Question about WT article about ancient city of Tyre

by EndofMysteries 33 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Larsinger58

  DATE BCE	NABONIDUS	DARIUS THE MEDE	CYRUS	COMMENTS
  480	1			HIROM
  479	2
  478	3
  477	4
  476	5
  475	6		1
  474	7		2	1
  473	8		3	2
  472	9		4	3
  471	10		5	4
  470	11		6	5
  469	12		7	6
  468	13		8	7
  467	14		9	8
  466	15		10	9
  465	16		11	10
  464	17		12	11
  463	18		13	12
  462	19 BABYLON FALLS		14	13 BABYLON(TYRE) FALLS IN YR 13
  461		1	15	14 DTM BECOMES KING IN YR 14
  460		2	16	15
  459		3	17	16
  458		4	18	17
  457		5	19	18
  456		6	20	19

  Continued 1 B

  54 years and 50 years are mentioned. These are key to the 70 years of desolation and the fall of Jerusalem in year 19. Cyrus had two rulerships, 50 years apart. He became king over Persia exactly 54 years after the fall of Babylon, and he became king after 50 years of desolation of the land from the last deportation. He became king over Babylon 74 years after the fall of Jerusalem and 70 years after the last deportation. Josephus in the previous paragraph of 1.19 in the same work, Against Apion, clearly mentions the desolation of seventy years. So he is either contradicting himself or giving us a cryptic reference for the context of a 50-year desolation in relation to when Cyrus first became king. Josephus does this elsewhere as well, which is why we can't ignore this.

  For instance, he gives us the actual original 18-year rule of Evil Merodach in Ant. 10.11.2

  "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.."

  Continued 1C
• 

  Larsinger58

  Continued 1 C

  When the revisions were made, 26 years are removed from the NB timeline. Josephus establishes a 70-year period from the last deportation to the 1st of Cyrus as does the Bible. The Bible also inserts a 6-year rule by Darius the Mede before Cyrus comes to the throne.

  In the meantime, the Babylonian Chronicle was revised in an attempt to reduce these years. Besides removing 2 years for his actual reign, they combined events during his reign so that in the Babylonian Chronicle the events in the Bible are 1 year late. That is, per the Bible Jehoiachin is deported on the last day of year eight (2 Kings 24:12). There is no mistake here or special dating. Ezekiel was deported year 7, Jehoiachin at the end of year 8. Zedekiah thus would hae begun his reign parallel to year 9 of Nebuchadnezzar. Thus his year 11 matches year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar.

  The Babylonian Chronicle, which was copied during the Persian Period combines the deportation from Judea of Daniel with the conflict with Necho, both occurring in his 1st year. But the Bible separates these events by a year, Daniel's deportation occurring in year 3 of Jehoiakim and the conflict with Necho in year 4.

  At any rate, this well-established reduction would seem to be the reason why the fall of Jerusalem got moved back in secular records from year 19 to year 18, which is often reflected by Josephus, though a direct contradiction of the Bible. But the relevancy has to be taken into consideration when you add up the rulerships of Evil-Merodach (18), Niglassar (40) and Nabonidus 17, which gives you 75 years. 75 years is the interval from the 18th of Nebuchadnezzar until the 1st of Cyrus.

  So Josephus is trying to be politically correct as much as possible, but provide cryptic timline confirmations of the original chronology. This is done by all the revisionists, such as Herodotus and Xenophon, especially when it comes to eclipses, where they consistently describe the original eclipse details in the context of the revised dating so that some critical eclipses anchoring the original timeline can be reestablished.

  See CONCLUSION for Tyre
• 

  Larsinger58

  CONCLUSION

  So in conclusion, not being absolutely sure but having many options, if you take the Biblical history regarding Tyre, apparently it would have come under siege after the fall of Jerusalem and thus after the 19th of Nebuchadnezzar. The edict given in the 11th year of exile of Jehoiachin is exactly the same as the 11th year of Zedekiah, which means after the fall of Jerusalem. Of course, even the context of Tyre making fun of Jerusalem's fall confirms Jerusalem had already fallen and thus this is immediately afterward in his 19th year. Thus any statements that this is year 17 of Nebuchadnezzar are not correct, though that is a common misunderstanding and reflects the Babylonian revised timeline.

