OK just a short comment about an simple scribal goof. Nehemiah 1:1 says that in the ninth month of the 20th year of Artexerxes Nehemiah learns about that the temple was not built after 110 years or so after the Persians had sent colonizers Nehemiah 2:1 says that in the first month of the same 20th year (8 months earlier!) he speaks to the King about this matter. It seems that a later editor added the introductory words to preface the prayer which appears to be original. He or some other editor added the date without recognizing the problem it caused.
time warp
by peacefulpete 9 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
gumby
Nehemiah 2
- Artaxerxes Sends Nehemiah to Jerusalem
- 1
- In the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when wine was brought for him, I took the wine and gave it to the king. I had not been sad in his presence before;
- 2
- so the king asked me, "Why does your face look so sad when you are not ill? This can be nothing but sadness of heart." I was very much afraid,
- 3
- but I said to the king, "May the king live forever! Why should my face not look sad when the city where my fathers are buried lies in ruins, and its gates have been destroyed by fire?"
Maybe he ALREADY knew of this news in the one story and was simply relating it on a different day than he learned of it as was mentioned in the other chapter. Hey.....it could happen!
Gumby
-
Justin
Let's quote these verses. Nehemiah 1:1 (KJV): "The words of Nehemiah the Son of Hachaliah. And it came to pass in the month Chisleu [Kislev], in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the palace . . ." Then Nehemiah gets the news that the wall of Jerusalem was still broken down. Now Kislev is the ninth month of the Hebrew calendar. Nehemiah 2:1 (the supposed contradiction) states: "And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king . . ." Then Nehemiah tells the king what we've learned in the first passage. Nisan is the first month of the Hebrew calendar.
Can this be harmonized? Yes, because the twentieth year of Artaxerxes does not need to correspond with the Hebrew calendar year. That is, Artaxerxes' twentieth year could have begun in the latter part of the calendar year and ended in the earlier part. The month Kislev, even though it was the seventh month of the calendar year, could have elapsed early in Artxerxes' twentieth year.
In fact, The One Volume Bible Commentary edited by J.R. Dummelow (not a fundamentalist commentary) states: "The year intended is probably reckoned to begin with the month of his accession, not with the first calendar month Nisan, since the events that happended in Chisleu, the ninth month, are related before those that occurred in Nisan . . ." (p. 278)
-
Leolaia
Oh, I thought this was about a real time warp in the Bible, like the shadow on Hezekiah's steps going backwards.
Then there is the great "bullet time" passage in the Infancy Gospel of James where time stops completely, with everything frozen and suspended in the air in that moment when time stops....and then suddenly everything starts moving again.
Biblical sci-fi.
-
Narkissos
As regards the chronological problems of Ezra-Nehemiah (which may actually cover a historical Nehemiah/Ezra sequence) this is only the tip of the iceberg.
However the book as a whole seems to refer consistently to the Hebrew calendar, indicating the months by their ordinal number (cf. the "first month" in Ezra 7:9).
-
peacefulpete
I'm afraid there is no easy bail out for me on this one. The reasons for many commentators concluding that 1:1 is the work of a later hand are mainly internal. I just don't have the time or desire to pursue this. Suffice it to say that the harmonization offered by Justin is not convincing to many including theologians. Here are some commentaries that assign 1:1 and a few other verses to a later hand.
Blenkinsopp, J. 1989 Ezra-Nehemiah (London: SCM).
Bright, J. 1981 A History of Israel (3rd edn; London: SCM) Excursus II. Clines, D. J. A. 1984 Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Coggins, R. J. 1975 Samaritans and Jews (Oxford: Blackwell). Cowley, A. 1923 Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B. C. (Oxford: The Clarendon Press). Fensham, F. C. 1983 The books of Ezra and Nehemiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Grabbe, L. L. 1998 Ezra-Nehemiah London : Routledge. Myers, J. M. 1965 Ezra, Nehemiah (Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday). Rowley, H. H. 1963 Men of God (London: Nelson), essays 7 and 8. Williamson, H.G.M. 1987 Ezra, Nehemiah (Old Testament Guide; Sheffield: JSOT). To this list we could add H.E. Ryle who concluded the same back in 1880s The book of Nehemiah was as most know includes material once joined to Ezra and 1 and 2nd Chronicles. The additions became so many and scrambled that they were separated. The later hand likely added a date and introduction feeling it necesaary for narrative purposes. His not mentioning the name of the king in 1:1 seems only natural if we undwerstand that the editor assumed the name because it apears in 2:1. Otherwise this is rather odd. It is the opnion of many that this later editor gave little thought to the possible confusion he causes with his dating his prayer to the 9th month.Ackroyd, P. R. 1973 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (London: SCM). -
peacefulpete
I have no idea why my post just scrambled like that.
-
Leolaia
It's because it has a table. If you go into the html and remove all the
and similar tags, the text should appear normally. -
Justin
My harmonization was based on the texts that were initially referenced in the argument. They do not say 'the ninth month and the first month of Artaxerxes' twentieth year,' they give the names of the Hebrew months, which happen to be the first and ninth months of the calendar. This should not be confused with the regnal year of a king.
Suppose we have a fiscal year which begins in July. Our twentieth fiscal year would therefore begin in July. In that fiscal year, the ninth month of the calendar year (September) would come before the first month of the calendar year (January). If you like, you may shift the argument to the larger context of Ezra-Nehemiah, but the original argument is based on the fallacy of comparing apples with pears (in this case, regnal and calendar years).
-
peacefulpete
We understood your point Justin and you may be correct. I was just recalling something I wondered years ago and posted this thread hastily unwilling to thoroughly defend the entire argument for the 1:1 verse as being a later addition. Your comment is appreciated.