Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • SeymourButts
    SeymourButts

    BM 21946

    This tablet provides the key for firming up the dates of the last kings of Judah. It establishes the date for the battle of Carchemish in May or June of 605. Jeremiah 46:2 places the battle during the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign. The tablet also provides a precise date for the capture of Jerusalem. The chronicle records the event as follows, "In the seventh year [of Nebuchadnezzar's reign], the month of Kislev, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land, and encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month of Adar he seized the city and captured the king." Adar 2nd of the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign = 15/16 March 597 BC. Jehoiachin's short reign which lasted three months and ten days (II Kings 24:8; II Chronicles 36:9) and ended with the capture of Jerusalem, establishes the synchronism necessary to chronolog the dates of the last kings of Judah.

    BM 25127

    This tablet describes the beginnings of the new Babylonian Kingdom during the years 626 to 623 BC. The text opens with Nabopolassar acting as the leader of the insurgent Babylonian forces who have just defeated the Assyrians Outside the gates of Babylon. To celebrate their independence, the Babylonians crown Nabopolassar king on November 23, 626 BC. In subsequent years, the Assyrians attempt to regain control of Babylon, but because of internal strife, they are no longer strong enough to do so. However, Babylon was not yet strong enough herself to go on the offensive and conquer Assyria.

    BM 21901

    The chronicle for the events between 622 to 617 is missing. This tablet covers the period from 616 to 608 and opens with the Medes having made their appearance as the leaders of the anti-Assyrian coalition. The Egyptians, on the other hand, have now joined forces with the weakened Assyrians to thwart the threat of the Medo-Bababylonian alliance. In 614, the Medes capture the Assyrian city Assur. Nabopolassar arrives to offer his assistance, but arrives after the city is fallen. The two kings, Kyaxares of the Medes and Nabopolassar form an alliance and set out in conquest. In 612, after three months of siege, the two kings sack Nineveh. The Assyrians make a last ditch effort in Harran to maintain their civilization. Yet despite tremendous Egyptian assistance, the attempt was a failure and the Assyrians are lost forever.

    BM 22047

    This tablet describes the events leading up to the battle at Carchemish in 605. Nabopolassar the king and Nebuchadnezzar the crown-prince command separate armies in campaigns against the mountain people on the Urartian border so as to prevent raids from former Assyrian provinces. Unsuccessful attacks were also made against the Egyptians who were firmly entrenched at Carchemish. Nabopolassar returned to Babylon toward the end of 606 and died there a few months later.

    BM 25124

    No history is recorded for the years 594 to 557. This tablet describes the campaign of Neriglissar against Pirundu who had invaded Hume, a territory under the protection of Babylon. The campaign was successful.

    Hayim Tadmor combined the data collected from the five tablets described above with a chronology proposed by Edwin Theile, which was based in part upon other Babylonian Chronicle tablets translated earlier, to establish a solid chronology for the last kings of Judah. Five synchronisms form the foundation for his chronology. They are:

