Question about WT article about ancient city of Tyre

by EndofMysteries 33 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  EndofMysteries

  WT 59 page 312

  "True to the prophecy, not long after the fall of Jerusalem, the king of Babylon came against Tyre. But Tyre was confident. Had not the city resisted Shalmaneser for five years, causing that king to give up the siege? Nebuchadnezzar attacked confident Tyre, and the siege was on. Five years passed but Nebuchadnezzar did not give up the siege. Seven years passed, ten years, and still Tyre resisted. Surely the king of Babylon would give up the attempt and go home, so the Tyrians must have thought. But the siege went on. Twelve years passed. Tyre still resisted. Finally, after thirteen years, the siege engines of Nebuchadnezzar prevailed. Tyre fell. The city was razed."

  I was doing research on Tyre for certain reasons and came upon this article, my question is does anybody know where the mention of years passing prior to hitting the 13th year came from? It is no coincidence or making the story more eleborate, the mention of those years was definitely deliberate, and I need to find out what it came from.
• 

  Thirdson

  I don't know how reliable Wikipedia is:

  "It was often attacked by Egypt, besieged by Shalmaneser V, who was assisted by the Phoenicians of the mainland, for five years, and by Nebuchadnezzar (586–573 BC) for thirteen years, without success, although a compromise peace was made in which Tyre paid tribute to the Babylonians. It later fell under the power of the Persians.

  In 332 BC, the city was conquered by Alexander the Great, after a siege of seven months in which he built the causeway from the mainland to the island, [ 13 ] but it continued to maintain much of its commercial importance until the Christian era. The presence of the causeway affected water currents nearby, causing sediment to build up, making the connection permanent."3rd
• 

  EndofMysteries

  Thanks, but I am referring directly to Neb siege of 13 years, in that WT article, why did they add some 'fluff' to the story at 5 years, 7, 10, 12, then finally 13. They didn't even mention anything of note happening at those points. I want to see if those mentioned points had to do with a prophecy or if randomly added to make the story a little longer? If it was added as fluff, guess will never know for sure why the writer chose those numbers in particular.
• 

  Larsinger58

  There is only one reference about this and it has a slight shroud of mystery to it.

  It is found in the writings of Josephus, Against Apion 1.21

  21. These accounts agree with the true histories 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. I will now add the records of the Phoenicians; for it will not be superfluous to give the reader demonstrations more than enough on this occasion. In them we have this enumeration of the times of their several kings: "Nabuchodonosor besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king; after him reigned Baal, ten years; after him were judges appointed, who judged the people: Ecnibalus, the son of Baslacus, two months; Chelbes, the son of Abdeus, ten months; Abbar, the high priest, three months; Mitgonus and Gerastratus, the sons of Abdelemus, were judges six years; after whom Balatorus reigned one year; after his death they sent and fetched Merbalus from Babylon, who reigned four years; after his death they sent for his brother Hirom, who reigned twenty years. Under his reign Cyrus became king of Persia." So that the whole interval is fifty-four years besides three months; for in the seventh year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar he began to besiege Tyre, and Cyrus the Persian took the kingdom in the fourteenth year of Hirom. So that the records of the Chaldeans and Tyrians agree with our writings about this temple; and the testimonies here produced are an indisputable and undeniable attestation to the antiquity of our nation. And I suppose that what I have already said may be sufficient to such as are not very contentious.

  I have to accept this is possible though because the cryptic reference to 54 years works out that the 13-year siege of Tyre beginning year 7 represents the last 13 years of Babylon. For Babylon fell 13 years after the 7th of Nabonidus.

  If we were to speculate, it's possible the siege of Tyre was only 3 years instead of 13, beginning in year 18 and ending in year 20 of Nebuchadnezzar. That's still a long, hard siege. And unless the Tyrians had their own gardens, they would not last a 13-year siege. A 3-year siege is more likely.

  By the way Carl Olof Jonsson in claiming that the entire reign of Nebuchadnezzar is accounted for places the 13-year seige from year 23 through 36 though since Josephus' reference is the ONLY reference for this siege and he clearly begins it in the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar, whether credible or not, no one has the authority to contradict this and move the 13-year siege elsewhere without stipulating why. So though COJ represents it that way, there is no historical reference for this 13-year siege of Tyre for any other time than from the 7th of Nebuchadnezzar. Though I question this, it does not contradict the Biblical record.

  LS
• 

  EndofMysteries

  My question is specifically on this statement, " Five years passed but Nebuchadnezzar did not give up the siege. Seven years passed, ten years, and still Tyre resisted." " Twelve years passed. Tyre still resisted. Finally, after thirteen years"

  Does it not seem odd that wording? Instead of just saying the Nebuchadnezzar layed seige for 13 years, the writer of the article specifically stops at the number 5, 7, 10, 12, and 13 to finally get to the point?

