Without
recourse. All Rights Reserved. Tree of Life©
Statement of belief: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is
truth.” (John 17:17 KJV)
Created 5930± 11 05 2026 [2010-01-21]
Updated 5930± 11
05 2026 [2010-01-21]
Comparing
the Chronological Details
as
Provided by Josephus vs. those of the Holy Scriptures
Re
the Time from King Hezekiah unto King Cyrus
and
Specifically
Adressing
the
Placement of the Seventy Years of Babylonian Captivity
Abstract:
The
results of this study make it clear to me that Josephus is diverging from the
clear text of the Holy Scriptures as those are written in Daniel 1:1-4; 2:1.
Somehow it appears as though Josephus, contrary to the passages of Berosus that
he is quoting, and contrary to said passages in Daniel 1 & 2, does not
himself believe that Jewish captives were taken by Nebuchadnezzar prior to
Nabopolassar’s death and that he therefore feel forced to associate the capture
of Daniel and his three friends with a much later event under the reign of
Zedekiah.
In
consequence of the above understanding of Josephus there is a lack of internal
harmony between the dates and the reckoning of time that he himself is providing
in Antiquities of the Jews, Book X. Specifically, this affects the placement of
the seventy years of Babylonian captivity, which becomes a cause for confusion
for such as are choosing to rely on Josephus over and above the clear record of
the Holy Scriptures, not excluding the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
But
praise the Lord of Hosts! We are not without much light over these previously
dark and confusing eras of ancient times. Please consider with me some of all
that which the Ancient of Days has chosen to allow me to perceive over an
intensive and focused study re these particulars over the last decade or so… A
good place to begin from the point of view of such as are presently interested
in the within study may well be this
link to another article of mine. Under that link you’ll find a diagram
showing, what I am convinced is, a correct placement of the seventy years of Babylonian
captivity. Please notice the link near the top of that web page that’ll bring
you to the longer version and to the fundamentals of that study!
Background for this study:
This
study was prompted by considerations brought to me by some friends of the
Jehovah’s Witness persuasion. Although I’ve studied the official teachings of
the Jehovah’s Witnesses re the placement of the seventy years of captivity and
found those teachings flawed before, I nevertheless find it valuable to
consider any pertinent information, that is brought my way, valuable to review,
because not infrequently do I find, upon such review, some important details of
which I was not previously aware. So also this time…
On
this occasion my attention was brought to Josephus’ record of the period under
the following title “Book X, Containing the Interval of One Hundred
and Eighty-two Years and a Half, From the Captivity of the Ten Tribes to the
First of Cyrus” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews.)
I
then quickly found myself stumbling upon an apparent impossibility within the
Book of Jeremiah, which made it appear as though the Lord’s message through
Jeremiah unto Zedekiah, King of Judah was given in the very beginning of the
reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, that is, within the time of a predecessor of
king Zedekiah and eleven years before the beginning of the reign of King
Zedekiah. After some time of consideration and after praying and studying these
matters I found a
clear and sensible solution to this apparent stumbling block, after which I
could then pursue Josephus’ record more fully.
As I’ve also found before, Josephus’ is a very
reliable historian, most particularly as it pertains to his own time, albeit
being frequently and widely misunderstood by most scholars, that is, due to the
general ignorance of many particulars of Hebrew and Scriptural concepts of time
in contradistinction to our contemporary western thinking in regards to time
reckoning etc.. Nevertheless, even Josephus himself is and was subject to
similar confusions re his own understanding of historians before him, for
instance of Herodotus and Berosus, whom he is frequently citing and
criticizing, while saying “that I intended to do no more than translate the
Hebrew books into the Greek language, and promised them to explain those facts,
without adding anything to them of my own, or taking anything away from them”
(Antiquities, Book X:X:6.)
