Posts by Earnest

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

Earnest

aChristian:

Thank you for your words of wisdom in approaching biblical chronology. Rest assured that I am quite amenable to the various dates that we have been given by historians unless there is good reason for doubt. And I certainly do not include personal convenience or Bible-code type games as good reason. On the other hand I am also aware that historians are humans too, and they can have their own agenda as to how history should be interpreted. But that shouldn't normally affect the dates themselves. I trust you will let us know when you do publish your work so we can devote a thread to your conclusions. Seriously, I am sure many (including myself) will be interested to read it.

AlanF:

Earnest : I don't think we should limit our study simply to avoid agreement with any aspect of WTS chronology.
AlanF : Agreed. What specifically did you have in mind?

When I initially read the chronological texts in Daniel I had the impression that there was more to the reigns of Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzar than met the eye. That impression still remains although I am not certain how they should be understood. But whatever my conclusions are they should be considered on their own merits and not be immediately classed as either for or against the WTS. I have to agree it is sometimes difficult to know whether conclusions we reach are by reason or indoctrination, whether we believe because it is true or simply because we want to believe. And presenting our conclusions on a public forum can certainly help us examine ourselves. But truth must remain the criterion by which we measure things, and not acceptance or rejection of WT dogma.

In this respect I wonder if I may comment on the recent discussion of 2 Chronicles 36: 7,10,18. I am at a bit of a loss to understand the significance of whether the "utensils" of verse 7 are different from the "desirable articles" of verse 10. I cannot see how that affects how many deportations there were. But having said that, I must then say that I do think the distinction in translation of keliy in verse 10 is well-grounded.

The word keliy itself has a myriad meanings and that is because it can refer to "anything finished, made, produced" (Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Brown, Driver, Briggs, 1929, p.479) It can have the meanings of (1) an article or object, especially something of value; (2) a utensil, implement or apparatus including a weapon, an implement of music, a tool, a yoke, sacred utensils; (3) a receptacle such as a sack, a bag, an earthenware cooking pot; and (4) a reed-boat.

The context in which it is used in 2 Chronicles 36 limits it to a sacred utensil but even that has a wide range. The Lexicon (p.480) has this to say:

2.f. as general term for utensils and furniture of Solomon's palace [1 Kings 10:21=2 Chronicles 9:20]; especially (very often) of the tabernacle [Exodus 25:9,39; 27:3] (in Hex always P), and temple [1 Kings 7:45,47,48; 2 Kings 12:14]; of both palace and temple [Jeremiah 27:18,19,21]; combinations are utensils of the tabernacle [Exodus 27:19], utensils of the altar [Exodus 38:3], utensils of Jehovah [Isaiah 52:11], utensils of the House of Jehovah [Jeremiah 27:16; 28:3,6; Ezra 1:7], desirable articles of the House of Jehovah [2 Chronicles 36:10], utensils of the House of God [2 Chronicles 28:24,24; 36:18; Nehemiah 13:9; Daniel 1:2], utensils of the Sanctuary [Nehemiah 10:39], utensils of ministry [Numbers 4:12], service utensils [Numbers 4:26; 1 Chronicles 9:28; 28:14,14], utensils of the service of Jehovah's House [1 Chronicles 28:13], equipment [Numbers 4:32]; also holy utensils [1 Kings 8:4; 1 Chronicles 9:29]; of appliances of idol-worship [2 Kings 23:4].

The NWT pretty much keeps to its standard of "assigning one meaning to each major word and holding to that meaning as far as the context permits". There are instances where a word other than utensils is used. For example, in 1 Kings 10:21 & 2 Chronicles 9:20 it says :

"And all the drinking vessels [keliy] of King Solomon were of gold, and all the vessels [keliy] of the House of the Forest of Lebanon were of pure gold..."

Clearly, in this verse the utensils of King Solomon were qualified as being drinking utensils and so it had a more specific meaning than the word had elsewhere. Another interesting verse is Numbers 4:32 which reads :

"and the pillars of the courtyard round about and their socket pedestals and their tent pins and their tent cords together with all their equipment [keliy] and all their service. And by their names you will assign the equipment [keliy] for which they are obligated, as their load."

Here again the context demands a meaning that will embrace more than utensils and so 'equipment' is used. Other translations are 'furnishings' (NKJV), 'instruments' (Webster's). Now the difference between 2 Chronicles 36:10 and verses 7 & 18 is that the utensils [keliy] in verse 10 are qualified as being "desirable" [chemdah] whereas those in verses 7 and 18 are not. So a different (but equally correct) word is used to show there is a distinction between the two types of keliy which would not have been as obvious if the same English word had been used.

I really do not think it was done in order to obfuscate the issue about how many deportations there were. The text seems quite clear without such silly arguments, as you demonstrated to "scholar". But it is equally clear that the writer was making a distinction between keliy and chemdah keliy.

Earnest

Edited by - Earnest on 1 February 2003 3:7:58

2

HEY EARNEST!! (regarding 607)

by slippy in

earnest, .

i have been following the recent 1914 discussion that you are involved in.

i want to share a suggestion with you.

Earnest

Hi Slippy,

In general I think it helpful if all ideas are shared on the open forum as it helps others to consider your thoughts too. But if you wish to contact me privately my email is now open.

