[b-hebrew] repost of full question
Dirk Frulla
fiveacorns at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 17 14:50:43 EDT 2008
I am going to repost my question regarding Daniel 9:2. I did not have too much time previously to give you details. I appologize for this.
My questions center around the NIV's translation of Daniel 9:2, how it relates to Jeremiah 25 & 29, and whether the NIV paraphrased the scripture - possibly leaving out some meaning. Let me cite some scriptures from Jeremiah first (since Daniel 9:2 references Jeremiah). To be clear, there are several questions in this post - all of which are grammatical Hebrew questions. Any help would be appreciated.
To start, Jeremiah 25:11 reads:
This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. (NIV)
Most Bibles actually render this scripture with a semicolon or period dividing the two halves of this compound sentence. It seems that when you read this scripture, grammatically speaking, the "seventy years" modifier attaches itself to "serve". So it is NOT attaching the "desolation" with the seventy years, but rather the servitude of "these nations". It is stating
1) "This whole country" will be desolate
2) "These nations" will serve the king of Babylon 70 years ("these nations" is a reference back to verse 9)
So my first question is this: Is this consistent with the grammar in Hebrew? There seems to be two subjects and two predicates here, and the 70 years is attached to the servitude. However, could it be read differently in Hebrew?
Next, if we move into Jeremiah 29:10, it states:
This is what the LORD says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place. (NIV)
Notice that is says "for Babylon". There are a few Bibles (including the KJV) that render it "at Babylon". There is a clear difference in meaning. If a translator were to render it "at Babylon", then it is clearly meaning the seventy years would transpire at the location of Babylon. If a tranlator were to render it "for Babylon", then it has a totally different meaning, one that is compatible to the "servitude" for "many nations" in Jeremiah 25:11.
So my second question is this: What should it be? "for Babylon" or "at Babylon"?
Now, we bring it into Daniel 9:2. Daniel references Jeremiah, and then states (as it is translated in the NIV):
in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years.
Notice that the NIV literally equates the 70 years with the desolation. However, I found that the majority of Bibles out there render it slightly different - and the difference changes the meaning a bit. For example, here it is from NASB:
in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. (NASB)
Notice that in the scripture above, it says, "for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem". This statement focuses on the END of the desolation, not the desolation as a whole. This difference matters when we consider that Daniel also references Jeremiah - because Jeremiah seemed to indicate that it was "servitude" (not desolation) of "these nations" (plural). If you read it as focusing on the end of the desolations, it agrees with Jeremiah this way ... basically saying that the end of the 70 years would bring, as a consequence, the end of the desolation.
So my third question is this: Is there something missing from the original Hebrew when the NIV translates Daniel 9:2 - and why do most others translate it as "fulfull", "accomplish", or "complete" - bringing focus to the end of the desolation and not the desolation as a whole?
Here is the main reason for analyzing these scriptures this way: There is a massive amount of historical evidence pointing to 587 as the destruction of Jerusalem. Just about every history book ever written recognizes this. This evidence consists of agreement of several kings lists, business documents recovered from the Neo-Babylonian era (that establish the kings and lengths of reigns), astronomical diaries, and syncronization with other cultures (like Egypt). They all point to 587 as Jerusalem's fall.
If we take the NIV as it stands, equating the desolation of Jerusalem with the 70 years, then the Jews got back around 538/537, after Cyrus released them. That would put the beginning of the desolation (or the destruction of Jerusalem) at 607/606. About 20 years off.
However, if we take Jeremiah as saying the 70 years applies to servitude of "these nations", as the grammar seems to indicate, and if Jer. 29:10 says "for Babylon", then there is no issue - it agrees with history. But that means the NIV has either translated this incorrectly, or has simply paraphrased it without carrying over the entire meaning.
Thanks!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list