Jeffro, thanks for the explanation. i'm going to come back to this in a few days and follow your pdf with the bible. there is a lot to take in.
If you find problems with the table, please let me know.
Onscreen Critique, NOVEMBER 1 Watchtower, "When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?"
by Doug Mason 42 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Jeffro
-
yesidid
Brilliant, totally brilliant.
Thanks Doug.
-
Jeffro
Doug, on page 21 of your PDF, your placement of Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year on the timeline is incorrect. The reference in Jeremiah 52:30 does not count accession years, so on your timeline that event should be marked as the 24th year, because the other years of reign given in the timeline count accession years. To confirm, compare Jeremiah 52:12 with 52:28.
-
Jeffro
Regarding the scribal error for 8 Nisanu, I was surprised to see you didn't mention the fact that the very next part of VAT 4956 states an event for the day of the 9th ("The 9th. the sun in the west (was surrounded) by a halo"). This confirms that the event for the previous night was indeed 8 Nisanu.
The text showing the event on the day of 9 Nisanu is visible in the picture in The Watchtower article on page 26 ("Am 9 ... Sonne im Westen von einem Halo umgebe...").
Obviously, the 9th day follows the 8th night, so the correction by the translators to "8th", which The Watchtower attacks, is entirely justified.
-
Larsinger58
JEFFRO: So pleased you have some familiarity with this. I'd criticize your position as follows:
1. Jeremiah always used the Babylonian accession year system, period. He didn't mix them. It is easy to confirm this.
2. As far as determining which year is which, I refer you to the deportation of Jehoiachin on the very last day of the eighthyear of Neb-II; 2 Kings 24:12:
"At length Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon... in the eighth year of his being king."
Further, it was at the very end of the year that Jehoiachin went into exile. 2 Chronicles 36:10 says "And at the return of the year, Nebuchadnezzar proceeded to bring him to Babylon."
Now, how do we interpret this? Well, if Jehoiachin was deported at the very end of year eight, then Zedekiah was appointed at the very end of year eight or the beginning of year 9. If so, there is an 8-year difference in the reign of Zedekiah and Nebuchadnezzar per the accession year system. Thus when the Bible says that Jerusalem fell in year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar, that should be year 11 of Zedekiah, which it is! Thus when the Bible says that it was the 37th year of Jehoiachin's regn that he was released from prision, that amounts to year 45 of Nebuchadnezzar, because the same 8-year difference in the reign of Zedekiah is reflected in the exile of Joiachin; Zedekiah was appointed at the time when Jehoiachin was deported.
Why the discrepancy? The discrepancy likely is due to the revised Babylonian Chronicle. It was "copied"/revised in the 22nd year of Darius II. Irf you compare the events in that text with the Bible, you will find it is a year off. Thus the deportation of Jehoiachin is preserved in this record but it says he was deported in "year 7" not year 8. The reason is because besides removing 2 years from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, they tried to combine the events of the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar II with what happened his first year, thus reducing the timeline by 1 year. So likely from this secular source, the idea that two dating systems are in use here developed, rather than observing a 1-year discrepancy between the Bible and the revised Babylonian Chronicle.
Thus Doug is correct as far as the "relative" chronology goes; 587 BCE would be year 18 and 586 BCE would be year 19.
Since only one year is involved, presuming two systems of counting by the same author is used is one way to solve the discrepancy. But the Bible is not that inconsistent.
The simple solution to this is to note that Zedekiah's rule is parallel to the 9th year of Nebuchadnezzar, creating an 8-year difference. Thus Zedekiah's 11th year, when Jerusalem was destroyed would correspond to the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The same applies to the exile of Jehoiachin which is parallel to the rule of Zedekiah. His year 37 would be 8 years different than the year of Neb-II. 37 + 8 is 45. Thus Nebuchadnezzar II, per the Bible, ruled for 45 years. The reviswed timeline removes 2 years from his rule, assigning him only 43 years, which is incorrect.
LS
LS
-
Larsinger58
JEFFRO: "Obviously, the 9th day follows the 8th night, so the correction by the translators to "8th", which The Watchtower attacks, is entirely justified."
