The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

7
ATTEMPTS TO OVERCOME THE
EVIDENCE
A
S RELATED in the Introduction, the original manuscript of this
work was first presented to the Watch Tower Society in 1977.
During the subsequent correspondence with the headquarters of
that organization, additional lines of evidence were presented
which were later included in the published edition of the work in
1983.
In possession of all this information, it might be expected that
the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses at the Brooklyn
headquarters would have been prepared to reevaluate their Gentile
times calculation in accord with their stated interest in biblical truth
and historical facts. On the contrary, they chose to retain and
defend the 607 B.C.E. date and the interpretations founded upon
it. 1
1 Several years before the treatise was sent to the Brooklyn headquarters, some
members on the writing staff had begun to see the weakness of the prophetic
interpretations attached to the 1914 date. These included Edward Dunlap, former
Registrar of Gilead School, and Governing Body member Raymond Franz. These
researchers, therefore, could agree with the conclusion that the 607 B.C.E. date
for the destruction of Jerusalem is chronologically insupportable. Some others on
the writing staff, too, who read the treatise, came to realize that the 607 B.C.E.
date lacked support in history and began to feel serious doubts about the date.
(The writing staff at that time included about 18 members.) Even Governing Body
member Lyman Swingle expressed himself before the other Body members to the
effect that the Watch Tower organization got their 1914 date (which depends on
the 607 B.C.E. date) from the Second Adventists “lock, stock and barrel.” However,
the attempts by Raymond Franz and Lyman Swingle to bring up the evidence for
discussion on the Governing Body met unfavorable response. The other members
on the Body did not see fit to discuss the subject, but decided to continue to
advocate the 1914 date.—See Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta:
Commentary Press, 1983 and later editions), pp. 140–143, 214–216.
283