  Second, since Tyre along with the other nations were to serve the same seventy years of desolated land and servitude at Babylon as the last deportees, these 70 years must have begun in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. Thus the siege of Tyre would not have lasted more the 3-4 years. In fact, if like Jerusalem, Tyre could have been breached in 3 years by year 22, but some of the poor people left there, perhaps to fish, like some poor people were left in Jerusalem after it fell. But during his last campaign in year 23, Nebuchadnezzar completely desolated the land of people and it remained so for 70 years.

  In the meantime, Neb2 suffered his 7-year mania sometime between year 24 and year 31-36, as he was back on the throne and in another campaign against Egypt in year 37. Some think this was immediately on the heels of a 13-year siege. But we know the 13 years is likely cryptic for 3 years, just as 40 years for Niglassar is cryptic for 4 years. Thus the 13 years from year 7 relates to the history of the fall of Babylon, not Tyre. Further, God had his own specific time for punishing Egypt and that was not to be until the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Of note there, Egypt was known to be up and running by the time Babylon fell, because they assisted the Babylonians against the Medes. The revised chronology cannot accommodate this 40-year desolation period, another indication the NB timeline was reduced.

  See my new article on "Forty Years For Egypt.

  LS
• 

  Leolaia

  Isaiah 23 is wrongly applied to the Neo-Babylonian period. It rather has in view Assyria's campaigns against Tyre in the 8th and 7th centuries BC, particularly the campaigns of Esarhaddon (677-671 BC) and Ashurbanipal (668 BC). The attackers are not Babylonians, for the prior verse (v. 13) describes Babylon's own destruction at the hands of Assyria: "See the land of the Chaldeans! This was the people who no longer exist. Assyria assigned her to wild beasts. They raised their siege towers, they stripped her citadels, making her a ruin". The Assyrian destruction of Babylon is earlier mentioned in ch. 13 and 21, a reference to Sennacherib's sacking of Babylon in 689 BC. The situation in ch. 23 fits especially well the events in Esarhaddon's reign. First he sacked Sidon (cf. v. 2 and 4) and established his own port called Esarhaddon's Port to replace the Phoenician city. At the time Tyre was a vassal of Assyria. Esarhaddon then claimed sovereignty over Cyprus and Greece, even as far as Tarshish (cf. v. 6 and 12). Then several years later, Tyre joined with Egypt in a rebellion against Esarhaddon and he besieged Tyre. The king was victorious over Tyre and Egypt, and one relief of Esarhaddon shows him with the captured kings of Egypt and Tyre with rings and rope through their nose (compare Isaiah 37:29, a reference to this Assyrian practice). Phoenicia remained under Assyrian control until the reign of Nabopolassar (c. 608 BC).

  I agree that the exile of Jehoiachin was concurrent with the reign of Zedekiah (cf. Ezekiel 24:1-2 and 2 Kings 24:20, 25:1), and that Zedekiah was placed on the throne at the end of the Nisan-to-Nisan year (cf. BM 21946 and 2 Chronicles 36:10), but the synchronism between Ezekiel's dates with the reign of Nebuchadnezzar requires Tishri-to-Tishri reckoning for the prophet, as Ezekiel 33:21 makes clear. There the year of Jehoiachin's exile is reckoned from the fall, yielding about 5 months for the news of Jerusalem's fall to reach Ezekiel in Mesopotamia, and not a much longer period as would be the case if Jehoiachin's exile was reckoned from Nisan as you have it. Ezra 7:9 confirms this reading by referring to four-month journey between Jerusalem and Babylonia. Since Nebuchadnezzar's reign was computed from Nisan-to-Nisan, the first year of Jehoiakim's exile spanned between the 7th and the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Since the references to the fall of Jerusalem in Nebucadnezzar's 19th year (e.g. 2 Kings 25:8, Jeremiah 52:12-13) are explicable from the use and non-use of the Babylonian accession-year system in Jewish writing, I am persuaded that the event occurred in his 18th year as separately stated in Jeremiah 52:29-30. Thus the exiling of Jehoiachin occurred in the taking of captives that occurred in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, as Jeremiah 52:28 likewise has it and as stated explicitly in BM 21946 ("In the seventh year, the month of Kislimu, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land, and besieged the city of Judah and on the second day of the month of Adaru he siezed the city and captured the king, and appointed there a king of his own choice").
• 

