It's sad when people like Greg Stafford become far better scholars than the Boys in Brooklyn... then, out of a sincere desire and effort to help them, guys like Greg end up alienated by the same organization he could have given a shred of credibility to.
Question about WT article about ancient city of Tyre
by EndofMysteries 33 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Leolaia
I am certain from reading his posts that Larsinger is quite brilliant himself and has an amazing memory for detail. So I don't think that's quite fair to him, as much as I disagree with his views (and neither am I a "scholar" of the Neo-Babylonian period or even of biblical literature).
Here is another interesting datum worthy of exploration, inasmuch as I think it hasn't gotten much attention in the literature. According to the Talmud (Arakin 12a, Megillah 14b), the Day of Atonement on which Ezekiel received his vision of the great Temple (which accordng to Ezekiel 40:1 was on Tishri 10, "at the beginning of the year") was at the start of a jubilee cycle. This event was dated to the 25th year of Jehoiachin's exile and the 14th year after the fall of Jerusalem (= the 31st year of Nebuchadnezzar, i.e. 574 BC; note that the Day of Atonement was about two months into the 14th year after the fall of Jerusalem). The Talmud however states that the previous jubilee cycle started in the 18th year of Josiah. This fits the generally accepted chronology very well: the reign of Josiah begins in 641 BC, his 18th year would be 623 BC at the start of a jubilee cycle, and the next cycle would begin in 574 BC, just as expected by the Talmud.
-
Leolaia
Here is another interesting thing that falls out of the Tishri reckoning of Jehoiachin's exile. If the start of the 25th year in Tishri ("at the beginning of the year") was a jubilee (the 49th year in jubilee reckoning, which was a sabbatical year), then the previous two sabbatical years started in the 18th year and the 11th year. The 11th year was 588/587 BC, the final year of Jerusalem before its destruction during its siege by Nebuchadnezzar. According to Jeremiah 34:1-22, King Zedekiah of Judah liberated slaves from their debts in that year, which is precisely what is expected in a sabbatical year (cf. Deuteronomy 15). This corresponds to what is said in other rabbinical sources (such as the Seder Olam), that Jerusalem fell late in a sabbatical year.
-
Larsinger58
Calculating the jubilees is easy. Remember the 70 weeks begin the 1st of Cyrus, a period of 490 years, which is 10 jubilee periods of 49 years each. The jubilee, which is the 50th year after 49 is celebrated on the 1st year of the next 49.
Based on that, if 455 BCE is a jubilee year, then we can easily calculate the jubilee years prior to this. Two jubilees prior dates a Jubilee in 553 BCE which falls in the 30th year of Josiah.
If you count 19 jubilees, 931 years, you get the Exodus occurring on a jubilee year in 1386 BCE. This is confirmed by 1947 which is also a jubilee year, the beginning of the 70th jubilee period of 49 years. That means 70 jubilees (3430 years) ends in 1996
3430 - 1996 = 1434 + 1 = 1435 BCE.
The Exodus would be the first celebrated jubilee in the 50th year after this, thus
1435 - 49 = 1386 BCE.
Thus the Exodus in 1386 BCE, the return from Babylon in 455 BCE and the final restoration from exile in 1947 AD all fall on the 1st year of a jubilee period of 49 years. The only other Biblical jubilee would be during the 15th year of Hezekiah in 651 BCE.
I wasn't able to reconcile any of the Talmudic jubilees provided by Leolaiae. But as noted, it is good to know the various references for comparison. Thanks Leolaia!
LS
-
Larsinger58
Leolaia stated--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."
Please note the basis for this position is clear when you note the number of exiles. Jeremiah 52v28 says the number exiled in year 7 was 3023 Jews.
At the time of the deportation of Jehoichin 2 Kings 24 says..
12 At length Je·hoi´a·chin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he with his mother and his servants and his princes and his court officials; and the king of Babylon got to take him in the eighth year of his being king. 13 Then he brought out from there all the treasures of the house of Jehovah and the treasures of the king’s house, and went on to cut to pieces all the gold utensils that Sol´o·mon the king of Israel had made in the temple of Jehovah, just as Jehovah had spoken. 14 And he took into exile all Jerusalem and all the princes and all the valiant, mighty men—ten thousand he was taking into exile—... 17 Further, the king of Babylon made Mat·ta·ni´ah his uncle king in place of him. Then he changed his name to Zed·e·ki´ah.
Now, Jehoichin only ruled for 3 months and then was deported at the "turn of the year" meaning at the very end of the year that began in the spring of year 8 of Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah, therefore, would have been appointed in year 9 of Nebuchadnezzar. If so, there would be an 8-year difference, which is confirmed because year 11 of Zedekiah, the year Jerusalem fell, matched year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar, an 8-year difference.
