[b-hebrew] repost of question after reasearch

Dirk Frulla fiveacorns at yahoo.com
Wed May 7 14:42:59 EDT 2008


To all,
 
Thank you for all your responses on this mailing list. I has been a while since my last post. Work has been very busy lately. However, I have been looking through many more references.
 
After the last series of responses regarding Daniel 9:2, I thought it would be helpful to get additional thoughts from other scholars on this subject. Since I do not have a background in Biblical Hebrew, it was implied by some that my concerns should be dismissed without a detailed answer. I have received many responses offline, to which I am very grateful. 
 
Since this is a Hebrew grammar mailing list and my original question was regarding the Hebrew of Daniel 9:2, I thought it would be constructive to come back to the mailing list, present some of my findings, and get further responses.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a previous post, Rolf Furuli wrote:
"However, the Chronicler who lived after the exile, and Daniel, who lived at the end of the 70 years explicitly say that the 70 years referred to the period when Jesusalem was desolate. This may be because they had another text of Jeremiah or because they empirically knew the length of the period. In any case, a fine way of understanding ancient texts is to interpret the unclear passages in light of the clear ones, and not to reject the clear ones because of a certain theology or chronology."
 
The book Rolf Furuli mentioned previously in his posts (his book, copyright 2003) was titled: PERSIAN CHRONOLOGY AND THE LENGTH OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE OF THE JEWS. He states this on page 76.
 
"A fundamental principle of interpretation which is universally accepted, is to interpret an ambiguous passage in the light of an unambiguous passage. In our case we have two unambiguous passages, namely, Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:21, which apply the 70 years of the desolate condition to Jerusalem. To start with the seemingly ambiguous words of Jeremiah 25:10 is to turn the matter upside down, because the mentioned principle is abandoned." 
 
I agree with this principle. It makes a lot of sense. However, I am unsure that Daniel 9:2 is the clear and unambigious verse. Below is a quotation is from a Danish linguist, knowledgable in Biblical Hebrew, Kristen Jørgensen who was reviewing RF's translation of Daniel 9:2. You may read the full article here: http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/seventy.htm. She was writing in specific reference to RF's book on the subject, however it is of interest because it breaks down Daniel 9:2 step-by-step, including the phrases that originally brought my question to the B-HEBREW mailing list. I would be very interested in any comments regarding this breakdown:
 
BEGIN QUOTATION FROM Kristen Jørgensen 
 
Strangely enough, in his grammatical analysis he does not deal with the Hebrew text but with the secondary English rendering, except for the tiny preposition le, which he somehow maltreats together with the verb with which it is connected. Also, it is incomplete, as he omits the initial time adverbial (bishenat ‘achat lemâlekho, ‘in year one of his reign’) and the rest is defective - e.g., the subject in the first part of the sentence is not just ‘Daniel’, but in Hebrew‘ani Dâniêl, rendered in NW ‘I myself Daniel’, the inclusion of the personal pronoun ‘ani  (‘I’) showing that the subject is emphatic - Daniel had checked matters for himself in ‘the Scriptures’. He also omits the quite important adverbial bassepârim (‘in the Scriptures’) which shows that the aging Daniel did not waste his time but checked the inspired Scriptures at once when the time was up. The definition of the direct object (DO) is somewhat incorrect,
 too: first come the core words mishpar hashânim  (‘number of years’), followed  by an embedded relative clause,‘asher hâyâh debhar-YHWH ‘el-Yirmiyâh-hanâbhî  (‘which gave word of Yahweh to Jeremiah the prophet’). Finally, the last part of the DO is the clause lemall’ôt lechorebhôt Yerûshalâyim shibhim shanâh, in which lemall’ôt is the infinitive, le being the infinitive marker and the verb mal’e (‘to fill, fulfill, complete’) is in the timeless and intensive piel conjugation (‘in order to fully complete’), while lechorebhôt Yerûshâlayim is a prepositional phrase functioning as an adverbial (‘in regard to/for Jerusalem’s desolations’), and lastly, shibhim shanâh, (‘seventy years’) is the direct object. RF’s analysis of the word lemall’ôt, i.e., that ‘the preposition plus infinitive serves as a temporal accusative whose adjunct is 70 years’, for which he refers to Ronald J. Williams’ Hebrew
 Syntax An Outline (2nd ed. Toronto U.P. 1976, p. 48, § 268) for proof, is in error; indeed, if he had studied the paragraph referred to and the references from it in detail he would have noted that le does not function in that way except when directly connected with a term expressing some time element, as in Williams’ examples, e.g. 2 Chronicles 11:17, leshanim shalosh (‘for three years’).
 
