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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

320 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED<br />

(November–December) in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. But the<br />

month of Nisan of the next year is still referred to as in Artaxerxes’<br />

twentieth year of rule. (Nehemiah 2:1) If Nehemiah reckoned<br />

Artaxerxes’ regnal years from Nisan 1, he should have written<br />

twenty-first year at chapter 2, verse 1. Nehemiah, therefore, obviously<br />

reckoned the regnal years of the Persian king Artaxerxes according<br />

to the Jewish Tishri-to-Tishri calendar, not according to the Persian<br />

Nisan-to-Nisan count. This is also supported in the Watch Tower<br />

Society’s Bible dictionary, Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2 (1988),<br />

pages 487, 488. 18<br />

That Judah followed a Tishri-to-Tishri reckoning of the regnal<br />

years, at least in this period of its history, is the conclusion of some<br />

of the best scholars and students of Bible chronology, for example,<br />

Sigmund Mowinckel, Julian Morgenstein, Friedrich Karl Kienitz,<br />

Abraham Malamat, and Edwin R. Thiele. 19 Although this way of<br />

reckoning regnal years makes the synchronisms between Judah and<br />

Babylon somewhat more complicated, it clears up many problems<br />

when applied. In the chronological tables on pages 350–352 of this<br />

book, both kinds of regnal years are paralleled with our modern<br />

calendar.<br />

18 Few scholars seem to hold that Judah in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E.<br />

employed this combination of both the nonaccession year system and the Tishri-to-<br />

Tishri count of the regnal years, as advocated in this work. Those who opt for the<br />

nonaccession year system usually hold that Judah applied the Nisan-to-Nisan<br />

reckoning, and those who argue that Tishri-to-Tishri regnal years were used<br />

generally believe that the accession year system was employed.<br />

19 See for example J. Morgenstein’s review of Parker and Dubberstein’s Babylonian<br />

<strong>Chronology</strong> 626 B.C.–A.D. 45 in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 2 (1943),<br />

pp. 125–130, and Dr. A. Malamat’s article, “<strong>The</strong> Twilight of Judah: In the<br />

Egyptian-Babylonian Maelstrom,” in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol.<br />

XXVII (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975), p. 124, including note 2; also K. S. Freedy and D.<br />

B. Redford, “<strong>The</strong> Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian and Egyptian<br />

Sources,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 90 (1970), pp. 464, 465.<br />

Dr. Edwin R. Thiele, however, assumes that while the books of Kings reckon the<br />

regnal years from Tishri, Jeremiah and Ezekiel both reckon them from Nisan. (E.<br />

R. Thiele, <strong>The</strong> Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Grand Rapids: Zondervan<br />

Publishing House, 1983, pp. 51–53, 182–191.) This seems a rather far-fetched<br />

speculation, and there is no need for it, if we allow for both Tishri regnal years and<br />

the nonaccession year system for this period.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!