You didn't really say the Freemasons and illuminati are conspiring against Bible literalists (ie. you) did you? The mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Seventy years Desolation- History or Myth
by scholar 33 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
hillary_step
Scholar,
Thank you for the heads up - the book is ordered.
As you seem to have read it, I wonder if you might tell us whether the information it contained has undermined or reinforced your view that the WTS is correct in its dating of the first fall of Jeruslaem at 607BCE. Now, I am interested in your opinions just on this date, not in the nature of the 'Seventy Years'.
Best regards - HS
-
AlanF
HS, as you well know, "scholar" is quite incapable of understanding that a reference that comes down on the side of 586 rather than 587 for the date of Jerusalem's destruction in no way supports 607. A dumber scholar I have yet to find.
AlanF
-
JCanon
You didn't really say the Freemasons and illuminati are conspiring against Bible literalists (ie. you) did you? The mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Well, that's a generalization. That's what the anti-Masons are claiming in the general plan of the "One World Order" is to get everybody to drop their religion and put faith in the one-world government.
For most that would not be a big deal, but JWs or sort of academic in their beliefs and it's connected with archaeology and chronology and some other basics, plus they believe the Bible is true, so they will be a hard sell. This 70-years thing seems a little suspicious though, perhaps it's because it's the most obvious potential contradiction in the Bible versus pagan chronology and now some archaeologic findings, etc.
Canon
-
scholar
hilary_step
Glad you are ordering this large book as you will fing it very interesting. I came across the book quite by accident whilst doing some research on chronology at Moore Theological Library last Thursday. The book had just arrived and had been catalogued before its relocation in the main library so if I had not sighted it then who knows when it would have been discovered. I immediately photocopied the Introduction and one chapter which I thought would be of interest. So, I have not read it in its entirety but will purchase it and I do have access to it at anytime because I live within walking distance from the library. It is my custom to visit this library and check through the journals particularly, so as to copy any articles relevant to studies in chronology.
The book has many many matters of interest and these are as follows: No mention of Carl Jonsson and his hypothesis including his nonsensical interpretation of the seventy years. The date 586 rather 587 is preferred and there is no mention of the Witness position either. It stresses the importance of theology and historiography in relation to this critical period of Judean history. The bibliography at the end of each chapter makes further research possible and necessary and refers to those current scholars who do in fact postulate the desolation hypothesis. Although the book does not support the Society's view as far as I can tell ,it seems to repudiate the idea that Judah was desolated and describes such a view as the 'Myth of the Empty Land'. Nevertheless, this research excites me because for the first time this subject is now a scholarly debate which shows the need to be cautious before dismissing biblically based interpretations.
Further, in regards to 2 Chronicles 36:21 this interesting point is made: "The theory of the myth of the empty land capitalizes on 2 Chr. 36: 21, according to which the land was desolate for seventy years. The Chronicler took "another step towards the final establishing of the myth of the empty land" (Barstad 1996: 41). He created the myth of the empty land in order to faclitate a return of the people to repopulate the land, "the imagined land of Ancient Israel" (Carroll 1998: 68). See page 63 in the article by B. Oded.
In the Introduction to this volume the following point is made om page ix: "Without a doubt, the issue that has proved to be the most contentious and recalcitrant is that of continuity in the material culture of Judah between the Fall of Jerusalem and the fall of Babylon almost half a century later. The debate generally starts out from the position that the murder and mayhem of the Babylonian conquest, and the deportations that followed, left the land virtuall depopulated. This view is inscribed in the idea, expressed in the book of Chronicles and Leviticus, that after the fall of Jerusalem the land observed its Sabbaths for seventy years (2 Chr 36: 20-21; Lec 26:34-35).
Enjoy
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
'
-
Alleymom
I have a copy of the following article saved as a pdf file. If anyone is interested, I can email it as an attachment. If you'd like a copy, write to me at [email protected] (use a subject line that doesn't look like spam, as I delete mail from unknown senders.) Green has a very good list of sources.
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE LAST DAYS OF JUDAH: TWO APPARENT
DISCREPANCIES.Subject(s): BABYLON (Extinct city) in the Bible; JEWS -- History --
Babylonian captivity, 598-515 B.C.; BIBLE. -- O.T.
Author(s): Green, Alberto R.
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Mar82, Vol. 101 Issue 1, p57,17pAbstract: Discusses events covering the years 608 to 594 in the
Babylonian Chronicles, which have provided accurate information with
regard to certain important events recorded in the Bible. Surrender of
King Jehoiachin and Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon;
Developments in the campaign in the Hatti-land during Nebuchadnezzar's
seventh regnal year. -
JCanon
Abstract: Discusses events covering the years 608 to 594 in the
Babylonian Chronicles, which have provided accurate information with
regard to certain important events recorded in the Bible. Surrender of
King Jehoiachin and Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon;
Developments in the campaign in the Hatti-land during Nebuchadnezzar's
seventh regnal year.Just as a heads up, the "Babylonian Chronicles" specifically state they were copied in the 22nd year of "Darius", presumably Darius II. Thus they are not the original records and presumed to have been "copied" in order to make revisions, which was the common practice.
