by ithinkisee 24 Replies latest watchtower bible
I know he refers to the 70 years originally in one place and later changes it to 50 years later in his life when he got more info - but other than that, is there any other relevant stuff from his works regarding Nebuchadnezzar laying the smack-down on the temple in 586/87?
Thanks,
ithinkisee
Yes.
In three separate texts, Josephus gives three different dates for the accession of Cyrus -- all them much too early:
"Now the number of years that passed from its first foundation, which was laid by king Solomon, till this its destruction, which happened in the second year of the reign of Vespasian, are collected to be one thousand one hundred and thirty, besides seven months and fifteen days; and from the second building of it, which was done by Haggai, in the second year of Cyrus the king, till its destruction under Vespasian, there were six hundred and thirty-nine years and forty-five days" (Josephus, Bell. Jud. 6.4.8).
(If 639 years had elapsed between the second year of Cyrus and AD 70, the period would have begun in 569 BC. The reference to Haggai however suggests that Josephus had confused Cyrus with Darius; of course, if 569 BC was supposed to be the second year of Darius, Josephus' chronology would have been even further off. Moreover, Josephus also indicates that 491 years had elapsed from the year Solomon laid the Temple's foundation to the second year of Cyrus -- it would be interesting to see how this tallies with the 70 and 50-year periods.)
"Now the number of years during the rule of these thirteen, from the day when our fathers departed out of Egypt, under Moses their leader, until the building of that temple which king Solomon erected at Jerusalem, were six hundred and twelve. After those thirteen high priests, eighteen took the high priesthood at Jerusalem, one succession to another, from the days of king Solomon, until Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, made an expedition against that city, and burnt the temple, and removed our nation into Babylon, and then took Josadek, the high priest, captive; the times of these high priests were four hundred and sixty-six years, six months, and ten days, while the Jews were still under the regal government. But after the term of seventy years' captivity under the Babylonians, Cyrus, king of Persia, sent the Jews from Babylon to their own land again, and gave them leave to rebuild their temple; at which time Jesus, the son of Josadek, took the high priesthood over the captives when they were returned home. Now he and his posterity, who were in all fifteen, until king Antiochus Eupator, were under a democratical government for four hundred and fourteen years" (Josephus, Antiquities 20.10).
(Here he indicates that 414 years elapsed between the release from captivity and the accession of Antiochus V Eupator in 164 BC; this places the first year of Cyrus in 578 BC. Note also the inconsistency here of stating 466 years as intervening between "the building of the temple ... in the days of king Solomon" and the burning of the Temple, and the prior assumption of 491 years spanning between the year Solomon laid the cornerstone and the return from exile. Since it took 7 years to build the Temple (1 Kings 6:37-38), this would seem to leave only 18-25 years for the exile. So Josephus again does not seem to be consistent)
"Now when their father Hyrcanus was dead, the eldest son Aristobulus, intending to change the government into a kingdom, for so he resolved to do, first of all put a diadem on his head, four hundred eighty and one years and three months after the people had been delivered from the Babylonish slavery, and were returned to their own country again" (Josephus, Antiquities 13.11.1).
(In this passage he states that 481 years passed between the first year of Cyrus (cf. Ezra 1:1-4) and the accession of Aristobulus in 105 BC. This gives 586-585 BC as the first year of Cyrus. This differs as much as 16 years compared to the chronology of the first passage)
Josephus was not the only writer of the period who overestimated the length of the Persian period. Daniel, ch. 9 (written c. 167-164 BC) similarly erred in the length of the period following the exile; this aided later attempts to assign the fulfillment of the prophecy to a much later period than the author had intended. The Jewish historian Demetrius (third century BC) also reckoned things as much as 70 years too early:
"The tribe of Judah and [those of] Benjamin and Levi were not taken captive by Sennacherib, but from this captivity to the last [captivity], which Nebuchadnezzer effected out of Jerusalem, there were 128 years and 6 months. But from the time when the ten tribes of Samaria were taken captive to that of Ptolemy IV, there were 573 years and 9 months. But from the time [of the captivity] of Jerusalem [to Ptolemy IV], there were 338 years and 3 months" (Demetrius, On the Kings of Judaea, Fr. 6).
