Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dirk Frulla <fiveacorns AT yahoo.com>]

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
>From hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net  Wed May  7 15:16:35 2008
Return-Path: <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id 673F44C010; Wed,  7 May 2008 15:16:35 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled
        version=3.2.3
Received: from elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net
        (elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2FD24C00F
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed,  7 May 2008 15:16:34 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from [68.166.202.158] (helo=Harold-Holmyards-Computer.local)
        by elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67)
        (envelope-from <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>) id 1Jtp7y-0000gc-KR
        for b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org; Wed, 07 May 2008 15:16:34 -0400
Message-ID: <4821FFEA.2050401 AT earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 14:15:54 -0500
From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org >> \"b-hebrew-lists.ibiblio.org\""
        <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <945909.78994.qm AT web38905.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <945909.78994.qm AT web38905.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-ELNK-Trace: 
4d8cbcf25a45eb95a7d551d5673cf272239a348a220c26091e9965f5c3c170ac2a45967feeb072dc350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 68.166.202.158
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] repost of question after reasearch
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <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: Wed, 07 May 2008 19:16:35 -0000

Dirk,
> 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:
>  

HH: What have you done with these other texts, that seem clear enough to me?

Zech. 1:12  Then the angel of the LORD said,  “LORD Almighty, how long 
will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and from the towns of Judah, 
which you have been angry with these seventy years?”
 
Zech. 7:5  “Ask all the people of the land and the priests,  ‘When you 
fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months for the past seventy 
years, was it really for me that you fasted?

HH: Again, the prophecy in Jeremiah about babylon's rule

Yours,
Harold Holmyard