    1. The fourth year of Jehoiakim = the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar. (Jer. 25:1)
    2. The deportation of Jehoiakim and ascension of Zedekiah = the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar. (II Kings 24:12)
    3. The tenth year of Zedekiah = the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. (Jer 32:1)
    4. The eleventh year of Zedekiah, the fall of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the temple = the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. (II Kings 25:1-9; Jer. 52:12)
    5. The release of Jehoiachin in the 37th year of the captivity of Jehoiachin = the accession year of Amel-Marduk. (II Kings 25:27; Jer. 52:31)
    From this information you get the following table.
    Date Judah Mesopotamia Events
    642 Menasseh 55
    acc. year of Amon
    Assurbanipal 27 --
    640 Amon 2
    acc. year of Josiah
    Assurbanipal 29 --
    632 Josiah 8 Assurbanipal 37 Prelude of religious reform in Judah (II Chron. 34:3)
    631 -- Assurbanipal 38 Last year of Assurbanipal
    630 -- Assuretililani 1 --
    628 Josiah 12 -- Beginning of the reform under Josiah (II Chron. 34:3)
    627 Josiah 13 acc. year of Sinsariskun Beginning of Jeremiah's prophecy (Jer. 1:1)
    625 -- Naboplassar 1 --
    622 Josiah 18 -- Discovery of the "Book of Covenant":
    climax of the reform (II Kings 22:3)
    609 Josiah 31
    Jehoahaz (3 months)
    acc. year of Jehoiakim
    Nabopalassar 17 Battle of Megiddo; death of Josiah (II Kings 23:29-33)
    608 Jehoiakim 1 -- --
    605 Jehoiakim 4 Nabopalassar 21 Battle of Carchemish (Jer. 46:2)
    604 Jehoiakim 5 Nebuchadnezzar 1 Nebuchadnezzar in Hatti
    Fall of Ashkelon
    Fast of Judah
    Jeremiah reads the scroll (Jer. 36:9)
    Judah comes under the rule of Babylon (II Kings 24:1)
    603 Jehoiakim 6 Nebuchadnezzar 2 Nebuchadnezzar in Hatti
    602 Jehoiakim 7 Nebuchadnezzar 3 Nebuchadnezzar in Hatti
    601 Jehoiakim 8 Nebuchadnezzar 4 Indecisive battle with Egypt
    Revolt of Jehoiakim
    599 Jehoiakim 10 Nebuchadnezzar 6 War against Arabs (Jer. 49:28)
    598 Jehoiakim 11 Nebuchadnezzar 7 Death of Jehoiakim
    3 months and 10 days reign of Jehoiachin
    Siege of Jerusalem
    597 acc. year of Zedekiah Nebuchadnezzar 8 Fall of Jerusalem and captivity of Jehoiachin. (March 16)
    596 Zedekiah 1 Nebuchadnezzar 9 Babylonian campaign to Elam
    595 Zedekiah 2 Nebuchadnezzar 10 Rebellion in Babylon
    594 Zedekiah 3 Nebuchadnezzar 11 Babylonian campaign in Hatti
    591 Zedekiah 6 Nebuchadnezzar 14 Egyptian naval campaign to Phoenicia
    Rebellion of Zedekiah
    588 Zedekiah 9 Nebuchadnezzar 17 Second seige of Jerusalem
    586 Zedekiah 11 Nebuchadnezzar 19 Fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple. (II Kings 25:8)
    Second Babylonian captivity (Jer. 52:28)
    582 none Nebuchadnezzar 23 Third Babylonian captivity (Jer. 32:30)
    568 none Nebuchadnezzar 37 Nebuchadnezzar's campaign against Egypt
    561 none acc year of Amel-Marduk Jehoiachin released from prison after 37 years.
  • scholar
    scholar

    SeymourButts

    An interesting chart but you fail to date the most important event namely the beginning and end of the seventy years and you clash with the Jonsson hypothesis by dating the event in 586 rather than 587.

    scholar JW

  • scholar
    scholar

    Alleymom

    I am rather flattered that the prominent posters on this board consider me very dangerous because I vigorouslty defend Watchtower chronology. My earlier response remains in respect to your silly game. The answer to your question is simply that whatever the Insight volumes have published on the reigns of the Babylonians stands because that reflects current scholarship and it may or may not conflict with previous information. Whatever the case it shows that fluidity for the Neo-Babylonian period remains. Bible chronology has simply a passing interest in so-called secular evidence for the period but a far greater interest in the biblical evidence.

    scholar JW

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom
    My earlier response remains in respect to your silly game. The answer to your question is simply that whatever the Insight volumes have published on the reigns of the Babylonians stands because that reflects current scholarship and it may or may not conflict with previous information. Whatever the case it shows that fluidity for the Neo-Babylonian period remains. Bible chronology has simply a passing interest in so-called secular evidence for the period but a far greater interest in the biblical evidence.

