Posts by Alleymom

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Alleymom

Response to Scholar

:If you turn to page 2 under the heading 2. Chronological solutions, you will notice that the crux of the matter concerns differing calendrical systems which goes to the heart of the 586/587 debate.

2 . Chronological SolutionsSome scholars, who dealt with the chronology of the monarchic period, recorded both of the dates mentioned without coming down on one side or the other 4 .

Other scholars suggest solving the contradiction between Kings and Jeremiah by positing that the chronologies used in the two books differ: according to one chronological system the year began at Nisan while according to the other system at Tishri 5 . These scholars dealt primarily with the differences between Kings and Jeremiah in regard to the regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 25,8; Jer 52,29), but did not discuss the contradictory dates of the Temple's destruction.

4 See the bibliography cited in D.J.A. CLINES, "Regnal Year Reckoning in the Last Years of the Kingdom of Judah", On the Way to the Postmodern. Old Testament Essays 1967-1998 (JSOTSS 292; Sheffield 1998) I, 395-425. See also G. GALIL, The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah (Leiden ? New York 1996) 118, 158.

5 For bibliography see CLINES, "Regnal Year".

Neil,

He's saying that the other scholars listed in these bibliographies were concerned with the apparent contradiction between 2 Kings 25:8 and Jer. 52:29 ("nineteenth year" vs. "eighteenth year") rather than the apparent contradiction between 2 kings 25:8 and Jer. 52:12 ("seventh day" vs. "tenth day").

Avioz is interested in the question of which day the temple was destroyed on, not which year.

Note his summary of the article:

This article deals with the contradiction between 2 Kgs 25 and Jer 52 regarding the date on which the First Temple was destroyed. Comparing the descriptions of the destruction in Kings and in Jeremiah shows that the two descriptions were borrowed from a common third source. In our view, this common third source is better preserved in Jeremiah 52 than in 2 Kings 25. We therefore deduce that Jeremiah 52 preserves the more exact date of the Temple's destruction: the tenth of Ab.

He doesn't even mention 586 or 587 in the summary, because that's not what his article is about. His article is about whether the Temple was destroyed on the tenth of Ab or the seventh of Ab.

Incidentally, can you tell me what the WTS position is on that question? Thank you.

Marjorie

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Alleymom

Scholar
Post 587 of 587

A special number, to be sure!

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Alleymom

Response to Scholar's message #587 to Alan ---

As usual I have to baby you and hold your hand. The jounal Biblica is available online and you only need to key in 2003. However, let me warn you that if you wish to go down the road of solving the knotty problem of 586/7 you will need to much further reading of the subject, do not rely just on the most recent articles because this subjject has more needles than a porcupine.

Since the Biblica article is talking about whether the Temple was destroyed on the seventh day of the month or the tenth day of the month, then, yes, I would agree that one would have to do further reading if one had any interest in the 586/7 problem.

Marjorie

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Alleymom

Neil --

Have you actually read Avioz's article?

It starts out " When was the first Temple destroyed, according to the Bible? We find two contradictory answers to this question, one in 2 Kgs 25,7-8, and the other in Jer 52,12. "

He then quotes those two passages:

Jer 52,12-13 In the fifth month, on the tenth day of the month,
which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadrezzar,
king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan ... burned the house

2 Kgs 25,8-9

In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month,
which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar,
king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan ... burned the house

Neil, the article is about whether the Temple was destroyed on the tenth day of the month or the seventh day of the month.

Marjorie

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Alleymom

Response to Scholar's post #581

[...] it was only just a few months earlier that another study was published in the journal Biblica by Michael Avioz on the same subject of 'When Was the First Temple Destroyed, According to the Bible'. The author of this study concludes that "It seems that the contradiction between the books of Kings and Jeremiah regarding the date of the First Temple's destruction cannot be resolved either by textual emendation or by chronological sol.utions'

Neil --

You left out the final two sentences of Avioz's concluding paragraph.

It seems that the contradiction between the books of Kings and Jeremiah regarding the date of the First Temple's destruction cannot be resolved either by textual emendation or by chronological solutions. We hold that there is no point in trying to harmonize these contradictory dates, and that only one of the dates should be regarded as ancient. This date, according to our view, is the tenth of Ab, as is written in Jeremiah 52 Michael Avioz. "When Was the First Temple Destroyed, According to the Bible?" Biblica 84 (2003) 562-565

http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibli84.html

Marjorie

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Alleymom

The Avioz article is available online.

http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibli84.html
Michael AVIOZ, "When Was the First Temple Destroyed, According to the Bible?" Biblica 84(2003) 562-565. This article deals with the contradiction between 2 Kgs 25 and Jer 52 regarding the date on which the First Temple was destroyed. Comparing the descriptions of the destruction in Kings and in Jeremiah shows that the two descriptions were borrowed from a common third source. In our view, this common third source is better preserved in Jeremiah 52 than in 2 Kings 25. We therefore deduce that Jeremiah 52 preserves the more exact date of the Temple?s destruction: the tenth of Ab. This claim is based on the fact that the description of the destruction in Kings is in any case truncated, and is therefore likely that it contains the textual corruptions as opposed to Jeremiah.

