Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1

by ithinkisee 21 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  ithinkisee

  Is this REALLY a big deal? I mean ... it's ONLY 1 year.

  Can 1 year really be THAT DAMAGING to the Society they have to make up a vassal kingship clause?

  -ithinkisee
• 

  Jeffro

  
  ithinkisee,

  The way the Society puts it, it's not simply the difference of just a year, it is a difference of 8 years. According to their reasoning, Jeremiah refers to Jehoiakim's actual 4th year (according to them 625BC), and Daniel refers to Jehoiakim's third year as a vassal to Nebuchadnezzar starting from Jehoiakim's 8th year, so they say his 'third' year according to Daniel is really his 11th actual year as king (according to them 617BC). They use this reasoning because it makes their chronology fit a bit better. (See Daniel's Prophecy, chapter 2, paragraph 18)

  The actual explanation for the seeming difference between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1 is that Daniel uses the accession year system, so when he states regnal years, they are one less. In reality, both verses refer to the year 605BC.
• 

  Jeffro

  ithinkisee,

  To clarify, the Society's vassalage clause isn't really to resolve a 'discrepancy' between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1, but to place the taking of Daniel and his companians captive in Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year rather than his accession year. Part of the reason for this is to put up a defence against those who say that the '70 years' began in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year (605BC in real years or 625BC in 'Society years'). See "Let Your Kingdom Come", Appendix, page 188. (However that assumption is based on a flawed interpretation of Jeremiah 25:12 which indicates that the 70 years is about nations serving Babylon, not Jewish exile.)
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  You have explained the matter well but your criticism of the interpretation made by celebrated WT scholars regarding Daniel 1:1 is that Daniel does refer to the third year of the KINGSHIP of Jehoiakim and NOT the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim. So this is an event referring to that latter period of his reign of 11 years where he was a vassal to Nebuchadnezzer during the last three years of Jehoiakims reign. This historic view matters accords with Josephus and the rabbibinical tradition. In short, one needs to get the history right and then the chronology is easy an important fact ifnored by the Jonsson hypothesis.

  Thus by seeing matters correctly an accurate date can be adduced for Daniel 1:1 which is the year of deporation to Babylon of the princes of the land in 617BCE.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  
  Scholar,

  You have explained the matter well but your criticism of the interpretation made by celebrated WT scholars regarding Daniel 1:1 is that Daniel does refer to the third year of the KINGSHIP of Jehoiakim and NOT the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim. So this is an event referring to that latter period of his reign of 11 years where he was a vassal to Nebuchadnezzer during the last three years of Jehoiakims reign. This historic view matters accords with Josephus and the rabbibinical tradition. In short, one needs to get the history right and then the chronology is easy an important fact ifnored by the Jonsson hypothesis.

  I'm not quite sure what you mean by the distinction of the words 'kingship' and 'reign' here insofar as the word used in the original text at Daniel 1:1 is 'malkuth' (Strong's 4338), a noun which means 'reign'. In all of the 91 times that this word appears in the Hebrew scriptures, it never refers to vassalage. The logical reading of the original text indicates that it means the 3rd year (using the accession-year system) from the start of Jehoiakim's reign. There is no scriptural precedent for the Society's interpretation for this verse.

  Thus by seeing matters correctly an accurate date can be adduced for Daniel 1:1 which is the year of deporation to Babylon of the princes of the land in 617BCE.

  While we're talking about accurate dates... you are referring to the deportation in Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year in 597BCE. Nebuchadnezzar wasn't king in 617. His father died 15 August, 605. (That's from that sneaky mischief-making apostate source with nothing better to do than make the Society look bad, namely the British Museum.)

  You find it so difficult to believe that captives were taken by Nebuchadnezzar on his return to Babylon. Berossus and Daniel 1:1 both testify to it. The Society's publication, "Let Your Kingdom Come", reasons that “Josephus states that in the year of the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar conquered all of Syria-Palestine “excepting Judea.”” This argument is baseless as there is no requirement for Judea to be conquered for some captives to be taken.
• 

  JCanon

  Interesting discussion. I'm not quite sure I follow. But if the third year of vassalship was when Daniel was deported, which was the 11th year of Jehoiakim, that means he was deported the same year as Jehoiachin and the other royal family members in year 8 of Nebuchadnezzar. It also means that Ezekiel and the deportation occurring in the 7th year of 3023 Jews. Year 11 of Jehoiakim is year 8 of Nebuchadnezzar. This is not consistent with the context of scripture which shows Daniel and the young children being deported first before any.