Earnest

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

Earnest

Hi Alan,

Given the above, your statement that "it does show that Furuli has good reason for his caution" is true only with respect to how solidly Strm. Kambys. 400. establishes 539, and not with respect to any other documents.

Quite so. I was speaking of Strm. Kambys. 400 only and agree with Jonsson that "to fix the date for the fall of Babylon, it is much safer to start with the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and count forward, instead of beginning with the reign of Cambyses and counting backward." (GTR, 1998, p.87.)

Now, we know that the Society rejects VAT 4956 (cf. Appendix to chapter 14 in Let Your Kingdom Come) simply because it contradicts its own chronology. The Society allows that the astronomical information may be correct (how could it not, in view of the actual evidence as summarized by Newton?) but claims that the resulting dates may be applied to the wrong king or whatever. Yet -- displaying its usual hypocrisy -- the Society turns around and accepts Str. Kambys. 400 lock, stock and barrel -- astronomical information plus application to the reign of Cambyses! It is this gross scholastic dishonesty that you ought to come to grips with, Earnest.

I take your point but also consider that the WTS, like Ptolemy, is sometimes right despite scholastic dishonesty. 'scholar' has pointed out that Jonsson's hypothesis is one of several and I don't think we should limit our study simply to avoid agreement with any aspect of WTS chronology.

Earnest

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

Earnest

I will not be commenting on Daniel myself just yet as I received Carl Jonsson's 'Gentile Time Reconsidered' today and will be spending the next week or two indulging myself in the mysterious numbers of the Hebrew kings. I will probably also be spending some time checking his references to understand the context of what is written.

However, I would like to comment further on Furuli's statement that "there can be some uncertainty with [539], due to the witness of the tablet Strm Kambys 400, which is not as good as we would have wished". I expressed the view that Furuli's doubts were genuine and can now confirm that is so. In The Gentile Times Reconsidered, 1998, p.86, the footnote states regarding this text :

Despite the problems with the text, the two lunar eclipses...are believed to be based on true observations. The tablet, therefore, does seem to establish the seventh year of Cambyses as 523/522 B.C.E. Professor Robert R. Newton...concluded: "The most likely situation is that the year is [523/22 B.C.E.] and that there are some scribal errors in the record. Nonetheless, the confirmation of the year is not as strong as we would like."

Furuli's comment that "the witness of the tablet Strm Kambys 400 is not as good as we would have wished" is the same as Newton's "the confirmation of the year is not as strong as we would like". This is with good reason. The document "gives the times and magnitudes of two lunar eclipses, a conjunction of Mercury with the moon, 5 statements of the dates when Venus had its first or last visibility after or before passing the sun, and 4 such statements for Mars. If we assume that the 7th year of Kambyses began in the Spring of [523], the times and magnitudes of the lunar eclipses agree fairly well with the stated values, 3 statements about Venus are accurate while 2 are impossible, and 3 statements about Mars are accurate while 1 is impossible." (R.R.Newton, The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy,1977,p.375.)

And, although Newton says that "the times and magnitudes of the lunar eclipses agree fairly well with the stated values", in his book Ancient Planetary Observations and the Validity of Ephemeris Time (1976, p.341) he says regarding the second eclipse that "both possibilities for the recorded time [i.e. the beginning and the middle of the eclipse] are much earlier than the beginning of the eclipse, so there is probably an error in the record." He later discounts this eclipse when calculating average discrepancies because "the record is almost surely in error".

In terms of our larger discussion, this is what Alan might call "small potatoes". It does not affect any of the dates of which we speak except that Strm Kambys 400 cannot, imo, be said to support 539 B.C.E. as an astronomically fixed date. But it does show that Furuli has good reason for his caution.

scholar : I have researched this subject thoroughly using the Society's publications, commentaries etc and Jonsson's GTR, 3rd edition, 1998, Appendix article 'The Third Year of Jehoiakim', pp.335-344. I set out on paper a chart containing dates (secular and Society's), reigns for Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzar, brief description of each historical events, relevant scriptural texts and the synchronisms between the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiakim. This chart presents in a simple and visual way the complete range of data.

If you are able to produce a scan of this chart please do so. I am sure it would be of interest to many.

Earnest

Edited to remove criticism of aChristian in light of his subsequent modesty.

Edited by - Earnest on 28 January 2003 20:31:2

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

Earnest

Looking forward to your next post. Please don't rush. I much prefer that you take your time and cover all your bases.

Alan, I have taken you at your word and am spending some time over this. As you, aChristian and scholar have all recommended that I read what Carl Jonsson has to say about the seventy years I have ordered his most recent edition of 'The Gentile Times Reconsidered' to supplement what has already been said. I have had his second edition for the last ten years or so and was impressed with his scholarship when I studied it. I have also obtained a commentary on Jeremiah (ICC) and will be consulting some of the books recommended by 'scholar'. This is not really the route I wanted to go down because truth be told it is not that important to me. When I studied GTR ten years ago I was not entirely convinced of Jonsson's case but I was convinced that there were other valid interpretations of scripture which did not point to 1914. So while there are many beliefs that I share with JWs this is not one of them. Not because it is definitely, absolutely wrong as you maintain...but because it is not definitely, absolutely right. Yet it's clear this is of interest to many (and I think you should be given a run for your money) so I will return with what I find.