Marjorie

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Alleymom

Since we've been discussing the Hebrew words zeh and hu', I thought now would be a great time to post the following take-off on Abbott & Costello's famous "Who's on First?" dialogue. ABBOTT & COSTELLO LEARN HEBREW by Rabbi Jack Moline

ABBOTT: I see you're here for your Hebrew lesson.
COSTELLO: I'm ready to learn.
A: Now, the first thing you must understand is that Hebrew and English have many words which sound alike, but they do not mean the same thing.
C: Sure, I understand.
A: Now, don't be too quick to say that.
C: How stupid do you think I am - don't answer that. It's simple - some words in Hebrew sound like words in English, but they don't mean the same.
A: Precisely.
C: We have that word in English, too. What does it mean in Hebrew?
A: No, no. Precisely is an English word.
C: I didn't come here to learn English, I came to learn Hebrew. So make with the Hebrew.
A: Fine. Let's start with mee.
C: You.
A: No, mee.
C: Fine, we'll start with you.
A: No, we'll start with mee.
C: Okay, have it your way.
A: Now, mee is who.
C: You is Abbott.
A: No, no, no. Mee is who.
C: You is Abbott.
A: You don't understand.
C: I don't understand? Did you just say me is who?
A: Yes I did. Mee is who.
C: You is Abbott.
A: No, you misunderstand what I am saying. Tell me about mee.
C: Well, you're a nice enough guy.
A: No, no. Tell me about mee!
C: Who?
A: Precisely.
C: Precisely what?
A: Precisely who.
C: It's precisely whom!
A: No, mee is who.
C: Don't start that again - go on to something else.
A: All right. Hu is he.
C: Who is he?
A: Yes.
C: I don't know. Who is he?
A: Sure you do. You just said it.
C: I just said what?
A: Hu is he.
C: Who is he?
A: Precisely.
C: Again with the precisely! Precisely who?
A: No, precisely he.
C: Precisely he? Who is he?
A: Precisely!
C: And what about me?
A: Who.
C : me, me, me!
A : Who, who, who!
C : What are you, an owl? Me! Who is me?
A : No, hu is he!
C: I don't know, maybe he is me!
A: No, hee is she!
C: (STARE AT ABBOTT) Do his parents know about this?
A: About what?
C: About her!
A: What about her?
C: That she is he!
A: No, you've got it wrong - hee is she!
C:' Then who is he?
A: Precisely!
C: Who?
A: He!
C: Me?
A: Who!
C: He?
A; She!
C: Who is she?
A: No, hu is he.
C: I don't care who is he, I want to know who is she?
A: No, that's not right.
C: How can it not be right? I said it. I was standing here when I said it, and I know me.
A: Who.
C: Who?
A: Precisely!
C: Me! Me is that he you are talking about! He is me!
A: No, hee is she!
C: Wait a Minute, wait a minute! I'm trying to learn a little Hebrew, and now I can't even speak English. Let me review.
A: Go ahead.
C: Now first You want to know me is who.
A: Correct.
C: And then you say who is he.
A: Absolutely.
C: And then you tell me he is she.
A & C: Precisely!
C : Now look at this logically. If me is who, and who is he, and he is she, don't it stand to reason that me is she?
A: Who?
C: She!
A: That is he!
C: Who is he?
A & C: Precisely!
C: I have just about had it. You have me confused I want to go home. You know what I want? Ma!
A: What.
C I said Ma.
A: What.
Q: What are you, deaf? I want Ma!
A: What!
C: Not what, who!
A: He!
C: Not he! Ma is not he!
A: Of course not! Hu is he!
C I don't know. I don't know. I don't care. I don't care who is he, he is she, me is who, ma is what. I just want to go home now and play with my dog.
A: Fish.
C Fish?
A: Dag is fish.
C: That's all, I'm outa here.

============

If you didn't get it, read this and then try it again. Hebrew word pronounced "who" = English word "he" Hebrew word pronounced "mee" = English word "who" Hebrew word pronounced "hee" = English word "she" Hebrew word pronounced "ma" = English word "what" Hebrew word pronounced "dag" = English word "fish"

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Alleymom

Leolaia --

It would be quite striking to compare these with a list of examples of hu' + DURATION, especially if these include clear examples of a long completed duration which is being discursively referenced in the present.