  Interesting that the Bible didn't specify the third year of his being a "vassal" to Nebuchadnezzar or something as that so as not to confuse with his kingship. Sometimes the Bible for clarification will give two references for a year. In this case the "vassalship" is not only not mentioned at Daniel 1:1 but it actually says "kingship"...."In the third year of the KINGSHIP of Jehoiakim."

  At verse 2 it mentions the second year of the "kingship" of Nebuchadnezzar. Maybe he was a vassal too under somebody?

  This is just a mistake, desperate to make the scriptures work out, the WTS has directly contradicted what the Bible is saying and in so doing corrupted other details of scripture. That might be cause they did not think about the deportations in various years. Here is how it is laid out in the Bible when you use third year of kingship for Jehoiakim for the deportation of Daniel.

  If year 11 of Jehoiakim is year 8 of Nebuchadnezzar, then there is a 3-year difference. 8+3=11. In that case the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar which is zero +3 would equal the third year of Jehoiakim. Thus Daniel would be deported during the accession year of Jehoiakim. This is the first deportation.

  The second deportation of 3023 souls, including Ezekiel occurs near the end of year 7.

  The third deportation in year 8 of more than 10,000 along with Jehoiachin occurs at the very end of year 8.

  Then after a siege of Jerusalem in year 9 of Zedekiah, some were deported in year 18 before the city fell, probably some that surrendered, a total of 830 souls (Jeremiah 52:30)

  Then of course, some were deported with Zedekiah after Jerusalem fell in year 19.

  Some poor people were left in the land to work but ran down to Egypt and refused to return. These were deported by Nebuchadnezzar in his 3rd year upon returning to Judah (Jer. 44:14,28).

  JC
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  The Hebrew word translated 'kingship' in Daniel 1:1 means much more than 'reign' as commonly translated. The word malkut means much more than reign but inn fact refers to, royal power, dominion, kingship, royal digity etc. Or more properly the office of ruling with a stronger emphasis on the activity of ruling. So this word means much more than reign which at its base denotes a period of time. The NWT is quite unique in recoginizing the distint meaning of this word. I am not saying that this word means vassalship but rather the use of kingship changes the focus of a period to nature of Jehoiakim' reign which historically was one ofa vassal to foreign over the length of 11 years. As one referenc you can consult DOTTE,1997, Vol.2, pp.956-65.

  You talk about the logical reading of the text which you use to adopt a form of reckoning but if the text is not accurately translated then your argument. Additionall, Jewish scholars and Josephus do not support your exegesis but are in harmony with WT scholars.

  I do not accept your dating for the first deportation in Daniel 1:1 regardles of how prestigious the source is. The only prestigious source is God;s Word and it does not accept your theories.

  There is no evidence that Nebuchadnezzer too captives in the early period of his reign for the records only indicate this happened in his seventy or eight year of his reign.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  The Hebrew word translated 'kingship' in Daniel 1:1 means much more than 'reign' as commonly translated. The word malkut means much more than reign but inn fact refers to, royal power, dominion, kingship, royal digity etc. Or more properly the office of ruling with a stronger emphasis on the activity of ruling. So this word means much more than reign which at its base denotes a period of time. The NWT is quite unique in recoginizing the distint meaning of this word. I am not saying that this word means vassalship but rather the use of kingship changes the focus of a period to nature of Jehoiakim' reign which historically was one ofa vassal to foreign over the length of 11 years. As one referenc you can consult DOTTE,1997, Vol.2, pp.956-65.

  
  Yes, the word also shares its meaning with words that are synonyms of 'reign' (not sure how that helps your point). Yes, it means reign as a noun regarding the period time for which one reigns (not sure how that helps your point either). Occasionally the NWT renders it as 'kingship' but not always. In any case, in other translations it is obvious when 'reign' is used as a noun rather than a verb (still not sure how this helps your point). If you are translating the Hebrew word to either 'reign' or 'kingship', the original word is not changed, and there is simply nothing in the original word to suggest vassalship. Your point merely demonstrates that the Society wants it to refer to vassalship-ness-ment or some other crazy Society word.

