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.

Appendix 377<br />

king of Assyria, Assuruballit II, after the destruction of the capital<br />

Nineveh in 612 BCE, retreated to the provincia1 capital Harran,<br />

the last Assyrian stronghold, where he succeeded in holding out for<br />

another three years, supported by Egypt. Veenhof writes:<br />

It was to no advantage that Egypt supported Assyria; the Babylonian<br />

and Median armies took the city in 610 B.C., and in the following year<br />

[609] they warded off their last defensive attempt. <strong>The</strong>rewith a great<br />

empire was dissolved. 105<br />

<strong>The</strong> same historical information is given by Professor Jack<br />

Finegan on page 252 (§430) in the new revised edition of his wellknown<br />

Handbook of Biblical <strong>Chronology</strong>. Quoting Jeremiah 29:10 he<br />

concludes:<br />

<strong>The</strong> “seventy years . . . for Babylon,” of which Jeremiah speaks are<br />

therefore the seventy years of Babylonian rule, and the return of Judah<br />

from exile is contingent upon the end of that period. Since the final fall<br />

of the Assyrian empire was in 609 B.C. (§430), and the New Babylonian<br />

empire endured from then until Cyrus the Persian took Babylon in 539,<br />

the period of Babylonian domination was in fact seventy years (609 —<br />

539 = 70). 106<br />

Certainly, no one acquainted with Neo-Babylonian history can<br />

honestly claim that the 70 years “for Babylon” have a “fuzzy<br />

meaning” because no particular events mark the beginning and end<br />

of the period.<br />

(D-4) Jeremiah 29:10: <strong>The</strong> Septuagint and Vulgate<br />

versions<br />

Furuli next points out that “the Septuagint has the dative form<br />

babylôni” but with “the most natural meaning being ‘at Babylon’.”<br />

<strong>The</strong> statement reveals a surprising ignorance of ancient Greek. As<br />

every Greek scholar will point out, the natural meaning of the<br />

dative form babylôni is “for Babylon.” It is an exact, literal<br />

translation of the original Hebrew l e bâbel, which definitely means<br />

“for Babel” in this text, as discussed on pp. 213, 214 above. True,<br />

at Jeremiah 29:22 (LXX 36:22) the dative form babylôni is used in<br />

the local sense, “in Babel,” but it gets this sense only because of the<br />

preceding Greek preposition en, “in”:<br />

And from them a malediction will certainly be taken on the part of<br />

the entire body of exiles of Judah that is in Babylon (en babylôni)<br />

Furuli further refers to the rendering of the Latin Vulgate, in<br />

Babylon, which means, as he correctly explains, “in Babylon.” This<br />

105 Klas R. Veenhof, Geschichte des Alten Orients bis zur Zeit Alexanders des Grossen<br />

(Göttingen, 2001), pp. 275, 276. (Translated from German)<br />

106 Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical <strong>Chronology</strong> (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson<br />

Publishers, 1998), p. 255.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!