25.03.2016 Views

The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>The</strong> Seventy Years for Babylon 219<br />

with Jerusalem, speaking of them as “the number of years . . . for<br />

fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem.” (Daniel 9:2, NW) It was clear<br />

from Jeremiah’s letter that the completion of Babylon’s seventy<br />

years would entail the “fulfilling of the desolations of Jerusalem”<br />

(by the return of the exiles), and it is this consequence that Daniel lays<br />

the stress on in his statement. 31<br />

Read in isolation from the wider context, however, these words<br />

could easily be misinterpreted to mean that Daniel equated the<br />

seventy-year period with the period of Jerusalem’s desolation.<br />

Some Bible translators have understood the text that way. Thus<br />

Tanakh, a translation published by the Jewish Publication Society in<br />

1985, speaks of “the number of years that . . . were to be the term of<br />

Jerusalem’s desolation—seventy years .” Similarly, <strong>The</strong> New International<br />

Version (NIV) presents Daniel as saying that, “I understood from<br />

the Scriptures . . . that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years.”<br />

Both of these translations, however, are freely paraphrasing the<br />

passage, which neither speaks of the “term” of Jerusalem’s<br />

desolation, nor that it would “last” seventy years. None of these<br />

words are found in the original text. <strong>The</strong>y have been added in an<br />

attempt to interpret the text. <strong>The</strong>re is no compelling reason to accept<br />

this interpretation, not only because it is arrived at by a<br />

paraphrasing of the text, but also because it is in direct conflict<br />

with Jeremiah’s own prophecy. 32<br />

It should be noted that Daniel himself does not equate the<br />

seventy years with the period of Jerusalem’s desolation. It is only<br />

the expiration of the seventy-year period―not the period as a whole<br />

— that he relates to the “fulfilling of the desolations of Jerusalem.”<br />

This focusing on the end of the period is totally absent in the two<br />

translations quoted above (Tanakh and NIV), as they both fail to<br />

31 Dr. C. F. Keil, one of the greatest Hebrew scholars of the 19th century, noticed in<br />

his grammatical analysis how Daniel connected and yet distinguished the two<br />

periods, concluding: “Consequently, in the first year of the reign of Darius the<br />

Mede over the kingdom of the Chaldeans the seventy years prophesied of by<br />

Jeremiah were now full, the period of the desolation of Jerusalem determined by<br />

God was almost expired?’ —C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel<br />

(Edinburgh: Clark, 1872), pp. 321, 322.<br />

32 A number of critical scholars, who regard the book of Daniel as a late composition<br />

from the end of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 B.C.E.), have argued<br />

that Jeremiah’s original prophecy of the seventy years was repeatedly reinterpreted<br />

and reapplied by the later Bible writers Ezra, Zechariah, and Daniel. <strong>The</strong>re is no<br />

reason to discuss these theories here, especially as there is wide disagreement on<br />

them among these scholars.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!