Not so obvious. The text itself assigns this lunar position to the 9th! Note page 27 of the Watchtower article, near the bottom it shows the reference to Line 3 with reference to note "5" where they say: "In 1988, Sachs and Hunger published the text as it actually reads, with a "9." Then they show this as reference "5", which reads "3 SUR GE 9 SAG GE" which is a reference to "night of the 9th" which the translators in parentheses then say, "(error for the 8th)"...
But the joke is on the WTS. They make a big deal out of this reference. They say, "But the lunar position in line 3 finds an exact match on Nisanu 9 of 588
BCE.(21)" The footnote 21 says: "VAT4956 reads on line three: "The moon stood 1 cubit [or 2 degrees] in front of B-Virginis." So the WTS noted that in 588 BCE on the 9th of Simanu the moon was 1 cubit in front of beta-Virginis. Great. Unfortunately, Hunger lied about this as I've pointed out before. He has admitted that he made a mistake in Line 18 in regards to the "moon" being just below the "bright star at the end of [behind] the Lion's Foot." The correct application as corrected by others, but never officially by Hunger, which underscores his dishonesty, is that Venus was below the "bright star behind the Lion's Foot" (MUL KUR sa TIL GIR UR-A) on the 15th of Sivan. When that correction is made, however, it corrects two other lines in the text. Lines 14 and 18 are references to beta-Virginis, and Line 3 is a reference to the Lion's Foot in front of beta-Virginis, sigma-Leonis.So in actuality, the WTS followedl Hunger's erroneous assignment of the "Rear Foot of the Lion" (GIR ar sa UR-A) in line 3 as "beta-Virginis" when, in fact, it is a reference to the actual foot of Leo, sigma-Leonis. Thus 588's coincidental lunar location a cubit in front of "beta-Virginis" isn't what the text says. The "Rear Foot of the Lion" is the natural and historic rear foot of Leo, sigma-Leonis. So if 588 BCE were truly a match to the text, even coincidentally so, it would have to show the moon 1 cubit in front of sigma-Leonis and not "beta-Virginis."
In other words, the WTS has coincidentally made a match for Line 3 to 588 BCE based on an outdated/uncorrected version of the VAT4956, where in line 3, "The Rear Foot of the Lion" assigned erroneously to beta-Virginis by Hunger has been corrected to sigma-Leonis. So there is no 588 BCE match for the WTS from the VAT4956, unforunately.
It's all a big JOKE! and more proof Jehovah is not giving the WTS any spiritual light. They are in spiritual darkness as prophesied.
Thanks for sharing your explanation, however.
For your reference, compare the Babylonian Chronicleto the Bible. You will note that the Chronicle claims the battle with Egypt's pharaoh Necho are Carchemish occurs in his accession year. Per the Bible, this event occurs in his 1st year. That is, Daniel was deported in the accession year of Neb-II, which was year 3 of Jehoiakim. In year 4 of Jehoiakim the battle at Carchemish takes place. (Jer. 46:2) This establishes a 3-year difference in the reign of Jehoikim and Nebuchadezzar II. If so, Jehoiakim's 11th year would correspond to the 8th year of Neb-II, which it does.
The Persians removed 26 years from the Babylonian records;
-2 years from Neb-II who ruled 45 vs. 43.
-16 tears from Evil-Merodach, 18 vs. 2
-2 years from Nabonidus, 19 vs. 17.
-6 years for the 6-year rule by Darius I.
Total of 26 years removed from the original NB Period.
LS
-
irondork
Doug, your word is truth!
-
Larsinger58
DOUG: First, what a very effective and amazing format. Very impressive and easy to follow. Thanks so much. Two things:
1. The discussion of Line 3 of the VAT4956 incorrectly states that the text says the moon was 1 cubit in front of "beta-Virginis." It says the moon was 1 cubit in front of the "Rear Foot of the Lion" (GIR ar sa UR-A). Hunger lied about the moon being below the star called "The bright star at the end of [behind] the Lion's Foot" (MUL KUR sa TIL GIR UR-A)(BSBLF) in line 18. He has admitted this error. On the 15th, Venus clearly was in this position under the star beta-Virginis. Thus if you correct line 18, the BSBLF is the correct reference for beta-Virginis. That means the star in front of beta-Virginis is the true "Rear Foot of the Lion" which is the reference for Line 3. So in reality, Hunger misrepresents the "Rear Foot of the Lion" for Line 3 as "beta-Virginis" which should be sigma-Leonis. Having noted that, your presentation is out of date and incorrect in reference to Line 3, which needs to be corrected to "sigma-Leonis."
