Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros 264 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Alleymom

  Simwitness,

  Awhile ago you asked scholar a question and he hasn't answered.

  Simwitness: My question to scholar, is for his reasoning behind saying that is what the OT writers meant. IMHO, if they meant "vassal/king" they would have used a word that more accurately described that. (I am, of course, assuming that such a word existed).

  Indeed, there is a word which Daniel could have used if he had wanted to alert his readers that he was counting the years in Daniel 1:1 differently because Jehoiakim was a vassal king.

  And Mark Mercer makes exactly that point on page 180 of his article "Daniel 1:1 and Jehoiakim's Three Years of Servitude," AUSS (Andrews University Seminary Studies), vol. 27, no. 3, Autumn 1989, pp. 179-192.

  Mercer says:
  
  Several commentators take the third year of Jehoiakim as being the last of the three years of servitude to Babylon mentioned in 2 Kgs 24:1. This solution is unlikely, for the text of Daniel states that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem "in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim " (bsnt slws lmlkwt), not "in the third year of the servitude of Jehoaikim" (bsnt slws l'bwdh) -- as one might expect if the statement in Daniel 1:1 were derived from 2 Kgs 24:1.

  The word Daniel could have used is Strong's #5650, "ebed" = slave, servant.

  2 Kings 16:7 Ahaz sent messengers to say to Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, "I am your servant and vassal. Come up and save me out of the hand of the king of Aram and of the king of Israel, who are attacking me." (NIV)
  
  2 Kings 17:3 Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up to attack Hoshea, who had been Shalmaneser’s vassal and had paid him tribute. (NIV; RSV also has "vassal")
  
  2 Kings 24:1 During Jehoiakim’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon invaded the land, and Jehoiakim became his vassal for three years. But then he changed his mind and rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. (NIV)

  One more possibility is Strong's #4522, "mas," "gang or body of forced labourers, task-workers, labour band or gang, forced service, task-work, serfdom, tributary, tribute, levy, taskmasters, discomfited"

  Lamentations 1:1 (RSV)
  "How lonely sits the city that was full of people!
  How like a widow has she become,
  she that was great among the nations!
  She that was a princess among the cities
  has become a vassal."

  Marjorie
• 

  simwitness

  Marjorie,

  Thank you.

  There are 2 things that I have enjoyed about this and the KISS thread, and that is the simple, reasonable logic that you and AlanF have displayed. I have always found it amusing that others refuse to take the simple way, becuase they have been taught that it "must be harder than it is". It is that teaching, and that teaching alone that enslaves so many... It is just this enslavement that Christ was putting an end to. Too bad it only took a few days after his death to muck it all back up again. (Biblically speaking, of course).

  No leaps are required, no special "It really means this" is neccesary.

  And again, Scholar's insistant refusal to answer even the most basic direct question put to him.

  Scholar may be a "scholar" but he has not learned anything.
• 

  Alleymom

  Sim,

  There are 2 things that I have enjoyed about this and the KISS thread, and that is the simple, reasonable logic that you and AlanF have displayed.

  "Simplicity is the most difficult of all concepts."
  Dune: House Corrino.

  "Special knowledge can be a terrible disadvantage if it leads you too far along a path that you cannot explain anymore."
  Dune: House Harkonnen
• 

  Alleymom

  I would like to clarify something about the 539 date. (Simplicity is indeed the most difficult of concepts .)
  

  I realize that it sounds as if scholar and I are switching back and forth as to whether or not the 539 date is a trustworthy date. This is not actually the case. What is going on here is that scholar is trying to argue on both sides.

  The date of 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon is accepted by all modern scholars, but that is not to say that it is universally accepted (as scholar has claimed). The rabbis who accept the Seder Olam chronology as literal truth do not accept the 539 date. Scholar knows this, because he is the one who keeps appealing to the "Jewish commentaries" and to authors such as Eliezer Shulman. He would like to use them in support of one of his Bible interpretations, but he wants to ignore their actual chronology and their interpretation of the 70 years.

  Most commentaries either ignore the Seder Olam chronology or give it only passing mention, because it is not a position arrived at as a matter of scholarship, but as a matter of faith . The best treatment of the subject is Mitchell First's Jewish History in Conflict: A Study of the Major Discrepancy Between Rabbinic and Conventional Chronology, 1997, ISBN: 1568219709.

