Has Josephus got it wrong??

by cultswatter 5 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cultswatter

  http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=ancienthistory&cdn=education&tm=23&gps=59_7_1020_651&f=00&tt=14&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/home.htm

  2. But now, after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach his son succeeded in the kingdom, who immediately set Jeconiah at liberty, and esteemed him among his most intimate friends. He also gave him many presents, and made him honorable above the rest of the kings that were in Babylon; for his father had not kept his faith with Jeconiah, when he voluntarily delivered up himself to him, with his wives and children, and his whole kindred, for the sake of his country, that it might not be taken by siege, and utterly destroyed, as we said before. When Evil-Mcrodach was dead, after a reign of eighteen years, Niglissar his son took the government, and retained it forty years, and then ended his life; and after him the succession in the kingdom came to his son Labosordacus, who continued in it in all but nine months; and when he was dead, it came to Baltasar, (24) who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelus; against him did Cyrus, the king of Persia, and Darius, the king of Media, make war

  I don't get it. This contradicts what the historians and the JWs say. I thought Evil Merodach reigned 2 years and Neriglissar reigned 4 years.

  What now??
• 

  badboy

  good point?

  WHAT DO HISTORIANS SAY?
• 

  Narkissos

  This is apparently another case where Josephus departs from his source, Berossus, in his own free narrative (AJ X). When he actually quotes Berossus (Against Apion, I,20) he himself reads the following, which he doesn't "correct":

  Now as to what I have said before about the temple at Jerusalem, that it was fought against by the Babylonians, and burnt by them, but was opened again when Cyrus had taken the kingdom of Asia, shall now be demonstrated from what Berosus adds further upon that head; for thus he says in his third book: "Nabuchodonosor, after he had begun to build the forementioned wall, fell sick, and departed this life, when he had reigned forty-three years; whereupon his son Evilmerodach obtained the kingdom. He governed public affairs after an illegal and impure manner, and had a plot laid against him by Neriglissoor, his sister's husband, and was slain by him when he had reigned but two years. After he was slain, Neriglissoor, the person who plotted against him, succeeded him in the kingdom, and reigned four years; his son Laborosoarchod obtained the kingdom, though he was but a child, and kept it nine mouths; but by reason of the very ill temper and ill practices he exhibited to the world, a plot was laid against him also by his friends, and he was tormented to death. After his death, the conspirators got together, and by common consent put the crown upon the head of Nabonnedus, a man of Babylon, and one who belonged to that insurrection. In his reign it was that the walls of the city of Babylon were curiously built with burnt brick and bitumen; but when he was come to the seventeenth year of his reign, Cyrus came out of Persia with a great army; and having already conquered all the rest of Asia, he came hastily to Babylonia. When Nabonnedus perceived he was coming to attack him, he met him with his forces, and joining battle with him was beaten, and fled away with a few of his troops with him, and was shut up within the city Borsippus. Hereupon Cyrus took Babylon, and gave order that the outer walls of the city should be demolished, because the city had proved very troublesome to him, and cost him a great deal of pains to take it. He then marched away to Borsippus, to besiege Nabonnedus; but as Nabonnedus did not sustain the siege, but delivered himself into his hands, he was at first kindly used by Cyrus, who gave him Carmania, as a place for him to inhabit in, but sent him out of Babylonia. Accordingly Nabonnedus spent the rest of his time in that country, and there died."
• 

  Leolaia

  It is worth noting that Josephus' reference to the 50 years of desolation occurs in the same context where he cites Berossus:

  "These accounts agree with the true history in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years, but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus, its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius" (Josephus, Contra Apionem, 1.21).

  This was just after Josephus quoted a lengthy excerpt from Berossus in the previous paragraph which gives the exact lengths of the Neo-Babylonian kings: "Nebuchadnezzar ... reigned forty-three years, whereupon his son Evil-merodach obtained the kingdom and ... reigned but two years. After he was slain, Neriglissar, who plotted against him, succeeded him in the kingdom, and reigned four years; his son Labashi-Marduk obtained the kingdom, though he was but a child and kept it nine months ... After his death, the conspirators got together and by common consent put the crown on the head of Nabonidus, a man of Babylon, ... but when he was in the seventeenth year of his reign, Cyrus came out of Persia with a great army ... hereupon Cyrus took Babylon" (Contra Apionem, 1.20). This history of Berossus constitute the "these accounts" in the above quote, which Josephus says agrees with sacred scripture. It is thus no coincidence that when you do the math, the "fifty years" is in accord with the length of the Neo-Babylonian period stated in the previous paragraph. What is more, Josephus then presents information from Phoenician records which gives the same length of time from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus, adding "thus the records of the Chaldeans and the Tyrians agree with our writings about the temple" (Contra Apionem, 1.21).

  What Josephus presents in Antiquities 10.11.2 is a very sloppy paraphrase of Berossus. Here Josephus blunders the lengths of the reigns of Evil-Merodach and Neriglissar, and he erroneously referred to Nabonidus as Baltasar (i.e. Belshazzar). If you compare the two passages, it is obvious that they derive from a common source because they parallel each other in wording, but it is the latter verbatim quotation of Berossus in Contra Apionem that was more accurate.
• 

  cultswatter

  How could he have made such mistakes?? Was he writing from memory? It seems that he wrote this but maybe later detected an error but lets say the Antiquities of the Jews book had aleady been published and errent copies exist to this day???
• 

  Leolaia

  Yes, it was very easy in the ancient world for authors to mess up their sources, especially if their sources did not lay in front of them and they wrote from memory. Moreover, numbers were often written with numeric letters (as opposed to spelling out the words), and copyists frequently corrupted the numbers in manuscript transmission. In fact, in an earlier post (which I can't find) I showed how this was the reason for some other wrong numbers in Josephus concerning the length of reigns. The main thing here was that Josephus did not reproduce his source accurately in Antiquities and made other mistakes as well in his paraphrase (like confusing Nabonidus with Baltasar), whereas we fortunately have an accurate explicit quotation of Berossus in Contra Apionem.