70 years = 607?

by allelsefails 421 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Leolaia

  dorayakii....I don't think your source of information is correct. The years between 582 and 575 BC was precisely the period when Nebuchadnezzar was besieging Tyre. Nebuchadnezzar held the island city under siege for thirteen years according to Josephus (Contra Apionem 1.156, Antiquitates 10.228), and this is confirmed by Ezekiel who dates his oracle against Tyre to the 11th year of his exile (26:1, i.e. the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar) and he refers to the recent failure of Nebuchadnezzar's campaign against Tyre in an oracle against Egypt dated to the 33rd year of his exile (29:17-18, i.e. the 27th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The thirteen years of the siege were probably between 587 and 574 BC, as Babylonian tablets dating between 574 and 564 BC mention a settlement of exiled Tyrians called Surru near Uruk. The absence of any acts or decrees by Nebuchadnezzar during that period is thus explainable by the fact that he was involved in a long military campaign in the west and had left the city under the rule of his regent. Nor was this the last campaign that Nebuchadnezzar made against Tyre; he apparently undertook another military operation in 564-563 BC which succeeded in the deportion of the Tyrian king and the appointment of rulers favorable to Babylon; a register of the court of Nebuchadnezzar dating to 563 BC mentions an exiled king of Tyre. This agrees with the information in Josephus that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre when Ittobaal was its king, and then the next king Baal ruled for 10 years before he was replaced by a series of judges. The decade of Baal's rule would then span between about 574-564 BC. Notice also that Josephus gives about 48 years between the beginning of the siege and when "Cyrus comes to power", and Baal is followed by 25 years and some months of Tyrian rulers until when "Cyrus comes to power". Counting back from 539 BC, 25 years brings us to 564 BC for the end of Baal's reign, and 587 BC for the beginning of the siege of Tyre.

  It looks like the claim about 582 and 575 BC is mainly limited to Christian (apologist) publications and websites. One devotional commentary on Daniel by Zdravko Stefanovic, for instance, states: "It has been pointed out that between 582 BC and 575 BC, a period totaling seven years, Nebuchadnezzar's army undertook no major military operation" (p. 170). The facts however indicate the opposite, whether it is secular sources or the biblical evidence supplied by Ezekiel. It is worth noting also that Daniel 4 construes the madness as occurring during a peaceful and contented time for Nebuchadnezzar at his leisure in Babylon (v. 4), not at a time he is in foreign lands in the midst of war.

  As for BM 34113, Wikipedia is also inaccurate. There is nothing in the tablet that dates what it relates to "during this period" of 582 to 575 BC. It is also very fragmentary and the implied subject for most of the text is not clearly identified due to the many lacunae. Most references to the text in the published literature instead consider the text as a polemic against Amel-Marduk and take him to be the implied subject in the passages you cited. The line that says that "the Babylonian speaks bad counsel to Amel-Marduk" implies that Amel-Marduk is in a position to receive counsel in the royal court and thus pertains to a time when he is on the throne (it is also possible that Amel-Marduk is a throne name). The statement also recalls what Berossus wrote about Amel-Marduk, that he "managed the affairs in a lawless and outrageous fashion" and for this he was assassinated (Josephus, Contra Apionem 1.146-147). The fragment would thus relate that "he [Amel-Marduk] gave an entirely different order," i.e. what Nebuchadnezzar had done, and "his attention was not turned towards promoting the welfare of Esagila". Amel-Marduk's release of Jehoiachin from prison when he ascended to power is one example known biblically of Amel-Marduk reversing his predecessor's policies. The sole reference to Nebuchadnezzar is in the fragmented line "[......... [Nebu]chadnezzar considered[........]" which could be speculatively contextualized in any number of ways (e.g. [He did what he willed and not according to what his father Nebu]chadnezzar considered [right]"). So the interpretation of the fragment is far from certain, although various scholars take it as a polemic against Amel-Marduk. In my opinion, it is not a good basis for a historical antecedent of Daniel 4 in Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and even if Nebuchadnezzar is the subject in the majority of the text other interpretations may be possible (such as the illness that Nebuchadnezzar may have experienced just prior to his death and succession by Amel-Marduk). In contrast, the parallels with the literature about Nabonidus are so striking that there really isn't much comparison.
• 

  Dagney

  (testing...Leo's last post not showing up ???)

  BTW thoroughly enjoying the discussion.
• 

  Leolaia

  I had checked 3w info on it and he made a good point on the 40 years of desolation on egypt that also helped

  What evidence is there that there was a 40-year desolation on Egypt?
• 

  dorayakii

  Thanks AnnOMaly... I looked t the start of his reign but forgot to look at its length.