(The key anchor date for this chronology is 221 BC, the accession of King Ptolemy IV. If 573 years had passed since the exile of the Ten Tribes, then Demetrius would place the latter event around 794 BC -- about 72 years too early. On the other hand, he gives the date of the exile of Judah and Benjamin as 559 BC from the same anchor date -- about 26 years too late. But there is an internal inconsistency here, because he also indicates that 128 1/2 years intervened between the two exiles. But 235 years is indicated by the two other chronological statements -- an excess of about 107 years. One solution is to argue that the figure of 338 years became corrupt in textual transmission between Demetrius and Clement of Alexandria in the third century AD, and was originally 438 years. This brings the three calculations much closer into harmony, and the excess 7 years could be accounted for by 2 Kings 17:2-6, 18:9 which gives 7 years from the time Shalmaneser exiled the tribes and the fall of Samaria. On this emendation, 438 years from 221 BC would place the exile under Nebuchadnezzer in 659 BC -- about 72 years too early, exactly the same error made in the date of the exile of the Ten Tribes)
All of this shows that the actual length of time from the date of the exile or from Cyrus was not accurately known in the late Hellenistic and Roman periods, at least by these three writers.
Josephus lists the destruction of the temple by the kings of Babylon in 588 (the heading under which it is detailed). This is in my 1905 original History of the antiquities of the Jews by Josephus.
I think he said something like this, "Since there is no zero year and the Romans are in charge, just dont crucify me please. I'll say whatever you want!"
W.Once
Hi I think I see! (nice tits!)
I know he refers to the 70 years originally in one place and later changes it to 50 years later in his life when he got more info - but other than that, is there any other relevant stuff from his works regarding Nebuchadnezzar laying the smack-down on the temple in 586/87?
You are MISINFORMED. This is a very, very old and repeated handwave. Josephus in "Against Apion" (1:21) mentions a 50-year period connected with the reign of Cyrus and the desolation period. But to characterize this ias "later in his life when he got more info" is not accurate since it suggests he changed his mind about the 70 years. Thus in the same work, "Against Apion" at 1:19, just two paragraphs earlier he again repeats the devastation of 70 years! So unless he aged quite a bit from paragraph 19 to 21 so that it was characterized as "later in his life when he got more information" you have been misinformed.
Of note, and I won't detail it here though I will look up the two quotes and post them, Cyrus ruled for 20 years over Persia before becoming king over Babylon when he started counting his rulership years over again as king of both the Medes and Persians. You can theoretically, therefore, reconcile the paragraph 19 reference to" seventy years" and the paragraph 21 reference to "fifty years", without having Josephus contradict himself by realizing that the fifty-year reference was the first 50 years of the 70 years before Cyrus became king of Persia. There is credence to this because in this chapter is mentioned the fall of Jerusalem in year 19 and a reference to 54 years, which would be the period of time from the fall of Jerusalem to when Cyrus became king in Persia, versus 50 years of desolation which Josephus clearly knew began with the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar, 4 years after the fall of Jerusalem.
But I don't blame you for getting this wrong. This "fifty year" reference and the context that Josephus changed his mind about the 70 years after getting better information is just a quick argument to dismiss his reference to the 70 years which directly contradicts the Babylonian chronology which is too short. Fine Josephus mentions 50 years, but they don't tell you in just the previous paragraph he again claims there were 70 years. So he doesn't change his mind about the 70 years. Josephus knew about the revisions and was likely playing the cryptic games with this reference, perhaps thinking the revisionists would latch onto the "fifty" year reference and ignore the 70-year reference in the previous paragaph. But this is very "Jewish". To make a complex statement like a ridding, two conflicting references on the surface but that have a specific resolution. In this case it's the double "kingship" of Cyrus. Thus it becomes true that Cyrus "became king" after 70 years but also after "fifty years."
I'm sure there will be other opinions, but since there was a 20-year difference in the reign of Cyrus at Persia and Babylon, you can''t claim Josephus is contradicting himself. And since in the same late reference he again mentions the 70 years, you can't claim he gave that idea up for the fifty years, though those needing to dismiss Josephus quickly bring that up "he changed his mind" with the fifty-year reference when he did no such thing if he is claiming 70 years in a previous paragraph in the same work.
JC
Good thread. Thanks Leolaia for the information.
It seems given the quoted passages that it would be fairly easy to dismiss Josephus' dates and chronologies due to inconsistencies. Are there any writings that do so? Or is JCanon's post partially correct?
Here are the actual quotes in question. The first is from Antiquities 11:1 where Josephus counts 70 years from the time the "poor people" went off their land, that is, in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar at the time of the last deportation (Jer. 52:30). He further applies the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy to this specific seventy years and does not mention "desolation" but "servitude." Following that are the two quotes in his later work, "Against Apion" where he first mentions the seventy years and then mentions "fifty years" just two paragraphs later. a seeming contradiction unless his second reference was related to the fifty years ending when Cyrus first became king of Persia and not after 70 years when he became king at Babylon. These two dates are currently 559 and 539BCE for the rulerships of Cyrus.
"ANTIQUITIES" 11:1:11. IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1)which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity.
