Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Alleymom

  Jeffro --

  I haven't gone back to read carefully through all of the messages from the last few days yet. I have a nasty cold and my brain has turned to cotton. 607, 586, 70 this, 70 that ... blahhh.

  But I have to tell you that my antenna are quivering over the way you've taken hold of my comparing it to a "collective noun." I am not at all sure I feel comfortable with that. I only meant to explain (away) the singular form of the demonstrative and I fear that I have unwittingly emphasized the noun. Narkissos's explanations are far superior to mine. I hope he'll jump in.

  As I said a couple of days ago, you should try reading two times through the list of verses I posted. Read them with "these" and then read them with "now."

  Since I haven't gone through all of your messages line by line yet, I may not have grasped exactly what you're saying. I want to be sure before I comment.

  Incidentally, I did want to point out that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of verses with the demonstratives. If you add up all of the masc. and fem. singular and the common plural occurrences, there is a vast number. I wasn't sure if you understood that? I was culling the ones which had to do with time, but I left out all of the general time expressions and focused on the ones with exact numerical units.

  Marjorie
• 

  acadian

  scholar said:

  Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

  Acadian
• 

  Jeffro

  scholar said:
  Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

  Seems scholar has been a bit quiet these past couple few days actually. He hasn't said anything in reply to my posts http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/1580169/post.ashx#1580169 and http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/1581789/post.ashx#1581789 so I've had to resort to sparring with AlanF just to keep on my toes.
  Have to say I'm starting to miss scholar's 'logic' though.
• 

  Jeffro

  But I have to tell you that my antenna are quivering over the way you've taken hold of my comparing it to a "collective noun." I am not at all sure I feel comfortable with that. I only meant to explain (away) the singular form of the demonstrative and I fear that I have unwittingly emphasized the noun. Narkissos's explanations are far superior to mine. I hope he'll jump in.

  Are you now saying that it is not a collective noun? If it is a collective noun, there is no harm in emphasizing that.

  As I said a couple of days ago, you should try reading two times through the list of verses I posted. Read them with "these" and then read them with "now."

  Reading through once was enough. I got the point. I have already read Narkissos' post about the adverbial use of the pronoun and substituting 'these' for 'now'. However no-one has confirmed whether it is the only valid interpretation of the use of the pronoun in a temporal form.
  Say for example that I was to complain about there not being anything worth watching on television this month (I was going to say week, but because it's not part-way through the week, it could confuse my point):
  "How long do I have to put up with there being nothing worth watching on TV this month?" (This hypothetical question is asked in the same sense as almost every "How long...?" question in the bible - frustation with the circumstances, not a request for a reply stating a period of time.)
  Could I validly use zeh chodesh to refer to 'this month' which is temporally present, but has not yet finished? If so, and if the 70 years can be seen as a collective noun, then the period need not be finished, and my interpretation can be seen as valid.

  Incidentally, I did want to point out that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of verses with the demonstratives. If you add up all of the masc. and fem. singular and the common plural occurrences, there is a vast number. I wasn't sure if you understood that? I was culling the ones which had to do with time, but I left out all of the general time expressions and focused on the ones with exact numerical units.

  Yes, I did understand that. You stated in the post that quoted the verses, and I had figured that out anyway.
  
  Anyway, I hope you are feeling better soon. Hopefully someone else can help out with answering my question in this post while you get some rest.
• 

  EvilForce

  You guys have pushed him over the edge. He's mentally recovering in the WTBS 607 ward. LOL
  He'd needing new indoctrination to fend off your challenges.
• 

  Leolaia

  EvilForce...I find it halfway amusing that the hotel room I'm in now is Room 609. And I moved here from 605.
• 

  EvilForce

  Well I guess if you move into room 1914 I need to start calling you Messiah.....LOL
• 

  Narkissos

  Marjorie,

  I hope you're better already... get real well soon!

  No problem at all with what you posted, just a small ambiguity which I only noticed through Jeffro's later posts and attempted to clear up (not sure I succeeded).

  Jeffro,

  Regardless of the exact analysis of Hebrew usage by modern grammarians, the fact is that both (1) the use of zeh (singular) with a duration expressed in plural number and (2) the use of the singular for the time unit (shana, year) are well-attested independent features in Biblical Hebrew. That runs somewhat contrary to a direct connection of zeh with shanah. Btw zeh is masculine, whereas shanah is usually feminine. Normally the demonstrative syntax would be: this/that year = ha-shanah ha-zoth (fem. sing.); these/those seventy years = ha shiv`im shanah ha-elleh (plural).

  As the aforementioned examples show, the use of the singular (adverbial?) zeh points to a past period, even if the action goes on (that is, on a longer period). This is very similar, I feel, to the English present perfect. I have been doing that for x years (=> the x years are understood to be "down to now" -- even if I go on doing the same thing afterwards for y years).

  So strictly speaking there are, apparently, two 70-year periods in the extant text of Zechariah; two distinct things which have been happening for 70 years at two different moments of speech.

  But the question is, is it strict speech? (That's what I was aiming at with my dinosaur joke.) In 2005 a European official might refer to the 60-year post-war period, and in 2007 still refer to the fact that we have been mourning the dead of WWII for 60 years -- who would correct him?