As we shall see below, the reasons for some of
the most important of these confusions can be sorted out, while leaving in
their place a much clearer picture of a true and exact chronology…
Considerations & details:
After
reviewing carefully Book X of Antiquities of the Jews and making notes to
myself re things of importance, particularly re chronological details and re
such as raised in my mind questions concerning potential differences between
the Bible record and Josephus’ record, I was able to discover and identify some
items of some significance and of lasting value to me:
Re the 70 years of Babylonian
captivity etc. as variously referenced by Josephus
Looking
first at the very title of Book X and upon comparing the interval of time there
given with my own revised chronology for that period (Tishri 22, 718 BCE
(beginning of the 1st Scriptural year following that calendar year
within which the 10 tribes were taken captive by the Assyrians) - Tishri 22,
534 BCE (beginning of the Scriptural calendar year of Cyrus’ accession year;
Scriptural reckoning) = 184 years] I was struck with the fact that those were
in almost, but not quite, perfect agreement one with the other! That is: “Book X, Containing the Interval of
One Hundred and Eighty-two Years and a Half, From the Captivity of the Ten
Tribes to the First of Cyrus.” Having before read through the
remainder of Book X, and being under quite another impression, I had expected
for this time interval, as given in the title to Josephus’ Book X, to be given
as considerably longer than so. Within the text of Book X, Josephus is also
providing some totals of years, but unfortunately that summary (Chapter VIII:5)
is not pertaining to his calculations of that which is provided in the title to
Book X, but is instead outlining the interval of time from various points of
time in history until the burning of Solomon’s Temple. Accordingly, thus far I
am given no direct clues as to how the interval of the Book X title was arrived
at. – Indeed, how can I know whether that title was issued by Josephus himself
or by some late editor?
Next,
addressing some statements of Josephus re the seventy years, that is,
statements used as major pillars in support of the Jehovah’s Witnesses
reckoning of those seventy years, I find the following:
1. Yes,
Josephus is making a statement to the effect that “all Judea and
Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years;…”
(Antiquities of the Jews, Book X:IX:7.)
But notice what follows: “all
Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years; but the entire
interval of time which passed from the captivity of the Israelites, to the
carrying away of the two tribes, proved to be a hundred and thirty years, six
months, and ten days.”
Adding
said “seventy years” to said “a hundred and
thirty years, six months, and ten days” I get a
total of 200 years, 6 months, and 10 days, not 182 ½
years as given in the Book X title, which also gives me a hint that the
intervals of time provided in the headings of Josephus’ books are probably not
Josephus’ own…
Furthermore, although I would
agree that it be hard to apply Josephus’ “seventy years” as used in the above
quoted passage, to any time prior to the burning of Solomon’s Temple, I find
little or no reason to lock myself into a presumption such that Josephus’
“seventy years” are exactly the same seventy years as the seventy years
referenced by Jeremiah and Daniel. That is, following the decree of Cyrus,
there was indeed quite some time before “all Judea and Jerusalem, and the
temple…” no longer “continued to be a desert…” Or, putting it in other words,
the seventy years of Babylonian captivity are not
necessarily the same as the seventy years of Judea, Jerusalem, and the temple being
a desert!
One thing of importance, that I’ve
discovered before, re Josephus’ works, is this: One must always read Josephus’
words very carefully, not adding or detracting anything of one’s own, if one is
to come as near as possible to the real truth as perceived by Josephus.
2. And
yes, there is a reference to the seventy years of Jeremiah in said Book X of
Josephus:
“3. Now when Zedekiah had
preserved the league of mutual assistance he had made with the Babylonians for
eight years, he brake it, and revolted to the Egyptians, in hopes, by their
assistance, of overcoming the Babylonians. When the king of Babylon knew this,
he made war against him: he laid his country waste, and took his fortified
towns, and came to the city Jerusalem itself to besiege it. But when the king
of Egypt heard what circumstances Zedekiah his ally was in, he took a great
army with him, and came into Judea, as if he would raise the siege; upon which
the king of Babylon departed from Jerusalem, and met the Egyptians, and joined
battle with them, and beat them; and when he had put them to flight, he pursued
them, and drove them out of all Syria. Now as soon as the king of Babylon was
departed from Jerusalem, the false prophets deceived Zedekiah, and said that
the king of Babylon would not any more make war against him or his people, nor
remove them out of their own country into Babylon; and that those then in
captivity would return, with all those vessels of the temple of which the king
of Babylon had despoiled that temple. But Jeremiah came
among them, and prophesied what contradicted those predictions, and what
proved to be true, that they did ill, and deluded the king; that the Egyptians
would be of no advantage to them, but that the king
of Babylon would renew the war against Jerusalem, and besiege it
again, and would destroy the people by famine, and carry away those that
remained into captivity, and would take away what they had as spoils, and
would carry off those riches that were in the temple; nay, that, besides this,
he would burn it, and utterly overthrow the city, and that they should serve him and his posterity seventy years; that then the Persians and the Medes
should put an end to their servitude, and overthrow the Babylonians; "and
that we shall be dismissed, and return to this land, and rebuild the temple,
and restore Jerusalem." When Jeremiah said this, the greater part believed
him; but the rulers, and those that were wicked, despised him, as one
