Need Help RE: Daniel 1:1, 2:1...

by TheApostleAK 7 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  TheApostleAK

  Can anyone tell me why the society has put their own bent on Daniel 1:1 & 2:1? The only decent reference why, is in the 1946 Equipped book.

  Is it only cos the WT hasn't realised that Daniel was using the assession system at Dan 1:1 (and the rest of his book) and Jeremiah was using the non-assession at Jer. 25:1 (and the rest of his letter)??

  And/Or

  Putting back Daniels start of exile to 625 would make him 105+ years old?

  And/Or

  Putting Daniel 2:1 BEFORE Jerusalem's destruction in 607 (587) would mean that Babylon would already be the world ruler before 607??

  HELP!!

  From The Apostle AK
• 

  Pubsinger

  All of the above.

  Why do you need help? You have the answers already!
• 

  cyberguy

  Click to this thread from a couple of weeks ago http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?site=3&id=10674&page=1

  The 1914 calculation has a lot of moving parts. If any one of them is found faulty, then the whole theory fails! In my opinion, there's enough scriptural evidence to reject this doctrine, even without getting into huge debate about the actual dates for the fall of Jerusalem.

  However, as regards Dan. 1:1, 2:1, and Jer. 25:1, Edwin Thiele, in his book, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, argues that there were two calendar systems in use at that time. One started its year based on Nisan and the other on Tishri (thus 6 months apart -- see an obscure mention of this in Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 1, p. 392, par. 5 and you'll need to also consult the chart on page 391). Another factor to consider is whether a date includes the king's accession year. However, Thiele concludes that the date difference between Dan. 1:1 and Jer. 25:1 is due to Daniel using the Tishri-based system and Jeremiah using the Nisan-based system.

  Regardless of what system is used in these passages, one has to account for the three years of schooling that Daniel received (Dan. 1:5). He started his schooling no earlier than the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim (Dan. 1:1). He must have completed it before the second year of the kingship of Nebucadnezzar (Dan. 2:1), or otherwise there would be certain conflict with Dan. 1:18-21 and Dan. 2:48-49. Finally, the expression "of the kingship" in Dan. 2:1, may denote an official year numbering (i.e., doesn't include the accession year) of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

  At this point, the only way I've been able to reconcile Thiele's calculations is to conclude that there is a minor mistake regarding the accession year of Nebucadnezzar based on Tishri years as found on p. 183 of his book. Nebucadnezzar took the thrown in Elul, but Daniel may have assigned this starting point one-month later, in Tishri. The reason for this is that according to the Babylonian Chronicles, by A.K. Grayson, Nebuchadnezzar returned to Hattu, and "in the month Shebat he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon." (see Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 480). If this is the expedition that Daniel refers to in Dan. 1:1-2, then according to the Tishri-based calendar, this would have been in Jehoiakim's fourth year (Tishri-calendar), not the third year as mentioned in Dan. 1:1. It would have been Jokoiakim's third year only with regards to Nebuchadnezzar's accession in Elul.

  On the other hand, if the account at Daniel 2:1-2 refers to some expedition that occurred immediately after Nebucadnezzar's conquest at Carchemish, but before returning to Babylon to ascend the throne after his father's death, then this might be a possible solution. However, I have not been able to find anything in historical accounts to suggest that he actually entered Palestine at this time.

  Well, there are at least dozen or so theories that I've read about that try to solve this mystery. I'm still working on it. Even Sir Isaac Newton tried to figure all this out and in 1728, published a book entitled The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended. He basically gave up on some of the more difficult passages and concluded that copyist had corrupted the Bible.
• 

  kes152

  Hi ApostleAK,

  Long time no see!

  How are you, my friend?

  Peace!
  Aaron
• 

  AlanF

  To TheApostleAK:

  The basic reason is that it fouls up the Society's notion of Bible chronology. Note the following: According to Jer. 46:2, Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egypt at the battle of Carchemish in the 4th year of Jehoiakim; according to Jer. 25:1 Jehoiakim's 4th year was Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year; according to the rest of Jer. 25, the Babylonians had not yet attacked Judea when Jeremiah wrote this chapter; and according to an undisputed Babylonian cuneiform tablet Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egypt at Carchemish in his accession year (note that this is according to Babylonian dating, which dates the reign of kings from Nisan to Nisan, in early spring, and uses the accession year system; I'll call this NN-AY dating) and took possession of all of Palestine. Thus, the earliest date at which the Babylonians came against Judea is in the 4th year of Jehoiakim (apparently using Tishri-Tishri dating and the non-accession year system; I'll call this TT-NAY dating). But if Daniel 1:1 refers to the 3rd year of Jehoiakim (again using Tishri-Tishri and non-accession year dating), then there is a problem with Bible chronology since other passages indicate that the Babylonians first attacked in Jehoiakim's 4th year.

  If we lay aside this problem for the moment and consider the dates at which the secular and Watchtower chronologies put the main events, the Society's problem becomes clear. According to secular chronology, the battle of Carchemish occurred in spring to early summer of 605 B.C.E., between April 12 and August 15 at the outside, and Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne on Sept. 7, 605 B.C.E., in the month Elul, which is just before Tishri. Therefore the earliest date that any Jews could have been taken captive to Babylon was 605 B.C.E., and since the Watchtower Society claims that the Jews were captive in Babylon for 70 years, from 607 to 537, this obviously doesn't work. What about using the WTS date for the 4th year of Jehoiakim, i.e., 625 B.C.E.? Well that doesn't work either, since Dan. 1 clearly indicates that captives were taken to Babylon in the 3rd (and not later than the 4th) year of Jehoiakim. From 625 to 537 is 88 years, and this is inconsistent with WTS claims.