AGAINST APION, 1:19And when he was relating the acts of this king, he describes to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt, and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how, by that means, he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia.
AGAINST APION 1:2121. These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth["nineteenth" in other copies] year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius. I will now add the records of the Phoenicians; for it will not be superfluous to give the reader demonstrations more than enough on this occasion. In them we have this enumeration of the times of their several kings: "Nabuchodonosor besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king; after him reigned Baal, ten years; after him were judges appointed, who judged the people: Ecnibalus, the son of Baslacus, two months; Chelbes, the son of Abdeus, ten months; Abbar, the high priest, three months; Mitgonus and Gerastratus, the sons of Abdelemus, were judges six years; after whom Balatorus reigned one year; after his death they sent and fetched Merbalus from Babylon, who reigned four years; after his death they sent for his brother Hirom, who reigned twenty years. Under his reign Cyrus became king of Persia." So that the whole interval is fifty-four years besides three months; for in the seventh year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar he began to besiege Tyre, and Cyrus the Persian took the kingdom in the fourteenth year of Hirom. So that the records of the Chaldeans and Tyrians agree with our writings about this temple; and the testimonies here produced are an indisputable and undeniable attestation to the antiquity of our nation. And I suppose that what I have already said may be sufficient to such as are not very contentious.
JOSEPHUS PLAYING NUMBERS GAMES: Just an added note here. Some believe that the references to the 13-year seige of Tyre was a cryptic way Josephus had of making reference to the fall of Babylon within the 20-year rule of Cyrus. Here's how that theory works. It's a game of substitution. Cyrus gets substituted for Hirom and Babylon for Tyre, Cyrus for Darius, all mentioned here. The various numbers are 54 years, the "nineteenth" of Nebuchadnezzar when Jerusalem fell, Cyrus taking the kingdom in the 14th year of Hirom.
First of all, please note if this entire period of 54 years from the fall of Jerusalem or fifty years from the last deportation as per Josephus' previous reference is applied until the time that Cyrus takes the kingdom, then Cyrus whould have become king at the end of this 54 and 50-year period which would including the entire 20-year rule of Hirom. Which doesn't work. Intead, he claims Cyrus took the kingdom in the 14th year of Cyrus.
But note how these numbers work out when compared to the actual chronology. Cyrus took over Persia when he conquered Astyages in the 5th year of Nabonidus, that means he became king in Babylon in his 21st year counting from year 1. But if you count 20 years from the 7th year of Nabonidus, then he becomes king in his 20th year from year 7. This is the interval assigned to the reign of Hirom, 20 years beginning year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar.
Only Jospheus is pulling our legs here since Hirom was well-known to the Jews to be a king during the time of Solomon. But note what happens when you date events based upon 20 years beginning year 7 of Nabonidus which is substituted for Nebuchadnezzar. The 13-year siege of Tyre beginning year 7 is precisely the year Babylon falls in relation to year 7 of Nabonidus, followed by Darius the Mede coming to the throne for 6 years.
With this information, we can determine just how long Nabonidus ruled before Darius the Mede's 6-year rule based upon the 20 years of Cyrus as king of Persia. Subtract 6 years from 20 and that leaves you 14 years. 14 plus 5 is 19 years. Of course, 14 years from year 6 of Nabonidus is the same as 13 years from year 7, the length of the siege of Tyre.
So in other words, if you count 20 years beginning year 7 of Nabonidus to represent the 20 year rule of "Hirom" then Babylon falls in the 13th year and Darius the Mede becomes king in his 14th year. Which is too much of a coincidence not to suspect that this was Josephus' way of secretly giving us the lost of chronology of the last 20 years of Cyrus, especially in relation to "Darius" (who is mentioned) and the fall of Babylon which is being referenced as the fall of Tyre. Here is a rough timeline for those two years so you can see how it works -- it's kind of hard to explain.
A
01----------Nabonidus begins his rule
02
03
04
05
06------Year 6 Cyrus begins 20-year rule
07-----01 Year 7 begins 20-year of "Hirom" and 13-year seige of Tyre, only meaning Babylon
08-----02
09-----03
10-----04
11-----05
12-----06
13-----07
14----08
15----09
16---10
17----11
18----12
19----13th year of seige Babylon falls, 13th year of Hirom
01----14th year of Hirom "Cyrus takes kingdom" only it's "Darius" beginning 6-year rule
02---Year 2 Darius the Mede, 15th of Hirom
03---Year 3 Darius the Mede, 16th of Hirom
04----Year 4 Darius the Mede, 17th of Hirom
05----Year 5 Darius the Mede, 18th of Hirom
06----Year 6 of Darius the Mede, 19th of Hirom
01---Year 1 of Cyrus over Babylon, 20th of Hirom
The cryptic references are "54" being the number of years from the fall of Jerusalem until when Cyrus first became king of Persia.
