,520 years, and his having based these on Daniel chapter 4, have since played a key role in certain modern interpretations of those Gentile times.
It's obvious that when Jonsson said that Brown did not "associate" the two periods, he meant that Brown did not equate the two periods. I know this for a fact because Jonsson confirmed it in a recent email, where he stated that he and scholar-liar "had a lengthy correspondence about the matter in which I proved to him in detail that Brown did not connect the 2520 years with the 'gentile times,' so the Proclaimer's book was wrong about this as I had stated in GTR3." I know perfectly well what material Jonsson has on hand with respect to Brown because we've discussed it extensively over the years, beginning in 1993, including the material on how Brown made a "prophetic connection" via the 75 year "prophetic period".
Let's now look at scholar-liar's claims:
Scholar-liar's Claim that James Penton Supports the Watchtower Society's Claim
Completely ignoring the important but subtle detail that "connect" does not mean "equate", in the original thread scholar-liar stated that "Penton using Barbour also provides information that supports the Society's postion on this simple historical fact that Brown did connect the Gentile Times with the seven times." To which I replied: "Penton was wrong." I wrote to Penton and he cleared up what he meant, and I now know that I was wrong in stating that he was wrong. Here's what Penton actually wrote in Apocalypse Delayed (p. 21):
Perhaps the most important aspect of prophetic interpretation to be found in Three Worlds that is still largely adhered to by Jehovah's Witnesses involves the computation of the length of the 'times of the Gentiles' mentioned at Luke 21:24. That was something that intrigued Russell. Upon learning it from Barbour, he published an article in the Bible Examiner of October 1876 entitled 'Gentile Times: When Do They End?' So Russell really made that interpretation his own even before publication of Three Worlds. Yet, in reality, the system of computing the times of the Gentiles originated neither with him, as is often believed, nor with Barbour.
In fact it was John A. Brown who first explained what he considered to be the key to the length of those times in a book called Even-Tide, published in London in 1823. What he posited was that the typical theocratic kingdom of Judah had fallen under Gentile rule in 604 BC. Thereafter, there would be no godly government on earth until four great empires -- the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Macedonian, and Roman -- had had their sway. Then Christ, as David's heir, would rule in Jerusalem. But how long would it be before those empires expired? Brown found what was for him the answer in the fourth chapter of the book of Daniel.
It's evident that in the above statements, Penton is rather fuzzy about just what he meant by "those times" in relation to "those empires". Admittedly one could conclude that he meant to equate the time periods covered by "the Gentile times" and "those empires". Penton compounds this fuzziness by continuing:
In that chapter, Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, is recorded as having had a dream of a great tree. By divine command it was cut down, a band placed over its stump, and it was not to be allowed to grow again until 'seven times' had passed. When Daniel interpreted the dream, it was applied directly to Nebuchadnezzar who was to undergo seven times (years?) of madness before being restored to his throne. But Brown saw in Nebuchadnezzar a type of the human family. Prior to his madness he was seen as representative of the Jewish theocracy; during his madness he was regarded as a type of the 'beastly' Gentile nations; and after his recovery he was held to be a type of the messianic kingdom of Jesus Christ.
Despite the fuzziness, Penton has not actually stated that Brown equated or even "connected" the "seven times" with the "Gentile times". He has simply been unclear about what Brown said. Penton continues:
To calculate the 'seven times' Brown reasoned that they were seven years of 360 prophetic days each. By using the year-day principle, he simply multiplied 360 days by seven and arrived at a period of 2,520 years. Finally, by counting 2,520 years from 604 BC, he arrived at the year AD 1917, which he designated as the date for the end of those times. [37]
These statements are not ambiguous with respect to the "seven times". Indeed, in footnote [37] Penton completely cleared up all ambiguity by stating that Brown did not equate the "seven times" and the "Gentile Times":
Brown did not refer to the 2,520 years as the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24; that was done by a number of persons including William Miller who followed his interpretation of Daniel 4.
With the above in mind, Penton's final statement on the matter should be clear:
Barbour decided that Brown had marked the beginning of the seven times -- which he regarded as the Gentile Times -- two years too late. He held that they had begun with what he believed to have been the date of the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. So, instead of using 1917 as the terminus for those times, by calculating slightly differently he marked them as having their conclusion in the autumn of 1914.
In view of the above it's obvious that when Penton wrote that "Barbour decided that Brown had marked the beginning of the seven times -- which he regarded as the Gentile Times -- two years too late", the phrase "which he regarded" refers not to Brown but to Barbour. So Penton was here saying that Barbour -- not Brown -- regarded the "seven times" and the "Gentile Times" as being equivalent. Thus, scholar-liar has no business claiming that Penton lends support to his claim that Penton's statements support those of the Watchtower Society on page 134 of the Proclaimers book.