  Consider the following three systems of chronology for the neo-Babylonian period:
  
  

  1. The conventional chronology, which harmonizes with both the Bible and the archaeological artifacts.
     
     605 BCE -- Battle of Carchemish
     597 -- capture of Jerusalem, exile of Jehoiakin
     586/7 -- destruction of the first temple
     539 -- fall of Babylon
  2. The ancient rabbinic chronology of the Seder Olam, c. 2 nd century CE, which is interpreted as a symbolic rather than a literal chronology by most Jewish scholars, and which does not agree with the historical records.
     
     A.M. 3338 -- destruction of 1 st temple, ~422/421 BCE
     A.M. 3390 -- Koresh (Cyrus), ~ 369 BCE
     A.M. 3408 - consecration of the second temple, ~351 BCE.
  3. The WT chronology, which does not agree with the archeological and historical records, which cannot be harmonized with the Bible at Daniel 2:1 ( 7+ 3 does not equal 20) or at 2 Kings 24:1-2, and which is internally inconsistent: start with the WT's date of 539, count backwards through the kings and their reigns as listed in WT literature, and you do NOT arrive at 607 BCE.
     
     607 - destruction of the 1st temple
     539 - fall of Babylon

  Marjorie
• 

  Earnest

  Alleymom:

  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.

  As "scholar" has not taken the opportunity to answer this question, perhaps I could explain the WT's position on Daniel 2:1 as I understand it.

  As you observe, Daniel 1:1,2 is understood to refer to the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar when it says:

  In the third year of the kingship of Je·hoi'a·kim the king of Judah, Neb·u·chad·nez'zar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it. In time Jehovah gave into his hand Je·hoi'a·kim the king of Judah...

  As the WTS identifies this with the rebellion of Jehoiakim at 2 Kings 24:1, it "evidently" refers to his third year as vassal king to Nebuchadnezzar (i.e. his eleventh year of kingship, and Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year) otherwise it would not harmonise with the account in Kings :

  Twenty-five years old was Je·hoi'a·kim when he began to reign, and for eleven years he reigned in Jerusalem...In his days Neb·u·chad·nez'zar the king of Babylon came up, and so Je·hoi'a·kim became his servant for three years. However, he turned back and rebelled against him.

  So when Daniel 2:1 refers to " second year of the kingship of Neb·u·chad·nez'zar" this is clearly at odds with the understanding that he has already been reigning for eleven years or so. Quite clearly, if scripture does not contradict itself, either Daniel 1:1 or 2:1 is misunderstood and the WTS opted to "harmonise" chapter 2 with chapter 1 :

  Babylon the Great has Fallen, pp. 171-2 10 - Waiting in Exile for Babylon's Fall

  It could not have been before the twelfth year of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship that he held such examination and found Daniel to be exceptionally bright. How, then, shall we understand the statement in Daniel 2:1? It reads: "And in the

  second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams; and his spirit began to feel agitated, and his very sleep was made to be something beyond him." Since the king forgot the dream and Daniel finally volunteered both to recall the dream and to interpret it, Hebrew scholars propose that the Hebrew text of Daniel 2:1 should be "twelfth year" instead of "second year." However, the most reasonable and fitting suggestion is that this refers to the "second year" from a marked event, namely, from Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C. That is when the king of Babylon came to be the first one to hold world domination by God’s permission.

  And so Daniel 2:1 is thought to refer to a much later time, two years after the destruction of Jerusalem i.e. the twentieth year of his kinghip.

  This has been previously discussed on this forum at some length and several posters argued why this understanding is manifestly false. I found the arguments very convincing but I have to say I still find it quite difficult to harmonise these two chapters of Daniel. Anyway, I didn't paticularly want to talk about my understanding. What I found particularly interesting about the WT exegesis of Daniel 2:1 is that they are clearly unsure about giving it this slant. Consider these three references to this verse:

  All Scripture is Inspired, p.139 - Bible Book Number 27-Daniel

  Dream of the dreadful image (2:1-49). In the second year of his kingship (probably dating from Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E.), Nebuchadnezzar is agitated by a dream.

