[b-hebrew] repost of question after reasearch
Dirk Frulla
fiveacorns at yahoo.com
Thu May 8 00:48:27 EDT 2008
Dear K Randolph ,
You wrote: "We thought we gave a sufficient, detailed answer."
Yes, an answer was given. However, I did what I said I would do - research the situation a bit more. I was delighted to get some responses offline that helped me a great deal with the research. Please re-read my post, as it is no longer an issue of just my viewpoint. References were provided which make it clear that OTHER HEBREW SPEAKING SCHOLARS feel the same way. Specifically hebraists and linguists that spend their life working in the language.
You keep coming back to *me* and *my* background. I descerened it was turning into an argument based on experience and education, therefore, what was provided in the previous post were references from well respected and experienced linguists, including a dissection of Daniel 9:2.
I am looking for CONSTRUCTIVE responses, and will consider any constructive response with respect. Any response that dodges the content of the post, just to attack me, is inappropriate.
> It is, when you look at the meanings of all the words in the verse.
> It does not say that this first year was the fulfillment of the 70 years of
> Jerusalem's desolation (i.e. being without inhabitants), rather it was in
> this year that Daniel came to the insight that Jerusalem would be
> uninhabited 70 years. You need to look at both at what the verse says, and
> what it doesn't say, and it does not say that this first year of Darius was
> the fulfillment of the 70 years for Jerusalem.
> Furthermore, even though Darius was ethnically a Mede, he continued the
> Babylonian system and servitude until he passed from the scene and Cyrus the
> Persian took over.
I am not saying that Daniel 9:2 says that the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus was the fulfillment of the 70 years. I am saying that what seems to be clearly stated in Jeremiah is that it was seventy years "for Babylon". It doesn't matter that Darius continued the Babylonian system. Babylon's rule was over. From that point on it was impossible to serve the king of Babylon at all.
I agree with you that in the first year Daniel "came to the insight" or "observed" or "descerned". You are stating the the action of "observing" or "coming to the insight" is connected to the first year of Darius - and I agree. I agree that he descerened this in the first year of Darius. But what he decerned in that first year was "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" (NIV). The emphasis is on the end of the period.
> In which case, they are the reason that one learns and masters the original
> languages in order to understand what the text actually says.
My point with this was that all of the Bible translations that I have seen (26 of them so far), render Jeremiah 25:11 as having the 70 years attached to servitude to Babylon, involving "these nations". I don't need to know Hebrew in detail to see that the widespread agreement is significant. Even among the translations where there is a different sense of meaning in Daniel 9:2 (NIV and NASB for example), they all still agree in Jeremiah 25:11 - which indicates that the verse in Jeremiah is much less ambigious than the one in Daniel. In other words, if you were to gather all of the expert scholars together that were involved in translating the 26 Bibles I have on hand, and then you were to ask them how Jeremiah 25:11 should be translated, they would all agree. Most of them would prefer to separate the two thoughts into two separate sentences. It would vary on Daniel 9:2 - as has been demonstrated via my previous references.
> The problem for you is not the meaning of "fulfill", but of "desolation".
> Desolation indicates the removing of inhabitants, not just the servitude.
> That 70 year period started when Nebuchadnezzar burned the city, temple and
> palace, leaving the city uninhabited.
I guess I can agree with that. If that is the way you define "desolation", then it is a problem. HH just responded in another post that indicates you can view "desolation" differently (desolation in the sense of the city being conquered). If desolation doesn't mean an uninhabited city, then there is agreement between Daniel and Jeremiah, and this is fine. But if it means desolation in terms of an uninhabited city, then we are obligated to 1) move the date of the destruction of Jerusalem back 20 years, 2) move the fall of Babylon ahead 20 years, or 3) some combination thereof. In any case, you have to find 20 years in the Neo-Babylonian period. Please see the references I list below to show why this is basically impossible to do.
> I have neither NIV nor NASB readily available (oh yes, I could check them
> up online, but I have the Hebrew which I trust more than all translations).
This is exactly why I decided to post the dissection of Daniel 9:2 from a Hebrew linguist. Since the Hebrew is important to you, please re-read this dissection and tell me where it is wrong. Then I could, if necessary, go back to the very same author with your objections. I have no problem doing this. If you are right, then you are right - so tell me what is wrong with it grammatically.
> The Hebrew is pretty clear cut, both in Jeremiah, and in all the other
> verses that clearly mention that Jerusalem was to be desolate 70 years. None
> of the verses say that the period was to come to an end at the time that
> Darius the Mede took over. Rather we go to Isaiah and find that Cyrus was to
> bring the people back.
None of them say the period would come to an end when Darius the Mede took over. (see comments above) However, in Jeremiah it states:
Jeremiah 25:12
"Then it will be when seventy years are completed I will punish the king of Babylon ... " (NASB)
"But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon ..." (NIV)
This clearly states that the seventy years would end, then Babylon would be punished. If I say to you, "I will finsh work, then I will post a reply." - there is a clear order specified... I will first finish work, and only after I finish my work will I post a reply. This verse states that the seventy years would end, and then Babylon would be punished. It was impossible for Babylon to be punished after it fell. Therefore, I have to conclude the seventy years ended prior to the fall of Babylon in accordance with the above scripture.