Geting details about the above information taught me an important lesson (as if I needed further instruction about typically putrid JW scholarship!) as regards accepting at face value what a JW apologist or self-proclaimed JW-scholar claims: I replied to scholar-liar that "Penton was wrong". Well, I was wrong to say that, because I had not read everything that Penton had to say, in particular, footnote 37, which clears everything up. I read only what was in the text itself and assumed -- incorrectly -- that scholar-liar's assessment was correct.
How do I know that the above interpretation of Penton's writing in Apocalypse Delayed is correct? Because I phoned him and asked him for clarification. He responded in a followup email:
As I indicated to you by phone, I have checked out what I said in Apocalypse Delayed re John Brown and Nelson Barbour. You will note that I did not say that Brown associated the seven times with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24 or one may infer from what I wrote that he did. What I meant to say was that the fundamental ideas behind Barbour's, and ultimately Russell's Gentile Times chronology came from Brown. It was Barbour who really established it as Russell had it and Jehovah's Witnesses today have it.
And in a 2nd followup email:
After reexamining what I said in Apocalypse Delayed, I saw that I had not looked at footnote 37 where I state specifically that Brown did not connect the seven times with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. Note that I attribute that idea to William Miller from whom Barbour evidently got it. It is so long ago that I wrote this material that it is hard to bring it all back to mind. Anyhow your Witness friend is a bit of a nut if he thinks he can make points on an issue like this.
So, what James Penton wrote in Apocalypse Delayed lends no support to scholar-liar's claim.
And the fact that scholar-liar already knew about footnote [37] but chose to ignore it proves that he wants to misrepresent good scholars like Jim Penton, and therefore is a deliberate liar.
Scholar-Liar's Claim that Raymond Franz Supports the Watchtower Society's Claim
In the original thread, scholar-liar made the following basic claim:
The Jonsson hypothesis contains an historical blunder when it claims that John Aquila Brown did not associate the Gentile Times with the seven times. The Society in its Proclaimeers book, p. 134 notes that Brown connected these times. Raymond Franz in his Crisis of Conscrience, 1992, 2nd edn.,p.367 agrees with the Society and takes the opposite view to Jonsson who first made this claim in his original treatise.
First, a minor but telling point: Scholar-liar gave an incorrect source reference to Crisis of Conscience, since the May 1992 initial printing of the 2nd edition doesn't contain what he claims on page 367. His reference is actually to the revised September 1994 printing of the 2nd edition, which is labeled "Updated, Fully Indexed" on the front cover, in contrast with the initial printing which contains no such label.
Second, a major point: A careful reading of what Raymond Franz stated on page 367 of the September 1994 printing shows that scholar-liar has read into the text merely what he wants to see, not what is actually there. Franz writes in the Appendix's notes "For Chapter 7":
As mentioned, in 1993, the Watch Tower Society published a new history of Jewhovah's Witnesses, titled Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom. Certain portions appear to be reactions to information published by other sources, apparently in an effort to blunt the effect of that information. As an example, the book by Carl Olof Jonsson The Gentile Times Reconsidered, published and distributed since 1983, clearly showed the Second Advent sources for many of Charles Taze Russell's distinctive teachings, included [sic] that regarding the year 1914. Watch Tower publications for decades have glossed over or simply ignored this reality, conveying the impression that most of these teachings and the date of 1914 were original with Russell, and that he and his Watch Tower magazine constituted a unique divine channel for the revealing of previously lost or unknown truths.
Now, for the first time, a measure of acknowledgment is made of the extent of the indebtedness to these other, earlier sources, as in the case of John A. Brown's development of the theory of the "seven times" of Daniel chapter 4 as representing a period of 2,520 years and relating this to the "times of the Gentiles" of Luke 21:24 - this some 50 years before Russell. (Until this book the name of John A. Brown had never even appeared in any Watch Tower publication.) Also that it was, not Russell, but Second Adventist N. H. Barbour who had targeted 1914 as the "end of the Gentile Times" in his magazine Herald of the Morning in 1875 - four years before the first Watch Tower magazine appeared - and that it was from him that Russell obtained this date.