  Thats like asking somebody how long was World War one, and you say, well 6 months pass and they were still at it, then 10 months, but it still kept going, so 1 year went on, 2 years, finally after 4 years it lasted 4 years.

  Those numbers do match or are related in other aspects to the content there. I'm wondering if the articles writer was trying to secretly put a message in there. If he did I got it, but was it intentional or from something else?
• 

  Gerard

  You are agonizing over a worthless entry on a cultish magazine written by a JW trying to hold on to his subsidized room & board because he has no clue on how to perform a normal job.

  Your 'hidden' secret messges are nothing else than clouds of flatulence. Want to explore magic? Go outside, smell the flowers, watch the birds fly and take your kids with you. Your 'research' is is nothing more than chasing your own tail. Breath deep and wake up from your Peter Pan adventure.
• 

  Leolaia

  The reference to Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year in Josephus, Contra Apionem 1.159 is almost certainly a corruption in the text. The Latin version refers to the 7th year of Ithobalos (= 19th year of Nebuchanezzar, i.e. 585 BC) when Nebuchadnezzar began to besiege Tyre; if this is original, the version in the Textus Receptus of Josephus resulted from typical haplography. Another possibility is that 7th is an error for 17th, such that the author referred to the 17th year of Nebuchadnezzar; this error is especially common in the ancient use of letters to transcribe numbers (by which 10 is expressed by the tiny iota). The latter option is desirable since it yields the same total of years mentioned earlier in 1.154; the text as is would be 10 years too short. It is fairly clear that the reference to the 7th year is incorrect because Ezekiel 26:1 refers to the siege of Tyre as lying in the immediate future (as a response to Tyre's reaction to Jerusalem's siege), and the oracle is dated to the 11th year of Jehoiachin's exile, i.e. the 17th year of Nebuchanezzar. Ezekiel was not talking about a siege that occurred ten years in his past but one that was about to happen.

  The long duration of the siege is also supported by other sources than Josephus. We read in Ezekiel 29:17-18 that "Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre"; this indicates that the siege was an especially difficult and drawn-out affair which has recently concluded, for Yahweh here promises to give Nebuchanezzar a new (and more advantageous) military goal. The oracle is dated to the 27th year of Jehoiachin's exile, i.e. the 33rd year of Nebuchadnezzar. Sixteen years span between the two Tyre oracles; a 13-year siege fits into this period very well. There are also cuneiform documents pertaining to Tyrian exiles in Mesopotamia, residing in the settlement of Tsurru; these captives were probably obtained when the siege succeeded. The earliest document is dated to the 31st year of Nebuchanezzar. Since 17 + 13 = 30, a 13-year-long siege starting in Nebuchadnezar's 17th year would end just prior to this earliest mention of Tyrian captives on Babylonian soil. Then other records pertaining to Tsurru continue through to Nebuchanezzar's 41st year. Another document refers to the rule of Tyre by the governor of Kadesh in the 40th year of Nebuchanezzar. No such records exist prior to Nebuchadnezzar's 31st year.
• 

  Larsinger58

  It is clear that there is a conflict with this reference by Josephus. Some accept the 13 years as credible but dismiss the dating to year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar, and with reasonable basis. But there are other references to consider including Isaiah 23:15 which says,

  "And it must occur in that day that Tyre will be forgotten 70 years."

  This, of course, links the desolation of Tyre with the other nations that were to be desolated and serve for 70 years. Thus this reference would end the siege of Tyre in year 23, the final campaign year of Nebuchadnezzar when he also deported the Jews off their land, the last deportees also being stated to serve Babylon 70 years while the land was desolated.

  Another factor consistent with the siege occurring after Jersualem was destroyed is Jeremiah 25:29 where is says after mentioning Tyre among other nations to drink the bitter cup of Nebuchadnezzar,

  "For, look! It is upon the city upon which my name is called that I am starting off in bringing calamity..."

  So the Bible would again confirm that Tyre's siege did not likely begin in year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar but after the fall of Jerusalem in year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar. The specific edit in the 11th year of the exile of Jehoiachin was not year 17 of Nebuchadnezzar but year 19, the year Jerusalem fell. We must keep in mind that Jehoiachin was exiled on the very last day of the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar. So essentially his years of exile match the years of Zedekiah which is an 8-year difference in comparison to the rule of Nebuchadnezzar. That is, quite simply, year 11 of Zedekiah is equivalent to year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar, not year 17.