Thus, the prepositional phrase lechorebhôt Yerûshalâyim, ‘for desolations of Jerusalem’ functions as an adverbial indicating the purpose intended, namely to fix the absolute end of the desolations of Jerusalem, i.e., when the 70 years ‘for Babylon’ were to end. As for RF’s little comparison with a ‘simpler clause’, it is really of no value at all, and that goes for his paraphrase, too. The framed statement in bold-faced type is rather irrelevant: true, there is no need to take the word chorebhôt  (fem. plur., construct) to signify several desolations of Jerusalem, but neither is it logical to apply it to ‘the many ruins of the city’, because in Hebrew the so-called plural form may also signify fulness, intensity, magnitude, extension and similar concepts, according to the context, and here it is most likely used to show that the full and complete desolation of Jerusalem would end exactly at the time designated by Jehovah himself,
 as made known through his prophet Jeremiah. (Cf. Johs. Pedersen, Hebræisk Grammatik, Copenhagen 1926, pages 197, 198, § 115) However, we ought to note that RF correctly connects the complete desolation of Jerusalem with the final conquest by the Chaldeans (in 587 BC, not 607), but he errs again when he stubbornly sticks to a ‘period of 70 years’ for the Jewish exile, even though he is not able to present any real evidence, simply because there is none. Let us just see how NASB renders Daniel 9:2:
 
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 peophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. – Cf. also RV, ASV, RSV, AAT, Moffatt, Amplified, Rotherham.

END QUOTATION FROM Kristen Jørgensen 
 
 
 
 
There are other Hebraists that have also published statements similar to this. Professor Carl F. Keil states (emphasis added by inserting "****"):
"With lemal'ot (to fulfil) the contents of the words of Jehovah, as given by Jeremiah, are introduced. lechorbot does not stand for the accusative: to cause to be complete the desolation of Jerusalem (Hitzig), but le signifies in respect of, with regard to. This expression does not lean on Jer. xxix. 10 (Kran.), but on Jer. xxv. 12 ('when seventy years are accomplished'). charabôt, properly, desolated places, ruins, here a desolated condition. **** Jerusalem did not certainly lie in ruins for seventy years; the word is not thus to be interpreted, but is chosen partly with reference to the words of Jer. xxv. 9, 11. Yet the desolation began with the first taking of Jerusalem, and the deportation of Daniel and his companions and a part of the sacred vessels of the temple, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (606 [error for 605] B.C.). ****
 ****Consequently, in the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede over the kingdom of the Chaldeans the seventy years prophesied of by Jeremiah were now full, the period of the desolation of Jerusalem determined by God was almost expired." **** (C. F. Keil, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. IX, pp. 321-322; emphasis added by inserting astricies) 
 
 
  
 
On the other hand, there seems to be wide-spread agreement as to what Jeremiah 25:11, 12 says. To date, I still have not found a single Bible that would translate Jeremiah 25:11 as meaning anything other than servitude for many nations. I do have to admit, that Jeremiah 25:11 could read very differently in the Hebrew. Therefore, I contacted various Hebraists and got one response from Ralph W. Klein at the Lutherian School of Theology at Chicago. His Th.D. is from Harvard. He initially interested me because he specifically lists Daniel and the books of Chronicles as areas of expertise, and he is well versed in Hebrew. Please view all his credientials here: http://www.lstc.edu/people/faculty/individual/klein.html. I simply stated my opinion, the current situation, and asked for his input. He responded, "Clearly your reading of this verse is better. In Hebrew the second clause begins with the conjunction and a verb, beginning a new thought." (personal
 email dated 4/10/2008)
 