disordered in his senses. Now he had resolved to go elsewhere, to his own
country, which was called Anathoth, and was twenty furlongs distant from
Jerusalem; (13)
and as he was going, one of the rulers met him, and seized upon him, and
accused him falsely, as though he were going as a deserter to the Babylonians;
but Jeremiah said that he accused him falsely, and added, that he was only
going to his own country; but the other would not believe him, but seized upon
him, and led him away to the rulers, and laid an accusation against him, under
whom he endured all sorts of torments and tortures, and was reserved to be
punished; and this was the condition he was in for some time, while he suffered
what I have already described unjustly.” (Josephus,
Antiquities of the Jews, Book X:VII:3)
Every event attached to a
beginning point in time, and whether or not such an event constitutes the
beginning or the end of an interval of time, is followed by a tail, or
sequence, of events of its own. Notice carefully, within the above quoted words
of Josephus, the underlined words “renew…,” “again…,” “those that remained…,”
indeed, the whole sequence of events highlighted in blue
font above! There is nothing to indicate that the tail end of that
sequence of events constitutes the beginning of Jeremiah’s seventy years, is
there? Quite to the contrary, I would say!
Indeed, considering the enormous emphasis that the Scriptures places
upon beginnings, it is quite an error to superimpose our own Western habit of
reckoning things in terms of the completion or ends of another event! That’s
how we arrive at so very many of each our own misinterpretations of the Holy
Scriptures!
3. And
yes, there is yet another reference of Josephus to Jerusalem and the Temple
being deserted for seventy years:
“19. I will now relate what
hath been written concerning us in the Chaldean histories, which records have a
great agreement with our books in oilier things also. Berosus shall be witness
to what I say: he was by birth a Chaldean, well known by the learned, on
account of his publication of the Chaldean books of astronomy and philosophy
among the Greeks. This Berosus, therefore, following the most ancient records
of that nation, gives us a history of the deluge of waters that then happened,
and of the destruction of mankind thereby, and agrees with Moses's narration
thereof. He also gives us an account of that ark wherein Noah, the origin of
our race, was preserved, when it was brought to the highest part of the
Armenian mountains; after which he gives us a catalogue of the posterity of
Noah, and adds the years of their chronology, and at length comes down to Nabolassar, who was
king of Babylon, and of the Chaldeans. And when he was relating the acts of
this king, he describes to us how he sent his
son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt, and against our land, with
a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how,
by that means, he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at
Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own
country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our
city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus
king of Persia. He then
says, "That this Babylonian king conquered Egypt, and Syria, and
Phoenicia, and Arabia, and exceeded in his exploits all that had reigned before
him in Babylon and Chaldea." A little after which Berosus subjoins what
follows in his History of Ancient Times. I will set down Berosus's own accounts,
which are these: "When Nabolassar, father of
Nabuchodonosor, heard that the governor whom he had set over Egypt, and over
the parts of Celesyria and Phoenicia, had revolted from him, he was not able to
bear it any longer; but committing certain parts of his army to his son
Nabuchodonosor, who was then but young, he sent him against the rebel: Nabuchodonosor
joined battle with him, and conquered him, and reduced the country under his
dominion again. Now it so fell out that his father Nabolassar fell into a distemper
at this time, and died in the city of Babylon, after he had reigned twenty-nine
years. But as he understood, in a little time, that his father Nabolassar
was dead, he set the affairs of Egypt and the other countries in order, and
committed the captives he had taken from the Jews, and Phoenicians, and
Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, that
they might conduct that part of the forces that had on heavy armor, with the
rest of his baggage, to Babylonia; while he went in haste, having but a few
with him, over the desert to Babylon; whither, when he was come, he found the
public affairs had been managed by the Chaldeans, and that the principal person
among them had preserved the kingdom for him. Accordingly, he now entirely
obtained all his father's dominions. He then came, and ordered the captives to
be placed as colonies in the most proper places of Babylonia; but for
himself, he adorned the temple of Belus, and the other temples, after an
elegant manner, out of the spoils he had taken in this war. He also rebuilt the
old city, and added another to it on the outside, and so far restored Babylon,
that none who should besiege it afterwards might have it in their power to
divert the river, so as to facilitate an entrance into it; and this he did by
building three walls about the inner city, and three about the outer. Some of
these walls he built of burnt brick and bitumen, and some of brick only. So
when he had thus fortified the city with walls, after an excellent manner, and
had adorned the gates magnificently, he added a new palace to that which his
father had dwelt in, and this close by it also, and that more eminent in its
height, and in its great splendor. It would perhaps require too long a
narration, if any one were to describe it. However, as prodigiously large and as magnificent as it was, it was finished in fifteen
days. Now in this palace he erected very high walks, supported by stone
pillars, and by planting what was called a pensile paradise, and
replenishing it with all sorts of trees, he rendered the prospect an exact
resemblance of a mountainous country. This he did to please his queen, because
she had been brought up in Media, and was fond of a mountainous
situation." ” (Josephus, Against Apion I:19.)