In the meantime I would like to make some of the articles 'scholar' referred to available to the forum for consideration. This is an excursus on 'Seventy Years' in Volume 27 of the 'Word Biblical Commentary', 'Jeremiah 26-52', 1995, pp.73-81:

The concept of seventy years as the measure of Israel's subjugation under Babylonian rule occurs six times in the OT: Jer 25:11-12; 29:10; Zech 1:12; 7:5; Dan 9:2; 2 Chr 36:21. In addition, Isa 23:15,17 promises that the LORD will deal with Tyre at the end of seventy years, a period equivalent to a king's lifetime. Ps 90:10 give seventy years as the typical human lifespan, filled with suffering, but passing quickly. The number seventy, the product of the symbolic numbers seven and ten, is the measure of completeness in Gen 46:27; Deut 10:22; Gen 50:3; Judg 1:7; 1 Sam 6:19; 2 Sam 24:15.
Seventy years also appears in an inscription of Esarhaddon that states that Marduk declared seventy years of punishment against Babylon. This extrabiblical use may be coincidental, or it may be evidence of a scribal convention. Possibly a conventional number of years for a human lifetime - a long, but not unimaginable period (Ps 90:10; Isa 23:15) - was used in the ancient Near East to express the typical duration of divine punishment (Esarhaddon inscription; Isa 23:15). This conventional time period turned out to correspond closely to the actual length of Babylonian domination, or the temple's desolation, so the motif became an important part of biblical descriptions of those events.None of the OT occurrences, however, designates the precise dates (i.e., regnal years) for the beginning or ending of the seventy-year span. 2 Chron 36 comes closest by naming the first year of Cyrus in v 22, following the mention of seventy years in v 21. Cyrus's occupation of Babylon marked the terminus of Babylonian rule over the Jews. The complete context implies, however, that Chronicles is counting the years of the temple's desolation, which did not end with Cyrus's edict in 538 B.C. Whitley ["The Term Seventy Years Captivity." VT 4 (1954) 60-72] is correct, therefore, in seeing the seventy years in 2 Chr 36 as the period from the temple's destruction in 586 to the completion of the second temple in 515 B.C. (Whitley says 516; pp.68-69.) Whitley concludes that 586-16 is the specific time indicated by "seventy years" in Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Daniel also, even though the period is described as pertaining to Babylonian rule in Jer 25 and 29.
Other terminal dates have been proposed. Nebuchadrezzar's victory at Carchemish and accession to the throne in 605 B.C. marked the beginning of Babylonian hegemony in Syria-Palestine. Cyrus's occupation of Babylon in 539 brought it to an end. These dates, a span of sixty-six years, fit the descriptions in Jer 25:11 (seventy years' service to the king of Babylon), 25:12 (Babylon punished after seventy years), and 29:10 (seventy years completed for Babylon). Thompson [The Word of the Lord in Jeremiah, Tyndale Old Testament Lecture, 1959] (547) observes that seventy-three years passed from the fall of Nineveh (612) to the fall of Babylon (539). It is also interesting to note that 609 was precisely seventy years prior to 539. In 609 Josiah died, and Jerusalem was made to accept her first foreign-appointed king, Jehoiakim, who eventually switched his allegiance from Pharaoh to Nebuchadrezzar.
Zechariah looks back on the past seventy years, which had been filled with God's anger (1:12) and with mourning and fasting by the people (7:5), and asks if the end is near. The verses appear in oracles dated, respectively, in 522 and 520 B.C. They focus upon the period of the temple's desolation, which was a major concern of Zechariah's ministry. The results of Babylonian conquest had endured longer than Babylon herself. Although there is no mention of a divine promise, these passages imply the expectation of an end to Jerusalem's suffering after seventy years.
Both 2 Chr 36 and Dan 9 engage in further interpretation and calculation with the number seventy. Gabriel informs Daniel (9:24) that the seventy-years prophecy read in the scroll of Jeremiah really means seventy weeks of years, seventy times seven or 490 years. Furthermore, Dan 9:25 places the beginning of the second week of years in 539 or 538, at the issuance of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem...The Chronicler offers another theological interpretation of the seventy years, this time by counting backward. The seventy years make up for seventy sabbatical years that were never observed (Lev 25:1-7; 26:27-35). Seventy seven-year periods, 490 years, had passed without the required observance. The beginning of this period would have coincided with the initiation of the Israelite monarchy in the eleventh century, which is where the Chronicler's narrative history begins (1 Chr 10).
Babylon's seventy years in Jer 29:10 should be interpreted both politically and personally. The political interpretation gives to the number seventy a meaning within international history as a more or less precise count of the time elapsed between two significant political events. Subsequent interpretation, beginning with 2 Chr 36 and Dan 9, has given attention to the coherence of the seventy-years prophecy with the known events of history. 2 Chr 36 reports its fulfillment...The Daniel passage seems to be concerned with a delay in fulfillment. The seventy-years prophecy was true, but its full meaning had to be learned from further revelation (9:25).
Many contemporary commentators attribute 29:10 to the subsequent interpretation of Jeremiah's letter in vv 4-7, which gives no hint of an eventual return from exile. Some interpreters conclude that the seventy-years prophecy was added only after it was fulfilled...Another solution, put forward by Thiel (WMANT 52, 1981, p.17), dates 29:10 to a time around 550, when the eventual demise of Babylon was certain but had not yet occurred. Whitley...argues for a precise period of seventy actual years, 586-516 (VT 7 [1957] 417).