  Furthermore, Dan. 2 indicates that the training of Daniel and his companions in the language and customs of Babylon was completed in Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year, which by secular dating is about 603 B.C.E. (using NN-AY dating) and is about 624 B.C.E. by WTS dating (using TT-NAY dating). Again neither of these dates fits in with WTS chronology.

  In view of the above discrepancies, the Watchtower Society had to assign odd interpretations to Dan. 1:1; 2:1 in order to retain its tradition.

  According to information in Carl Jonsson's book The Gentile Times Reconsidered, it's easy to reconcile apparent discrepancies in the Biblical dating in Daniel. Since Daniel became a high political official in Babylon, it would have been natural for him to use the Babylonian dating method to date various events. Thus, the Biblical "4th year of Jehoiakim" would be approximated by the 3rd year in Babylonian style dating, keeping in mind that the systems were also different by six months. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar's ascension to the throne on September 7th of 605 would be in his ascension year, which in Babylonian dating ran from Nisan 1 (April 12) 605 to Nisan 1 (April 2) 604 B.C.E., whereas in Jewish dating it would have been in his first year, running from Tishri 1 (Sept. 19) 606 to Tishri 1 (Oct. 7) 605 B.C.E.

  Given the above, after the battle of Carchemish the Babylonians could easily have come against Judea in spring to summer of 605 B.C.E, in "the 3rd year of Jehoiakim" (NN-AY dating) and in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, taken Daniel and others captive, so that by the end of Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year (NN-AY dating) they would have been captive for nearly three full years, running at the outside between April 12, 605 and April 10, 602 B.C.E. Therefore the statement in Dan. 1:5, that Daniel and his companions were to be trained for "three years", presents no problem at all for secular dating, contrary to claims of Watchtower apologists who prefer to ignore the evidence presented above.

  AlanF
• 

  cyberguy

  Thanks Alan for your attention to detail!

  I noticed in my original comment that I mistakenly attributed the Tishri-to-Tishri based system to Daniel, and Nisan-to-Nisan with Jeremiah, when, as you say, it was the other way around. So much for my dyslexia!

  So, if I understand what you're saying, for everything to work out correctly, Nebuchadnezzar would have had to have an expedition against Jerusalem somewhere between the battle of Carchemish and his ascension to the throne? However, does allow for the 3 years of Daniel's training?

  PS -- Alan! Thanks for all your hard work! I really enjoy your comments!
• 

  JanH

  AlanF,

  Given the above, after the battle of Carchemish the Babylonians could easily have come against Judea in spring to summer of 605 B.C.E, in "the 3rd year of Jehoiakim" (NN-AY dating) and in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, taken Daniel and others captive,

  The only problem,somehow ignored in COJ's book, is that there is no evidence he ever did that from contemporary sources. When we see the order of events after Carchemish, with Nebuchadrezzar running back in haste to secure the throne, it seems more than a little unlikely. Knowing a bit about logistics and warfare of that day, it seems darned near impossible.

  One can always argue that it is bad tacticts to point out the vast problems with the Book of Daniel to an exit-JWer who would like to believe in the Bible, yet I think it is only fair to point this out. COJ relies thoroughly on a handful of conservatives, the only ones who seriously try to defend the old age of the Book of Daniel. Reading their attempts to explain who Darius the Mede was, is most instructive. Reading the apologetics of certain exJWs reminds me of JW-style special pleading at work again. Quoth the raven...

  - Jan
  --
  "Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
• 

  cyberguy

  whoops again! I looked at my references again, and Thiele's comments are that Daniel stated his years in Tishri years, whereas Babylonian records used Nisan years. See p. 183, in The Chronology of the Kings of Judah.

  As regards JanH's words of caution, there's an interesting passage in Thiele's The Mysterious Number of the Hebrew Kings, p. 185:

  While Nebuchadnezzar was engaged in his conquest of Hatti-country, the death of Nabopolassar took place in 8 AV (16 Aug.) 605 after he had reigned twenty-one years. On hearing the news Nebuchadnezzar immediately returned to Babylon, evidently by a rapid ride across the desert; and he took the throne on 1 Elul (7 Sept.). The fact that he reached the capital and was on the throne twenty-one days after his father's death provides an interesting confirmation of Berosus's account preserved by Josephus. The account of Nebuchadnezzar's victorious Palestine campaign in the year in which his father died and his speedy return to Babylon to take the crown, reads as follows:

  Meanwhile, as it happened, his father Nabopolassar sickened and died in the city of Babylon, after a reign of twenty-one years. Being informed ere long of his father's death, Nabuchodonosor settled the affairs of Egypt and the other countries. The prisoners--Jews, Phoenicians, Syrians, and those of Egyptian nationality--were consigned to some of his friends, with orders to conduct them to Babylonia, along with the heavy troops and the rest of the spoils; while he himself with a small escort, pushed across the desert to Babylon. There he found the administration in the hands of the Chaldaeans and the throne reserved for him by their chief nobleman. Being now master of his father's entire realm, he gave orders to allot the captives, on their arrival, settlements in the most suitable districts of Babylonia. He then magnificently decorated the temple of Bel and the other temples with spoils of war. (Josephus, Against Apion, 1.19.136-39; Antiquities 10.221-24).