Earnest --
Welcome back! How was the conference? Are you going to tell us about it? (Or have you already started a thread on it that I have overlooked?)
Marjorie
Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson
by ros 264 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Alleymom
In short, there is a strong Jewish tradition thsat supports the WT understanding that the third years was the eleventh year of Jehoiakimm;s rule.
Scholar ---
Is there any Jewish tradition that supports the WT understanding that the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:1 was really the 20th year of Nebuchadnezzar's rule?
If Daniel 1:1 is Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, as the WT affirms, then how can Daniel 2:1 be his 20th year?
The boys had a three year training course. Even if you count this time inclusively, as is often the case in the Bible, I do not see how:
year 7 + 3-year-training-course = year 20.
I was never one of Jehovah's Witnessses, and while I have read a fair amount of your organization's literature, I am not thoroughly acquainted with WT explanations. Can you tell me how your organization explains this discrepancy?
Marjorie
-
Alleymom
Earnest --
I saw that you specifically mentioned Theodotion rather than "the LXX". I was curious, so I looked the verses up in the Greek. It is interesting that Theodotion and the Old Greek apparently equate the phrases "third year of King Jehoiakim" and "third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim," as is indeed the case in numerous instances throughout the Masoretic text.
It is also interesting to note that Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzar are both called
basileu"
just as they are both called "melek" in the Hebrew.
IOW, the text itself makes no distinction in their kingship, even though, as we know from other verses, Jehoiakim was, in fact, a vassal to Nebuchadnezzar.
Marjorie
-
Gamaliel
Marjorie,
(If someone would tell me whether the Hebrew font I use shows up ok in these posts, I will print both verses in Hebrew and highlight the two words so that others can see that the words are exactly the same.)
The Hebrew font does not show up on my machines, although I have Hebrew fonts installed on them. I have used what I thought were the "image" versions of the letters rather than the fonts such as in one of my previous posts linked below:
(completely unrelated subject matter, btw) http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/49520/1.ashx
I'd be interested to know if the "font" shows up there on your machine.
Gamaliel
-
Gamaliel
Alleymom,
Daniel 1:1 In the third year of the reign (
Daniel 2:1 And in the second year of the reign (
Let me know if these ones show up.
Gamaliel
-
Alleymom
Gamaliel --
Yes, I do see the Hebrew letters in your post. Thanks for posting the two verses, btw. I don't know what Scholar is talking about with this new reference to TWO Hebrew terms. The word is exactly the same in both verses.
It is too bad that your excellent list of five questions has never been addressed. I liked how you worded them, and I thought they got right to the heart of the issue.
Marjorie
-
scholar
Alleymom
You ask concerning Daniel 2:1 and here again the NWT transaltes the Hebew malkut as kingship as the Neb's second year of his kingship and not reign. Heregain we have a similar feature with Dan 1:1. These verses cannot be taken as a chronologicla datum in the sense that the events refer to regnal years, rather they refer to events in the overall kingship of these monarchs. You would find it imperative to consult Jewish commentaries on both verses and see an alternative viewpoint.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
-
Alleymom
You would find it imperative to consult Jewish commentaries on both verses and see an alternative viewpoint.
Scholar ---
As I have said before, I have consulted Jewish commentaries. Jewish commentaries do NOT support the WT's chronology. No one supports the WT's chronology. In all the vast world of scholars, there is no Assyriologist, no Christian scholar, no Jewish scholar, no museum curator, no archaeologist, no historian, no professor, no chronologist, no anyone who supports the WT's chronology.
Furthermore, neither Jewish commentaries nor Christian commentaries support your claim that the word malkuth means something different in Daniel 1:1 and Daniel 2:1 then it means in the other 89 places it occurs in the Tanakh.
Earnest has suggested that not even the WT supports your claim regarding the meaning of malhuth.
Can you give me even one reference to a scholar who supports the position you have taken regarding the meaning of malkuth? The alternative viewpoints you mention have to do with the ancient Jewish scholars' desire to make the chronology work out so that the prophecy of Daniel 9 ends with the destruction of the second temple. They have nothing whatsoever to say regarding the meaning of malkhuth, kingship, reign, vassalage, etc., all the things you have brought up in the last few days. Their arguments are not based on philology at all.
I am not without sympathy for you. If you are really someone who is doing scholarly reading, then you are finding out that there is no justification whatsoever for the WT chronology, and I understand that this must be very upsetting.