Franz does not say that Brown "connected" (in the sense of "equated") the "seven times" with the "Gentile Times". What he does say is that the developers of the Watchtower Society's 1914 doctrine were indebted to earlier sources such as John Aquila Brown, and that in some unspecified manner Brown 'related' the "seven times" to the "Gentile Times". While Franz's statement could be taken to mean that he agreed that Brown in some unspecified way "connected" the two time periods, the fact that he did not mean that Brown equated them is proved by two facts: (1) Franz was entirely familiar with Jonsson's statement in the 2nd edition of The Gentile Times Reconsidered of 1986 (p. 21) that Brown "did not associate this period with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24", and (2) the content of Franz's recent correspondence with scholar-liar, which Franz sent me and is reproduced below, with his permission:
Dear Mr. [scholar-liar]:
In your letter you speak of my failing to address the "issue at hand which is whether Jonsson has misrepresented the Society in claiming that Brown did not connect the seven times with the Gentile Times."
I stated at the beginning of my letter that "I believe that Carl Olof Jonsson has provided you with a full response to your allegation." I therefore addressed the larger issue, since you clearly have sought to use the claim just quoted to show that the book The Gentile Times Reconsidered in its Foreword is wrong in referring to the book as the result of "thorough and careful research" and of that view you say, "a view that I dispute." This is clearly the larger issue and it is evident from the whole of your correspondence that your aim is to discredit Mr. Jonsson's research. Since he had thoroughly refuted your claim as regards Brown's linking the "seven times" with the "Gentile Times" I saw no need to add anything to his thorough refutation and focused on the larger issue. Evidently you made the claim to Mr. Jonsson that I had acknowledged such a linking by Brown of the "seven times" and the "Gentile times," apparently referring to some statement in an early edition of Crisis of Conscience. One again if you had made the effort to check this out in the latest edition (4th edtiion) you would find that on page 179, that with regard to the information in Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, footnote 5 includes this information:
See page 134 of Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom: The book makes the erroneous statement that, although not `clearly discerning' the date with which the 2,520 years would begin or end (evidently meaning that his dates for the beginning and ending did not match those of Watch Tower publications), Brown "did connect these `seven times' with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24." As Jonsson's book The Gentile Times Reconsidered correctly states "Brown did not himself associate this period with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24."
I have examined carefully Brown's statements on pages 208 and 209 and find no basis for asserting that they validate the Society's statement that Brown did "connect the "seven times" with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24." You yourself, in your correspondence with Mr. Jonnson stated that you recognize with regard to page 208 that "the association between the seven times and the Gentile Times is rather tenuous or at least ambiguous." That being so, you, if you honestly hold to the need for "thorough and careful research," you would necessarily have felt obligated to research the rest of Brown's writings and determine if he really did equate the "seven times" (which he calculated as consisting of 2,520 years) with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. The evidence is that you did not do such research.
Thus, while you speak to me in your latest letter of the need for `researching this matter fully,' Mr. Jonsson's letters to you show that you either ignored or passed over large and critical portions of J. A. Brown's work. Thus, you explicitly expressed to him your belief that the reference to Luke 21:24 on page 208 of his book, "is a single example of Luke 21:24." Quoting from Mr. Jonsson's reply to you:
While you still speak of "the obvious connection", you also admit now that "the association between the seven times and the Gentile Times is rather tenuous or at least ambiguous". This can only mean that the supposed connection is neither "plain" nor "obvious".
You further say:
"I would need to see where Brown mentions this subject of the Gentile Times and any reference to Luke 21:24. I suspect that this is the only occurrence for if this was not the case then you would have presented this in order to support your argument. Your silence in this respect indicates to me that this is a single example of Luke 21:24."
If indeed you practice what you preach you would never have made the above statement, It betrays either your simple ignorance of the contents of Brown's work or your lack of concern to research the point by the "thorough and careful research" you profess to espouse. Mr. Jonsson points this out to you by continuing with this information:
Your statements surprise me. Brown comments on the Gentile Times of Luke 21 many times in his work, including on some of the pages you said you have. That's why I didn't find it necessary to refer you to them. I presupposed that you had gone over the pages you have and and that you knew about their contents. Take a look, for example, on page XI of volume I, where Brown equates the "times of the Gentiles" with the "time, times, and a half" and defines these times as "twelve hundred and sixty days or years." (Similar statements are also found on page VII.) Brown then, on the next page (XII), goes on to explain that this Gentile times period refers to the time of the Mohammedan imposture, and that at the time of writing 1237 years of the period had already passed, thus indicating that he expected the end of the period in the middle of the 1840's (in 1844, actually, as he explains elsewhere; see, for example, on page XLI that you say you have). Brown, in fact, devotes the very first chapter of his work to these 1260 years of Gentile times, a chapter that covers 60 pages. Nowhere in this chapter does Brown connect the period with the "seven times". As you said you have the first three pages of this chapter, please take a look at them. On page 2 Brown directly quotes from Luke 21:24.