Further, it was Ezekiel who was deported in year 7 and we can compare his year of exile with that of Nebuchadnezzar and the fall of Jerusalem. That is, year 25 of Ezekiel's exile (not Jehoiachin's) was also the 14th year after the fall of Jerusalem. Jerusalem fell in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar and thus 13 years later is year 32 (19 +13=32) The difference is between 25th and 32nd is 7 years. Therefore, per the custom of the Babylonians to exile at the very end of the year, most of Ezekiel's exile fell in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar, certainly by the 10th of Tishri.
cont...
LS
-
Larsinger58
As far as the Babylonian Chronicle goes, it was definitely revised during the Persian Period. We know because it dates the Battle at Charchemish in the accession of Nebuchadnezzar, whereas the Bible dates that event in year 4 of Jehoiakim, a year after the deportation of Daniel in year 3. Thus the Babylonian chronicle dates the deportation of Daniel AND the Battle of Carchemish in the same accession year of Neb2. This, in turn, causes all the events to drop down 1 year in the revised Babylonian chronicle, including the deportations of Ezekiel and Jehoichin. Thus the exile and deportation of Jehoiachin, like Carchemish, occurs a year earlier at the end of year 7, instead of as the Bible indicates, at the end of year 8.
Here's the Chronicle reference...
. In the twenty-first year [605/604;note 1]the king of Akkad[Nabopolassar] stayed in his own land, Nebuchadnezzar his eldest son, the crown-prince, 2. mustered the Babylonian army and took command of his troops; he marched to Karchemiš which is on the bank of the Euphrates, 3. and crossed the river to go against the Egyptian army which lay in Karchemiš. 4. They fought with each other and the Egyptian army withdrew before him. 5. He accomplished their defeat and beat them to non-existence. As for the rest of the Egyptian army 6. which had escaped from the defeat so quickly that no weapon had reached them, in the district of Hamath 7. the Babylonian troops overtook and defeated them so that not a single man escaped to his own country. 8. At that time Nebuchadnezzar conquered the whole area of Hamath. 9. For twenty-one years Nabopolassar had been king of Babylon, 10. when on 8 Abu[15 August 605] he went to his destiny; in the month of Ululu Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon 11. and on 1 Ululu [7 September] he sat on the royal throne in Babylon. 12. In the accession year Nebuchadnezzar went back again to the Hatti-land and until the month of Šabatu 13. marched unopposed through the Hatti-land; in the month of Šabatu he took the heavy tribute of the Hatti-territory to Babylon. So there is no continuity between the Bible and the Chronicle. This, as I stated, is quite clear when we see the 11th year of Zedekiah matching the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. There is a difference of 8 years. Thus year 1 of Zedekiah would be equal to year 9 of Nebuchadnezzar, proving he began his rule early in the 9th year of Nebuchadnezzar. This, in turn parallels Jehoiachin's exile.
Again, if year 3 of Jehoiakim mathes the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar and year 4 of Jehoiakim year 1 of Nebuchadnezzar, this his 11-year rule should show a 3-year difference for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. 11 minus 3 is 8. The Bible clearly says Jehoichin was deported in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar.
So at this point, you have a 1-year conflict between the Babylonian record and the Bible. Since we know the Babylonian Chronicle was "copied" during the Persian Period, it cannot be considered authentic but must be considered revised. This is especially so since the Bible staetes that Nebuchadnezzar died in the 37th year of exile of Jehoichin which would have been his 45th year, whereas the revised chronicles only assign Nebuchadnezzar 43 years. The Bible's timeline for the NB Period is 26 years longer than the revised Persian documents of the NB Period.
LS
-
Larsinger58
When Xerxes claimed he was his own son, apparently the age difference between Darius I, who only ruled 6 years and died at a relatively early age (early 40's) was too contradictory, so 30 extra years were added to his rule, basically an extra generation, so that he would be old enough to be the grandfather to Xerxes/Artaxerxes. To compensate for these years, an attempt was made to remove some insignificant years from the NB Period. They managed to squeeze out only 26 years though.
2 for Nebuchadnezzar 2 (43 vs 45)
16 for Evil-Merodach (2 vs 18)
2 for Nabonidus (17 vs 19)
6 for DARIUS THE MEDE (0 vs 6, his entire rule suppressed)
TOTAL 26 years.
But in addition to this, apparently squeezing some events together gave them an extra year, that is, combining what happened during the accession year with what actually happened in year 1. This is why, compared to the Bible, the events are a year off. It's why some think Babylon fell in year 18 rather than year 19. It is why Josephus refers to the fall of Jerusalem in year 18 of Nebuchadnezzar, 5 years before the last deportation, which he consistently dates to year 23. This is a reflection of the revised Babylonian Chronicle dating, but not The Bible.