Of course, as far as the Watchtower's reference is concerned, it too has an "exact match" to the wrong star since Line 3 is a reference to sigma-Leonis and not beta-Virginis.
2. I found your opening remarks regarding the 70 years of servitude/desolation blatantly dishonest. First of all, Josepus, a Jeiwsh historian, records the traditional Jewish historical interpretation of the 70 years in fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy. This is found at Ant. 11.1, which states:
"1. IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1) which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity."
What this tells us is that per the Jews, the 70 years of "captivity" and "servitude" were specifically linked to those of the last deportation, year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II. I think you need to address this reference. Your discussion suggests that the concept of the 70 years is ambiguous as to when it started and to whom it pertains to, after which you present your own conclusions. I don't see this as an option if the Jews themselves have a secular reference for precisely when these 70 years took place. Thus after reading Ant. 11.1.1, our next step is to compare that to the Bible's own reference. Turns out Josephus is paraphrasing 2 Chronicles 36:
"Furthermore, he 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; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."
Keep in mind, further, that only the peoples deported a specific year would serve exactly 70 years and then be released in the 1st of Cyrus. Obviously, many others would serve longer than 70 years. Thus the 70 years can only apply. The Bible applies these 70 years of servitude to those "remaining from the sword" which is a specific reference to those who ran down to Egypt who were not killed by Nebuchadnezzar, and thus the last remnant of Jews. Even so, the Bible does say these would return to Judea, if even only for a short time. (Jeremiah 44:14,28)
So traditional Jewish history regarding the 70 years, which are served by the last deportees, agrees completely with the Bible. But also of note, this does not agree with the WTS' false interpretation. They represent those deported the year Jerusalem falls as the ones serving the 70 years. This means those deported in year 23 would serve less than 70 years, which is a conceptual contradiction. Further, as noted at Jeremiah 44:14,28, those who survived from Egypt would return to Judea, the context of the last deportation in year 23.
As an end result, your "Critique" is not very probative for the serious Bible student who knows Jewish history, though you provide many fine points of critique of the WTS' claims.
Thanks for a wonderful presentation. I enjoyed reviewing the information.
If you could, would you please comment on this post for us your position regarding Josephus claiming at Ant. 11.1.1 that those of the last deportation were in servitude to Babylon for exactly 70 years? Or provide a link where this was discussed previously. Thank you.
LS
-
Jeffro
Larsinger58:
1. Jeremiah always used the Babylonian accession year system, period. He didn't mix them. It is easy to confirm this.
I have already shown that Jeremiah 52:28-30 weren't written by Jeremiah, so your point is not directly relevant there. Jeremiah does count accession years, as is demonstrated from a comparison between verse 12 and 28 of Jeremiah 52. So, you're wrong about Jeremiah's use of the Babylonian dating system.
2. As far as determining which year is which, I refer you to the deportation of Jehoiachin on the very last day of the eighthyear of Neb-II; 2 Kings 24:12:
"At length Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon... in the eighth year of his being king."
Further, it was at the very end of the year that Jehoiachin went into exile. 2 Chronicles 36:10 says "And at the return of the year, Nebuchadnezzar proceeded to bring him to Babylon."Jehoiachin's reign began in December of 597. He ruled for 3 months and was then taken to Babylon at the return of the year. I have never stated otherwise.
Well, if Jehoiachin was deported at the very end of year eight, then Zedekiah was appointed at the very end of year eight or the beginning of year 9.
Per historical records, Zedekiah began his reign in the 12th month (March) of Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year.