In volume II Brown has a whole chapter on the "seven times". Nowhere in this chapter does he connect this period with the Gentile times. As you say you have copies of this chapter, you can check and see this for yourself.
So this is a problem, both for you and the Society. If you feel that Brown connects the two periods on page 208 of Vol. II, what kind of connection does he make? If you can't explain this, is there any connection at all? Don't you think it is possible that you, as well as the Society, have misunderstood Brown's use of Luke 21 on the page? I find it strange that the Society sent you only page 208 and not 209, because if you make a copy of this opening, you get both pages. On page 208 Brown refers to Jesus prophecy at Luke 21, including the statement about the times of the Gentiles, adding that Jesus "obviously refers to the sitting of the second judgement, at which he is to appear as the Judge." The connection here cannot be between the times of the Gentiles and the second judgement, because Brown ends the times of the Gentiles in 1844, where he starts the period of the first judgement. In his scheme, the second judgement would begin in 1873, at the end of the first judgement. The second judgement would then continue until 1917. It is during this second judgement period that "heaven and earth" would "pass away", according to Brown. So the connection he is making here is not between the times of the Gentiles and the second judgement, but between the second judgement and the passing away of "heaven and earth" as mentioned in Luke 21:33. This becomes obvious when one goes on reading about this on pages 208 and 209.
Thus, I can only conclude that you and the Society has read something into Brown's statements on page 208 that is not intended and is not there. There is no need for any asking Brown himself about this, because his whole work shows in detail how he interprets and applies these two periods.
In Brown's prophetical scheme, the various periods are more or less interrelated. The Gentile times period of 1260 lunar years, for example, ends in 1844, where Brown also ends three other chronological periods: The 1260 solar years of the Papal empire (AD 584-1844); the 390 years of the Turkish woe (AD 1453-1844); and the 2300 years to the cleansing of the sanctuary (BC 457-1844 AD). These four periods, therefore, are those most closely connected chronologically. The five other chronological periods in Brown's scheme are ended in 1873 and later. The Gentile times period is also related to the 1290 and 1335 years by a common starting-point: 622 AD. Thus the 1290 years extend 30 years beyond 1844 to the final destruction of the Mohammedan imposture in 1873, and the 1335 years extend 45 years beyond 1873 to the final end in 1917, which is also the end of Brown's 2520-year period.
Neither the Society nor you seem to have done the "thorough and careful research" that would bring recognition of these facts and would honestly compel an acknowledgment of them in any discussion of Brown's view regarding the "Gentile Times" vis-à-vis the "seven times." If Proverbs 18:13 has application it would certainly seem fitting in this case. Once again before claiming to see a speck in another's eye, you would do well to recognize the log in your own. I can only compare your tactic to that of critics of the Bible who seek to find some point in a Gospel account that they can classify as an apparent discrepancy (as, for example, references to the number of women who went to the grave site on the day of Jesus' resurrection) and then use this one point as the basis for discrediting the reliability of the entire account.
Can you quote even one statement directly from Brown's work in which he clearly and unambiguously equates the "Seven times" and the "Gentile Times" or where he assigns to the "Gentile Times:" a period of 2,520 years? If you cannot then I see no purpose in any continuation of correspondence with you on this subject. It would be a waste of my time as well as your own.
Sincerely,
R. V. Franz
Scholar-liar made no reply to Franz. No surprise as to why. Franz completely destroyed all of scholar-liar's claims and he knew it. The same goes for scholar-liar's correspondence with Carl Jonsson. After being thoroughly discredited in private, he had the nerve to come on this board and claim that "their replies regarding this matter were unsatisfactory and ignored the Society's expanation as I had outlined to them." Franz's reply above shows how gross a liar that scholar-liar is. His use of "unsatisfactory" merely means that the two scholars Jonsson and Franze didn't agree with him. Which means nothing.
Scholar-liar's Distortion of the Facts About Carl Jonsson's Writings
In an email to me dated 29-Oct-2003 Carl Jonsson writes:
The Witness you are corresponding with evidently is [scholar-liar] from Australia. He contacted me for the first time back in 1994 and asked for copies of some of my material. Then, in 1998, he wrote me again, asking about the Society's statements on J. A. Brown in the Proclaimer's book. He wanted me to send him pages from Brown's book that showed his application of the "gentile times" period, which I did. He admitted at that time that it did seem that the Society had misunderstood Brown, but said he would write to the Society about it, which he evidently did. They did not admit any error on their part, however, but sent him a copies of two pages from Brown's work, the most important of which was page 208. If you need it, I can fax it to you. Just give me your fax number.I didn't know about this until this year, when he contacted me again, now insisting that the Society was right and I was wrong. We had a lengthy correspondence about the matter in which I proved to him in detail that Brown did not connect the 2520 years with the "gentile times," so the Proclaimer's book was wrong about this as I had stated in GTR3. However, [scholar-liar] refused to admit this, and he became increasing dogmatic and hostile, starting to accuse me personally, so I saw it best to discontinue our correspondence. At that time he had also contacted Ray Franz, trying to get his support for his views - which he didn't, of course.