Here is one other reference (much thanks to Carl Olof Jonsson for providing this valuable reference):
Dutch scholar Dr. G. Ch. Aalders in his commentary on Daniël (Commentaar op het Oude Testament) (Kampen: N.V. Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1962), page 200 writes the following:
 "He does not give a literal quotation from Jeremiah, but it is clear that he alludes to Jer 29:10, where the Lord says: 'when seventy years for Babylon are over, then I will see to you, and my saving word to you will be fulfilled by my bringing you back to this place.' And this is connected with Jer 25:11, 12 where the length of Babylon’s domination is fixed to seventy years, and where God’s judgement on Babylon and the land of the Chaldees at the end of the seventy years is announced. As is seen, nothing is said in the text of Jeremiah about the desolation of Jerusalem, but Daniel has correctly drawn the conclusion that the restoration of his land is indissolubly associated with the fall of Babylon, and that the end of the seventy years of Babylon’s domination at the same time indicates the end of the time of the desolate state of Jerusalem. This also explains why he now, in the first year of the kingship of Darius, in particular is thinking of
 this: As the power of Babylon has come to an end, could it not now be expected, in agreement with the word of the Lord in Jeremiah, that also the end of the wrath of God, that is referred to in the vision that so strongly had affected Daniel (8:19, 27), soon would become manifest?"
 
 
In summary, I would like to re-establish the question. My original question was regarding Daniel 9:2 and the word rendered "fulfull" ("complete" or "accomplish") in various Bibles. In some Bibles (for example, NIV), the seventy years of Jeremiah is equated with Jerusalem's desolation. In others, the scripture directs the reader's attention toward the relationship between the two periods (70 years "for Babylon" and the desolation of Jerusalem). The relationship being that the two periods share a common terminal point - the seventy years ends, thereby paving the way for the end (fullfill, complete, accomplish) of the desolation.
Why am I asking this question? There is definitely a period of 70 years - but was it a period of desolation or was it of something else? If we say that it was the desolation of Jerusalem was 70 years, then we have to adjust the "consensus" historical chronology of the period in some way. The consensus historical timeline has Babylon destroyed in 539 BC. It also has the Jerusalem destroyed in 587 BC. If Jerusalem was re-inhabited a few years later (after the Jews returned home), about 537 BC, then we have a period of 50 years of desolation. I understand that some doubt can be cast on business tablets and administrative documents that document the names of the kings, and the succession of the kings. But 20 years worth? As far as I am aware, only RF, in a previous post has claimed 90 "anomolous tablets" - but nothing as to the nature of the anomolies. RF mentioned VAT 4956, and his work regarding this tablet. I have also read articles that answer his
 objections, re-establishing it's validity. Still, there are other astronomical diaries (other than VAT 4956) that still indicate 587 as the destruction of Jerusalem. 
From the previous corrispondence on this list I got the feeling that some thought I was attempting to disprove the scriptures. However, I am attempting to do the opposite. I am saying that Jeremiah had it right. He spoke very plainly, so that the translators of every Bible I have seen agree on what his words mean. He spoke plainly of 70 years of servitude to Babylon of many nations - and that's what happened according to all the historical evidence we have now. The later writers simply made reference to the end of the 70 years and the relation it had to Jerusalems desolation. They didn't try to re-interpret his words. I am saying if you read Jeremiah plainly, he got it right. If you read Daniel plainly, he got it right. If you read 2 Chronicles, the chronicler got it right. They all agree with each other and what we know of history - but only if the 70 years is NOT equated with the desolation of Jerusalem as the NIV has rendered it in Daniel 9:2. 
I know some of you don't like the idea of saying we know for sure, historically, that 587 was the fall of Jerusalem. OK - I understand this. But as of right now, there is a lot of evidence pointing toward 587/86 as Jerusalem's fall, and it doesn't seem logical to wait for other material that may or may not be discovered at some unknown point in the future to move the date around; much less move it by 20 years.
I lay the question back out on the table - now that it is shown the matter isn't clear cut. In light of this, and especially the comments on Hebrew grammar above, would it not be better to translate Daniel 9:2 more like the NASB, rather than what the NIV shows for this verse? 
Thanks!
Dirk Frulla
New York


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
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