I for one thoroughly enjoy these threads. I find them interesting and informative. The only way it could be more fun would be to see it live.
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
toreador
I thinks its fascinating as well. I check the dang thing everyday, sometimes twice.
Tor
-
Alleymom
Response to Scholar's post #621 to Jeffro
I think you are a confused little boy! Indeed you will not obtain 607 by taking off 70 years from 539 but will simply arrive at the useless date of 609 which is a utterly meaningless date for both historical and chronological purposes. The Jonsson hypothesis tries but fails to ascribe anything relevant to 609, it would be be preferable to view the seventy years as a round number and begin the period from 605. Better still, throw the Jonsson garbage in the bin and use the more accurate WT chronology.
Neil ---
You have cited Jack Lundbom's Jeremiah 21-36 : A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary by (Anchor Bible Series) several times in this thread. On page 250, Lundbom writes:
" … [f]rom the actual end of the Assyrian empire (609/8 B.C.) to Babylon’s capture by Cyrus and the return of the exiles (539 B.C.) was almost precisely 70 years."
So Lundbom (who is your own source) does not agree with you that 609 is a "useless date" or an "utterly meaningless date for both historical and chronological purposes."
He says that 609/8 B.C. was the "actual end of the Assyrian empire."
On page 177 of his Handbook of Biblical Chronology (1998 edition), Jack Finegan writes:
"In the history of the ancient Orient the defeat in 609 B.C. of Ashur-uballit II, ruler in the western city of Haran of the last remnant of the Assyrian empire, by Nabopolassar of Babylon, marked the end of that empire and the rise to power of the Babylonian empire. ([section]430). Then in 539 Cyrus the Persian marched in victory into Babylon ([section]329) and the seventy years of Babylon and the seventy years of Jewish captivity were 'completed'. "
So Jack Finegan and Jack Lundbom are in agreement that 609 B.C.E. marked the end of the Assyrian empire.
It is puzzling that you continue to go on and on about the imaginary "Jonsson hypothesis". But it is even more puzzling that you say "The Jonsson hypothesis tries but fails to ascribe anything relevant to 609".
609 is NOT a "useless date" or an "utterly meaningless date for both historical and chronological purposes" as the above quotes from Jack Lundbom and Jack Finegan show.
Marjorie
-
Alleymom
Continued from previous post ...
Information on the fall of Assyria can be found in the "Fall of Nineveh" chronicle, in A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (1975) and at these pages on livius.org:
http://www.livius.org/ne-nn/nineveh/nineveh02.html#Fall
http://www.livius.org/ne-nn/nineveh/nineveh01.html#Introduction"Fall of Nineveh" Chronicle
The sixteenth year [610-609] In the month Ajaru [May] the king of Babylonia mustered his army and marched to Assyria. From the month [lacuna] until the month Arahsamna [November] he marched about victoriously in Assyria. In the month Arahsamnu the Medes, who had come to the help of the king of Babylonia, put their armies together and marched to Harran against Aššur-uballit, who had ascended to the throne in Assyria. Fear of the enemy overcame Aššur-uballit and the army of Egypt which had come to help him, and they abandoned the city. [lacuna] they crossed. The king of Babylonia reached Harran and [lacuna] he captured the city. He carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple. In the month Addaru the king of Babylonia left their [lacuna]. He went home. The Medes, who had come to help the king of Babylonia, withdrew.
The seventeenth year [609-608]: In the month Du'ûzu [July] Aššur-uballit, king of Assyria, with a large army from Egypt crossed the river Euphrates and marched against Harran to conquer it. [lacuna] They captured [a town on the road to Harran]. They defeated the garrison which the king of Babylonia had stationed inside. When they had defeated it they encamped against Harran. Until the month Ulûlu [September] they did battle against the city but achieved nothing. However, they did not withdraw. The king of Babylonia went to help his army and [lacuna] he went up to Izalla and the numerous cities in the mountains [lacuna] he set fire to their [lacuna]
At that time the army of [lacuna] march as far as the district of Urartu. In the land [lacuna] they plundered their [lacuna] The garrison which the king of [lacuna] had stationed in it set out. They went up to [lacuna]. The king of Babylonia went home.Here is some additional commentary from the Livius site:
A new king, whose name was Aššur-uballit, set up a kingdom in Harran. But he was no match for Nabopolassar, who, according to the Fall of Nineveh Chronicle , 'marched to Assyria victoriously' in the fifteenth and sixteenth year of his reign (612-609). King Aššur-uballit was forced to leave Harran.