Again, please notice how Josephus
frames his words “when it so happened that our
city was desolate during the interval of seventy years:”
What event exactly is that important word “when,” at the beginning of this last
quote, pointing to? Is it pointing to the concluding event at the tail end of
the preceding sentence? Or, is it pointing to the beginning of those events,
that is, the event originated by Nabuchodonosor’s [Nebuchadnezzar’s] father
Nabolassar [Nabopolassar] in sending his son to subdue… “our land…?” An event
that had clearly begun even by the time that Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon
in order to secure his father’s throne and crown, that is, at his time of
returning to Babylon Nebuchadnezzar is being recorded as having “committed the captives he had taken from the Jews,”or
is that not so? That is, per this reckoning of Josephus – or could it even be
that he is quoting those words from Berosus and thus giving room for some
distortion – the point of beginning of the seventy years are here clearly given,
not in terms of the completion of the sacking of Jerusalem and the Temple, but
in terms of the smaller, but more important, beginning when Jews were taken
captives even before Nebuchadnezzar began his reign as king upon the throne of
his father. And as if this should not be enough, for such as may insist upon
reckoning things beginning with tail ends, there is plenty of leeway for the
tail end of those seventy years even within any portion of Cyrus’ own
multi-year reign, that is, by Josephus’ words “until
the days of Cyrus king of Persia.”
I’d like to add here a brief note
re the Hebrew or Chaldee word corresponding to the English word ‘days’ as found not only in this last quote, but
also within those controversial words of Josephus “as magnificent as it was, it was finished in fifteen days:”
The Hebrew/Chaldee word translated ‘days’ is a word that in its primary sense
means “be hot; a day (as the warm hours)”
(Strong’s H3117.) I don’t know why it is that, although this same Hebrew word
is frequently correctly translated in terms of years, I have never seen it
being translated in terms of ‘springs’ or ‘summers,’ that is, the hot or warm
portion of the year, as I believe would be an even more correct translation in
those passages.
4. Looking
a bit further into Book X of Antiquities of the Jews and the lengths of the
reigns of each and every king there referenced, I find the following:
i.
Hezekiah,
king of Judah, reigned, after the ten tribes of Israel were taken captives to
Assyria, an additional 15 years, during which time he had a son and successor,
Manasseh, born unto him. Altogether “Hezekiah… completed fifty-four years of
his life, and reigned twenty-nine.” (Book X:III:1.)
ii.
Manasseh
“lived sixty-seven years… having reigned fifty-five years.” (Book X:III:2.)
iii.
Amon “lived
twenty-four years, and of them… reigned two…” (Book X:IV:1.)
iv.
“Josiah…
lived thirty-nine years, and of them… reigned thirty-one…” (Book X:V:1.)
v.
“Jehoahaz…
reigned three months and ten days…” (Book X:V:2.)
vi.
“Jehoiakim…
lived thirty-six years, and of them reigned eleven…” (Book X:VI:3.)
vii.
“Jehoiachin…
reigned three months and ten days…” (Book X:VI:3.)
viii.
“The king
of Babylon [Nebuchadnezzar] sent… he came to Jerusalem, in the eleventh year of
king Zedekiah, pillaged the temple, and… he set fire to the temple in the fifth
month, the first day of the month, in the eleventh year of the reign of
Zedekiah, and in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar; he also burnt the
palace, and overthrew the city…”
ix.
“Nebuchadnezzar…
reigned forty-three years…” (Book X:XI:1.)
x.
“After the
death of Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach his son succeeded in the kingdom…
Evil-Merodach was dead, after a reign of eighteen years…” (Book X:XI:2.)
xi.