  With that in mind, and with the desolation and deportation at the same time many other nations to serve 70 years taking place in year 23, the siege of Tyre would not have been more than 3-4 years, as difficult as it was. After Nebuchadnezzar that completely emptied the land, including destroying Troy, he felt great and bragged about having conquered everything and so the next year God smote him with 7 years of madness, though his kingship was preserved for him. At the very earliest if this began in year 24 he could have been active on the throne again by year 31 BCE.

  Egypt was not to be punished for 70 years but only 40, so when that time came up, we find Nebuchadnezzar going on another campaign in his year 37 down to Egypt. Those in exile from Tyre would not be released to return and rebuild until the 70 years of exile were over in the 1st of Cyrus. I know there are other theories about this, but other than this would contradict Scripture.

  See part 2, cryptic reference to Babylon
• 

  Larsinger58

  But there is one more critical issue that complicates this reference. In Against Apion it mentions a period of 54 years and also 50 years, and a kingship in the 14th year!

  Against Apion 21 21. These accounts agree with the true histories 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. I will now add the records of the Phoenicians; for it will not be superfluous to give the reader demonstrations more than enough on this occasion. In them we have this enumeration of the times of their several kings: "Nabuchodonosor besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king; after him reigned Baal, ten years; after him were judges appointed, who judged the people: Ecnibalus, the son of Baslacus, two months; Chelbes, the son of Abdeus, ten months; Abbar, the high priest, three months; Mitgonus and Gerastratus, the sons of Abdelemus, were judges six years; after whom Balatorus reigned one year; after his death they sent and fetched Merbalus from Babylon, who reigned four years; after his death they sent for his brother Hirom, who reigned twenty years. Under his reign Cyrus became king of Persia." So that the whole interval is fifty-four years besides three months; for in the seventh year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar he began to besiege Tyre, and Cyrus the Persian took the kingdom in the fourteenth year of Hirom.

  Now besides the spurious 7-year reference for the siege of Tyre, the numbers given don't add up to 54 years. That is, from the 7th of Nebuchadnezzar to the 1st of Cyrus is not 54 years. With so many apparent contradictions, one option is to step back and look at this as a cryptic reference to some other event. Thus the 54 years and 50 years are relevant to the period from the fall of Jerusalem year 19 to the 1st of Cyrus as king over Persia, or the time of desolation from year 23, the year of the last deportation of many nations out of the land including the Jews to serve 70 years. In this context, to cut to the chase, if you count 13 years from year 7 of Nabonidus, then you arrive at the date for the fall of Babylon, not the fall of Tyre, suggesting Josephus is here using Tyre to cryptically give us the timeline for the fall of Babylon during the 20-year rule of Cyrus.

  See continuation 1A
• 

  Larsinger58

  See continuation 1A

  In other words, per the Bible, Darius the Mede ruled 6 years. Cyrus ruled for 20 years before he became king at Babylon and released the Jews and started counting a new rulership from year 1. Cyrus became king in Persia in the 6th year of Nabonidus. So there is a 25-year period from the 1st of Nabonidus until the end of the 20-year rule of Cyrus. If we subtract 6 years for the rule of Darius the Mede that leaves 19 years for the rule of Nabonidus. 13 years from the end of the rule of Nabonidus' 19 years pushes us back to year 7.

  In other words, this is not about Tyre at all but a cryptic reference to the last years of Babylon, that is, it fell 13 years after the 7th year of Nabonidus. The mention that Cyrus became king in the 14th year, means Darius the Mede became king in the 14th year after the 7th of Nabonidus. This proves Josephus knew perfectly well what the original chronology was, but was trying to suppress it.

  There were 54 years from the fall of Jerusalem until Cyrus became king over Persia. There were 74 years from the fall of Jerusalem until Cyrus became king over Babylon. There were 50 years of desolation from year 23 of Neb2, the year of the last deportation. There are 13 years from year 7 of Nabonidus until the fall of Babylon, and Darius the Mede became king in the 14th year after that. Now it says Hirom reigned for 20 years and that Cyrus became king in his 14th year. Well if you substitute Hiron's 20 years for Cyrus' 20 years, then Darius the Mede does indeed become king in the 14th year of Cyrus, leaving six years to complete the 20 years, the exact number of years of the rule of Darius the Mede.

  So there are too many contradictions and coincidences here to definitively use this reference in relation to Tyre. My presumption is that Tyre was sieged for 3 years rather than 13. That way, there is a relevant connection in the error to the truth. That works fine since Tyre would have to be desolated by year 23. If the siege began in year 20, that gives you a 4-year period to overthrow Tyre, which still would have been grueling.

  I'll try to demonstrate in a table in continuation 1B

  LArs