I will try to include details of what Whitley argued in the next installment.

Earnest

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

Earnest

Much information has been provided by aChristian, AlanF and cyberguy regarding "the third year of Jehoiakim" (Daniel 1:1) and " the second year of Nebuchadnezzar" (Daniel 2:1). For the sake of simplicity I will first state my conclusions on these two time periods before addressing some of the many issues raised in getting the chronology right.

AlanF wrote that

Daniel 1:1 has perplexed Bible scholars for centuries. Many explanations have been offered, but few seem to jibe completely with all known data. This being so it would be very foolish of me to suggest that my understanding is the only one possible. So, in making my case I am saying I think my understanding is reasonable but recognise that all explanations of these passages have their problems.

This passage (Dan.1:1) says "In the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim the king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it. In time Jehovah gave into his hand Jehoiakim the king of Judah and a part of the utensils of the house of the true God...".

I compared it with the record of his reign at 2 Kings 23 and concluded that as it said nothing about a siege of Jerusalem prior to his becoming servant of Nebuchadnezzar (for three years) it was more reasonable to understand "the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim" as referring to his third year as a vassal king when he rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. A number of reasons were subsequently given by AlanF and aChristian for rejecting this understanding but in fact Alan also brought to my attention evidence that Daniel's reference was not the third year of Jehoiakim's reign. He referred to Jeremiah 46:2 : "For Egypt, concerning the military force of Pharaoh Necho the king of Egypt, who happened to be by the river Euphrates at Carchemish, whom Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, the king of Judah." Quite clearly, if Egypt was only defeated by Nebuchadnezzar in Jehoiakim's fourth year then he was still subject to Pharaoh Necho (2 Chronicles 36:1-4) in his third year which contradicts a literal understanding of Daniel 1. Both a Christian and AlanF argued that "Daniel, as a Babylonian official, would likely have used the Babylonian accession-year system of reckoning the reigns of kings, with Nisan-Nisan dating -- not just for Babylonian kings but for Jewish kings", as opposed to the non-accession year system of reckoning the reigns of kings used by Jeremiah. The effect of this would be that the Babylonian regnal years would be numbered one year less than those in Judaea. But it seems to me most

improbable that Daniel would have used the Babylonian accession-year system for reckoning the reign of Jehoiakim, for this reason : he had already spent at least three years under Jehoiakim's reign and had doubtless during that time spoken of his reign as Jeremiah did, i.e. without an accession year. While it would be reasonable for Daniel to refer to the reign of the Babylonian kings according to the Babylonian system, it seems quite unreasonable that he would change a frame of reference he was already using towards a Judean king. Further, Daniel 9:1,2 (which refers to "the first year of his [Darius] reigning" as "the first year", not the accession year) suggests he did not use the accession-year system even when he was in Babylon. At the end of the day it is a difficult verse to harmonise with the chronological record and I think the tone of aChristian's post (in saying that according to the Watchtower Society, "the third year of Jehoiakim" does not really mean "the third year of Jehoiakim) ignores the very real difficulties of harmonising chronology.

But that is far less difficult than an attempt to make "the second year of Nebuchadnezzar" really mean the second year of Nebuchadnezzar. Consider, Daniel was apparently brought to the land of Shinar when Nebuchadnezzar was already king (1:1,2). They were then taught the ways and language of Babylon for three full years before being presented to the king (1:5,18). But according to 2:1 Nebuchadnezzar had his dream of the image in his second year. When his wise men could not tell him his dream he ordered all the wise men of Babylon to be destroyed. "...and they looked for Daniel and his companions, for them to be killed." So, if 2:1 is the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign it means that these four were already included in "the wise men of Babylon" at least a year before they had finished their training. What happens next ? Daniel reveals the dream and its meaning to Nebuchadnezzar and so grateful is he that he pays homage to Daniel and "made Daniel someone great, and many big gifts he gave to him, and he made him the ruler over all the jurisdictional district of Babylon and the chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon. And...he appointed over the administration of the jurisdictional district of Babylon Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, but Daniel was in the court of the king" (2:48,49). Now, if 2:1 is the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign then this all happened before the end of their three full years of training. Ok. Then at the end of the three years "the king had said to bring them in...And the king began to speak with them, and out of them all no one was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah; and they continued to stand before the king" (1:18,19). Hey, but I thought Daniel was already chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon. The time scale just does not add up to me. AlanF suggests that as Daniel was already known to have "understanding in all sorts of visions and dreams" before the end of their three years (1:17), it indicates that the incident related in Daniel 2 occurred during that period of education. I think the contrary is true. The fact that "visions and dreams" is in the plural shows clearly that there were other visions and dreams that Daniel understood, and if he had already interpreted the king's dream at this stage it's inexplicable that it was not referred to in verse 17. To me the obvious sense of verse 17 is to set the scene for Daniel's subsequent interpretation of chapter 2.

On the other hand, if the "second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar" (2:1) refers to his kingship dating from Jerusalem's overthrow then it is easy to understand why the four Hebrews were included among the wise men of Babylon (2:12,13) and why Daniel was able to approach the chief of the king's bodyguard (2;14) because after their three years training "they continued to stand before the king" (1:19). I am not ignoring the problems with this understanding but to me this seems the most obvious meaning of a straight-forward reading of the text. Again, I think that aChristian's comment that the belief that "'the second year of Nebuchadnezzar' does not really mean 'the second year of Nebuchadnezzar' seems like a strange teaching" completely ignores the problems of this verse for the sake of ridicule.