  I think we might be wrong of asking too precise chronological questions to texts which have not been written with a strict chronological concern. Additionally, this is probably relying too much on the inner datation of the book of Zechariah. The Jerusalem Bible (French 1998 edition), for instance, notes that the oracle of 7:4ff is "artificially connected to the episode of the Bethel embassy [v. 1-3] because of the mention of fasting" (which is first given an indefinite duration in v. 3, ka'asher `asiti zeh [sing., "this" = "now"] kameh shânim = as I have been doing for how [= so] many years). The subsequent oracle did not necessarily refer to another period than the one in 1:12, but the resulting compilation (apparently dating 7:4ff from 7:1) suggests so when read strictly (too strictly imo).
• 

  Jeffro

  Narkissos wrote:

  As the aforementioned examples show, the use of the singular (adverbial?) zeh points to a past period, even if the action goes on (that is, on a longer period). This is very similar, I feel, to the English present perfect. I have been doing that for x years (=> the x years are understood to be "down to now" -- even if I go on doing the same thing afterwards for y years).

  You have here queried the use of the word adverbial, but on May 25 you said:

  Strictly speaking, this sounds rather like an adverbial use (in temporal sentences, roughly equivalent to now with present perfect, with the very same kind of emphasis) than an adjectival one ("these seventy years").

  Can you clarify this? (I know the word is not an adverb but you had previously suggested that in the context it may function similarly to one.) I understand the usage you have given but is it the only usage? I posed a question in a previous post:

  Say for example that I was to complain about there not being anything worth watching on television this month (I was going to say week, but because it's not part-way through the week, it could confuse my point):
  "How long do I have to put up with there being nothing worth watching on TV this month?" (This hypothetical question is asked in the same sense as almost every "How long...?" question in the bible - frustation with the circumstances, not a request for a reply stating a period of time.)
  Could I validly use zeh chodesh to refer to 'this month' which is temporally present, but has not yet finished? If so, and if the 70 years can be seen as a collective noun, then the period need not be finished, and my interpretation can be seen as valid.

  If not, how would it be phrased instead?

  But the question is, is it strict speech? (That's what I was aiming at with my dinosaur joke.) In 2005 a European official might refer to the 60-year post-war period, and in 2007 still refer to the fact that we have been mourning the dead of WWII for 60 years -- who would correct him?

  It has already been agreed that the 70 years could also be used as a round period.
• 

  Narkissos

  Narkissos wrote:

  As the aforementioned examples show, the use of the singular (adverbial?) zeh points to a past period, even if the action goes on (that is, on a longer period). This is very similar, I feel, to the English present perfect. I have been doing that for x years (=> the x years are understood to be "down to now" -- even if I go on doing the same thing afterwards for y years).

  You have here queried the use of the word adverbial, but on May 25 you said:

  Strictly speaking, this sounds rather like an adverbial use (in temporal sentences, roughly equivalent to now with present perfect, with the very same kind of emphasis) than an adjectival one ("these seventy years").

  Can you clarify this? (I know the word is not an adverb but you had previously suggested that in the context it may function similarly to one.) I understand the usage you have given but is it the only usage?

  Hi Jeffro,

  The adverbial analysis of this particular invariable use of zeh is from Joüon, who gives many examples in temporal and non-temporal contexts (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/18.ashx). The fact here is the non-agreement of the demonstrative, which doesn't suit the normal adjectival use. The interpretation of this particular use and function of zeh as adverbial reflects one modern understanding of it from the viewpoint of (metalinguistic) analytic grammar. My question mark is just pointing to the difference between data (non-agreement of zeh in gender and number) and interpretation (adverbial use). To me the interpretation makes sense, but it is of course foreign to the self-understanding of Hebrew language. Unless we come across a Hebrew grammar from Bible times that's how we have to work anyway...

  Another possible explanation imo would be to consider zeh as a demonstrative pronoun ("this one," i.e. "this period"), not adjective... but it is more dubious as the neuter would normally be expressed by the feminine; and it would not very different as to meaning and translation.

  I posed a question in a previous post:

  Say for example that I was to complain about there not being anything worth watching on television this month (I was going to say week, but because it's not part-way through the week, it could confuse my point):
  
  "How long do I have to put up with there being nothing worth watching on TV this month?" (This hypothetical question is asked in the same sense as almost every "How long...?" question in the bible - frustation with the circumstances, not a request for a reply stating a period of time.)
  
  Could I validly use zeh chodesh to refer to 'this month' which is temporally present, but has not yet finished? If so, and if the 70 years can be seen as a collective noun, then the period need not be finished, and my interpretation can be seen as valid.

  If not, how would it be phrased instead?

  Normally the adjectival (epithet or attribute) use would be ha-chodesh ha-zeh (cf. the syntax in Zechariah 4:9; 8:6,11f for instance). Of course chodesh being masc. sing. the agreement would not change the form of zeh but the construction would be different (article + noun + article + adjective). There are only rare exceptions to this (Joüon 143i quotes Exodus 32:1, zeh Moshe, "this Moses," although he provides an alternative explanation for this in 143e; Song of Solomon 7:8, zo'th qomatekh, note the apparent agreement in gender; Isaiah 23:13, zeh ha-`am; Psalm 104:25, zeh ha-yam gadol; "perhaps" Psalm 49:15, zeh darkam. However all those instances are better explained, I think, as pronominal: "this (is) x" or "here (is) x" rather than "this x".

  Anyway, if you don't accept the above suggestions you still have to explain why zeh does not agree either with the plural of shiv`im or with the feminine of shanah...