He seems to have convinced the Egyptians to support his hopeless cause one more time. A large army under command of pharaoh Necho (610-595) advanced to the north. King Josiah of Judah, who had tried to conquer the former kingdom of Israel , tried to resist the invaders; the Second Book of Kings informs us that
while Josiah was king, pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, went up to the Euphrates river to
help the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but Necho faced
him and killed him at Megiddo. Josiah's servants brought his body in a chariot from Megiddo
to Jerusalem and buried him in his own tomb. [2 Kings 23.29-30a]
In June, Necho's men tried to recapture Harran for Aššur-uballit and they may have come close to victory, but they had to raise their siege of Harran in August 609. After this event, Aššur-uballit and Assyria disappear from the historical sources. The Babylonians and Egyptians would continue their struggle in Syria and Palestine.Here are two more sites:
"The commander of the Assyrian army in the west crowned himself king in the city of Harran, assuming the name of the founder of the empire, Ashur-Uballit II (612-609 BC). Ashur-Uballit had to face both the Babylonians and the Medes. They conquered Harran in 610, without, however, destroying the city completely. In 609 the remaining Assyrian troops had to capitulate. With this event Assyria disappeared from history."
http://www.allempires.com/empires/assyria/assyria1.htm612 - 609 BC Ashur-uballit II Last king.
610 BC Harran is conquered, but not completely destroyed.
609 BC The remaining Assyrians surrender. http://www.kessler-web.co.uk/History/KingListsMiddEast/MesopotamiaAssyria.htmNeil, it certainly seems as if scholars do not agree with you that 609 B.C.E. is a "useless date" and an "utterly meaningless date for both historical and chronological purposes."
Marjorie
-
Jeffro
Scholar, you call me a "confused little boy" to mask your own lack of scholastic effort, then suggest that your theory is backed by archaeology. You state that historians report nothing significant for the year 609. I don't have time to dredge up every possible record, but a very quick search of the British Museum reveals that your comment is an outright lie. As I have previously stated, in 609BC Babylon replaced Assyria as world power, and its 70 years of domination began. This is completely ratified by information held at the British Museum. For example see here and here.
Specifically the quotes "Following the defeat of the Assyrians (as described in the Chronicle for 616-609 BC)" and "In 610/9 Ashur-uballit and the Egyptians who had come to his aid withdrew west of the Euphrates and Napopolassar sacked Harran. The Assyrians and Egyptians attempted to retake the region, but their siege failed. From this point on the Assyrians and their king disappear from history."
Scholar you are just wrong. -
Jeffro
Scholar,
As far as the passages in Zechariah are concerned, the angel in Zechariah 1:12 says "how long will you yourself not show mercy to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, whom you have denounced these seventy years?". The angel indicates a 70 year period, but does not say that it had ended; rather the question 'how long' suggests very much that it had not yet ended. As the period is of a known length, it becomes clear that the question is asked both in frustration, and in hoped-for anticipation of its end. (Compare this to the expression at Amos 8:5, where the question "How long will it be before the new moon passes?" is asked. Here too a period of known length is referred to, and the point of the question is eager anticipation concerning the end of the period.) This is supported by Zechariah 7:1-5 where, in 517BC, Regem-melech and Sharezer asked the priests if the fasting could now end (therefore they were still fasting), to which the priests replied referring to the seventy years which had now ended.
Simply put, the priests were asked if fasting (that commemorated the destruction of the temple (Jeremiah 52:12) and the death of Gedaliah (Jeremiah 41:1)) should continue and the priests replied that they had been fasting for 70 years (NOT 90 YEARS). This was in Darius' 4th year (Zec 7:1). That 70-year period therefore started in 587, in harmony with secular history.
The bible agrees with archaeology. It is only the Society's interpretation of the desolation of Jerusalem that is at odds with anything.
The reasoning that the Society uses for saying Jerusalem was exiled for the entire 70 years is contradicted by its reasoning for saying that the 70 years of Isaiah 23:15 did not fully apply to Tyre. -
scholar
Alleymom
Marjorie
I am fully aware of the controversy over a terminus a quo for the Fall of Assyria, the popular date of 609 is accepted by some scholars. The Jonsson hypothesis dogmatically asserts that 609 marks the definite end of the Assyrian empire is simply an opinion. The historical circumstances surrounding the end of the empire are rather fuzzy and a close reading of Jonsson's argument demonstrates this for if the matter was so certain then why does Jonsson hover around 605 and 609. It appears that Jonsson wants to leave his options open.
