Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Tony Costa <tmcos AT rogers.com>]

Dear Rolf, the 2nd Temple was rebuilt in 515 BCE. If we take 586/587 BCE as 
the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon to the rebuilding of the 2nd Temple 
we have a figure of 70 years . The Temple and its function was integral to 
the city of Jerusalem, not necessarily the city itself. Are there any 
scholars who hold to the position you take that the fall of Jerusalem to the 
Babylonians occurred in 609 BCE which I believe is the date you are proposing?
 
Tony Costa

Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no> wrote:

I have not read this article, but I have done extensive research 
regarding the date of the fall of Jerusalem, and have published a 
thorough analysis of the biblical material. If we accept that Babylon 
was conquered by Cyrus in 539 B.C.E. and take the biblical passages 
dealing with the question at face value, I see no way to accept 587 as 
the date for the fall of Jerusalem. This date gives room for only 50 
years for the exile, but I cannot see how we can avoid accepting a 70 
year exile while Jerusalem was *a desolate waste* if we apply the 
normal use of lexicon, grammar and syntax to the pertinent biblical 
passages.




Best regards

Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo





Tony Costa

"But I do not consider my life of any account
as dear to myself, so that I may finish my course and the
ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify
solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God." (Acts 20:24)
>From furuli AT online.no  Thu Sep 23 17:48:00 2004
Return-Path: <furuli AT online.no>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail58-s.fg.online.no (mail58-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.58])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA7502001E
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:48:00 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from online.no (ti200710a080-7943.bb.online.no [80.213.175.9])
        by mail58.fg.online.no (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i8NLlwaP000288
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:47:59 +0200 
(MEST)
Message-ID: <415343AA.7080707 AT online.no>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:44:10 +0200
From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
        rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] First temple destroyed 586 or 587 BCE?
References: <20040923203502.71260.qmail AT web88208.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040923203502.71260.qmail AT web88208.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:48:02 -0000

Dear Tony,

In class today a student complained that the curriculum was so big that 
she got no time for independent thinking and research. I agreed, and 
told her the this situation will continue to be the same, and when she 
reches a level where she will write papers, it is still very hard to do 
independent research and express independent opinions in order to get 
"A's". Fortunately, I started my academic studies as a grown up person 
when I already had done independent research and had independent ideas. 
That is one reason why I challenge the traditional view of classical 
Hebrew verbs and traditional chronology.

My post was not written in order to defend a particular date for the 
fall of Jerusalem, but rather to point out a situation which in my view 
is unhealthy, namely, that so many fine people bow down under the weight 
of authority. There is hardly any part of ancient chronology which is so 
thoroghly witnessed as the new Babylonian chronology, and because of 
this the information found in the Bible is hardly taken seriously 
(linguistically speaking) by most researchers, but this information is 
adjusted to conform with what the historians say. And this is my point: 
The information found in the Bible is impossible to conform with the New 
Babylonian chronology. I repeat: In this context I do not defend a 
particular date, and I do not defend the Bible, saying that its 
information is true and the historians are wrong (I have of course my 
own opinion which I may state in another context, but in this context my 
opinion is irrelevant).

As a linguist I know that language is ambiguous, but not worse than it 
is possible to write a manual for a computer that can be used to do 
intricate operations. At least some of the language that is used 
regarding the exile is very clear, and I see no possibility to avoid the 
conclusion that Jerusalem and Juda according to this information was a 
desolate waste for a full 70 years. this is impossible to conform with 
Babylonian chronology! Whether people will believe this information is 
another question, but the unhealthy situation is to take the historical 
viewpoints as facts, and then adjust the biblical information on the 
basis of this.

As to the acceptance of other scholars of one's views, I would like to 
quote some words of the retired professor who taught me Semitic 
languages, Ebbe E. Knudsen: In his article "Central Semitic *yaqtulum 
Reconsidered A Rejoinder to J. Tropper. Journal of Semitic Studies 43 
(1):1-9 he writes: “Having decided on an issue by weighting the 
arguments for and against it, Semitists often refer to their results as 
established facts. A clearer indication of a probability rate is a 
desideratum.” Regarding the question under discussion, he writes (p. 5): 
“Tropper, like several other Semitists before him, simply states the 
majority view without mentioning the minority view.”


Fortunately, I teach and read Akkadian cuneiform, and I have studied 
many of the important chronological sources. That has given me a real 
reason for sceptcism regarding the traditional chronology. For example, 
it seems that no scholar has in the last 50 years made a systematic 
check of the the sources of the chronological "Bible," namely, the work 
of Parker and Dubberstein. It has simply been accepted without question. 
But progress is first made when radical questions are asked. I have 
checked all the sources of this work, and I quote from the abstract of 
my book on chronology:

"A study of each cuneiform document used by P&D to show in which regnal 
years of Babylonian and Persian kings intercalary months were added, 
reveals that 51 percent of the "evidence" used by P&D has no real value, 
in this author's judgement. A comparison of 1450 cuneiform tablets dated 
in the reigns of the Persian kings reveals tablets for most of the kings 
that contradict P&D's scheme, which was based on first and last tablet 
dated to each king. On this basis it is argued that the chronology of 
P&D should be radically revised.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


Tony Costa wrote:

>Dear Rolf, the 2nd Temple was rebuilt in 515 BCE. If we take 586/587 BCE as 
>the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon to the rebuilding of the 2nd Temple 
>we have a figure of 70 years . The Temple and its function was integral to 
>the city of Jerusalem, not necessarily the city itself. Are there any 
>scholars who hold to the position you take that the fall of Jerusalem to the 
>Babylonians occurred in 609 BCE which I believe is the date you are 
>proposing?
> 
>Tony Costa
>
>Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no> wrote:
>
>I have not read this article, but I have done extensive research 
>regarding the date of the fall of Jerusalem, and have published a 
>thorough analysis of the biblical material. If we accept that Babylon 
>was conquered by Cyrus in 539 B.C.E. and take the biblical passages 
>dealing with the question at face value, I see no way to accept 587 as 
>the date for the fall of Jerusalem. This date gives room for only 50 
>years for the exile, but I cannot see how we can avoid accepting a 70 
>year exile while Jerusalem was *a desolate waste* if we apply the 
>normal use of lexicon, grammar and syntax to the pertinent biblical 
>passages.
>
>
>
>
>Best regards
>
>Rolf Furuli
>
>University of Oslo
>
>
>
>
>
>Tony Costa
>
>
>  
>