December 31 or January 1 are irrelevant, and is a very very recent innovation for the start of a calendar year. I think the Brits have had it for only about 300 years; before that, their year started April 21. (That's why they give their Budget at that time).
Also, I seem to recall that a Jew might write "seventh month", and mean the same month whether he was using a Nisan calendar or a Tishri calendar. But that's coming out of the ancient gray cells, so I would need to do some digging for any support for that position.
I would have thought the discussion should bear on the Absolute Date for the period. Since it is located within Nebuchadnezzar's reign, it locks in his years, and hence the date of Jerusalem's (unnecessary) destruction.
Look at the Tables in Parker and Dubberstein for Neb's years.
I believe the question should be asked concerning the date of the Fall of Babylon. Since that discussion would get buried in this one, I shall open a "Topic" on that matter.
Doug
586BC
by Jeffro 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Doug Mason
-
Jeffro
Also, I seem to recall that a Jew might write "seventh month", and mean the same month whether he was using a Nisan calendar or a Tishri calendar. But that's coming out of the ancient gray cells, so I would need to do some digging for any support for that position.
The fifth and seventh months of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (non-accession system) fall in 587 no matter which reckoning is applied.
I would have thought the discussion should bear on the Absolute Date for the period. Since it is located within Nebuchadnezzar's reign, it locks in his years, and hence the date of Jerusalem's (unnecessary) destruction.
Look at the Tables in Parker and Dubberstein for Neb's years.The tables ignore the fact that Jeremiah did not use the accession year system, and therefore place the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign a year late, yielding an incorrect result. It therefore distorts the Absolute Date. This is clearly demonstrated by a comparison of Jeremiah 52:28 with 2 Kings 24:12 and Jeremiah 52:29 with 2 Kings 25:8 and Jeremiah 52:12. Jeremiah 52:28-30 are verses interpolated from Babylonian sources (which is why they don't appear in 2 Kings 25), and use the accession year system, taking one year off the reign of Nebuchadnezzar in each instance.
When I first researched this issue, it struck me as quite odd that there is supposedly so much controversy about it, as it really is quite simple. It appears that pride is the only reason for still insisting on 586. The supposed contradiction between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1 is based on the same ignorance of Jeremiah's consideration of accession years as regnal years. -
LittleToe
If its "really quite simple" and there's still controversy surrounding it in academic circles, you can be sure that the original premise of it being "really quite simple" has a high likelihood of being incorrect. As with so many topics, ya pays ya money ya takes ya choice. A decision table analysis is useful to inform that choice, but its still a choice...
Its a similar tale with events far closer to us than 2,500 years!
-
Jeffro
If its "really quite simple" and there's still controversy surrounding it in academic circles, you can be sure that the original premise of it being "really quite simple" has a high likelihood of being incorrect. As with so many topics, ya pays ya money ya takes ya choice. A decision table analysis is useful to inform that choice, but its still a choice...
If that is the case, surely someone will be along shortly to indicate how the reckoning of 586 is compatible with the scriptures I already outlined.
-
Farkel
Jeffro,
Since you take all of this so seriously, why not take a look at what the WTS says about it? The reign of Nebuchadnezzer is pretty straightforward.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/74549/1.ashx
Farkel
-
LittleToe
Maybe you could explain why you see it as such a big issue? I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you're making such a big thing of it when most scholars are content to leave it vaguely between 586/7 due to the lack of conclusive evidence.
-
Jeffro
Maybe you could explain why you see it as such a big issue? I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you're making such a big thing of it when most scholars are content to leave it vaguely between 586/7 due to the lack of conclusive evidence.
Saying that something conclusive is actually inconclusive annoys me, especially when they just say it's 'inconclusive' just to placate the 586 supporters. If it's 'inconclusive', then there must be a flaw in what I presented, so surely someone can let me know where I'm wrong.
-
LittleToe
I'm not calling into question your work in this. Its not conclusive because there's a variety of conflicting data. On what basis do you decide which is accurate and which is not? It comes down to a judgement call, using tools like the aforementioned decision table, hence the variety of opinions in the scholarly world.
But that still doesn't answer why you're being so pedantic on this point. I'm only asking out of curiosity, rather than out of obstinance.
-
Jeffro
No one has presented any genuinely conflicting data among the actual information that is available. It would be nice if someone would actually present the data that is supposed to be in conflict. I have already explained why 586 is alleged to be the correct year, and I have explained why that is not correct. I'm being pedantic about it because I like truth.
-
LittleToe
How many of the following periods are black and how many white: . .. ...
In this case, why is being so certain of the "truth" so important? Is it really about a personal fixation on an obscure historic date?
Again, I don't mean this to be inflammatory, as I have my own fixations, such as attention to certain theological details. I'm just trying to understand why this is so important to you