Scholar said:
Reply to post 538
Seeing as this is my 536th post, either scholar was replying to a post I have not yet made, or he was asking me to reply to his 538th post, which said:
stevenyc
If it was not 607 then What is it then?
scholar JW
The faulty logic in expecting an exact alternative date in lieu of the erroneous 607 date has been indicated previously.
I do ignore the form of reckoning that you employ in a awkward attempt to harmonize Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1 but I simply reject it because these two verses are historically incompatible. There is no historical or biblical fact that connects these two texts. Jeremiah refers to an epochal event at the near beginning of Jehoiakim's reign and Daniel refers to an epocha event that occurred at the end of Jehoiakim's reign.
I have already provided information that indicates that the bible, Babylonian cuneiform documents, Berossus, and Josephus are all completely compatible with captives being taken in Jehoiakim's 3rd year (accession-year system).
The fact that Nebuchadnezzer was not a king in the third regnal year of Jehoiakim's reign is an insurmountable objection to your interpretation for the reason it was not until a year later that his in Jeholiakim's fourth year that Neb became a 'king' in any sense at all. When Daniel was taken to Babylon it was most certainly the case that Neb was a king because he had ruled as king for seven or eight years.
Jehoiakim's 3rd year (accession-year system) was indeed Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, and just prior to that his father Nabopolassar was very ill and Josephus quotes Berossus as saying that the administration had secured the throne for Nebuchadnezzar awaiting his return, so there is absolutely no problem here. Your reasoning implies that the accession-year system would be applied by Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar but not Jehoiakim, which is unlikely as Daniel wrote after being trained in Babylonian customs, and would have applied the accession-year system to both.
Jeremiah's reckoning that Jehoiakim's fourth year was Nebuchadnezzar's first, is equivalent to Daniel's reckoning that Jehoiakim's third year was Nebuchadnezzar's accession year; this is confirmed by Daniel 2:1, three (cardinal) years later, which was in Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year.
Yes 2 Kings 24:13 refers to Neb bringing all of the teasures of the house of Jehovah in that first deporatation to Babylon but Daniel refers to the additional fact that some of the utensils of the house of Jehovah were brought to Babylon on that same occasion. So, one event with different items were part of the booty which included all the treasures, some utensils, and higher stationed people of the land. These two texts are referring to the same event.
Daniel wasn't writing to
supplement what Jeremiah had recorded in 2 Kings. 2 Kings 24:13 indicates that "all the treasures of the house of Jehovah and the treasures of the king’s house" were taken; there is simply nothing for Daniel to supplement anyway. To argue that the utensils, made from precious metals, were not included in the treasure is rediculous, and is simply a semantic last-ditch effort to suggest that the same event is being discussed.
No, Daniel obviously used a different method of reckoning as shown in Daniel 1:1 and 2 wherein Daniel employs a secondary reckoning of the years of the king's reigns is demonstrated. He reckons by counting from epochal events within the reign that put the king in a new relationship and this is well proven by Josephus comments on the coincidence of Jehoiakim's reign and that of Neb reign in their respective eight and 11th year.
"Obviously"? By this you mean it's the only way the Society's interpretation could work. Indeed, why would Daniel inexplicably switch between dating methods without any other frame of reference, leaving the reader to guess when he was talking about. The simple fact is that Daniel consistently refers to kings' reigns using the accession-year system. It is unclear how you think Josephus proves your point, as he only indicates relative reigns consistent with what I have said.
If it is the case that you have self-originated this model then you are to be congratualated but it is still the old and current theory within scholarship.
Thank you both for your congratulations, and for acknowledging that I have arrived at the correct conclusion as supported by experts in the field.
The comment by Berossus on the'captives taken from the Jews' does not necessarilly equate with Jewish captives. At any rate Berossus conflicts with Josephus and the Bible on this specific point.
Josephus explicitly says he agrees with Berossus, and only says that Judah was not "conquered" at that time; he never said that no captives or booty were taken. Both are in agreement with the sequence of events in Daniel chapters 1 and 2.
The third year of Jehoiakim' kingship does indeed coincide with his death in his 11 th year because it was that year that Neb replaced hin with Jehoiachin and it was that same year that Neb invaded Jerusalem and deported the first captiveds to Babylon. ;No other solution provides an ; account of this three years of vassalage which could have only happened towards the end and not the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign.
Jehoiakim paid a tribute to Nebuchadnezzar for his last three years, but that does not place the third year of his reign at that time, and there is nothing to suggest that it should.