Scholars also promote the view that Assyria ended with the fall of Nineveh, its capital in the 14th year of Nabopolassar which is commonly reckoned 612 BCE. The famous ABD, 4:147 agrees with this view and does not mention 609 in connection with the late history of Assyria. This celebrated authority says: "In conclusion, one must observe that the 'fall of Assyria' was really a transfer of power to the Babylonians, who under the Nabopolassar and later Nebuchadnezzer 11 simply took over the Assyrian Empire and continued to run it in the Assyrian manner. The Assyrians as a people continued to live in the region but had become subjects of the Babylonian monarchs".
So, history proves that the end of Assyria cannot be dated precisely and thus unsuitable for chronological purposes and therefore it would be a most unworthy candidate to begin the 'seventy years'.
scholar JW
-
scholar
Jeffro
Nope! You are not reading the Zechariah texts correctly. The fact that the period of 'seventy years' is mentioned as a finite number, ie. 70 must mean and can only mean that period was an already fulfilled existent otherwise it wouls have been a greater or lesser number. Further the context of both chapters proves absolutely that the period of mournings and denunciations were of seventy yeras denunciation because thes applied to Judah and the land. The texts do not refer to a period of ninety years but only seventy years but if we calculate the time of the annual fastings from the Fall to the Darius then it would ammount to that figure roughly;
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
I give up... and not because I think scholar is in any way right. It's like talking to a slug with below-average intelligence. Nothing gets through.
Scholar, your arguments are full of flaws in logic, you call upon (usually unstated) sources that are in the minority of secular opinion (for the rare cases that you present any source at all), and you rely on information from the Society for which there is no secular backing whatsoever.
You do not give any explanation for valid logical, verifiable information presented to you that is not consistent with your model and you provide no way for that information to fit your own model.
You condescendingly refer to anything you disagree with as the 'Jonsson model', (as if this disproves any argument?) though I hadn't even heard of Jonsson, and had only used the bible, Watchtower publications, Strong's concordance and the British Museum to disprove 607 when I first started questioning the conflict the Society has with Jeremiah 25.
You dismiss any interpretation of the scriptures that the Society disagrees with even where such explanation is completely consistent with the bible, and you support the Society's inconsistent application of interpretations by applying different rules to similarly-worded scriptures.
'Scholar', to call yourself a scholar is downright insulting to academia. -
Alleymom
So, history proves that the end of Assyria cannot be dated precisely and thus unsuitable for chronological purposes and therefore it would be a most unworthy candidate to begin the 'seventy years'.
Neil ---
Scholars agree that Nineveh was destroyed in 612 BCE.
Scholars agree that the war continued after the destruction of Nineveh.
Scholars agree that another Assyrian king, Aššur-uballit, reigned after the fall of Nineveh.
Scholars agree that Aššur-uballit reigned from 612-609 BCE.
These dates are not in dispute.As a friend of mine on another forum says, you're doing the "teaberry shuffle."
You're claiming that the fall of Assyria cannot be dated precisely. According to you, there is -- gasp --- Uncertainty! Sound the tocsin!
But, Neil, as you know, scholars do agree on the dates I gave above. The only question is one of interpretation. How does one define "the end of Assyria"? Should it be reckoned from the fall of Nineveh, with the subsequent military action being regarded as mere "mopping up"? Or should it be reckoned from the last year of the last king, Aššur-uballit? As long as a scholar specifies what he means by "the end of the Assyrian empire," there is no ambiguity at all.Remember, your original claim was that the date 609 BCE was useless and that nothing relevant happened. That is not true.
And you continue to harp on "THE" seventy years when you know that Jewish and Christian Bible scholars observe that there are several seventy-year periods. You keep talking about this and that event being a "candidate" --- you wouldn't be doing that if the Bible specified one and only one seventy-year period and specified the events which marked the beginning and end of that ONE period.
You insist on taking the destruction of Jerusalem as THE starting point for your ONE AND ONLY seventy-year period. But this is not the way Jewish scholars have traditionally interpreted the texts, going back at least as far as the second century C.E. Seder 'Olam Rabbah, which calculates seventy years between the destruction of the first Temple and the consecration of the Second Temple. This traditional interpretation matches perfectly with the modern dates of 586-516 BCE. Earlier in this thread I cited Eliezer Shulman, your own source, whose chronological charts based on traditional Jewish sources show several seventy-year periods.
Modern scholars do not accept the dates or regnal years in the Seder 'Olam Rabbah as accurate, but it is certainly of interest that the traditional rabbinic interpretation of the "70 years of Jerusalem's desolation" is from the destruction of the First Temple to the consecration of the Second Temple, which would be our 586-516 BCE. See Eliezer Shulman, The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament, page 143.
Marjorie