Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  First I want to highlight that in my last post I only summarised some of the points made by Ernst Jenni in his aforementioned article on Jeremiah 3:17. So the credit is his.

  Taking into account the time factor in the study of Biblical Hebrew (BH) is very important indeed, but it is a difficult task as (1) the BH corpus is comparatively small and (2) most of the older texts have been submitted to some (more or less considerable) later editing.

  Exegesis works in a circle, trying to make an optimal use of a number of distinct tools, e.g. descriptive grammar and lexicology on one side, textual, literary and historical criticism on the other. If some of the tools are under- or over-used the others will have to compensate and the general imbalance will result in flawed conclusions. For instance, the old grammars and lexica which didn't take into account textual, literary and historical criticism tended to be excessively complex, having to multiply grammar rules and polysemy (or homonymy) to account for every detail of the MT artificially treated as a synchronical or unified whole. On the other hand, too narrow a grammar or lexicon can lead to overcriticism. The interpenetration of study fields takes time, especially when new data (such as the Ugaritic and Qumran corpora in the 20th century) have to be taken into account. This is a good reason (along with less good ones, e.g. sectarian, ideological or commercial agendas) why there is no end to Biblical studies and translations -- and relying on old scholarly works may be very misleading.
• 

  toreador

  Wow! I leave the board for a couple days and it goes wild. This has proven to be an interesting read for me. Many thanks.

  Tor
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  Response to post 437

  Your claim that the 70 year period had already started prior to the first exile is impossible and if it is so plain and clear that such was the case then how is it the fact that none can determine with certainty when the period began? Are you trying to argue that the Jews living back then were confused about this matter and were uncertain about when and how these events would unfurl? Come on! You say that it is not important or that one does not need to know, how silly. It is certainly the case that one can be aware of events in action and not know from whence and where such events occurred but in this case of immediate history those Jews in Jerusalem and in Babylon certainly knew what was going because Jehovah sent Jeremiah to reveal and declare such matters.

  You raise the argument of Jeremiah 29:4 wherein Jehovah had caused the exiled people to go to Babylon and use this prophetic speech (WBC,1995, 27:71) to say that the seventy years had already started. How stupid! Jerremiah repeats this form in verse 20, so what do we have here. It is simply the case that in the year of this specific letter of Jeremiah addressed to the exiles who were simply already there in Babylon at the time of Jeeremiah's letter otherwise he would have had no audience to write . The whole letter of chapter 29 contains prophecies of events that would soon come to pass including the period of the seventy years. Again the seventy years could not have already began because the land was not desolate according to the original prohecy in chapter 25. The land becoming desolate did not occur and its depopulation until Jerusalem was destroyed some ten years later in 607.

  Yes. I know that the NWT is just a translation but it is highly accurate as many scholars attest. For many ordinary people and some scholars, a knowledge of the original languages is a luxury. Not all scholars are experts in these languages and that goes for those 'wiley poztates' who are not scholars of those languages including their chief Architect, Jonsson.

  The fact is that meloth in Leviticus and Jeremiah have the same form and are rendered differently which is the business of the transaltor. I am quite sure that this form is not rendered identically by all other scholars and translations. In the case of Jermiah 29:10 and according to the conventions of Hebrew grammar the infinitive is rendered as a gerund 'the fulfilling' which is most accurate and rare. Jenni was sloppy in this instance. And I have already shown in Lundbom that this is what the Hebrew literally means.

  No, I do not ascribe magical powers to the NWT committee but it is clearly the work of Holy Spirit. If one believes that Jehovah is the Preserver of his Sacred Word for centuries would it not be reasonable to conclude that at a time when biblical scholarship is at its peak and amidst a plethora of other translations that Jehovah and His Son would graciously oversee the bringing up of a transaltion that truly honours Him in the light of Daniel 12 :3-4.

  Yes, Narkissos and Leolaia have based their understanding on the identical Hebrew form and not a transaltion of that Hebrew form but it still requires careful scholarship and subjectivity which are requisites in any endeavour. Thes people are not accredited Hebrew scholars and even if they were so it would still only be their opinion because of the fluidity of Hebrew syntax.

  I have not read more into the text that is not plainly there. I have recogized that we are dealing with a Qal.inf.const. and that it literally reada 'the fulfilling' a temporal sense with the object of seventy years connected to a place Babylon or the locative 'le' 'at Babylon'/. Other examples are Jeremiah 3:17 and 51:49.

  Perhaps during my golden years I will study Hebrew. In the meantime I have my library, the assistance of my learned friend and colleague Mr. Shearman and of course the ever brilliant literal NWT which will all do for now.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  Response to post 439

  Marjorie

  I am fully aware that there is and must a wide semantic variation in the treatment of 'meloth' as a Qal infinitive construct by the NWT. The thirteen examples shown by you are no doubt rather fascinating and demonstrate the ingenuity and brilliance of the NWT. Undoubtedly these examples demand much exegetical skill on behalf of the NWT's scholars so how did they fare?