Thus of note, in comparison to the Bible, while we're delighted to see the events in Babylonian records that also occur in the Bible, the timing is about a year off for most events.
Per the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar ruled for 45 years. The revised Neo-Babylonian history which removes 26 years of Babylonian chronology and places it into the Persian period, removed 2 years from the rule of Nebuchadnezzar II, reducing his rule to 43 years. But still, by critical comparison of the Babylonian chronicles to the Bible, it appears they revisionists attempted to squeeze in most events in the shorter reign which resulted in a distortion of most events by one year.
This starts out with the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar where it agrees with the Bible about the invasion of "Hatti land" which is Palestine and the deportation of Daniel that year. That is dated in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim.
But the chronicle then also establishes the encounter with Pharoah Necho that same year, whereas the Bible dates it a year later, in the 4th year of Jehoiakim. And from there on, all the events are a year off. Case in point, the deportation of king Jehoiachin occurs in the EIGHTH year of Nebuchadnezzar near the beginning of his rule and not the 7th year as found in the text. This means that Zedekiah began ruling late in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar.
2 Kings 24:15 "At length Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he weith his mother and his servants and his princes and his court officials; and the king of Babylon got to take hi in the EIGHTH year of his being king."
Now some might quickly claim that the year of Nebuchadnezzar is being counted wrong, but the math proves otherwise,. as follows.
The first deportation per the Babylonian chronicles would be in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, which is the third year of Jehoiakim. Yet Jehoiakim ruled for 11 years. If the 4th year of Jehoiakim equals the first year of Nebuchadnezzar then there is a 3-year difference. Thus the 11th year of Jehoiakim would overlap into the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar at least.
Per the Babylonian chronicle though, king Jehoiachin was deported in the last month of the year. The Babylonian chronicle says in his 7th year. But if we take that information and apply it to the 8th year, we can understand that Jehoiakim died sometime during the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, then Jehoiachin ruled for three months, basically the last 3 months of the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar before he was deported. If that's the case, then most of the rule of Zedekiah, who was appointed afterwards would fall in the 9th year of Nebuchadnezzar; let's say 11 months.
If that's the case, then generally, there should be an 8-year difference when comparing the rule of Zedekiah with that of Nebuchadnezzar for 11 months out of the year. And that is precisely what we find since the 11th year of Zedekiah when he was captured was the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, which is an 8-year difference.
So, it is absolutely wonderful we have the revised record which we can follow along to confirm how closely the events in the Bible follow the Babylonian record, and this must have been originally recorded in the correct years, but later changed so that there is a one-year discrepancy between the Bible and the Babylonian record.
But the most important point to note is that the text itself records when it was "copied" which was up to 155 years later than the events being recorded. We have thus two reasons to suspect/confirm the document was revised: (1) Because it is a post-dated "copy", the first clue to considering any ancient text was revised. (2) It contradicts other records from the period, in this case, the Bible. We can't presume the Bible was revised or wrong just because it was not preserved in stone.
But one nice thing about the revised records is that while the foretext is revised as far as the chronology, often the subtext remains in place. That is, there would be no critical reason to revise the month of Jehoiachin's deportation and thus from that detail we can understand better the Bible's own chronology for this period which does not give specific details about certain things. So the comparison is wonderful as long as you make the one-year adjustment.
Adequate academic criticism of the "Babylonian chronicles", the "Nabonidus Chronicle" and the "Cyrus Cylinder" upon which most of this part of the history is based can be found in the "Inisight" Book in various places, including under "Chronology".
JCanon
-
Alleymom
I've been looking through our collection of chronology articles and books recently, and I realized there may be people on this forum who would be interested in some of my older academic articles.
As a trial, I just scanned an article by Hayim Tadmor from the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 15, no, 4, October 1956, pp. 226-230, titled "Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah". I saved it as a low-resolution jpeg file, so I am not sure how well it will display and print.
If anyone is interested, let me know ([email protected]) and I will send the first page. If it is legible I will send the rest. I would like to know whether I am doing this correctly and whether it would be worthwhile to scan in other academic articles.
I do have some interesting items .... last night I was reading an article by Freedman/Campbell which is cited (and distorted) in the Kingdom Come appendix.
Marjorie
-
Gamaliel
Alleymom,
I'll be sending an email for the pdf attachment...
This link may have been mentioned in another thread, but it quotes the article by Green.
http://wes-sun.portland.georgefox.edu/courses/bst550/reports/DStahlnecker/Chronicles.html
Gamaliel
-
Alleymom
Gamaliel ---
Thanks for the link.
I have several of the articles and books mentioned on the site. I just emailed you the Green article as well as
Tadmor, Hayim. "Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah in Light of Two Neo-Babylonian Chronicles from British Museum." Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Vol. 15. (1956).
which was also referenced on the site.
Marjorie