Now, I know I said that after stating my conclusions I would then address some of the issues raised as a result of my previous post. And I have done the research and my intentions were good. However...it is 3:30 a.m. and I know it will take several hours to set out my reply to the objections clearly...so I must ask you to wait. Alan, I know you are still waiting for my response to your earlier post but I did not expect the need to spend so much time on these two verses (Daniel 1:1; 2:1) to demonstrate what I considered to be obvious. I understand better why "scholar" gives out references for people to do their own research as there is no end to questions and research when it comes to biblical chronology and there is a limit to what one can do. How you manage to churn out so much so quickly without it affecting the quality of your posts, as well as having secular work and family life, is quite beyond me.

But I would just like to comment on one point before I go, and that is your comment on my quotation of the record in 2 Kings of the rule of Jehoiakim. You said :

You quoted parts of 2 Kings, but left out some parts by using ellipses. One part that you left out, 24:2-5, contains statements critical to a proper understanding of the timing of Jehoiakim's being a tributary king to Nebuchadnezzar.

I see why you consider the part left out from my quotation as relevant to a proper understanding of the timing of Jehoiakim's being a tributary king to Nebuchadnezzar, and I will try and address that in my next post. But I would like to assure you as a matter of honour that there was no intention to mislead as to what the scripture actually says.

Earnest

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

Earnest

scholar:

Thank you for your full reply to my comments.

If we are serious about such scholarly matters then one has to be prepared to access theological libraries and consult the journals and not just reply on one piece of research into chronology, namely Jonssons. You have to do the hard yards as I have done over many years. I have worked very hard to enjoy my academic success at my age and continue to pursue my studies. I did not get my degrees in a packet of cornflakes or bought them from an American University. Please be assured that the more one studies chronology the more difficult it becomes.

I understand that it is helpful to have an academic background to ancient near eastern chronology and do not doubt that you have worked hard on this over a number of years. However, the nature of discussion on this board requires the evidence to be put up front and if it is sufficiently compelling then it may encourage some to study the subject further. But when you reply by recommending a reading list it does not take into consideration those who cannot access the material and gives the impression of intellectual arrogance. It also ignores the dynamics of these discussions. You can convey a lot of information to a lot of people if they are interested in an ongoing discussion. But you kill the momentum of any such discussion by requiring off-line reading before you are willing to discuss your views. Surely that defeats the purpose of posting in the first place.

You have listed the Bibliography in the commentary in Luke then you must read and investigate the times mentioned in Luke 21:24 wherein theologians give a eschatological interpretation for that expression.

When I have opportunity I will do so. If you can be more specific about which of the publications listed contains the information you refer to that will enable me to focus my investigation.

aChristian :

The Watchtower Society maintains that Daniel was not really taken prisoner "in the third year of Jehoiakim" as Daniel himself wrote ( Dan. 1:1, 2-6 ), but in Jehoiakim's third year, "as tributary king to Babylon." ( Insight, Vol. 1, pg. 576. )

Daniel 1:1,2 "In the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim the king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it. In time Jehovah gave into his hand Jehoiakim the king of Judah and a part of the utensils of the house of the true God..."

2 Kings 23:36 - 24:13 "Twenty-five years old was Jehoiakim when he began to reign, and for eleven years he reigned in Jerusalem....In his days Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came up, and so Jehoiakim became his servant for three years. However, he turned back and rebelled against him...Finally Jehoiakim lay down with his forefathers, and Jehoiachin his son began to reign in place of him...Eighteen years old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign, and for three months he reigned in Jerusalem...During that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came up to Jerusalem, so that the city came under siege...At length Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon...and the king of Babylon got to take [Jehoiachin] in the eighth year of [the king of Babylon] being king. Then [the king of Babylon] brought out from there all the treasures of the house of Jehovah and the treasures of the king's house, and went on to cut to pieces all the gold utensils that Solomon the king of Israel had made in the temple of Jehovah..."

From a comparison of these two accounts would you say Daniel was referring to the third year of Jehoiakim's reign or the third year as servant [tributary king] to Nebuchadnezzar ? Now let's think about this a bit further. Nebuchadnezzar brought the utensils [and all the princes and all the valiant, mighty men] to Babylon in the eighth year of his being king. So would you say it is manipulating the scriptures to suggest that when it later refers to him having a dream in his second year, it is probably dating from some event other than the beginning of his reign ? The alternative explanation is that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jehoiakim on a previous occasion and took utensils of the house of God and brought sons of the royal offspring and of the nobles to Babylon...but without a breath of it in the account of Jehoiakim's kingship!?...strange teachings indeed.

Furthermore, just prior to mentioning "the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar" (2:1), Daniel refers to "the first year of Cyrus the king" (1:21). Do you think he was referring to the year Cyrus became king or is he dating it from Babylon's overthrow ?

I have to say that far from obscuring anything it seems to me that the WTS understanding of what these particular time periods refer to is the most obvious meaning of a straight-forward reading of the scriptures.