  Insight on the Scriptures, Vol.2, p.481 - Nebuchadnezzar

  His Dream of an Immense Image. The book of Daniel states that it was in "the second year" of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship (probably counting from the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. and therefore actually referring to his 20th regnal year) that Nebuchadnezzar had the dream about the golden-headed image. (Da 2:1)

  Insight on the Scriptures, Vol.1, pp.1185-6 - Image

  Images in the Book of Daniel. In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship (evidently counting from the time of his conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.), the Babylonian king had a dream, the effect of which greatly disturbed him, producing insomnia.

  Earnest
• 

  Alleymom

  Thank you so much, Earnest As someone who was never one of Jehovah's Witnesses, there is a lot I don't know about the finer points of their chronology.

  This has been previously discussed on this forum at some length and several posters argued why this understanding is manifestly false. I found the arguments very convincing but I have to say I still find it quite difficult to harmonise these two chapters of Daniel.

  Do you by any chance have a link to any of those previous discussions? The search feature seems to yield somewhat erratic results.

  In the last 2000 years there's certainly been much ink spilled over those two chapters of Daniel. Last night I was reading over Mark Mercer's article, "Daniel 1:1 and Jehoiakim's Three Years of Servitude," AUSS 27, no. 3, Autumn 1989. He makes some good arguments, imo, plus he does a nice job of summarizing the range of opinion, with some very good footnotes. Are you familiar with his article?

  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  Earnest --

  Last night I wrote to Simwitness and said that Mercer makes the very point Sim had brought up, that if Daniel were speaking of Jehoiakim's 3rd year of vassalage rather than his third year of reign, he would have used another word (namely ebed) instead of malkut.

  What I didn't mention is that Mercer references some articles on vassalage that sound interesting. I may try to look them up in the next week or so.

  Mercer writes: "For the usage of ['bd] ('servant') as a term of vassalge, see J. C. Greenfield, 'Some Aspects of Treaty Terminology,' in Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Papers (Jerusalem, 1967), 1:117-118. For examples, see 2 Kgs 16:7 and 1 Sam 27:12."

  He also references two other articles on vassal treaties:

  D.J. Wiseman, "Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon," Iraq 20 (1958): 3-4.
  R. Frankena, "The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon," OTS 14 (1965): 152.

  I'd especially like to see the Greenfield article. Sim was on the right track; we not only have a wealth of information regarding the meaning of malkut, it would appear that there may also be additional information concerning the usage of ebed = vassal in the ANE vassal treaties. (I think the Bible verses I cited last night give sufficient evidence for the use of ebed = vassal in the OT, but I'd be interested in the extra-Biblical evidence as well.)

  Marjorie
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  In a previous posting you refer to Mercer's article in the AUSS journal particularly with reference to his casual dismissal that Dan 1:1 could not apply to the end of Jehoiakim's reign. His reason for this is simply unacceptable because the Hebrew term malkut does not mean reign but is better suited to kingship, or the act of ruling rather than regnal years as implied by the choice of reign. You forget to mention that Mercer is probably writing from a SDA theological viewpoint and thus their chronology is more closely aligned to higher criticism than to the biblical narrative. Further, you omit to mention that Mercer acknowledges the many theories, five in fact, which try to place the beginning of Jehoiakims submission to Nebuchadnezzer. I would think that in keeping with sound WT scholarship, testimony of Josephus and Jewish commentators that the three year vassalage is located towards the end of his reign of 11 regnal years.

  scholar

  BA, MA studies in Religion

  .
• 

  onacruse

  What a great discussion!

  Craig (of the "eyes wide open" class)
• 

  Alleymom

  His reason for this is simply unacceptable because the Hebrew term malkut does not mean reign but is better suited to kingship, or the act of ruling rather than regnal years as implied by the choice of reign.

  Scholar,

  Here you go again <sigh>. Are you EVER going to address the fact that the NWT uses "reign" as well as"kingship" to translate malkut? How can you say that "the Hebrew term malkut does not mean reign" when I have listed the instances where the NWT translates it as "reign" and I have asked you to explain these occurrences.

  If "the Hebrew term malkut does not mean reign" does this mean the NWT erred when it translated it as "reign" in the verses I have listed?

  Marjorie