  Thanks Leolaia for the clarification. I think the period of time when Nebuchaznezzar was indeed longer than 7 years and may not have coincided with his period of madness if indeed he did have one. Luckily, I'm able to just pop to the British Museum to research the relevant tablets, which is where I'm going now.

  It is very likely that the 7 years of madness was either a Jewish myth made to fulfill prophacy or was about a different Babylonian king. The stories likely were conflated and exaggerated.

  In any case, a prophecy which mentions Nebuchadnezzar by name and says he will be mad for 7 years is obviously not referring to 2520 years of God's Kingdom being dormant especially when the start date of this dormancy does not match any relevant events.

  "Scholar" said: Your post is utter nonsense. Luke 21:24 refers to a 'trampling' that began in the past with both a present and future verbal aspect however Luke here was not referring to that literal city which of course underwent many such tramplings but the focus is on what that pictured and that was God's Kingdom which would rule at the end of those Gentile Times.

  Please tell me how "estai patoumenh ", ("will-be being-trodden", the Greek passive future continuous) can be interpreted as having a "past and future verbal aspect" (sic).

  The continuous (or progressive) aspect does not mean that an action happens in the past and will continue into the future. It always needs to be modified by a tense marker.You've simply looked up the meaning of the the participle in the continuous aspect (which can have a past, present OR future) and taken the "potential meaning" of that particle. However you've ignored the fact that that participle cannot and does not stand alone.

  By way of an example, "going" in English can be conjugated as "I am going", "I was going" and "I will be going" so it has the potential to be in any of those tenses. However, "going" cannot be said to have a tense on its own, it need its auxiliaries to complete its meaning.
• 

  Mary

  pseudo-scholar said: Luke here was not referring to that literal city which of course underwent many such tramplings but the focus is on what that pictured and that was God's Kingdom which would rule at the end of those Gentile Times.

  More crap. What exactly do you think Luke was referring to when he said (in the same verse): "and they will fall by the edge of the sword"? Was that referring to some non-specific time and place vaguely referred to by you as 'God's Kingdom'? Only the truly brain-dead would believe such tripe as it is obviously talking about what would happen when the Romans invaded Jerusalem the LITERAL city. That's how both the disciples would have viewed it as well as everyone who's studied these scriptures in the last 2,000 years.

  Go smoke another joint pseudo..........your answers are becoming increasingly irrational as you desperately try to prove the unprovable.
• 

  isaacaustin

  pseudo appears unable to deal with this...his posts have noticeably changed as he is getting slapped down left and right his modes of defense change
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Yep, and in spite of his swagger and braggadocio, he has yet to man up and show, from the Bible only, that Jerusalem fell 607 years before the common era.
• 

  Leolaia

  A few years ago I wrote a very long post on the sources and composition of Daniel that I never finished, so here is some of what I wrote on ch. 4, particularly with respect to the sources pertaining to Nabonidus.

  The oldest source we have is Nabonidus' own inscription in the Harran Stele (NABON H 1-2). Here the king states that he completed repairing the temple for the god Sin in the Assyrian city of Harran (which had been destroyed by the Medes in 609 BC), and at the request of Sin "I removed myself afar from my city of Babylon on the road to Teima", where he lived "in the seclusion of tracts far distant and secluded" for ten years until Sin called for him to return "at the appointed time" ('adannu, cf. the use of 'iddan in Daniel 4:22 to refer to the duration of time the king would be removed from society). It is also worth noting that the LXX version of Daniel 4 (which is not based on the MT text type but which represents an altogether different version of the story, as is also the case with ch. 5-6) states that the king was "banished to a desert place (topon erémon)", a wording that recalls the desert exile of Nabonidus. Another interesting detail is that Nabonidus claims that his actions were motivated by commands from Sin which he received at night during a dream: "In the night season he caused me to behold a dream, (saying) thus: 'E-hul-hul the temple of Sin which is in Harran quickly build, seeing that all the lands are very committed in your hands' " (I.11-12). Then, when the appointed time came for Nabonidus to return from his self-imposed exile to Babylon, another dream came "in the night season" that "was disturbing" (III.3). In Daniel, the plot turns on the king of Babylon receiving divine dream visions as well.