  Larsinger58

  This is simple math. If the 11th year of Zedekiah, representing the exile of Jehoichin since it would have begun at the very end of the EIGHTH year, there just as there is an 8-year difference between the rule of Zedekiah and Nebuchadnezzar, at one point, by some calculation, this same 8-year difference could apply to the exile of Jehoichin. Now watch this.

  Babylon falls in the 19th year per the Bible which is the 11th year of Zedekiah. That's an 8-year difference. That means at least by the summer, Zedekiah's 1st year fell in the 9th year of Nebuchadnezzar. You see, there an 8-year difference between year 1 and year 9, the same as there is an 8-year difference between year 11 and year 19.

  Now, the only reason for the confusion is revisionism during the Persian Period, when the events of the accession year of Neb2 and his first year were combined. Thus the Babylonian Chronicle consistently is one year earlier than the Biblical record. That is, it shows Jehoiachin deported in the seventh rather than the eighth year. This is simply a contradiction between the revised Babylonian timeline and the original Biblical timeline.

  We have records of the number of people deported in several of these deportations and there was a 7th year deportation which took Ezekiel. Jehoiachin was not deported until the very END of the 8th year which makes the 1st year of his exile fall primarily in the NINTH year of Neb2. If that's the case, there is an 8-year difference between exile year 1 and 9th year Neb2. We see that, by Zedekiah's parallel rule in comparison to year 11 of Zedeiah and year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar.

  Simple math.

  The NB period was reduced by 26 years. We know that because Josephus counts a 70-year period from the last deportation, year 23 to the 1st of Cyrus. Compared to Babylonian records, this is 25-26 years too long. Thus one of the reductions in the NB kings was removing 2 years from Neb2 making his rule 43 years rather than 45 years. But if there is an 8-year difference between the 37th year of exile, when Neb2 died and his rulership, then you just add 8 years to 37 and you get 45, not 43.

  So there is a simple choice here. Go with Josephus and the Biblical timeline, or be fooled by Persian Period generated revised Babylonian records.

  LS
• 

  Leolaia

  The math is straightforward without recourse to ad hoc conspiracies of alternative timelines; biblical and extrabiblical data from the Neo-Babylonian period dovetail together once the reckoning patterns are ascertained in each individual source. Your chronology, on the other hand, treats all years uniformily without taking differences in reckoning into account. I follow the impartial analysis of Young (JETS, 2004) who shows that all sources harmonize when (1) Ezekiel's reckoning is understood as involving Tishri years (with the first year of Jehoiachin's exile equaling the non-accession first year of Jehoiachin's reign, which for the prophet never ended as he did not recognize Zedekiah's legitimacy), (2) Jeremiah similarly is understood as using Tishri years for Judean kings (it is unclear whether he used Tishri or Nisan years to reckon Nebuchadnezzar's reign, but this is inconsequential) and non-accession years for both Judean kings and Nebuchadnezzar, (3) 2 Kings 24-25 is understood as using Tishri years for Judean kings and Nisan years for Nebuchadnezzar, and non-accession years for both Nebuchadnezzar and Judean kings, and finally (4) the annalistic fragment in Jeremiah 52 is understood as using Nisan and accession years for Nebuchadnezzar (in purely Babylonian fashion, unlike all the other biblical sources that follow typical Judean non-accession reckoning). This brings all the sixth-century BC biblical data into harmony with each other as well as with the Babylonian Chronicle. The latter was not edited in the Persian era to merge the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar with his first year; both are clearly distinguished in the document. The exiling of Jehoiachin at the end of his 7th year, as stated in the Babylonian Chronicle, matches what is said about the exiling of captives from Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year in Jeremiah 52 (corroborating the date in the Chronicle). To claim that this was a wholly seperate exiling of captives an entire year before Jehoiachin was exiled (with Ezekiel's exile starting a year prior to that of Jehoiachin) is pure ad hoc surmising. The substantial exiling of captives (larger in magnitude than the one in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year) in the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar is surely that of the Jerusalem siege referred to by the Babylonian Chronicle which began and ended in the same regnal year (Kislemu to Adaru), not some other one that also occurred the year before which the Chronicle omitted (and Jeremiah 52 likewise omitted any mention of captives exiled in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar).