“Neglissar
his son took the government, and retained it forty years, and then ended his
life; and after him the succession in the kingdom came to his son
Labosordacus…” (Book X:XI:2.)
xii.
“Labosordacus…
continued in it in all but nine months…”
(Book X:XI:2.)
xiii.
“And when
he was dead, it came to Baltasar, who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelus…;
against him did Cyrus, the king of Persia, and Darius, the king of Media, make
war…” (Book X:XI:2.) “It was Baltasar, under whom Babylon was taken,
when he had reigned seventeen years…”
(Book X:XI:4.)
xiv.
“Babylon
was taken by Darius, and when he, with his kinsman Cyrus, had put an end to the
dominion of the Babyonians, he was sixty-two years old. He was the son of
Astyages, and had another name among the Greeks. Moreover, he took Daniel the
prophet, and carried him with him into Media…”
(Book X:XI:4.)
xv.
It should
be noted here that Cyrus did not become king until after the fall of Babylon
and his being offered by Darius not only his entire kingdom, Media, but also
his daughter as wife, which offers Cyrus was happy to accept after first obtaining
the consent of his own parents, his father being Cambyses, king of Persia. The
first year of Cyrus began on Tishri 22, that is, in the autumn following upon
the midsummer night when Babylon fell (in 534 BCE.) Notice that, per Cyrus’ own
record, still preserved, these dates find full support, while the conventional
dating of said event, October 13, 539 B.C., are clearly in error!
Summarizing items i. – xv. above:
Based upon the above one would conclude that from the title of “Book X… The
Captivity of the Ten Tribes to the First of Cyrus” that the associated
“interval” of time would add up as follows: i. - viii.:
15+55+2+31+0.3+11+0.3+11=125.6 years from “the Captivity of the Ten Tribes…”
until the burning of Solomon’s Temple, and viii. – xiv.: (43-18)+18+40+0.75+17=100.75
years from the burning of Solomon’s Temple until the fall of Babylon. But 125.6
+ 100.75 = 226.35 years. That’s 25.85 years over and above Josephus 200 ½ years
as reckoned above! And
that’s not even taking into account the time between the fall of Babylon and
the issuing of Cyrus’ decree within Cyrus’ first year of reign!
Indeed, if we were to rely solely
upon Josephus account, we’d be forced to stretch out said seventy years of
Babylonian captivity, as prophesied by Jeremiah and as understood by Daniel,
even unto more than 100 years, wouldn’t we?!!
And besides, how do these 100.75 years of Josephus corresponds to
Josephus’ own words re “seventy years,” above quoted, that is, re “all
Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy
years;” and “when it so happened that our city was
desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of
Persia?”
In
conclusion, it becomes obvious that, without more, we cannot rely upon
Josephus’ second hand account of events, far removed as they were in time from
Josephus himself. This calls for some wisdom re how to properly select our
references, and re how to prioritize between data apparently given by separate
sources. What can be relied upon? What is error? The key to the answers are
always the same: One has to look for and find the ultimate beginnings and
sources, a firsthand witness re each particular data of importance!
The
Witness and Prophecy of Huldah the prophetess, re the beginning of the 70
years Babylonian captivity
An
item of particular interest and value, which to me really brought this thing
home, an item provided by Josephus, is his rendition of the words found also in
2 Chronicles 34:22-28 and 2 Kings 22:14-20. That is, “after his [Josiah’s]
death, he [God] would send on the multitude what miseries he had determined for
them.”(Book X:IV:2) This, to me, constitutes further evidence as to the timing
of the beginning of the seventy years of Babylonian captivity. For these words
do point to a point in time not far beyond the death of Josiah, do they not?!
That is, to a time not too far into the reigns of Josiah’s successors Jehoahaz
and Jehoiakim, do they not?
When
were Daniel and his three friends taken captive to Babylon?
The
Jehovah’s Witnesses are teaching that, based upon Jeremiah 52:28-30,
Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives in his 7th, 18th, and
23rd year, but not within his accession year. Even though
such a statement may be considered technically correct, they are, first of all,
overlooking the direct statement of Daniel 1:1-4, which makes it amply clear
that Daniel and his three friends were among a group of Jewish captives brought
to Babylon “in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah.”