  With your considerable linguistic ability and considerable knowledge of Hebrew how did they score? Out of the thirteen examples what percentage mark for accuracy do you find?

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Leolaia

  Response to post 4314

  Nope! No contradiction involved for I am simply asking for a rule, a little rule will do but if you have a big rule say from Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar all the better. REMEMBER, it was first that 'wiley poztate' Jonsson who first introduced dogmatism into this debate for did he not first say that 'at Babylon' was impossible or highly improbable? The Society in all of its published writings to my extensive and intensive knowledge has never been so dogmatic on this particular matter of transaltion. So there!

  At last you admit to fluidity with Hebrew syntax and that there are few rules in this respect but Jenni would have us believe something different. Jenni's work could be considered a descriptive and subjective grammar documenting the known patterns of constructions in Hebrew that comprise the given word's usage. His research is interesting but Jenni is not a translator and could it really be said that his scholarship is superior to other scholars such as Gesenius or Rolf Furuli. I am shortly going to read a review of Jenni's work on Prepositions so I will have a better idea of Jenni' research. One thing I have noticed is how little information is availabel on the NET and the lack of any bio on him.

  Perhaps a short summary of lexical comments from Gesenius' Lexicon is appropriate for these examples were critically examined by the Hebraist one, Rodney Shearman VDM:

  Section 2: Expressing locality, at, near idiom in phrases =before, 1 Ki.1:23; but very oft. otherwise Is.10;23. in the sight of, at the entrance of, Gn 4:7, Nu 11:10, in oither rarer connexions, Nu 20:24, Ju 5:16, Gen 49:13, Ju 5:17, Pro 8:3, Ho 5:1, 2Chron 35:15, =within, 1Ki 6:30, Ez 40:16.

  Section 9B:More rarely 'le' is used- 1. of rest, or tarriance at a place, or in a place like the Gr,eis,iv and the Germ zu for in and an eg. at ones side, at some one's right hand, at the door of his tent, Nu 11:10, at the entrance of the city, Prov 8:3, by the seashore Gen 49:13, at the eyes ie before the eyes, in the sight of anyone. This usage is yet more widely extended by the poets and later writers who sometimes put lamed for the common beth eg Ps 41:7, and 2Chron 32:5, without, outside;Jos 12:23; at Mizpah, Hos 5:1, in the pit, ie in prison, Isa 51:14

  2.to time, and is spoken-(a) of the point of time at which, and in which anything is done; especially used in poetry; and in imitation by the later writers as in the morning...at daylight...in the evening...etc.

  So, 'le' has a broad semantic range even within itself and this lexical discussion illustrates the static locative and the temporal meanings for this preposition and prefix so there is no lexical or grammatical prohibition against transalting 'le' as 'at' in the instance of Jeremiah 29:10.

  Next you posit the 'wiley poztates Hebrew Rule for the use of the Lamed in the OT. Perhaps this now new rule should be published within a article about Jeremiah 29:10 in one of the scholarly journals authored by yourself and Narkissos. Upon examination of these three requirements I believe that the expression as rendered in the NWT fulfills these linguistic requirements. So, a static-locative meaning with melot with the durative of seventy years is nicely confirmed at Jeremeiah 29:10.
• 

  Narkissos

  Your claim that the 70 year period had already started prior to the first exile is impossible

  First, "the 70 year period" is a fallacious simplification of Biblical data. There are a number of related yet distinct "70 year periods" if you read the texts closely enough:

  - Jeremiah 25:11f, during 70 years several nations will serve the king of Babylon (cf. 27:7, "all the nations"), after the period is completed the king of Babylon will be punished.
  - Jeremiah 29:10, seventy years for / to Babylon.
  - Zechariah 1:12, divine anger against Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, still going on in 519 BC (cf. 7:5, fast going on ever since Jerusalem's fall, 518 BC).
  - 2 Chronicles 36:20f, serving the king of Babylon and desolation of the land.
  - Daniel 9:2, devastation of Jerusalem.

  To me this clearly shows that the Biblical interpretation of "the 70 years" has changed over time, from a general period allotted to Babylon's supremacy (Jeremiah) to a period specifically beginning with Jerusalem's fall but not ending with Babylon's fall (Zechariah) and finally to the sole period of the exile (Daniel), at a time (2nd century BC) when the exact duration of the exile had long been forgotten.

  As far as the initial interpretation in Jeremiah is concerned, it is more than "possible" that the period envisioned was thought to have begun before the final fall of Jerusalem (it is quite interesting by the way that you speak of "the first exile"). See the chronological indications in the context of the 70-year or similar sayings:
  Jeremiah 25:1: "The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah, in the fourth year of King Jehoiakim son of Josiah of Judah (that was the first year of King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon)" (= 605 BC)
  Jeremiah 27:1, "At the beginning of Zedekiah's reign," 597 BC, v. 6f: "Now I have given all these lands into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, my servant, and I have given him even the wild animals of the field to serve him. All the nations shall serve him and his son and his grandson, until the time of his own land comes; then many nations and great kings shall make him their slave."
  Jeremiah 29:1: "These are the words of the letter that the prophet Jeremiah sent from Jerusalem to the remaining elders among the exiles, and to the priests, the prophets, and all the people, whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon. This was after King Jeconiah, and the queen mother, the court officials, the leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, the artisans, and the smiths had departed from Jerusalem." (= 597 BC).
  All those "prophecies" are situated years before Jerusalem's final fall (587/6), and there is absolutely no indication that the 70 years have not yet begun. In chapter 29, the question is clearly "when will the existing exile in Babylon end?" Read the whole chapters for a change.