  You talk about the logical reading of the text which you use to adopt a form of reckoning but if the text is not accurately translated then your argument. Additionall, Jewish scholars and Josephus do not support your exegesis but are in harmony with WT scholars.

  You're suggesting that the text is not properly translated in some bibles, yet the word 'reign' is generally understood by English speakers as a noun to indicate the time for which someone reigns. It is unclear what point you really think you have here. Josephus says in Against Apion (Book 1, Chapter 21) "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." In the same work, in Chapter 19, he says that Jerusalem "was desolate during the interval of seventy years" though this does not necessitate the entirety of the period. Also, he doesn't actually say that Jerusalem was completely uninhabited. I'm not sure which Jewish scholars you are referring to, but I don't know of any that agree that the 70 years started in 607, so you would discount their interpretations anyway.

  I do not accept your dating for the first deportation in Daniel 1:1 regardles of how prestigious the source is. The only prestigious source is God;s Word and it does not accept your theories.

  My dating is based on the bible. There is simply nothing in the verse to indicate vassalship.

  Of course when you say your source is 'God's Word', what you mean is 'God's Word as interpreted by the Watchtower Society'. This is because they are supposed to be the 'Faithful and Discreet Slave'. However the supposed identification of that class is derived from interpretations contingent upon 1914 which in turn is contingent upon 607. (To be more specific, Revelation 11:2-3 mentions periods of 42 months and 1260 days (both 3½ years). The Watchtower Society applies this period literally, from October 1914 to the beginning of 1918, after which they apply the 3½ days of Revelation 11:11 figuratively, identifying these periods with the preaching work during World War I followed by a period of imprisonment of early Watchtower Society members in 1918. It is after their release from prison in 1919 that it is believed that they were approved as Jesus’ ‘slave class’.) So it is quite clear why you so doggedly defend 607.
  

  There is no evidence that Nebuchadnezzer too captives in the early period of his reign for the records only indicate this happened in his seventy or eight year of his reign.

  You claim to rely solely on the bible, yet you ignore Daniel 1:1 which states that captives were taken in Jehoiakim's third year (accession year system) in 605BC. But if you really want to talk about evidence, give me the names and reigns (sorry, 'kingships') of the kings for the missing 20 years according to the Society's interpretation with the supporting evidence.
• 

  JCanon

  You claim to rely solely on the bible, yet you ignore Daniel 1:1 which states that captives were taken in Jehoiakim's third year (accession year system) in 605BC. But if you really want to talk about evidence, give me the names and reigns (sorry, 'kingships') of the kings for the missing 20 years according to the Society's interpretation with the supporting evidence.