> As I said before, I'll say again, forget the historical consensus. Does it
> mention Darius the Mede? How long he reigned? Does it mention how poor the
> surviving records are of the Medo-Persian empire? The consensus is just
> that, a consensus; it may have little to do with what actually happened.
> That is why I look at the linguistic evidence, without trying to fit it into
> the "consensus".
I am mainly interested in the Neo-Babylonian period. The administrative/economic/business documents from this time period (from the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, up until the fall of Babylon) *are* extensive - we are talking about thousands of documents. They do not date anything absolutely (that is, attach a numerical date in our calandar system) to any king; however, they serve a great purpose in this discussion. Since there are so many documents, each dated with a king and the reigning year of the king, the lengths of reigns can be determined. Therefore, if you find a document dated the 3rd year of Neriglissar, then you know that Neriglissar had a 3rd year. If you find 1000 more documents that are also dated to the 3rd year of Neriglissar, you can be *much more* sure he had a 3rd year. In much the same way, all the lengths of reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings are established. In a previous post, RF mentioned an example regarding Nebuchadnezzar. He
said:
"and BTW, how do you know that the 3000+ tablets with the name
"Nebuchadnezzar" refer to Nebuchadnezzar II and not to
Nebuchadnezzar III, Nebuchadnezzar IV, Nebuchadnezzar V, or
Nebuchadnezzar VI?"
Good point. However, for this discussion (showing that Jerusalem was desolate for only about 50 years) it is irrelavent. Why? Because the length of Nebuchadnezzar II's reign (the one we are interested in) is fixed at 43 years by the Bible itself. These documents help by establishing the length of reigns of other kings up until the fall of Babylon. These establish that from the fall of Jerusalem in the 18th year of Neb. (whatever numerical date you would like to put on it) to the fall of Babylon, it is 48 years, so Jerusalem would lie desolate about 50 years. The NIV version of Daniel 9:2 says 70. There are thousands of these documents - how probable is it that there are 20 years of documents missing? We're not talking about 1 or 2 years of variation, there are 20 missing years.
There are many more reasons. Carl Olof Jonsson, in his book The Gentile Times Reconsidered, goes through many pains to document 14 different, independent lines of evidence. In short, some lines of evidence brought out in this book that date the period ABSOLUTELY:
1) VAT 4956 - dated to the thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar. The astonomical data on this tablet fits the year 568/67 BC and will not be duplicated for thousands of years.
2) B.M. 32312 - dated the sixteenth year of Shamashshumukin. This fixes his reigh to 667-648 BC. His successor, Kandalanu's twenty-two year reign to 647-626 BC, Nabopalassar's 21 year reight to 625-605, and Neb. II's 18th year to 587 BC.
3) The Saturn tablet B.M. 76738+76813. Quoting from Josson from page 187:
"The Saturn tablet records a successive series of positions of the planet Saturn at its first and last appearances, dated to the first fourteen years of Kandalanu. Such a patter of positions, fixed to specific dates in the Babylonian lunar calandar, is not repeated again in more than seventeen centruies. This text, then, again fixes Kandalanu's twenty-two-year reign to 647-626 B.C.E, Nabopolassar's twenty-one-year reign to 625-605, and Benuchadnezzar's reign to 604-562 B.C.E."
4) Then there are lunar eclipse tablets.
a) LBAT 1417 - contains four lunar eclipses dated to the sixteenth year of Kandalanu and again back up 587.
b) LBAT 1419 - contains records of eclipses on 18 year intervals, some dated to the reign of Neb. Again, it all works out to point to 587.
c) LBAT 1420 - two dozen eclipses, the ones that aren't damaged are dated to Neb's reign, and estabish 587 again.
d) LBAT 1421- two eclipses dated to the sixth and twelfth month of Neb., year 42. These are found in years 563/62. Therefore, Neb's 18th year is 587.
These are documents that match astronomical observations with kings and regnal years. Since we know much more about the motion of the planets involved and the moon, we can look for these events in the past with great accuracy, thereby putting a numerical date on these events.
This dates the period absolutely, making it difficult to insert even one year, much less 20! It is a very convincing argument.
Further, all of these lines match up with the length of reigns established by Berosus and Ptolemy.
Further, the dates match up with synchronizations of other cultures, mainly Egypt - which has been estabished independently.
If there were just one line of evidence pointing toward 587 as the fall of Jerusalem and 539 as the fall of Babylon, then that would be one thing. It could easly be seen as a possible error if there were only two lines - not as probable that there is an error, but still likely. Three lines, you have to admit there is a possibility, 4? 5? 6? 7? - 14?! By the time you get to the 14th line of independet evidence, most of which are astonomical diaries, then you realize why the "consensus" is the "consensus" - because all evidence points to 587 as the fall of Jerusalem and 539 as the fall of Babylon - and it is a lot of evidence.
> I get the impression that I am just repeating much of what I wrote before.
Again, this is why I reposted with references of Hebrew scholars. Karl, I take it that you are a person who holds the Bible in high regard. So am I. That is why I would hate to be put on the horns of a dilemma, the Bible on one hand and all this evidence on the other. The Bible agrees with the evidence, all of it, but it requires that the NIV's version of Daniel 9:2 be a paraphase. You can also make it all work if you redefine "desolation", as Harold Holmyard stated in his most recent post.
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