Earnest

Edited by - Earnest on 16 January 2003 23:37:19

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

Earnest

Hi scholar,

Thank you for your further thoughts on the subject. Your point that the seventy years begins and ends with a dramatic historical event certainly has a sense of completion to it, but it seems clear that the closing historical event is the fall of Babylon rather than the release of the Jews under Cyrus. AlanF has referred to several scriptures that show this, namely:

2 Chronicles 36:20 : "Furthermore, he [the king of the Chaldeans] carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign"

Jeremiah 25:11, 12 : " 'And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I [Jehovah] shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'their error, even against the land of the Chaldeans...' "

Jeremiah 27:6, 7 : "And now I myself [Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel] have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes..."

Regardless of what other scriptures say, the clear witness of these scriptures that the seventy years ends with the fall of Babylon is very convincing. If it says, as it does, that "when seventy years have been fulfilled I [Jehovah] shall call to account against the king of Babylon" how is it possible to reason that the seventy years ends after the king of Babylon is called to account ?

Why listen to the monkey (Alan F) when you can listen to the organ grinder (Carl Jonsson).

If you do not first address what AlanF has said, it is quite irrelevant to the discussion what Carl Jonsson has to say. But I consider what Alan says because (i) he supports what he says with quotations in context and references to his sources, (ii) he addresses each point that I raise, (iii) he is willing to admit to making mistakes when he does so, (iv) he calls a spade a spade, and (v) he doesn't feel the need to broadcast his academic qualifications to bolster his arguments. Conversely, although you have addressed a couple of posts to me you have chosen to totally ignore my question of Jan 4, 2003 18:34 :

I do wonder, in view of the limited secular support for 607, the false expectations of the time, and the complexity of biblical chronology, whether 1914 would not have been dropped, as 1874 and 1975 have been, if the First World War had not made the year indelible. What do you think ?

I must say that I also find your general approach quite unscholarly. What do I mean ? Consider your reply to onacruse (Jan 4, 2003 15:43) who had asked for evidence that the 7 times of Daniel are a typological period of 2520 years. In your reply you said :

Anyway,evidence for the Gentile Times can be adduced from journal articles listed in the Bibliography at page 999 in Luke 1:35-24:53, Vol.3, Word Biblical Commentary, John Nolland: Word Books, Dallas Texas, 1989.
Respecting Daniel, you will find the section on the tree dream in the Anchor Bible Commentary most enlightening.

There are several problems I have with this. It is very vague. "Gentile Times can be adduced from journal articles listed..." What journal articles are these ? If one can get hold of the three volumes of the Word Biblical Commentary on Luke, the third volume (Luke 18:35-24:53) lists the following articles:

Braumann, G. "Die lukanische Interpretation der Zerstorung Jerusalems." NovT 6 (1963) 120-27.
Conzelmann, H. Luke. 125-32.
Dodd, C.H. "The Fall of Jerusalem." JRS 37 (1947) 47-54; reprinted in More New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1968. 69-83.
Fluckiger, F. "Luk.21.20-24 und die Zerstorung Jerusalems." TZ 28 (1972) 385-90.
Giblin, C.H.The Destruction of Jerusalem according to Luke's Gospel : A Historical-Typological Moral. AnBib 107. Rome : Biblical Institute Press, 1985.
Holst, R. "God's Truth in a Kaleidoscope : Using a Synopsis." CurTM 3 (1976) 347-54.
Pedersen, S. "Zum Problem der vaticinia ex eventu (Eine analyse von Mt.21,33-46 par.; 22,1-10 par.)." ST 19 (1965) 167-88.
Reicke, B. "Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem." In Studies in the New Testament and Early Christian Literature. FS A.P. Wikgren. NovTSup 33. Leiden : Brill, 1972. 121-34.
Taylor, V. "A Cry from the Siege : A Suggestion regarding a Non-Marcan Oracle Embedded in Lk.xxi 20-36." JTS 26 (1924-25) 136-44.
Wainwright, A.W. "Luke and the Restoration of the Kingdom to Israel." ExpTim 89 (1977-78) 76-79.

It's alright for you with access to a university library but what makes you think that onacruse or the majority of the forum have access to these journals ? And from just which of these do you adduce evidence for the Gentile Times ? You know quite well that sort of reference would not be accepted in work you might submit to the university or academic journals. If you want to share your knowledge you need to quote in support of your viewpoint and give the journal, author, year and page of your source.

Consider your other statement : "Respecting Daniel, you will find the section on the tree dream in the Anchor Bible Commentary most enlightening."

To say it is "most enlightening" is meaningless. Would something so vague be acceptable in academia ? This is what the Anchor Bible Commentary on the book of Daniel has to say (page 176) :