Jonsson gave his permission to post the following emails from him to scholar-liar:
In an email dated 11-Sept-2003 to scholar-liar, Jonsson said:
I have checked the pages in Brown's "Even-Tide" you received from the Society. You state that page 208 (of Vol. II) "plainly" shows the connection between Brown's "seven times" and the Gentile Times. In what way do you feel that Brown connects the two? I have gone over the page very carefully twice, but can't see that he connects the two periods at all. They are both mentioned on the same page, but that's all. For Brown, the "seven times" of 2520 years was the period of the four tyrannical empires (604 BC - 1917 AD), while his "gentile times" of treading on Jerusalem was the period of the Mohammedan imposture (622 AD - 1844). Brown discusses nine different periods, the longest being the "seven times". All the other periods are shorter and fall somewhere within the longest period. If this is a "connection", there is "connections" between all of his periods. The Society's statement that Brown connected the "seven times" of 2520 years with Luke 21:24 indicated to the readers that he believed the "gentile times" were 2520 years. The only way to avoid giving the readers this impression would have been to explain how they believed that Brown connected the two periods.
Jonsson's reply said essentially the same thing I've said in the two threads on this subject on this forum. And just as scholar-liar has steadfastly refused to answer my simple question, "What did the Society mean by 'connect' and how do you know it?", he never answered Jonsson's similar question.
In an email dated 12-Sept-2003 Jonsson reiterates to scholar-liar the theme of "answer the important question":
Re. J. A. Brown, it seems to me that you have misunderstood his mentioning of the "gentile times" on page 208 of Vol. II. He does NOT connect this period with the so-called "second judgement". In Brown's scheme, the period of the "second judgement" is a period of 45 years extending from 1873 to 1917 (when he also ends the 1335 years). As the "gentile times" in his scheme would end in 1844, he does not connect with the "second judgement". In his reference to Jesus' prophecy at Luke 21 he first mentions the "times of the Gentiles" as a part of Jesus' lengthy prophecy, but the part of it that he connects with the "second judgement" is that which then follows in this prophecy, the passing away of "the heaven and the earth" at Luke 21:33. It is this event that he connects with the "second judgement", which becomes obvious if you go on reading on page 209: "... it is very certain that the 'heaven and earth' referred to, are the 'heaven and earth which pass away' at the secon judgement", etc. So, please, take another look at what Brown says on these pages. If you still feel that he connects the "seven times" and the "second judgement" with the "gentile times", you have to explain to me HOW he connects them. As he ends the "gentile times " in 1844 and starts the "second judgement" in 1873 and ends it in 1917 - HOW does he connect them?
In an email dated 13-Sept-2003 Jonsson writes to scholar-liar:
I am not dogmatic when I can't see what you feel you see on page 208. I asked you the question: "If you still feel that he connects the 'seven times' and the 'second judgement' with the 'gentile times', you have to explain to me HOW he connects them. As he ends the 'gentile times' in 1844 and starts the 'second judgement' in 1873 and ends it in 1917 - HOW does he connect them?" The fact that you left my question unanswered indicates to me that the connection you feel you see isn't clear to you. So here is my question again, a little expanded: If Brown connects his "gentile times" period, AD 622-1844 (1844 being his date for Christ's coming, Armageddon, and the beginning of the "first judgement"), with his "seven times" period, BC 604-1917 AD, and his "second judgement" period, 1873-1917, what kind of connection does he make? As long as you are unable to explain this, the connection you feel you see appears to me to be a misunderstanding of Brown's discussion. The reason for this may be, as you indicate yourself, that the material you have at hand forces you to focus only on a limited context.