Of course, in spite of that, Josephus still includes a difficult to dismiss 70-year desolation period from the last deportation in year 23 until the 1st of Cyrus. This makes the NB Period 25-26 years longer in the Bible than in the Babylonian chronicles. However, again, since we see the chronicles were "copied" during the Persian Peiod, it's obvious who made the revisions and thus they cannot be used to challenge the Biblical timeline or history. Some who don't accept the revisionism try to coordinate the Bible with the revised documents, but that is ineffective when you take a critical look.
LS
-
Larsinger58
Now we have this....
21 At length it occurred in the twelfth year, in the tenth [month], on the fifth day of the month of our exile, that there came to me the escaped one from Jerusalem, saying: “The city has been struck down!”
Okay. Here's the Babylonian Chronicle for year six.
9'. In the sixth year [599/598] in the month of Kislîmu the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to the Hatti-land. From the Hatti-land he sent out his companies, 10'. and scouring the desert they took much plunder from the Arabs, their possessions, animals and gods. In the month of Addaru the king returned to his own land. Notice the king returned in Addaru, which is the 12th month. If Ezekiel was deported at the very end of the year as was customary of the seventh (rather than the sixth) year, then most of his exile would have fallen in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar, which means year 1 of his exile would match year 8 of Nebuchadnezzar, a 7-year difference. Thus year 12, the year Jerusalem fell in the 5th month would fall in year 19, because 7 plus 12 is 19. It takes about 5 months to get word from Jerusalem to Babylon but that is with a large group, mostly on foot. A messenger riding horseback to speed news to Babylon would have taken less time. Even so Jerusalem fell in the 5th month and the 10th month of the exile of Ezekiel if he were deported at the very end of the year would allow sufficient time for word to reach Babylon, which is 4+ months.
Meaning?
Meaning there is no doubt that the Babylonian Chronicles are dating events during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar 1 year earlier than the Bible does. Year 12 of the exile of Ezekiel is equivalent to year 11 of the exile of Jehoiachin, who were deported a year apart near the same time, at the very end of the year, the last month of the year.
LS
-
monkeyman
Researching a 1959 WT?
WTF?
-
Leolaia
Again, there is no conflict between the Babylonian Chronicle and 6th-century BC Jewish sources once the differences between Tishri/Nisan and accession/non-accession reckoning are taken into account. We know that Babylonian regnal calendation was Nisan-to-Nisan, whereas we know from Ezekiel that the prophet counted his years from Tishri (as is clear from 33:21, 40:1, and other passages). We know that Babylonian regnal calendation involved accession years, whereas Egyptian regnal calendation did not count accession years, and we know that Judeans used both accession and non-accession calendation depending on the king. A chronology that ignores these considerations will be flawed. The annalistic fragment in Jeremiah 52:28-30 utilizes Babylonian-style accession reckoning that agrees with what is in the Babylonian Chronicle: it lists mass deportations from Jerusalem in the 7th and 18th years of Nebuchadnezzar, and the first of these is clearly the same deportion that the Chronicle dates to the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar. So indeed here the Chronicle and the Bible has the same dating. The other biblical sources that place the deportion in the 8th year do so because they do not follow the Babylonian accession-year system. This is confirmed by the other date: the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar has the date of the fall of Jerusalem reckoned via Babylonian accession-style calendation, whereas the specification of the 19th year in other Jewish sources reflects the non-use of accession years. Your position as I understand it would have a single uniform calendation for all sources (which is unreasonable considering what we know about differences in calendation), would have the Babylonian Chronicle altered after the fact to change the date of the battle of Carchemish, would have the Babylonian Chronicle fail to note there were two separate deportations in the 7th and 8th years of Nebuchadnezzar, would have Jeremiah 52 fail to note likewise that there were two separate deportations in the 7th and 8th years of Nebuchadnezzar, would have the Babylonian Chronicle falsely claim that the siege occurred entirely in a single regnal year (rather than spread over two, as required by the stipulation that deportations occurred in two consecutive years), would have Jeremiah 52 claim a deportion from Jerusalem a year before it fell, would have Jeremiah 52 fail to record any deportion the year when Jerusalem did fall, and so forth. This is far less parsimonious than simply recognizing that the listing of captives in Jeremiah 52 uses the same accession-year system as the Babylonian Chronicle. As per Jeremiah 52:28 and the Babylonian Chronicle, Zedekiah was installed by the start of Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year. As per Jeremiah 52:29, his reign came to an end in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. Regardless of whether Zedekiah's years are reckoned from Tishri or Nisan, he reigned 10 complete years but was already into his 11th year when Jerusalem fell. And as regards the prophet Ezekiel, he reckoned his years of exile not from the actual date he was taken into captivity but from the month of Tishri (the start of the year), as discussed above.