Although the motif of a "world tree" was rather widespread in antiquity, there is no need to look outside the Bible for the sources of this story's portrayal of the mighty king under the figure of a gigantic tree. First in consideration comes the allegory of the cypress of Lebanon in Ezekiel 31, where it is applied to the king of Egypt. As in Daniel 4, the great tree of Ezekiel 31 "was beautiful of branch, lofty of stature, and lifted its crest amid the clouds" (vs 3); "in its boughs all the birds of the air nested, and under its branches all the beasts of the field gave birth" (vs. 6); but "because it became proud of heart at its height," God let it be cut down and its foliage and branches brought low (vss. 11f). Just as the paradise theme is connected with the tree of Ezekiel 31 - "the cedars of the garden of God were not its equal..., no tree in the garden of God matched its beauty" (vs.8); and it was "the envy of all Eden's trees in the garden of God" (vs.9), so that all of Eden's trees, from which it had been stealing the life-giving water, rejoiced at its downfall (vs.16) - so also in Daniel 4, the tree with its abundant fruit which provided nourishment for all (vs.9) is similar to Eden's tree of life; Nebuchadnezzar in his pride would take the place of God, who alone sustains man's life.
The allegory of the transplanted shoot from the chopped-down tree in Ezek.22:22ff., which symbolizes the restoration of the Davidic dynasty, has also influenced Daniel 4; "it shall put forth branches and bear fruit, and become a majestic cedar; birds of every kind shall dwell beneath it, and every winged thing in the shade of its boughs." Here also the moral is similar; compare Ezekiel 22:24, "All the trees of the field shall know that I, Yahweh, bring low the high tree, lift high the lowly tree, wither up the green tree, and make the withered tree bloom," with Dan.4:14, "...The Most High has dominion over man's kingdom; he gives it to whom he wishes, and he sets over it the lowliest of men."
For the stump of the tree left in the ground (4:12), compare the "stump" of David's dynastic tree in Isa.11:1, and the "oak whose stump remains when its leaves have fallen" in Isa.4:13. There is no reason to think that the ancients actually clamped a metal band around the stump of a chopped-down tree, as if to keep it from splitting; here the image passes to the reality : the king is to be bound with metal fetters.

No doubt that would be enlightening if we all had access to the commentary. But how much more enlightening it would have been if you had simply printed out the information for all to share and review. And don't you think that your comment implies that there is something in the commentary about the 7 times of Daniel being a typological period of 2520 years ? But there isn't, is there ?

So I rather think you enjoy giving the impression you are scholarly by citing academic journals but, unless you are prepared to share what is in those journals for all to see, it only serves to impress the impressionable.

AlanF :

Don't imagine for a moment that I have joined the forces of darkness. It's just that some folks are a poor advertisement for the forces of light. I will be replying to your own comments in the next day or two.

Earnest MA (Cantab) ... of the intellectual one-upmanship class

Edited by - Earnest on 15 January 2003 20:57:5

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

Earnest

Hi Alan,

Earnest : I've found the field of biblical chronology a difficult one to comprehend.

AlanF : There is another aspect to this. The Society argues that the captivity at Babylon (Jer. 29:10; NWT) and the desolation of Judah both lasted precisely 70 years. You can look up references for yourself on this. But there is a big problem: Because of the four-month trip time between Jerusalem and Babylon, if the desolation of Judah lasted precisely 70 years, the captivity at Babylon would have been only about 69 years and four months -- which contradicts the Society's claims.

scholar : You cannot interpret this subject just by one or two texts but all must be brought together in order to make sense

It does seem to me that there is some ambiguity as to whether the seventy years referred to the captivity at Babylon or the desolation of Judah:

2 Chronicles 36:21 "...All the days of lying desolated [the land of Judah] kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."

Jeremiah 29:10 "For this is what Jehovah has said, 'In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to you people..."

Ezra 1:1,2 "And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia [i.e. after the king of Babylon had been called to account], that Jehovah's word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia so that he caused a cry to pass through all his realm, and also in writing, saying: 'This is what Cyrus the king of Persia has said, "...[Jehovah] himself has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusalem" ' "

Flavius Josephus, To Epaphroditus on the Antiquities of the Jews in Answer to Apion (Book I, section 19) "...he [the Chaldean historian Berosus in the third century B.C.E.] gives us a catalogue of the posterity of Noah, and adds the years of their chronology, and at length comes down to Nabolassar, who was king of Babylon, and of the Chaldeans. And 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, untill the days of Cyrus king of Persia."

Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews (Book X, chapter IX, paragraph 7) "...but the King of Babylon, who brought out the two tribes, placed no other nation in their country, by which means all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years"

So, I do see merit in scholar's advocating a broader consideration of the subject. That is true of most of what one reads in the Bible. When we are looking for both internal harmony and agreement with secular chronology then the whole picture is essential for understanding individual texts.

Earnest : The other course one could follow is to throw out the baby with the bath water and simply say the bible chronology is dubious and it is simply a matter of faith.
AlanF : That would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater bigtime!...The date would be based purely on their claim to divine direction, which in turn is based on the validity of the date.

Belief in 1914 has involved both chronology and faith that the sign of the times were fulfilled. I suggest that the majority have always accepted the chronology because they accepted the signs of the times too. It is not so great a leap to dismiss the chronology as unimportant and rely on faith in the signs of the times alone.

Earnest : I have also noted [Furuli's] obfuscation of 539 (above) which confirms the impression of not being altogether on the level.
AlanF : I'm glad you stated this explicitly.

After posting that I reflected on Furuli's statement that "there can be some uncertainty with [539], due to the witness of the tablet Strm Kambys 400, which is not as good as we would have wished". You also suggest that Strm Kambys 400 is defective in your 'Discussion of Historical Evidence' (http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/gentile2.htm) and so while I have no knowledge of this astronomical diary myself I concluded Furuli's doubts were genuine and edited that comment from my post. Whether or not he has been dishonest in other matters I wish to withdraw my criticism above.

