[b-hebrew] repost of full question
Dirk Frulla
fiveacorns at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 21 11:02:33 EDT 2008
Rolf, thanks for responding! Please see my comments below. I block them in with **DF** and **END DF**
Thanks!
----- Original Message ----
From: Rolf Furuli <furuli at online.no>
To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 5:25:02 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] repost of full question
Dear Dirk,
I see your desire to find agreement between the
chronology of the Bible and ancient chronology.
And your problem is that Dan 9:2 says something
that you find is at odds with the accepted
Neo-Babylonian chronology. The Hebrew words of
Dan 9:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:21 say explicitly
that Jerusalem was a desolate waste for 70 years,
and I cannot see how they could be translated in
a different way if we use the normal Hebrew
lexicon, grammar, and syntax.
** DF **
Your are saying that 2 Chronicles 36:21 and Daniel 9:2 clearly, unambigiously (explicitly) state that Jerusalem would lie in ruins for 70 years. I disagree that they state this "explicitly" or "clearly". Take for example 2 Chronicles 36:21 quoted here from the NIV:
"The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah."
The "desolation" in the scripture above is connected with the sabbath rests of the land. Notice, though, that this scripture too references Jeremiah and claims agreement with Jeremiah. However, Jeremiah didn't mention the sabbath rests of the land. The word "sabbath" occurs seven times in Jeremiah and none of them apply to the sabbath rests of the land. The "sabbath rests" prophecy came from Leviticus. All that is clearly stated above is that the land rested while it was desolate. But the 70 years is not connected to that sabbath resting, nor to the desolation. The desolation and sabbath resting ARE connected together by the scripture above - but not to the 70 years. The scripture just says that the land would "rest" and be desolate UNTIL the 70 years were fulfilled/comleted/accomplished/ended.
Jerusalem would lie desolate, and all the years lying desolate it paid its sabbath rests - until 70 years were "fulfulled" - This is the **SAME** word used in Daniel 9:2 that draws your attention to END of the period, not the period as a whole.
Here is the word defined again, strong number: 4390
A primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide application (literally and figuratively): - accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) fully (-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-] flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-] full, + have wholly.
Jerusalem finished paying off its sabbaths when the 70 years period completed, but that doesn't mean that Jerusalem started paying off its sabbaths when the 70 years began. That cannot be shown anywhere from scripture - especially not from Jeremiah, since he didn't mention sabbath rests. In fact, the prophecy in Jeremiah applies to different nations. He states that "these nations" would "serve" the king of Babylon 70 years (Jeremiah 25:11) - so it applies to the servitude of many nations. However, the prophecy in Leviticus applies only to Judah and the paying of the sabbath rests of the land.
However, the two prophecies are **related** in the sense that they would both END at the same time. When the 70 years ended, it was then possible for the desolation and sabbath rests of the land to end. This is the same issue I am having with Daniel 9:2. In order to create an equation of 70 years = desolation, you have to ignore the word rendered "fulfill" (strong number H4390) which IS there in the Hebrew. The meaning, defined above, pulls the readers attention to the end of the 70 years relating to the end of the desolation and sabbath rests - but not equating the two periods.
** END DF **
But perhaps you should approach the problem from
a different angle, by looking at the *basis* of
ancient history and ancient chronology. If you
make an in-depth study, you will find that the
situation is not as firm and certain as it
appears on the surface. As a matter of fact,
ancient history and ancient chronology cannot be
proven, so we should always be somewhat skeptical
at the results that are presented. Any study of
ancient artifacts are based on the current
paradigm of model (and such paradigms cannot be
proven) and different axioms or assumptions. To a
great extent the interpretations of such
artifacts are based on circular reasoning. For
example, when "dated" cuneiform tablets are
found, they are interpreted in the light of the
traditional chronology, and therefore they are
viewed as confirming this chronology. I put
"dated" in quotation marks, because, on the basis
of my own collation of cuneiform business
tablets, I assess that as much as 25% of the
tablets are broken (often at the beginning or end
where the dates are), and the date of the broken
tablets are of course interpreted in a way as to
conform with the traditional chronology.
**DF **
Sometime, somewhere we will have to bump the events of the Bible up against a secular historical record. We can't get to any numerical dates without consulting history somewhere along the line. We can't determine the destruction date for Jerusalem from the Bible alone nor can we even determine the destruction of Babylon from the Bible alone.
To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be concerned with dates at all? After you previous post, I read up on some of your work, and I realize that you have an alternate chronology you are attempting to prove. So far as I can tell, your position is:
1) Babylon was destroyed in 539 BC
2) The Jews returned to Jerusalem in 537 BC (thereby ending the 70 years of desolation)
3) And the desolation of Jerusalem lasted 70 literal, complete years - no rounding
4) Therefore Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC. - which is 20 years off the accepted date.
Because your chronology is 20 years off the accepted date, I can understand your desire to discredit the current evidence toward 587. But I am worried that in your attempt to discredit the historical documents that establish 587 BC as the destruction of Jerusalem, you also discredit the documents that would establish 539 BC as the fall of Babylon - which your chronology needs as a basis for getting back to 607.
You referenced the business/administrative documents and mentioned that 25% (approx) are damaged so that they can't be dated. This is fine with me... then exclude them from the evidence pool. It is my understand that there are TENS OF THOUSANDS - some figures I have read state HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of documents from the time period in question. Let's take an average - 50,000. If 25% of them are damaged so as they can't be dated, then that leaves 37,500 left that are dateable. That is about 50 documents per month for the entire Neo-Babylonian era. And I know there are, in reality, more than 37,500. The point is that we have enough documents to establish the lengths of reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings to such a small detail that we can identify kings that reigned for only a few months.