As is usual for JW-apologists when cornered, they turn to personal attacks. In an email dated 14-Sept-2003, Jonsson laments this on the part of scholar-liar, but responds in an even tempered manner:
I find it deplorable that you, on running short of arguments, turn to personal accusations. If you would make an honest and objective analysis of your own mails, you would recognize that your own formulations are no less dogmatic than any of my statements have been. The reason for this probably is that you, as a loyal Jehovah's Witnesses, find it difficult to admit that the Watchtower Society makes any mistakes in their publications. I may be wrong, but this is the impression I get. You sent me two differently formulated mails with about the same content, the second one somewhat less dogmatic in tone, so I will ignore the first one and comment on the second. While you still speak of "the obvious connection", you also admit now that "the association between the seven times and the Gentile Times is rather tenuous or at least ambiguous". This can only mean that the supposed connection is neither "plain" nor "obvious". You further say: "I would need to see where Brown mentions this subject of the Gentile Times and any reference to Luke 21:24. I suspect that this is the only occurrence for if this was not the case then you would have presented this in order to support your argument. Your silence in this respect indicates to me that this is a single example of Luke 21:24." Your statements surprise me! Brown comments on the Gentile Times of Luke 21 many times in his work, including on some of the pages you said you have. That's why I didn't find it necessary to refer you to them. I presupposed that you had gone over the pages you have and and that you knew about their contents. Take a look, for example, on page XI of volume I, where Brown equates the "times of the Gentiles" with the "time, times, and a half" and defines these times as "twelve hundred and sixty days or years." (Similar statements are also found on page VII.) Brown then, on the next page (XII), goes on to explain that this Gentile times period refers to the time of the Mohammedan imposture, and that at the time of writing 1237 years of the period had already passed, thus indicating that he expected the end of the period in the middle of the 1840's (in 1844, actually, as he explains elsewhere; see, for example, on page XLI that you say you have). Brown, actually, devotes the very first chapter of his work to these 1260 years of Gentile times, a chapter that covers 60 pages. Nowhere in this chapter does Brown connect the period with the "seven times". As you said you have the first three pages of this chapter, please take a look at them. On page 2 Brown directly quotes from Luke 21:24. In volume II Brown has a whole chapter on the "seven times". Nowhere in this chapter does he connect this period with the Gentile times. As you say you have copies of this chapter, you can check and see this for yourself. So this is a problem, both for you and the Society. If you feel that Brown connects the two periods on page 208 of Vol. II, what kind of connection does he make? If you can't explain this, is there any connection at all? Don't you think it is possible that you, as well as the Society, have misunderstood Brown's use of Luke 21 on the page? I find it strange that the Society sent you only page 208 and not 209, because if you make a copy of this opening, you get both pages. On page 208 Brown refers to Jesus prophecy at Luke 21, including the statement about the times of the Gentiles, adding that Jesus "obviously refers to the sitting of the second judgement, at which he is to appear as the Judge." The connection here cannot be between the times of the Gentiles and the second judgement, because Brown ends the times of the Gentiles in 1844, where he starts the period of the first judgement. In his scheme, the second judgement would begin in 1873, at the end of the first judgement. The second judgement would then continue until 1917. It is during this second judgement period that "heaven and earth" would "pass away", according to Brown. So the connection he is making here is not between the times of the Gentiles and the second judgement, but between the second judgement and the passing away of "heaven and earth" as mentioned in Luke 21:33. This becomes obvious when one goes on reading about this on pages 208 and 209. Thus, I can only conclude that you and the Society has read something into Brown's statements on page 208 that is not intended and is not there. There is no need for any asking Brown himself about this, because his whole work shows in detail how he interpets and applies these two periods. In Brown's prophetical scheme, the various periods are more or less interrelated. The Gentile times period of 1260 lunar years, for example, ends in 1844, where Brown also ends three other chronological periods: The 1260 solar years of the Papal empire (AD 584-1844); the 390 years of the Turkish woe (AD 1453-1844); and the 2300 years to the cleansing of the sanctuary (BC 457-1844 AD). These four periods, therefore are those most closely connected chronologically. The five other chronological periods in Brown's scheme are ended in 1873 and later. The Gentile times period is also related to the 1290 and 1335 years by a common starting-point: 622 AD. Thus the 1290 years extend 30 years beyond 1844 to the final destruction of the Mohammedan imposture in 1873, and the 1335 years extend 45 years beyond 1873 to the final end in 1917, which is also the end of Brown's 2520-year period. So there is a kind of relationship between all these periods. But I doubt that this interrelationship between the various periods is what the Socity's writers had in mind when they wrote that Brown "connected" the 2520 years with the times of the Gentiles. In Brown's scheme, the relation between the two is very indirekt, as it goes via the 1290 and the 1335 years. The readers of the Society's history book are given the impression that Brown equated the two, and his actual views are concealed, as I pointed out. You ends your mail by intimating that I am an irrational fool: "I believe that if this page was shown to any rational person your position would be insustainable." This wasn't kind, and as long as such sneers are part of your argumentation, I see not reason to have any further discussions with you.