  Subsequent to this, the Nabonidus Chronicle notes that from his 7th to his 11th year, the king remained in the desert in Teima, Arabia, and because of his absence, the traditional New Year festivals and processions involving the gods Nabu and Bel were not performed. There is a large lacuna in the text between the 11th and 17th years, so Nabonidus was probably absent for an even longer time. Although the Chronicle does not explain why Nabonidus abandoned the capital, the Verse Account of Nabonidus (written by Babylonian priests opposed to Nabonidus) explains that Nabonidus had made an image of the Assyrian moon-god Sin and tried to force the populace to accept it. This image was widely regarded as an abomination and a sacrilege (whose appearance would transform into that of a demon when the king worshipped it), and Nabonidus declared that he would cease all festivals, including the hallowed New Year festival, until the temple for Sin was finished. For the priests of Babylon, this was an intolerable insult to the traditional gods. Then Nabonidus dropped everything and entrusted his responsibilities to his firstborn son (i.e. Belshazzar), and left Babylon with an army. Eventually, he came to the oasis town of Teima in Arabia, killed its governor, and took up residence there. The Verse Account depicts Nabonidus as lawless, blasphemous, unstable, and quite mad, whose erratic behavior brought the kingdom to its knees. It ridicules Nabonidus for falsely claiming divine knowledge: "I am wise, I am knowledgeable and have seen hidden things ... Ilteri has given me revelations; he has made known to me everything". He even boasts of being wiser than gods like Anu and Enlil, a claim that would be construed as completely idiotic. In Daniel 4, it is Daniel himself who is proclaimed by Nebuchadnezzar as possessing this kind of knowledge, that "the spirit of the holy gods is in you and no mystery is hidden from you" (v. 9). In contrast to Nabonidus, the Verse Account construes Cyrus as the blessed deliverer who took charge of the kingdom and reversed Nabonidus' neglect. As a polemical piece of religious propaganda from the sixth century BC, it probably represents a popular reaction to Nabonidus' behavior and has a number of points of contact with Daniel: (1) the story of Nebuchadnezzar's installation of an idol in ch. 3 and forcing everyone to accept it, (2) the insanity of Nebuchadnezzar in ch. 4 and his withdrawal from the city for several years, and (3) the motif of the blasphemous king in ch. 7-11.

  Among the Dead Sea Scrolls was discovered a "missing link" between the sixth-century BC stories about Nabonidus and the second-century BC story about Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel. The Prayer of Nabonidus, tho fragmentary, relates a story that clearly derives from traditions about Nabonidus' self-imposed exile in Arabia:

  "The words of the p[ra]yer which Nabonidus, king of [Baby]lon, [the great] king, prayed [when he was smitten] with a bad disease by the decree of God in Teima. [I, Nabonidus, with a bad disease] was smitten for seven years and since G[od] set [his face on me, he healed me] and as for my sin, he remitted it. A diviner who was a Jew fr[om among the exiles came to me and said]: 'Proclaim and write to give honor and exal[tatio]n to the name of G[od Most High,' and I wrote as follows]: 'I was smitten by a b[ad] disease in Teima [by the decree of the Most High God]. For seven years [I] was praying before the gods of silver and gold, [bronze, iron], wood, stone, clay, since [I though]t that th[ey were] gods.... [text incomplete] .... I was made strong again ... from it he caused to pass. The peace of [my] repose [returned to me].... my friends. I was not able... [text incomplete]" (PrNab, 4Q242, lines 1-8ff; translation by Peter Flint).

  Here the king in question is Nabonidus and he is described as residing in Teima, Arabia, just as stated in the Harran Stele, the Nabonidus Chronicle, and the Verse Account of Nabonidus. But this pseudepigraphon more closely resembles the story in Daniel 4.

  (1) The original Babylonian accounts concerning Nabonidus describe the king as mentally unstable but do not mention any physical affliction he experienced. In the LXX of Daniel 4:30b, Nebuchadnezzar describes his debasement as not only mental but also physical: "My flesh and my heart were changed".

  (2) In both cases, the king had been divinely afflicted as punishment for sin. In the original sixth-century BC story, the king was sinful by neglecting the other gods and worshipping a foreign god. In the Prayer of Nabonidus, the king sins by praying to idols, "gods of silver and gold ... wood, stone, clay". In the version of the story in Daniel, the king sins by failing to recognize the Most High as the source of his power. The motif of divine punishment is explicit in the Prayer of Nabonidus and Daniel 4.

  (3) In Nabonidus' own autobiographical account, the length of time he isolated himself was ten years, while the Prayer of Nabonidus and Daniel both mention seven years.

  (4) The Prayer of Nabonidus mentions an anonymous Jewish diviner who helped heal Nabonidus, which corresponds to the figure of Daniel in 4:5-6, 15-16. Jews played no role whatsoever in the original Babylonian stories.