If so, there is an 8-year difference in the reign of Zedekiah and Nebuchadnezzar per the accession year system. Thus when the Bible says that Jerusalem fell in year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar, that should be year 11 of Zedekiah, which it is! Thus when the Bible says that it was the 37th year of Jehoiachin's regn that he was released from prision, that amounts to year 45 of Nebuchadnezzar, because the same 8-year difference in the reign of Zedekiah is reflected in the exile of Joiachin; Zedekiah was appointed at the time when Jehoiachin was deported.
The 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar (non-accession system, demonstrated by comparison of Jeremiah 52:12 with 52:29) is indeed the 11th year of Zedekiah (also non-accession system). Jehoiachin was released in the 12th month of Evil Merodach's first year (March 561 BCE, 2 Kings 25:27). He wasn't released during Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and the Bible says nothing of Nebuchadnezzar reigning 45 years.
Why the discrepancy? The discrepancy likely is due to the revised Babylonian Chronicle. It was "copied"/revised in the 22nd year of Darius II. Irf you compare the events in that text with the Bible, you will find it is a year off. Thus the deportation of Jehoiachin is preserved in this record but it says he was deported in "year 7" not year 8. The reason is because besides removing 2 years from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, they tried to combine the events of the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar II with what happened his first year, thus reducing the timeline by 1 year. So likely from this secular source, the idea that two dating systems are in use here developed, rather than observing a 1-year discrepancy between the Bible and the revised Babylonian Chronicle.
You're making up a Babylonian discrepancy because of your error in concluding that Jeremiah used the accession system, probably influenced by an additional error on your part in not recognising Jeremiah 52:28-30 as an interpolation of what is otherwise a copy of 2 Kings chapter 25.
Thus Doug is correct as far as the "relative" chronology goes; 587 BCE would be year 18 and 586 BCE would be year 19.
Doug does correctly state that Jerusalem fell in 587 BCE, and this is not in dispute. Using the accession year system, Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is indeed 587 BCE, as is indicated in the interpolation at Jeremiah 52:29. This is called his 19th year in Jeremiah 52:12, because Jeremiah counts the accession year.
Since only one year is involved, presuming two systems of counting by the same author is used is one way to solve the discrepancy. But the Bible is not that inconsistent.
Again, Jeremiah isn't the author of Jeremiah 52:28-30. The final verse of chapter 51 indicates the end of that scroll by Jeremiah. Chapter 52 is mostly a copy from 2 Kings, but the 3 interpolated verses in question are from Babylonian sources and do not appear in 2 Kings.
The simple solution to this is to note that Zedekiah's rule is parallel to the 9th year of Nebuchadnezzar, creating an 8-year difference. Thus Zedekiah's 11th year, when Jerusalem was destroyed would correspond to the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The same applies to the exile of Jehoiachin which is parallel to the rule of Zedekiah. His year 37 would be 8 years different than the year of Neb-II. 37 + 8 is 45. Thus Nebuchadnezzar II, per the Bible, ruled for 45 years. The reviswed timeline removes 2 years from his rule, assigning him only 43 years, which is incorrect.
Again, the Bible is quite clear that Evil-Merodach was king when Jehoiachin was released, and says nothing of Nebuchadnezzar's reign extending that far. There is no requirement at all for Nebuchadnezzar's reign to be ongoing simply on the basis that Jehoiachin was still alive, as you seem to be claiming - especially since the Bible explicitly states that a different king released him. It is unclear why you are insisting that Nebuchadnezzar must still have been reigning when Jehoiachin was released by Evil-Merodach.
-
Jeffro
2. I found your opening remarks regarding the 70 years of servitude/desolation blatantly dishonest. First of all, Josepus, a Jeiwsh historian, records the traditional Jewish historical interpretation of the 70 years in fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy. This is found at Ant. 11.1, which states:
Josephus indicates that the temple was only in ruins for fifty years, not seventy. Against Apion, Book I, chapter 21 states: “Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius.” Additionally, the introduction to Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, states “Containing the interval of one hundred and eighty-two years and a half. From the captivity of the ten tribes to the first year of Cyrus.” This is only compatible with the destruction of Jerusalem falling in 587 BCE, and is not compatible with the additional years you would have us insert into the Neo-Babylonian period.