Jonsson's next email to scholar-liar:
E.mail sent to [scholar-liar] on 15 September 2003. [scholar-liar] had quoted both from Crisis of Conscience and from Penton's Apocalypse in support of his view that Brown connected the "seven times" with the times of the Gentiles: > James M. Penton in his Apocalypse Delayed The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses,1988, p.21: "Barbour decided that Brown had marked the beginning of the seven times-which he regarded as the Gentile Times-two years too late". < I think that Penton here says that it was Barbour, not Brown, who regarded the seven times as the Gentile Times. On the same page Penton refers to footnote 37 on page 311, where Penton explains: "Brown did not refer to the 2,520 years as the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24; that was done by a number of persons including William Miller who followed his interpretation of Daniel 4."
Raymond Franz' statement concerns what is acknowledged in the Society's history book, where, as you know, it is claimed that Brown related the 2,520 years to the times of the Gentiles. I don't think that Raymond Franz himself has read Brown's work and therefore presents his own conclusion.
Jonsson's next email:
E.mail sent to [scholar-liar] on 16 September 2003. As [scholar-liar] insisted that both you and Penton claimed that Brown connected, even equated the "seven times" with the Gentile times, I answered: Why not write to Raymond Franz and James Penton and ask them directly how they understand the matter? I am not prepared to say that Barbour got his views on the "seven times" from Brown. I never wrote that, and I have no evidence of this. Although Brown was the first to explain the "seven times" to be 2,520 years, it was others who soon thereafter equated this period with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24. This was then widely adopted and became an important period within the Second Advent movement. Miller ended the period in 1843. And as you know, Barbour became a part of that movement in 1843 and until the Great Disappointment in 1844. It is possible that Barbour later may have studied Brown's work, but my conclusion is that he first got the idea of the Gentile times as a period of 2,520 years directly from the Miller movement, and that he later, when he had returned from Australia and had joined the Advent Christian Association, continued to rework Miller's application of the various periods, including his application of the Gentile times period, thus finally arriving at 1914 as the expiring year. As to dogmatism, I believe this is the wrong word used. I am firmly convinced that Brown did not connect the two periods, simply because I have examined his work and know how he applied the various periods, so the connection you think you see on page 208 is simply a misunderstanding. You deny this, and you do it dogmatically. With this, I don't find it fruitful to discuss this matter further with you. I suggest that you try to get a copy of Brown's whole work and read it from cover to cover. Carl [At this time [scholar-liar] wrote to Ray Franz and tried to get his support for his views, which he didn?t. I sent Ray my e.mails to [scholar-liar], and also faxed pages 208 and 209 from Brown?s book to him. Ray Franz finally, on September 23, sent a lengthy e.mail to [scholar-liar], summarizing my observations on Brown?s views and also adding some observations of his own. He pointed out, for example, that he himself in footnote 5 on page 179 of the 4th edition of Crisis of Conscience explicitly states that Brown did not connect the 2520 years with the "gentile times". This footnote says:
> See page 134 of Jehovah?s Witnesses-Proclaimers of God?s Kingdom: The book makes the erroneous statement that, although not ?clearly discerning? the date with which the 2,520 years would begin or end (evidently meaning that his dates for the beginning and ending did not match those of Watch Tower publications), Brown "did connect these ?seven times? with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24." As Jonsson?s book The Gentile Times Reconsidered correctly states "Brown did not himself associate this period with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24." < ]
Jonsson's next email:
E.mail sent to [scholar-liar] 18 September 2003. He had stated that I had "demonstrated incompetence in dealing and interpreting modern primary sources, ... unlike Rolf Furuli who is a professional trained scholar and is competent with ancient evidence you do not possess these academic skills." I answered very briefly: [scholar-liar], You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want. I have demonstrated to you that Brown held the Gentile times to be a period of 1,260 lunar years extending from AD 622 to 1844, while holding that the "seven times" was a period of 2,520 years extending from 604 BC to 1917 AD. If he, as you believe, connected these two different periods, I have repeatedly asked you how he connected them. You have been unable to answer this question, and if you were an academic, as you say you are, you should check what Brown really says about the two periods by reading his work, instead of focusing on some vague and ambiguous statements on just one page. Only then would you be capable of determining who of us has made a "historical blunder." When it comes to real scholarship, all assyriologists who are experts on the cuneiform texts from the Neo-Babylonian and Persian eras agree that the chronology of this period is as firmly established as it can be, and that the chronological views of the Watchtower Society and its adherents have no foundation whatsoever. Compared to their knowledge in Akkadian, Rolf Furuli is a novice. I have carefully gone over his latest book, and I can tell you that it bristles with fatal errors. As the chronology he defends basically is that of the Society, Furuli, of course, has a hidden agenda, and his book is heavily biased. Loyal Jehovah's Witnesses, of course, who are governed by the same bias, will be duped by its pseudo-scholarship, and predictably also some other Bible Student groups. Anyone who is fixed to preconceived views is incapable of determining who are real scholars or not. Carl