  (continued below)
• 

  Leolaia

  (continued from the last post)

  Josephus like all ancient historians writing centuries later was prone to error, particularly when he was not following his sources directly. In Contra Apionem he had Babylonian sources directly in front of him and thus represented the Neo-Babylonian period accurately. In Antiquitates he was clearly paraphrasing from memory and erred quite often: (1) he gives the name of Nebuchadnezzar's father as also Nebuchadnezzar (10.220) rather than Nabopolassar (as in Apionem 1.135, where he quotes Berossus), (2) he gives Amel-Marduk a reign of 18 years (10.231) rather than 2 (as in Apionem 1.147, again quoting his Babylonian source), (3) he refers to Neriglissar (Eglisar) as the son of Amel-Marduk (10.231) rather than his brother-in-law (as in Apionem 1.147, again in his quoting of Berossus), (4) the reign is given as 40 years (10.231) rather than 4 (as in Apionem 1.148, within the same quote of Berossus), (5) he regards Nabonidus and Belshazzar as the same person (10.231) rather than father and son, etc. Josephus' use of Berossus is far less reliable in Antiquitates, and I see no reason to prefer his error-ridden account in Antiquitates over that in Contra Apionem, particularly since the figures in Antiquitates have no support from the extensive monumental and administrative records from the Neo-Babylonian period itself.

  Of course, even the context of Tyre making fun of Jerusalem's fall confirms Jerusalem had already fallen and thus this is immediately afterward in his 19th year. Thus any statements that this is year 17 of Nebuchadnezzar are not correct.

  With Tishri reckoning, the 11th year of Jehoiachin's exile would span between the 17th and 18th years of Nebuchadnezzar (accession-year reckoning); the biblical references to the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, as discussed above, presume non-accession reckoning (which was normative for Judean kings). The text in Ezekiel 26:1 is deficient and possibly corrupt, as it does not specify the month but the year and the day of the month. So it is unclear in what month the Tyrian oracle was given, although the reference to Jerusalem's destruction would suggest that the prophet was referring to Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year and not the 17th. But we also do not know if the start of the siege of Tyre was reckoned differently by Ezekiel and by the histories used by Josephus. The Tyrian siege probably started as a small-scale blockade against the island city, and a blockade not necessarily personally overseen by the king. The resolution of the Jerusalem siege allowed the Babylonian army to reallocate contingents of troops previously committed to the Jerusalem operation to the siege of Tyre, and this is certainly what Ezekiel is referring to (particularly to Nebuchadnezzar's personal involvement). That doesn't preclude the possibility that some limited (unsuccessful) blockade was already underway. Although Menander and Josephus suggest that the siege had already started by then, it probably would not have had much of an effect until the Babylonian army could be released from its obligations in Jerusalem.
• 

  agonus

  Man, Leolaia, HOW DO YOU DO IT? I take one look at this stuff and my eyes glaze over!

  I mean, my God, if you really have to have this kind of encyclopedic knowledge in order to be saved, who among us has a snowball's chance in hell?

  Who among us has the time/memory to pull off these kind of requirements?
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Don't feel bad, agonus.

  Leolaia is in a different league - a keen, brilliant scholar and she must have a fantastic memory too.
• 

  agonus

  Boy, that's for sure.

  Hell, if WT had any sense, they'd hire her.

  Leolaia... sure you're not "anointed"? If so, have I got an offer for you...