Daniel's 3 year training and the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar.

by thirdwitness 91 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  thirdwitness

  Concerning the counting of Jehoiakim's kingship as a vassal king to Babylon we have Bible proof of this being done in another situation.

  Another example of counting from vassal kingships

  There is another place where the Bible counts the years of a King as starting from the beginning of their vassal Kingship.

  King Pekah of Israel reigned 20 years before he died. Three years before his death, in his 17th year, the neighboring nation of Judah gained a new King, Ahaz. Logically, therefore, when Pekah of Israel died after his 20 years of service, his successor must have been crowned during the 4th year of neighboring Ahaz, right?

  This is correct. Israel’s next King was enthroned in the 4th year of Judah’s Ahaz. The new King’s name was Hoshea. It describes how he ascended the throne, he “formed a conspiracy against Pekah ... and struck him and put him to death; and he [Hoshea] began to reign in place of him.” –2 Kings 15:30

  Yet, there is something wrong. The next chapter of the book gives a different date for the start of Hoshea’s reign – in 2 Kings 17:1 it doesn’t say he came to the throne after killing Pekah during the 4th year of Ahaz, but during the 12th year of Ahaz! “In the twelfth year of Ahaz the king of Judah” Hoshea “became king in Samaria over Israel”. Is this a contradiction?

  The answer is simple. 2 Kings 17:3 answers, “It was against him [Hoshea] that Shalmaneser the king of Assyria came up, and Hoshea came to be his servant and began to pay tribute to him.”

  Yes, when 2 Kings 17:1 says “In the twelfth year of Ahaz the king of Judah” that Hoshea “became king in Samaria over Israel”, it is counting from the start of Hoshea’s vassal Kingship to Assyria – not from the time several years earlier when he “formed a conspiracy against Pekah ... and struck him and put him to death; and he began to reign in place of him.”

  So here we have another example of the dates of a King's reign starting from the beginning of their vassal Kingship, with years prior to it being left out. This is similar to how Daniel counted the years of Jehoiakim in Daniel 1:1.

  Go back | Appendix menu
• 

  Leolaia

  It is possible that Nebuzaradan was also known as Arioch and is merely the same person. Since Daniel 2 is written in Aramaic whereas the other scriptures concerning Nebuzaradan are written in Hebrew it is possible that Arioch is his name in Aramaic. Since Jewish tradition holds that Nebuzaradan means 'roars like a lion' because of the lionlike manner in which he treated the Jews it is possible that he received this name as a result of his treatment toward the Jews but Daniel simply chose to use his name given to him at birth.

  1) You are confused here. Nebuzaradan derives from Nabu-zara-iddina "Nebo has given seed", which the Insight book also acknowledges. Nor would Nabuzaradan have had an Aramaic name at birth.

  2) It is the name Arioch that the rabbis attempted to explain via midrashic exegesis as originating from Aramaic 'ry "lion". This is a folk etymology that is very characteristic of later rabbinical texts (cf. Evil-Merodach being derived from Hebrew 'wyl "fool", i.e. "Merodach is a fool," which in fact may explain why the first half of the name was deformed from Amel-) which has little relation to the name's actual etymology. Note that this pseudo-etymology is philologically unlikely because it ignores the final -k, and it is inappropriate anyway to give an Aramaic etymology for a foreign name. The name may be reused from Genesis 14:1 where it reflects the Hurrian A-ri-wu-uk, but note also the name occurs elsewhere in post-exilic literature (cf. especially Judith 1:6 where it is used as the name of the king of the Elymaeans, but also cf. 2 Enoch 33:11), so it may reflect Persian influence. And in fact, the name corresponds perfectly to Old Persian Ariyauka "ruler" (related to "Aryan"), and goes hand in hand with the Persian vocabulary and terminology found throughout Daniel (cf. ptbg "royal food" in 1:5, 11:26, prtm "noble" in 1:3, hdm "limb" in 2:5, 'zd' "made known" in 2:5, 'drgzr, 'hshdrpn, gdbr, dtbr as terms for officials in 3:2, zn "kind" in 3:5, ptgm "word" in 3:16, hdbr as another term of an official in 3:24, rz "secret" in 4:6, hmynk' "necklace" in 5:7, srd as a term for an official in 6:3, dt "law" in 7:25, 'pdn "palace" in 11:45, etc.).

  3) As for the term rb tsbchy' in Daniel 2:14, it is applied to Nebuzaradan in 2 Kings 25:8, Jeremiah 52:12 and has the sense there of "chief of the bodyguards". And yet the term etymologically means "chief of the slayers" or "butchers" and then by extension of cooking to butchery, "chief of the cooks" (cf. tsbch in 1 Samuel 9:23). The same root is similarly used in Akkadian to refer to an "executioner". So the term is understood in the LXX which renders it as "chief butcher". Since Arioch is dispatched with the duty of "executing the sages of Babylon" (2:14), percisely what the term itself conveys, Arioch is probably construed here as "chief executioner" and not "chief of the bodyguards," and thus not identical to Nebuzaradan.
• 

  thirdwitness

  
  Leo says: Since Arioch is dispatched with the duty of "executing the sages of Babylon" (2:14), percisely what the term itself conveys, Arioch is probably construed here as "chief executioner" and not "chief of the bodyguards," and thus not identical to Nebuzaradan.

  Thanks for clearing that up. So it is clear that they did not hold the same office as one was chief executioner and the other was chief of the bodyguard.
• 

  thirdwitness

  Yes and sorry I got them backward. Arioch is the name which means lion-like.
• 

  cyberguy

  Thirdwitness,

  Who is this Watchtower + GB god that you put so much faith in?

  Regards,

  Cyber
• 

  thirdwitness

  It is possible that Nebuzaradan was also known as Arioch and is merely the same person. Since Daniel 2 is written in Aramaic whereas the other scriptures concerning Nebuzaradan are written in Hebrew it is possible that Arioch is his name in Aramaic or another language. Also Jewish tradition holds that Arioch which means 'roars like a lion' or 'lion-like' received this name because of the lionlike manner in which he treated the Jews and it is possible that he received this name as a result of his treatment toward the Jews and Daniel simply chose to use that name rather than his Babylonian name.

  Personally, I like the other explanation better that Arioch and Nebuzaradan were not the same and held two entirely different positions.
• 

  thirdwitness

  At any rate, Arioch/Nebuzaradan does not prove the point that Cyberguy was trying to make and that Carl Jonsson so happily accepted as proof against JWs.
• 

  Leolaia

  Arioch is the name which means lion-like.

  It's not an Aramaic name. It's like saying that the name "Matthew" means "math" as if the Hebrew name is derived from the English word. The name is either Hurrian or Persian, more likely the latter.
• 

  KW13

  In the last thread you said

  My purpose is to get the true information out there that apostates use most to try to mislead people. The holy trinity of the apostates as it were: Child abuse policy of JWs, NGO, and 607.

  well... http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/pdfs/watchtower.pdf

  Look at page 2 on that PDF although all of it shows that the WBT Society you are defending really is.

  Be sure to note who's site that is www.un.org - yes its real
• 

  stevenyc

  thirdwitness,

  Just for clarification of your post, are you saying:

  Neb assigns Daniel to be taught for three years, after those three years Neb identifies Daniel to be the greatest among all the wise men, in the Kings second year Daniel interprets the dream. Therefore the second year referred to in Daniel 2:1 has to be much later for the account to be correct?

  steve