So
how can it be then, that my first sentence above is technically correct? Well,
upon close inspection of the particulars given us by the various available
sources, Daniel 1:1-4, Josephus, and Berosus as quoted by Josephus, etc., those
first Jewish captives were taken prior to the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s
accession year, albeit within the same calendar year, that is, within the last
year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar’s father and predecessor, Nabopolassar and
before the death of Nabopolassar.
It
follows that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ argument to the effect of
Nebuchadnezzar’s first year of reign being not also the first of the seventy
years of Babylonian captivity stands without support. That is to say also that
the claim of the Jehovah’s Witnesses re such reckoning being based solely upon
secular sources is a false claim of theirs, one which they ought to recognize,
admit, and repent upon…
On
the other hand, perhaps it may be said that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are
themselves standing merely upon a secular foundation? That is, being as it is,
that they correctly do claim that Josephus maintains that “the king of Babylon
passed over Euphrates, and took all Syria as far as Pelusium, excepting
Judea. But when Nebuchadnezzar had already reigned four years…,”
that is, in contradistinction, not only to Berosus’ record as quoted by
Josephus (Antiquities, Book X:XI:1,) but also in contradistinction to the
record of Daniel 1:1-4.
It
is certainly possible that Josephus disbelieved Berosus (cf. Josephus’ words
“Herodotus was mistaken…” Book X:I:4.) In fact, this line of reasoning finds
support also in Josephus’ placement of his record re the prophet Daniel and his
three friends, and as well his dating of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream per Daniel
Chapter 2, that is per Josephus’ placement of Book X, Chapter X, subsequent to
his record re the burning of Solomon’s Temple (Book X:VIII) and subsequent to
Ishmael’s murder of Gedaliah (Book X:IX.) It also explains somewhat why
Josephus is contradicting the record of the Holy Scriptures as found in Daniel
Chapters 1-2, not only as to the dates there provided, but also by making it
appear as though Daniel and his three friends were taken captive during the
reign of Zedekiah and while claiming also that “among these there were
four of the family of Zedekiah, of most excellent dispositions, one of whom was
called Daniel, another was called Ananias, another Misael, and the fourth
Azarias.” Could it be that
Josephus was himself being confused by some record to the effect of proving
that Daniel and his three friend were indeed as Josephus claims?: “The kinsmen
of Zedekiah their king…” and “among these there were four of the family of
Zedekiah… the one of whom was called Daniel, another Ananias, another Misael,
and the fourth Azarias…” Could it be that Josephus was mixing up one Zedekiah
with another Zedekiah, one being the uncle of the other, that is, as per the
genealogy found in 1 Chronicles 1:15-16, and per 2 Chronicles 36:10, which
states that Zedekiah was the “brother,” (which Hebrew word also applies to a
“kinsman”) of Jehoiachin, while Jeremiah 37:1 makes it clear that “king
Zedekiah the son of Josiah reigned instead of Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, whom
Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon made king in the land of Judah,” which fact is
also confirmed in 2 Kings 24:17, “And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his
father's brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah?”Could it be that Josephus was
mistaking Hananiah of Daniel 1:6 etc. with the Hananiah of 2 Chronicles 3:19 (a
3rd generation descendent of king Jehoiachin who himself had both a
brother and an uncle named Zedekiah?)
Could
it be that Josephus, while doing his very best in being a translator of Hebrew
writings into the Greek language, was still himself subject to misunderstanding
some of the intricacies of the Hebrew language? Indeed, I am convinced he was,
and accordingly I’ll take him up on his own concluding words: “Now as to
myself, I have so described these matters as I have found them and read them;
but if any one is inclined to another opinion about them, let him enjoy his
different sentiments without any blame from me”
(Book X:XI:7:last sentence.)
Comments
and donations freely accepted at:
Tree of Life©
c/o General Delivery
Nora [near SE-713 01]
eMail:
TreeOfLifeTime@gmail.com
…
…
The GateWays into Tree of Life
Chronology Forums©
The
GateWays of Entry into the Tree of Life Time Chronology Touching upon the Book
of Daniel©
Pearls & Mannah – “I found it!”
Feel free to use, and for sharing
freely with others, any of the truth and blessings belonging to God alone. I
retain all the copyrights to the within, such that no one may lawfully restrain
my use and my sharing of it with others. Including also all the errors that
remain. Please let only me know about those. I need to know in order to correct
them. Others don’t need to be focused upon the errors that belong to me alone.
Please respect that, and please do not hesitate to let me know of any certain
error that you find!
Without recourse. All Rights
Reserved. Tree of Life©