Bennyk, the first century Jewish view was that the land would lay desolate (for seventy years) after the destruction of Jerusalem. This one can see from their rendering of Dan.9:2 in the Masoretic Text and LXX Theodotian. The Hellenistic historian Berossus was right, whereas Josephus and the first century Jewish view was wrong. Jerusalem and surroundings were not desolate for seventy years. Here is an excerpt from one of my studies:
Berossus vs. Josephus: Later writers quote Berossus as saying that after
the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar extended Babylonian influence into all
Syria-Palestine and, when returning to Babylon (in his accession year, 605 BCE),
he took Jewish captives into exile, confirming that the 70 year period, as a
period of servitude to Babylon, would begin in 605 BCE. That would mean that
the 70-year period would expire in 535 BCE. Berossus also insists that
Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives in his accession year. No cuneiform
documents support this. Yet, the book of Daniel (1:1-3) mentions a minor
deportation in the third year of Jehoiakim, which would correspond to the first
year of Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Jer. 25:1; 46:2). As a minor deportation, it is not
surprising that it does not feature on the list of Jeremiah 52:28-30.
The Jewish historian Josephus respected
Berossus. However, he states that in the year of the battle of Carchemish
Nebuchadnezzar would conquer all of Syria-Palestine “excepting Judea,” thus
contradicting Berossus and conflicting with the claim that 70 years of Jewish
servitude began in Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year.—Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews X, vi, 1 [10.86]. Furthermore,
Josephus elsewhere describes the destruction of Jerusalem
by the Babylonians and then says that “all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a
desert for seventy years” (Josephus, Antiquities
of the Jews X, ix, 7
[10.184]). He pointedly states that “our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of
Cyrus” (Josephus, Against Apion I, 19 [1.132]). Here he shares the
misconception of a later editor and/or redactor of the book of Daniel,
“fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem,
[namely,] seventy years” (cf. Dan. 9:2). The same goes for the second-century
(CE) writer Theophilus of Antioch who believed the 70 years would commence with
the destruction of the temple after Zedekiah had reigned 11 years. As seen,
Jeremiah applied the seventy years to the Judahites’ Babylonian servitude, and
not to the desolation of the land.
Dan. 9:2: In the OG we have oneidismos,
meaning “reproach” (singular). See NETS. This is viewed as an error in the transmission: Jer. 25:9 and (I turn them) into a disgrace is read for MT and
(I will turn them) into desolations. However, as seen, Dan. 9:2 is not drawn from Jer. 29:10, but Jer. 25:9-12. Here it could mean
“reproach, disgrace, insult” (cf. Jer.
18:16; 19:8;
Ezek. 5:13, 14). Specifically Jer. 25:9 “and something to whistle at and places devastated to time
indefinite.” See BHS footnote. KBLex, in accordance with the textcritical
note suggests an emendation to (“as a disgrace”). See J. Lust, E. Eynikel & K. Hauspie (2003). A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Revised Edition.
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart.
According to secular chronology, Jerusalem did not lie desolate for seventy
years, but her reproach and humiliation could have started with Jehoiakim’s
three year servitude, completing Jeremiah’s seventy year cycle (2 Kings 24:1, 2; cf. Is. 25:9, 11).