  (5) The diviner instructs Nabonidus to "honor and exalt the name of God Most High" in order to be healed, just as Daniel tells the king "to atone for your sins by almsgiving and for your iniquity by mercy to the poor" in Daniel 4:24 (MT). It was Nebuchadnezzar's failure to exalt God that led to his predicament in the first place. In 4:33 LXX, an angel tells the king "to serve the holy God of heaven and give glory to the Most High" in order to be healed.

  (6) Although the text is incomplete, the very fact that God "remits" the king's sin indicates that Nabonidus did indeed supplicate the Most High in the Prayer of Nabonidus. In Daniel 4:34 LXX, the king states: "I confess to the Most High and I praise the one who created the heaven and earth and the seas and the rivers and everything in them. I confess and praise, because he is God of gods and Lord of lords and Lord of kings".

  (7) In the Prayer of Nabonidus, the portion describing the king's restoration is very fragmentary: "I was made strong again ... from it he caused to pass. The peace of [my] repose [returned to me].... my friends..." But it does resemble Daniel 4:33: "At that time my reason returned to me and my honor and splendor were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom. My companions and nobles sought me out, and I was reeestablished over my kingdom".

  (8) The unnamed Jewish diviner instructs Nabonidus to "write and proclaim" his confession and in the Prayer of Nabonidus, the king writes his confession in the first person, "I, Nabonidus, was smitten with a bad disease....I was smitten by a bad disease in Teima". In the MT of ch. 4, Nebuchadnezzar writes a letter to "all peoples" stating his faith in "the Most High God" (cf. 3:32-33), and which describes his experience in the first person, "I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at ease in my palace" (4:1), "I, Nebuchandnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven" (4:31), etc. In both cases, the king's decree praising the Most High includes a first-person account of his affliction.

  There are several other verbal links between the Prayer of Nabonidus and Daniel 4-5:

  (9) In the Prayer of Nabonidus, the affliction is "by the decree (b-ptgm) of God", and in Daniel 4:17 MT the affliction of Nebuchadnezzar is "the decree (ptgm') of the watchers".

  (10) In the Prayer, the unnamed Jew is characterized as a "diviner" (gzr), and this term occurs in Daniel 4:7 to refer to the gzry' "soothsayers" the king summons to interpret his dream.

  (11) This diviner is described as "a Jew fr[om among the exiles]" which may parallel the wording in Daniel 5:13 ("Daniel from among the exiles of Judah"). Not enough of the text however is preserved to be sure.

  (12) Nabonidus in the Prayer says that for seven years he "was praying before the gods (qdm 'lhy) of silver and gold", compare Daniel 6:11: "Daniel was praying and supplicating before his god (qdm 'lhh)".

  (13) Most strikingly, Nabonidus in the Prayer worshipped "gods of silver and gold, [bronze, iron], wood, stone, clay" ('lhy ksp' w-dhb' [nchsh' przl'] 'h' 'bn' chsp'), a phrase that finds a very close parallel in Daniel 5:4: "gods of gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone" ('lhy dhb' w-ksp' nchsh' przl' 'h' w-'bn'). As for "clay", this word occurs in the dream vision of ch. 2 which similarly presented a series of metals of decreasing value.

  The Prayer of Nabonidus thus shows that traditions about Nabonidus lived on among the Jews and these traditions bear close literary links to the Danielic story in ch. 4, but the Prayer is at the same time more primitive: it gives the correct name of the king, it correctly names the king's location at Teima (while the LXX only states "the desert" more vaguely, and the MT gives no location whatsoever), and it even lacks the name of the Jewish diviner that heals the king. Just as the identity of the king is shifted from the obscure Nabonidus to the infamous Nebuchadnezzar in the Danielic version, so is the identity of the anonymous diviner filled by the famous Daniel. The clearest trace of Nabonidus in the biblical version is found in ch. 5, which construes Belshazzar as the son of the king humbled in ch. 4. The historical Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus.
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  Very informative posts here by everyone... well, except one or two.
  Okay, this is how the conversation goes:

  Billy (a.k.a. Pinky): What shall we do tonight on JWN?

  
  Leo, Ann, Mary, et al. (a.k.a. the Brains): We shall study the entire Bible in the original languages and decypher the mysteries and numerology of the mythical Daniel and conquer the worthless chronology of the evil Watchtower Corporation FOREVER!!

  Billy (a.k.a. Pinky): Can we go for ice-cream afterward?

  Leo et al.(a.k.a. the Brains): Yes Billy, we will have plenty of time for ice-cream afterward. It should only require about 5 minutes to mortally wound "celebrated JW scholars" misinterpretations of Daniel!

  Billy (a.k.a. Pinky): OOOooooOOOOooooh. Right Brain!
• 

  AnnOMaly

  There may even be time for a trip to Cedar Point Amusement Park too!