  The WTS doesn't know. But it's not quite an open guessing game and the extra years can be identified by comparing several references. First of all, there is a 26-year difference in the timeline for the Bible and Josephus versus the pagan records, which we will presume were revised, the records of the extra years destroyed as best possible by the Persian Government. Josephus says there are 70 years from the last deportation to the 1st of Cyrus, meaning 74 years from the fall of Jerusalem to the first of Cyrus. Secular history represents this period as 48 years, from year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar in 587BCE to the 1st of Cyrus in 539BCE (587-539=48, 74-48=26). Here is one way to make up the 26 years with not necessarily adding any new kings, but simply expanding their reigns. 26 years too short: 1. Nebuchadnezzar II, add 2 years. The Bible says the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile was the year Nebuchadnezzar died. The exile of Jehoiachin closely matched the rulership of Zedekiah whose 11th year matched the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, meaning an 8-year gap. 37 plus 8 = 45. Thus per the Bible you can add 2 years to the 43-year rule for Nebuchadnezzar; down 2, 24 years to go. 2. Evil-Merodach, add 16 years. Evil-Merodach is assigned only 2 years, but Josephus in Antiquities assigns him 18 years. So there is that reference for extending the rule of Evil-Merodach besides the Biblical suggestion of more years. This takes care of another 16 years, leaving 8 more years to make up. 3. Nabonidus, add 2 years. If you combine several references, Nabonidus gets 2 years added to his rule. I won't go into the chronology specific references from eclipse observations right now, but two exist that would specifically date the 2nd year of Nabonidus in 479/478BCE. By that reference his first year falls in 480BCE. A Babylonian references says Cyrus overthrew Astyages in the 6th year of Nabonidus and he ruled for 20 years until he became king in Babylon. Thus the first 20 years of the reign of Cyrus is dated from 559-539BCE. But this would mean a 25-year rule for Nabonidus if you don't include any other king. The Bible establishes a 6-year rule for Darius the Mede before Cyrus comes to the throne, however, so when this is deducted from the 25-year rule, we end up with a 19-year rule for Nabonidus, 2 more than assigned to him by popular history, reducing the 8 years to 6, which is then taken up by the rule of Darius the Mede. 4. Darius the Mede, add 6 years. as noted above, ruled for six year per the Bible (compare Zechariah 1 and 7) where the Jews were still in exile in the 2nd and 4th years of "Darius" (the Mede), yet to return, and Josephus' reference that the 70 years of Jeremiah did not begin until 4 years after the fall of Jerusalem, thus the Jews would return 2 years after the 4th of Darius which would also be the 1st of Cyrus, establishing a 6-year rule for Darius the Mede. That's where you insert the extra 26 years to be compatible with the Bible based upon references. These extra years taken from the NB Period were added to the Persian Period kings. JC
• 

  JCanon

  Here's a peripheral historical note that's out there to consdier. It seems that while Nebuchadnezzar chased Necho away at Carchemish, when he alter engaged the pharoah Necho defeated Nebuchadnezzar. Since Jehoiakim had originally been appointed by Necho and was his vassal, he may have felt free to rebel at this time against Nebuchadnezzar, breaking a 3-year vassalship from years 3-5 of Jehoiakim.

  God then said because of this, he would be hassled by several different nations and marauder bands for doing this.

  1 In his days Neb·u·chad·nez´zar the king of Babylon came up, and so Je·hoi´a·kim became his servant for three years. However, he turned back and rebelled against him. 2 And Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Chal·de´ans and marauder bands of Syrians and marauder bands of Mo´ab·ites and marauder bands of the sons of Am´mon, and he kept sending them against Judah to destroy it, according to Jehovah’s word that he had spoken by means of his servants the prophets.

  The above, of course, works out much better with an extended period of time with various nations attacking Judah at different times. Certainly not likely to occur in just a few months during a single year, a year in which Nebuchadnezzar himself punished Jehoiakim, so this would not include that last attack. Instead, these marauder bands attacked Judah over an extended period of time until Nebuchadnezzar finally returned and began deportations again and resubjected Jehoiakim, finally replacing him with Jehoiachin who only ruled for 3 months.

  Returning to our timeline, if Nebuchadnezzar returned early enough to deport by late in his 7th year, which is the 10th year of Jehoiakim, this period is about 4-5 years, leaving plenty of time for Judah to be harrassed by these marauding bands from four different nations at different times.

  Reiterating, Ezekiel was deported near the end of the year, as usual, of the 7th of Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiakim did not die until the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar and the 3-month rule of Jehoiachin occurring during the last three months of the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar after which Zedekiah was appointed. Thus the exile of Jehoiachin and the rule of Zedekiah which would be parallel for the most part better matches by comparison to the 9th year of Nebuchadnezzar. That's why year 11 of Zedekiah is year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar, since year 1 of Zedekiah is year 9 of Nebuchadnezzar.

  All the above argues against any "vassalship" implied by "reign" or "kingship" as provided in the Bible for dating these events. Again, as noted, the revised Babylonian records which reduce the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II by 2 years also squeezes the events of his accession year and first year into the same year so that the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicle, such as the battle with Necho and the deportation of Jehoiachin happen a year earlier. The chronicles dates this deportation in year 7, the Bible in year 8. This is likely also why there is confusion over the fall of Jerualem with some Babylonian records still extant during the time of Josephus claiming the fall was in year 18 vs year 19.

  JC