You are quite right, Marjorie. Way back in 2003 I wrote that :I have not found this suggestion (that the translation of Daniel 1:1 as "kingship" indicates vassalage) anywhere in WTS literature. Of course, "scholar" is as entitled to his pet theories as anybody else but my opinion is that it has more to do with chasing hares than discussing chronology.Interestingly, at that time "scholar" responded :In reference to the NWT translation of malkut as kingship, I have not meant to imply that this means vassalage even though Jehoiakim was in fact a vassal to Neco and Nebuchadnezzar for much of his reign.
Thank you, Earnest. I was puzzled at the time by Scholar's response, since he had explicitly said that the word "kingship" suggests vassalage by implication.
[page 8 of the Furuli thread, click here ]
Alleymom
I did not say that the translation 'kingship' means vassalage at all but the fact is that Jehoiakim was a vassal to Neb. The word kingship suggests vassalage by implication and does just mean reign as a pure chronological datum. In other words one needs to becareful in imputing a chronological datim to this verse as the NWT uses kingship rather than reign.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
Neil (Scholar) --- perhaps you could clarify this for us. For two years now, you have continued to focus on the NWT's use of "kingship" rather than "reign" in Daniel 1:1. Your arguments all seem to revolve around the fact that Jehoiakim was a vassal to Nebuchadnezzar.
Earnest said: I have not found this suggestion (that the translation of Daniel 1:1 as "kingship" indicates vassalage) anywhere in WTS literature.
Scholar --- If the WTS does not say that "kingship" indicates vassalage, then why have you continued to insist for the past two years that the NWT's rendering of malkut by "kingship" has something to tell us regarding the meaning of "in the third year of the malkut of Jehoiakim, king of Judah"?
Regards,
Marjorie