We don't even have to "fit" them in our current chronology. These business documents simply establish who reigned, and for how long. That's it. It is fairly independent of any sort of chronology. The **application** of those lengths of reigns in interesting, though. Here is the accepted lengths of reigns:
Nebuchadnezzar 43 years
Evil-Merodach 2 years
Neriglissar 4 years
Labashi-Marduk 9 months
Nabonidus 17 years (ending when Babylon fell to Persians)
The Bible says that Jerusalem was destroyed in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. If you accept 539 BC as the date for Babylon's fall, then the 18th year of Neb. = 587.
The only way that you can get around this is that you postulate a missing king in there. We have all these documents (not counting the damaged ones) that give us the lengths of reigns of these kings. Yet, there isn't even one that mentions a new king? Have you been able to find a document that mentions a new king?
** END DF **
Anomalous tablets should not exist, but such
tablets do exist! I have a list of about 90
business tablets dated in the reigns of the
Neo-Babylonian kings which, taken at face value,
show that the Neo-Babylonian Empire lasted longer
than the traditional chronology says.
** DF **
I disagree. Anomalous tablets SHOULD exist - depending on what you mean by "anomalous". This isn't like a mathematical theorum, in which you can find one example that contradicts the theroum, thereby proving it is not true. We are talking about business documents here, TENS OF THOUSANDS of them, written by people. You don't think there would be a mistake here and there?
Let me put it another way. I create computer programs that run the day-to-day operations of law firms, insurance companies, telephone companies, schools, and various other business types. These companies process thousands of transactions daily. I have seen major insurance companies issue claims checks dated in month 13! I have seen payments posted the 31st of Feb. If I were a historian looking back on this culture some 2000-3000 years in the future, and came across various examples of checks dated in month 13 and some dating the 31st of February, should I conclude that there really wasn't 12 months for this culture, rather there were 13? Or that there really was a 31st of February?
The point: mistakes happen when we are talking about documents written by people. You say you found 90 "anomalous" tablets. My question to you, what is the nature of those anomolies? Because 90 out of 37,500 (to use our example figure) is less than 1/2 of 1% error. I see more errors in modern day business transactions.
Now, if you have some tablets that show a new king, well ... then I would suggest that you publish those quickly before somebody beats you to it.
** END DF **
We should keep in mind that the lengths of the
reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings were fixed a
long time before a single cuneiform tablet was
found. So the newly found tablets were
interpreted in the light of a chronology that
already existed. The tablet used to fix the reign
of Nebuchadnezzar II and the year 587 as the
destruction of Jerusalem is the astronomical
Diary VAT 4956. A detailed critical study of
this tablet was published in German in 1915, and
the conclusions of this study has just been
repeated over and over again during the 93 years
since then - but no new critical detailed studies
have been published. This is a typical phenomenon
in the humanistic sciences. Some authority
presents a hypothesis, a theory, or a conclusion,
and this is just repeated by later scientists -
and often presented as a fact - without any new
critical study of the case. In 1988 a
transliteration and translation of VAT 4956 into
English was published (but not a detailed
critical study). The reasons for fixing year 37
of Nebuchadnezzar II to 568/67 are positions of
the moon and planets in relation to stars and
star constellations found on the tablet. Several
of the moon positions are described in specific
numbers with a required fit of 1 to 4 degrees.
However, there is a one day discrepancy between
the beginning of each month in the studies of
1915 and 1988. Because the the moon moves about
13 degrees eastward against the background of the
stars each day, if the moon positions fitted
exactly in the 1915 study, they cannot fit
exactly in the 1988 study vice verca.
I have published a book dealing with ancient
chronology, and it includes 87 pages with a
philological, linguistic, and astronomical study
of VAT 4956 including many pictures of the tablet
and parts of it. My conclusion is that we cannot
rely on this tablet for an absolute chronology
because there are too many questions,
uncertainties, and problems in connection with
this tablet. I also list the 90 "anomalous"
tablets, and please remember that if we can show
just one extra year in the Neo-Babylonian Empire,
the supposed witness of VAT 4956 of 568/67 as
being Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year is valueless.
** DF **
Are you aware of this paper, refuting your book: http://cfmin.wordpress.com/category/607-bce/
** END DF **
One interesting aside: The Neo-Assyrian
chronology hinges on *a single assumption*,
namely, that solar eclipse reported in the
eponymate of Bur-Sagale was the one occurring on
15 June 763 B.C.E. Yet there are at least eight
other solar eclipses that may fit the description.
Again, ancient history and chronology cannot be
proven, so why should we dogmatically rely on the
present consensus?
** DF **
What do you mean by "rely"? I am seeking to have all things agree (Bible and history). I do not believe that my theology is in danger if 587 is not the date for Jerusalem's fall.
With much respect, from what I have read, I think yours is in danger if you can't move the date for Jerusalem's fall to 607. If you really, really, really mean this statement: "why should we dogmatically rely on the present consensus?", then we have to imagine that you will not be able to produce the evidence needed to prove your chronology 100% either (after all, this can't be done 100% right?) - so would you be willing to go on the record as stating that should not dogmatically rely on 607 as the fall of Jerusalem either?
** END DF **
Thanks!
Dirk Frulla
____________________________________________________________________________________
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