But wouldn't it be more honest to admit that you don't have answers right now but that you still believe the WT is the one true religion? Why participate in a discussion board if you are not prepared to explain your beliefs to those who ask?
I am very sincere when I say that I just do not understand the WT's position on Daniel 2:1 being the 20th year of Nebuchadnezzar.
How do you explain the WT's position that Daniel 1:1 is the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel 2:1 is his 20th year?
How can Neb's 7th year + 3-year-training-course = Neb's 20th year?
I can't see where you get this from.
Hoping for a substantive response,
Marjorie -
Earnest
scholar
Thank you for your comments on the points I raised but you seem to have missed the object of my post. You say :
In fact two Jewish commentaries apply the 'third year' to the latter part of Jehoiakim's reign or kingship. Clearly, the use of kingship rather than reign shows...
The use of kingship rather than reign can only show the intention of the translators, it cannot show the intention of the original writer as he made no such distinction.
It is true that some lexicons do give a variety of meanings for malkut which includes that of 'reign' but Hebrew Theological Dictionaries give such meanings as 'royal power', dominion, royal dignity, kingdom.
My research included the highly respected Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (O.U.P., 1929), by Brown, Driver, Briggs which gives malkut three primary meanings, namely (a) royal power, dominion (b) reign (c) kingdom, realm.
The section which demonstrates the meaning of "reign" includes Daniel 1:1
2. reign: 40th year of reign of David 1Ch 26:31 cf. 2Ch 3:2; 15:10,19; 16:1,12; 35:19; Je 49:34; Dn 1:1; also 2Ch 29:19; of Babyl. and Pers. kings Je 52:31 (in the [first] year of his reign || 2K 25:27 he began to reign) Dn 2:1; 8:1; Ezr 4:5,6,6; 7:1; 8:1; Ne 12:22; Est 2:16; cf. until the reign of the kingdom of Persia 2 Ch 36: 20 .
I would not care to be dogmatic as to which year "the third year of the [malkut] of Jehoiakim" refers to. I am inclined to accept the most straightforward meaning of the text although I realise that is not without its problems. But whether it is translated as kingship or reign is quite clearly irrelevant to the chronology.
Marjorie
Welcome back! How was the conference? Are you going to tell us about it?
The conference (International Congress of Assyriology and Near Eastern Archaeology) was great fun although I did feel out of my depth most of the time. It started off with a reading of The Epic of Gilgamesh by Timothy West and Prunella Scales, two first-class British actors...Prunella Scales being notorious for her depiction of Sybil Fawlty in Fawlty Towers, a comedy series depicting hotel life in Torquay. Just imagine Sybil reading The Epic of Gilgamesh !
There was not really a great deal on the chronological side. There was a morning devoted to Sennacherib's campaign against Lachish and Jerusalem which was interesting because of what the Assyrian records said (and didn't say). Another talk I particularly enjoyed was about the "Hanging Gardens of Nineveh" which suggested that those were the world famous gardens rather than anything at Babylon. But the primary benefit to me was the opportunity to talk to leaders in the field of Assyriology during the various breaks. What I found particularly refreshing was the reasonableness and willingness to explain things to a layman as myself. My particular interest was about establishing when Nineveh fell to the Medes and Babylonians without reference to the Babylonian records and I was fortunate enough to speak to David Stronach about this. Afraid you'll have to wait a bit longer for me to make a decent post out of it.
I saw that you specifically mentioned Theodotion rather than "the LXX".
While the LXX was the Greek translation of the OT favoured by the early Christians, for some reason that is still unclear they used Theodotion's translation for Daniel.
It is also interesting to note that Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzar are both called "basileu" [in the Greek] just as they are both called "melek" in the Hebrew. IOW, the text itself makes no distinction in their kingship, even though, as we know from other verses, Jehoiakim was, in fact, a vassal to Nebuchadnezzar.
Yes. That is the point I was trying to make in connection with "the reign of the king", malkuth melek (Heb.), tes basileias basileos (Grk), which applied to both. Thanks for the additional thought.
Earnest
-
ros
Gamaliel:
I do see your Hebrew characters, but not Alleymom's.
I do not have Hebrew or Greek fonts installed, so I thought that is why I didn't see them in Alleymom's posts (they appeared as some other kind of strange characters).When I saw your Hebrew, I checked to see if I was mistaken, but I don't have the fonts installed. Yet I see your Hebrew. Now I'm curious.
Alleymom:
Are your Hebrew and Greek fonts TrueType or Type1 fonts, or are they from a private font developer?Thanks,
~Ros