As in my hypothetical example of the Rabbi talking to his congregation about their ancestors and "THOSE forty years" when their clothes did not wear out and their feet did not swell?

I'll check Even-Shoshan, which is an absolutely wonderful resource. I'm curious myself.

Actually, I'd also be interested to know if the distant demonstrative occurs in both the singular and the plural with numerals.

Marjorie

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Alleymom

In Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor's An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 1990, the section on demonstative pronouns includes a reference to anarthrous zeh occurring with numerals in expressions of time. ("Anarthrous" means without the definite article. And "zeh," for those who have missed the earlier posts, is the demonstrative "THIS".)

All of the phrases I highlighted in my examples of zeh + number of time units were instances of anarthrous zeh with a numeral in an expression of time, which is what Waltke is talking about.

On page 311, in section 17.4.2, Waltke says that anarthrous zeh "occurs with numerals in expressions of time and appears to emphasize the time (cf. the English redundancies 'this here' and 'that there'). "

He gives Joshua 14:10 (which is in my list) as an example:
"Now then, YHWH has kept me alive, just as he promised, these forty-five years."

What Waltke is saying is that the zeh emphasizes the time: THESE forty-five years ~ "this here" forty-five year period.

Also of interest is Waltke's discussion of zeh ("this") + yom ("day") with the definite article "ha".

In 17.4.2.b he discusses the phrase "ha-yom ha-zeh". He says (and I am transliterating the Hebrew):

"The phrase [ha-yom ha-zeh] is almost invariably adverbial. It specifies the time when an action occurs (#4) and is thus equivalent to adverbial [ha-yom]."

His example is Joshua 3:7 "Today I will begin to exalt you." [Today = ha-yom ha-zeh.]

He continues: "In dating events, [ha-yom ha-hu' ] is usually used for past and future events, while [ha-yom ha-zeh] ... is reserved for present time; the near deictic can, however, be used to refer to far distant time (#5). His example #5 is Gen. 7:11 "In the six-hundredth year of Noah's life ... on this day ..." [ba-yom ha-zeh].

In plain English, he is saying that the phrase "THAT day," with the definite article and the demonstrative hu' ("that") rather than the demonstative zeh ("this"), is used for past and future events.

Let me decode his reference to the "near deictic". A "deictic" is linguist talk for a pointer word. The demonstratives "this," "that," "these," and "those" have "deictic" force. They point to objects or events which are NEAR or FAR. Waltke says the NEAR deictic "this" CAN be used to refer to far distant time.

His example was Gen. 7:11. "In the six-hundredth year of Noah's life ... on this day ..." [ba-yom ha-zeh]. This differs from our examples of zeh in that the zeh is arthrous (has the definite article) and there is no numeral used to express units of time.

After discussing "today" [ha-yom ha-zeh] and "that day" [ha-yom ha-hu'], both of which have the definite article "ha," he then comes to the phrase we are interested in:

anarthrous zeh (= "THIS" without the definite article) + numeral. I quoted this section at the beginning of this message.

>>> On page 311, in section 17.4.2, Waltke says that anarthrous zeh "occurs with numerals in expressions of time and appears to emphasize the time (cf. the English redundancies 'this here' and 'that there'). " <<<

Once again, the examples I gave in message 457 were instances of anarthrous zeh + number of time units.

Marjorie

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Alleymom

I'd like to take a closer look at some of the verses which have zeh + number of time units.

In Jeremiah 25:3, note that the formula "FROM date #1 ... TO this day" and the phrase "these [zeh] twenty-three years". are in apposition.

Jeremiah 25:3 explicitly "From the thirteenth year of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah, even to this [hazeh] day, these twenty-three years the word of the Lord has come to me, and I have spoken to you again and again, but you have not listened.

The thing to take note of in the three verses from Deuteronomy is that we know the date on Moses' speech. Deut. 1:1 says that Moses speaks these words to the children of Israel on "the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh month." Therefore when we see the phrase "these forty years" we know that the reference is not to some forty-year period which took place in the distant past. "These forty years" refers to the immediately preceding forty years.

Deuteronomy 2:7 "For the Lord your God has blessed you in all that you have done; He has known your wanderings through this great wilderness. These forty years the Lord your God has been with you; you have not lacked a thing."

Deuteronomy 8:2 And you shall remember all the way which the Lord your God has led you in the wilderness
these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not.

Deuteronomy 8:4 Your clothing did not wear out on you, nor did your foot swell these forty years.

Suppose that thousands of years later a Jewish rabbi is talking to his congregation about the wonders God did for the children of Israel. He would not say "THESE forty years". He would say "THOSE forty years": "Your ancestors' clothing did not wear out, nor did their feet swell THOSE forty years." "The Lord God was with them THOSE forty years." "The Lord God led your ancestors in the wilderness THOSE forty years."

Marjorie