Earnest

Edited by - Earnest on 12 January 2003 23:3:3

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

Earnest

Hi Alan,

I have taken some time over my response as I've found the field of biblical chronology a difficult one to comprehend. Your detailed response to the extract from the Babylon book was very helpful and it seems to me that you have provided an elementary response to an elementary argument, namely that if it can be shown the seventy years captivity did not end in October 537 then the Gentile Times did not end in October 1914.

In my previous post I queried whether the royalty of Persia began to reign the same year Babylon was conquered (539 B.C.E.). It seems that Persian chronology of the time called the initial period following the death/abdication of the previous ruler the accession year but that the first official year started the following month of Nisan. Perhaps we could compare this to the sovereignty of the Queen. Her father, King George VI, died on 6 February 1952 but Elizabeth was only crowned on 2 June 1953. In the terms we are using to describe the rule of Cyrus, 1952 would have been the accession year and 1953 would have been the first regnal year. So I think it can be argued that the first regnal year would be counted as the beginning of his reign. This would be from Nisan 538 providing he was the immediate successor to Belshazzar.

Your extract below corroborates both that the king's years are counted from the first regnal year and that, in the case of Cyrus, that year was 538.

*** it-1 453 Chronology ***
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. . . this tablet establishes the seventh year of Cambyses II as beginning in the spring of 523 B.C.E. This is an astronomically confirmed date.
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.--A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.

So on that score alone I would agree with you that all the calculations would be shifted back a year. But your argument goes beyond that because the end of the seventy years servitude is when they stop serving the king of Babylon regardless who else it may be on the throne. As you say:

Any way you look at it, the "king of Babylon" that was to be the last of Nebuchadnezzar's line to hold the Jews in servitude was no longer on the throne after October, 539 B.C. That this servitude would end, not with a Medo-Persian king but with a king from Nebuchadnezzar's line, is stated explicitly in Jeremiah 27:6, 7.

The Watchtower of 1979 9/15, page 24, has this interesting viewpoint:

He [Cyrus] proclaimed himself "king of Babylon" and at first did not alter the policy of the Babylonian dynasty of King Nebuchadnezzar. Thus the nations subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar continued to serve "the king of Babylon" 70 years [i.e. until 537 when Cyrus changed the policy and returned the captives to their own lands].

I am not inclined to accept this interpretation myself as it is not the plain meaning of the text and is undoubtedly an artificial extension of Babylon's rule.

The other scripture you refer to is Jeremiah 25:10-12:

11 'And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation, is the utterance of Jehovah, their error, even against the land of the Chalde'ans...'

This scripture does not allow for equivocation as the clear meaning is that the king of Babylon was first "called to account" when the city was overthrown.

Interestingly, Furuli seems to agree with this in his synopsis of his forthcoming book(s) on the "Oslo chronology" (http://www.geocities.com/yhwhbible/oslo_chronology.htm) :

The year 539 B.C.E.is taken in the Oslo chronology as the time when Cyrus conquered Babylon, although there can be some uncertainty with that year, due to the witness of the tablet Strm Kambys 400, which is not as good as we would have wished. However, if we accept the year 539 and at the same time accept the unambiguous witness of the Bible, we also must accept that the Babylonian exile began about 70 years before the year 539, and not 49 or 50, which is what B&D allows for.

The only way that 607 can still be maintained as the destruction of Jerusalem would be to argue that Babylon was destroyed in 537 rather than 539. Furuli is obviously aware of this as he says the "Babylonian exile began about 70 years before the year 539" and that "there can be some uncertainty with [539]". It will be interesting to see if he makes a stronger case for this in his forthcoming book.

The other course one could follow is to throw out the baby with the bath water and simply say the bible chronology is dubious and it is simply a matter of faith. In The Gentile Times Reconsidered, by C.O.Jonsson (Second edition, pp.215,216), he has a footnote to Jeremiah 25:20-12 :

The Greek Septuagint Version (LXX) says: "and they will serve among the nations," instead of: "and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon." There are many differences between MT and LXX with respect to the text of the book of Jeremiah. The LXX text is about one-eighth shorter than the MT text. In Jeremiah 25:1-14 of the LXX, for some unknown reason, all references to the king of Babylon are omitted. (See verses 1, 9, 11 and 12.) It is well known that LXX adds about 1,500 years to the chronology from Adam to Christ, that period becoming c. 5,500 years instead of c. 4,000 years (MT).

Of course reliance on the LXX chronology would mean that 6000 years ended in the time of Justinian (which is described as the most brilliant period of the later empire). So there's a thought. Maybe the thousand years ended with Satan's release and the Reformation where many were misled!? The serious point that I am making is that the alternative to depending on a date is to say that on this matter the bible is unclear and we simply have faith. My question to "scholar" was that due to this uncertainty is it not likely 1914 would have been discarded, just as 1874 and 1975 have been, if the year had not been distinguished by the outbreak of war.

I think that the charge of "scholarly dishonesty" is supported by Furuli's actions as described in footnote 48 in the above quotation. If he indicated to Jonsson that he was withdrawing his paper because it had been refuted, then to turn around and continue offering it as a valid refutation to fellow JWs is thoroughly dishonest. What do you think?

I hesitate to condemn anyone without hearing their side of a story but agree it appears Furuli was less than honest in this example. On the other hand, I have found his book 'The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation' to be invaluable, if not entirely without bias, and so will be interested to read what he has to say about chronology in his forthcoming books.

Earnest

Edited by - Earnest on 11 January 2003 16:13:38