  I won't get into the rest of your post as it only proves you are able to say "nah-nah-nah" in the face of overwhelming evidence -- and this we already knew. As far as my accreditations are involved, irrelevant as this is in a board discussion, may I remind you that you already asked and received an answer? Fyi I have kept a copy of this pm exchange.
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  Response to post 440

  Marjorie

  It is pleasing to read that both you and Leolaia agree that there is no reeom for dogmatism in connection with the translating of Hebrew syntax and somewhat makes the linguistic claim per the Jonsson hypothesis to be utterly stupid. It is correct to say that the linguistic task is to be aware of the most probable sense of a given word but if the lexica give a range of meaning then the linguistic plane ranges between the most probable to the least probable. Within this range of meaning the translator must also be guided by the context sp as to determine precisely what is meant and how it is best rendered in another language.

  Contrary to popular opinion scholar is not searching for anything or any rule because scholars have shown that the locative sense is permitted, is allowed contextually. It is those 'wiley poztates' who are beating the drum over this matter. They have much more to lose than I because the whole Jonsson hypothesis is based on an assumption, on the varied meaning of a single proposition. The WT's seventy years is not based on this singular point of dispute but rather on a collection of texts in various parts of the Bible.

  Scholar does not disregard the cumulative evidence of the cuneiform texts at all. WT scholars are very much interested in such material recognizing that thus far only a portion of such evidence is translated and understoof by scholars as well pointed out by Hebrew scholar, Rolf Furuli. The translation 'at' is well supported by the traditional King James Version and the locative sense is well preserved by the textual tradition originating with the LXX.

  scholar JW
• 

  Ginosko

  Hi Scholar,

  Your following statement is amazing,

  No, I do not ascribe magical powers to the NWT committee but it is clearly the work of Holy Spirit. If one believes that Jehovah is the Preserver of his Sacred Word for centuries would it not be reasonable to conclude that at a time when biblical scholarship is at its peak and amidst a plethora of other translations that Jehovah and His Son would graciously oversee the bringing up of a transaltion that truly honours Him in the light of Daniel 12 :3-4.

  Wow.

  Never the NWT Committee had claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit in the NWT translation, neither that it is the work of the Holy Spirit.

  But only a question, if you really believe that, then: Why do you believe that the NWT had some revisions, for example in Hebrews 1:6?

  Do you believe that the Holy Spirit made a mistake in the first translation?

  Ginosko
• 

  scholar

  Narkissos

  Response to post

  The 70 year period is not a fallacious simplification of the Biblical data at all but rather a harmonization of the Biblical data for to argue otherwise would have multiple seventy years, each having differing comings and goings. Biblical and secular history knows of no such mythology and it is the fact that scholars do not generally accept the proposition of multiple 'seventy year' periods for they refer to a singular period with widely conjectured terminii.

  What in fact you are arguing for is multiple interpretation or an evolving development of an understanding of that period but such a view is irreconcilable with the raw Biblical data.

  Jeremiah present a specific prophecy pertaining to the desolation of the land, the exile and servitude to Babylon which meant that these events happened logically within a definite period namely seventy years. This prophecy was proclaimed prior to these events.

  Daniel, one of the foremost earlier exiles in Babylon and a comtemporary witness to these events determined that these events 'devastations of Jerusalem' had already been fulfilled namely the seventy years.

  Much later, Ezra in the Chronicles referred like Daniel to the original Jeremaniac prohecy that the seventy years had been fulfilled with the exile to Babylon and the desolation of Judah.

  The prohet Zechariah wrote concerning the delay in rebuilding the Temple at Jerusalem which was destroyed by the Babylonians which event led to the exile and desolation of the Judah. Even though the exiles had now returned home some twenty years, the temple was not yet completed so the angel brought a message of comfort reminding them of the fact that temple and its cities or the land of Judah had been denounced these seventy years.

  In summary, all of these texts speak of a definite, singular seventy year period pertaining not ever to Babylon but to Judah, Jerusale, and its people with a definite beginning and end which was known to those who were involved.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Ginosko

  I did not state or infer that the NWT is inspired and that the NWT Committee were inspired in the production of the NWT. What I said was that the NWT is clearly the work of Holy Spirit because as noted in the FOREWORD to the the NWT is the fact that the Committee expressed their gratitude to God for the privilige and in whose spirit they trusted. The fact that this work has benefited millions of people, honours Jehovah, is accurate and is the only multi-lingual transaltion ever made is proof of the fact that it is a work of Holy Spirit.

  scholar JW