The cryptic reference for "50 years" is the time of the last deportation until Cyrus first becomes king in Persia.
Counting from year 7 of Nabonidus, Babylon falls in year 13, and a kingship occurs in year 14. Darius the Mede began his official rule in the 14th year after the 7th year of Nabonidus.
The above comparison might seem far out, but it's there and we can't rule out that Josephus lost track of the actual chronology. Couple that with his "seventy years" refers just two paragraphs before that seems to contradict the fifty year reference and it all makes sense. This is Josephus' own cryptic way of trying to explain in relation to the rule of Nabonidus and the 20-year rule of Cyrus when Babylon fell and when Darius the Mede came to the throne; Babylon fell in the 13th year after year 7 of Nabonidus and Darius the Mede became king for 6 years in the 14th year after the 7th of Nabonidus.
Because Cyrus became king twice, once in Pesia and later in Babylon, Josephus can play on that and contradict himself with the "fifty years" for those who don't know. But since the 50 years works with Cyrus first becoming king in Persia after fifty years but also works when he became king in Babylon at 70 years, Josephus cannot be said to be contradicting himself, simply playing around with the historical references. Jewish readers would be further tipped off as well since they know that the temple was finished in the "sixth" year of Darius I and not the second. Josephus plays these "number games" elsewhere in his writings if you want another example.
But regardless of the above "coincidence", no one can legitimately claim Josephus changed his mind after research discoveries and corrected the seventy years to fifty in his last work. That is simply erroneous and uninformed since in the same work he mentions the fifty years, he also reiterates the seventy years again. Hardly a mind change unless he got an epiphany between paragraph 19 and 21 and wanted us to share the epiphany by not changing the 70-year reference, publishing it along with the 50-year reference in his last work! Hardly! Josephus knew the chronology had been revised and he was playing both sides of the fence. His way of providing the history of Babylon and it's fall during the 20-year rule of Cyrus was to substitute Tyre for Babylon. Josephus knew the original chronology and this was his way of perserving the history without making a more obvious contradiction.
By the way, if you want a complete revision, it would be for the reign of Evil-Merodach which he claims (and correctly so) in Antiquities that he ruled for 18 years, but in "Against Apion" only 2 years, the number in the popular chronology.
Basically, the NB Period is 26 years shorter than assigned by the Bible. The reductions are 2 years from Nebuchadnezzar (45 vs 43), 16 years from Evil-Merodach, who ruled 18 now 2, 2 years from Nabonidus who ruled 19 now 17, and the entire 6-year rule of Darius the Mede reduced to zero in the revised chronology. Joephus gets it right that Evil-Merodach ruled for 18 years in "Antiquities" but claims only 2 years in "Against Apion." Too bad he didn't do that with the "seevnty years" reference. Josephus' reflection of the "seventy years" and when they began is precisely as the Bible likewise indicates.
JC
josephus is just as sloppy with dates as the bible is.
Hello Listener
It seems given the quoted passages that it would be fairly easy to dismiss Josephus' dates and chronologies due to inconsistencies. Are there any writings that do so? Or is JCanon's post partially correct?
There is no "partially" correct to it. The people who believe with all their heart that the chronology dating the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE must dismiss Josephus any way they can since he absolutely claims the 70 years the Bible does beginning with the last deportation.
They throw the "fifty year" reference out there and say "It's his last statement" and claims he must have changed his mind but they don't tell you the last time he mentions the 70 years was in a previous paragraph in the same work.
So did he change his mind as some claim? Sure he did, but not after years of research as they claim and presume. If you want to claim he changed his mind you'd have to argue he got some vital information while he was writing Apion sometime between paragraph 19 and paragraph 21! If he had really changed his mind, then he would not have mentioned the 70 years again.
But again, this is a very nice quick way to sweep Josephus' 70-year claim under the carpet and keep on trekking as long as you don't know about the 70-year reference in the same work. This argument only works if they don't mention his last reference to the 70 years.
Of course, I have my own way of making the 50-year reference work out. That's me. But I'll leave it up to you. Ask whoeveer posted this and any other "authority" you trust "What about the 70 years in the previous paragraph?" We've heard what the "experts" had to say about the fifty years in 1:21, let's see what the experts have to say about the "seventy years" in 1:19.
Well?
JC
Alright, I'm going to print this out and read it thoroughly. Then I'm going to do some reference searching myself and review.
I'll pick this up when I'm complete. This could be some time but I'm interested in having a reply to others that I fully understand and can stand behind.