And the final email:
E.mail sent to [scholar-liar] on 20 September 2003. This was my last response: [scholar-liar], You are wrong in stating, "You plan to research and write a rebuttal but do you not think that Furuli could return in kind and so ad infinitum". As I have studied Babylonian and Persian chronology for 35 years, there is no need for me to do any additional research in order to refute Furuli's theories. Besides, they are not new, as he is just defending the Society's dates. The idea that Artaxerxes I ruled 51 years instead of 41, for example, is several hundred years old. Modern research has totally demolished the idea. Years ago I wrote an essay that refutes it, but I'm now planning to expand it somewhat and add some comments on Furuli's book. Carl
After all of the above, scholar-liar has the nerve to write: "I sent several emails regarding this historical blunder to both Franz and Jonsson before posting this information on this board. Their replies regarding this matter were unsatisfactory and ignored the Society's expanation as I had outlined to them." In what passes for scholar-liar's mind, "unsatisfactory" means "didn't agree with my ridiculous ideas" and "ignored the Society's explanation" means "proved that the Society's explanation was wrong". So readers can see how stupidly unobjective and wrong scholar-liar's claims are, and that because of having deliberately ignored incontrovertible evidence that his claims about what Penton, Franz and Jonsson said are wrong, despite what these scholar themselves have said (scholar-liar will not in the future admit to having been wrong), and despite what I have said, scholar-liar is indeed a liar.
The Piéce de Resistance: The Watchtower Society's Statements
I had a JW acquaintance call the Watchtower Society to get its official opinion about whether the Proclaimers book on page 134 intended to say that John Aquila Brown equated the "seven times" of Daniel 4 and the "Gentile Times" of Luke 21:24, or merely "connected" them in a fuzzy, unspecified way. The answer that my acquaintance received, apparently from a member of the Writing Department, was clear. The answer boiled down to this.
According to the Proclaimers book, Brown gave no dates on the starting or ending points of the seven times or the Gentile times.
This is incorrect, since Brown dated the "seven times" from 604 B.C. to 1917 A.D. and dated the "Gentile Times" from 622 A.D. to 1844 A.D.
Brown said that the seven times and the Gentile times are the same time periods.
Bingo! This disproves scholar-liar's claim that the Watchtower Society meant that Brown didn't "equate" the two time periods but merely "connected" them in some unspecified way that scholar-liar has been unable to enunciate.
The word "connect" leaves for quite a wide range of interpretation, but the Proclaimers book actually means "equate".
Bingo again! The Society's statements are conclusive, and prove that scholar-liar's claims are mere wishful thinking. The Watchtower Society is gravely wrong, and because it is gravely wrong, we can apply scholar-liar's own standard of scholarship:
When it's demonstrable that Watchtower writers are unable to "interpret modern history so how is it possible they can be trusted with ancient primary sources?" Scholar-liar: You got that right!
In view of all the above, I have to laugh at scholar-liar's statement: "Jonsson raised this issue as a platform in his original thesis which dealt with a history of the Gentile Times teaching and was later contradicyed by the Society, Franz, Penton and Barbour." (Later "contradicted by Barbour"? Barbour died nearly 100 years ago!) I've shown that Penton and Franz never contradicted Jonsson; this is mere wishful thinking by scholar-liar. The fact that Nelson Barbour connected (equated) the time periods in question is simply irrelevant; he was wrong about everything he wrote with respect to "bible chronology". The fact that the Society in the Proclaimers book contradicts Jonsson is the very issue we're talking about. The fact that the Society cannot get a simple thing right, like understanding what a historical figure like John Aquila Brown wrote, proves that it has no business writing about complicated things like Bible prophecy. Or anything else that, in the immortal words of Alan Rogerson, touches on any severe mental discipline:
A long acquaintance with the literature of the Witnesses leads one to the conclusion that they live in the intellectual ?twilight zone.? That is, most of their members, even their leaders, are not well educated and not very intelligent. Whenever their literature strays onto the fields of philosophy, academic theology, science or any severe mental discipline their ideas at best mirror popular misconceptions, at worst they are completely nonsensical. (Alan Rogerson, Millions Now Living Will Never Die: A Study of Jehovah?s Witnesses, p. 116, Constable, London, 1969)
AlanF