    Scholar ---

    I am not playing a silly game. I asked you a simple question, and you have refused to give me a direct answer. What you posted above is still not a direct answer.

    The answer to your question is simply that whatever the Insight volumes have published on the reigns of the Babylonians stands because that reflects current scholarship and it may or may not conflict with previous information.

    #1 --- It may or may not conflict with previous information? Well, does it or doesn't it? Is there new light or not?

    #2 -- If the information in the Insight volumes does conflict with any of the six statements I have listed from the January 1,1965 WT, could you please tell me which statements in that article were in error?

    #3 --- And if the information in the 1/1/65 WT is inaccurate, could you please tell me what new archeological information was found between 1965 and the publication of the Insight volumes which led to the Society changing its position as stated in the 1/1/65 WT?

    Thank you,

    Marjorie Alley

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    non-scholar: Would you please explain why you said that Jenni in his book does not cite Jeremiah 29:10 as I claimed, or why you implied that no support exists for Jonsson's position on the rendering "for Babylon" in standard Hebrew works such as Jenni's, or why you said that Jenni is biased against JWs?

  • jeanniebeanz
    jeanniebeanz
    I am rather flattered that the prominent posters on this board consider me very dangerous because I vigorouslty defend Watchtower chronology.

    Scholar,

    You are confusing danger with comedy relief. Even the prominent need a laugh once in a while and you provide them great opportunity to do so.

    Jeannie

  • Bas
    Bas

    I can't believe how much attention Scholar gets for this non-subject, it's all speculation anyway. As a matter of fact the whole watchtower is build on speculation and that's not a good foundation for anything.b

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    scholar pretendus said:

    : I am rather flattered that the prominent posters on this board consider me very dangerous because I vigorouslty defend Watchtower chronology.

    Well don't flatter yourself too much. The eminent astronomer Carl Sagan wrote an entire book debunking the crazy but extremely popular notions of Immanuel Velikovsky (first book, Worlds In Collision, ca. 1950), who skeptic author Martin Gardener called "the very model of a crank".

    You're a crank, and even cranks can sell millions of books and get a huge following from the ignorant. That's how Russell and his followers got so far.

    I can't believe you dared to show up on this board again, after being shown by several posters to be a bald-faced liar. You have no shame, and are no Christian. You're not even a scholar, having flunked out of your religious studies courses.

    AlanF

  • OldSoul
    OldSoul
    scholar: True, you have simoly followrd a methodology which from 539 enables one to cakculate the dates for the Babylonian rulers. There is nothing new in this but it is torpedoed by the seventy years. IF the seventy years is factored in there there is a twenty year gap between secular chronology and biblocal chronology. For this reason, WT scholars although using 539 as a pivotal date folllow a different methodology based on the exile rather than a regnal methodology. So we have now two methodologies

    Okay, who would know best what was to occur at the end of the 70 years to mark the end? You? The WTS? Or the Jews at the time?

    Relative to late 587/early 586, when was the temple rebuilt?

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom

    Leolaia: Would you please explain why you said that Jenni in his book does not cite Jeremiah 29:10 as I claimed, or why you implied that no support exists for Jonsson's position on the rendering "for Babylon" in standard Hebrew works such as Jenni's, or why you said that Jenni is biased against JWs?
    Leolaia --- Your excellent research certainly deserves a response. Your scans of the pages from Ernst Jenni's book show beyond any doubt that Ernst Jenni did cite Jeremiah 29:10 in his book on the preposition lamed. You even highlighted the relevant lines to make it easier to see. Furthermore, as you pointed out, Jenni cited the same passages Narkissos did. Jenni specifically said that Jeremiah 29:10 reads 70 years FOR Babylon. Since scholar misrepresented Jenni's work, he certainly ought to retract his claim and apologize for his errors. Marjorie

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit