Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Decessus · 10-27-2005, 02:45 AM

I was reading Curt van den Heuvel's analysis of Daniel titled "Revealing Daniel". It is posted on the Infidel's website in the prophecy section of their library.

At one point, a criticism of the historical accuracy is given. In Daniel 1:1, it reads:

"In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it."

According to Mr. Heuvel, the first siege actually occured during his son Jehoiachin's rule, eight years after what was stated in Daniel. He quotes 2 Kings 24 8-13 as the source of information.

"Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months...At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged...And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign...And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord..."

According to 2 Kings 24 1 however, Nebuchadnezzar did invade Jerusalem during Jehoiakim's reign.

"During Jehoiakim's reign, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon invaded the land, and Jehoiakim became his vassal for three years. But then he changed his mind and rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar."

I would like to know if I am misinterpreting the passage, or if Mr. Heuvel is incorrect in his statement.

Secular Pinoy · 10-27-2005, 03:32 AM

It seems that Heuvel (btw, it's not technically in the Secular Web Library, it's hosted offline) refers specifically to a Jerusalem siege, and not a general attack against Jehoiakim's kingdom. 2 Kings 24:1 did not say that Nebuchadnezzar sieged Jerusalem (Jerusalem isn't specified, nor that it indicated a siege at all) but an "invasion of the land".

That's how I understand his argument, but I think it's best to contact Heuvel himself.

John Kesler · 10-27-2005, 11:08 AM

From Farrell Till's article "Bad History in the Book of Daniel" comes additional information about this discrepancy:

Quote:

The Third Year of Jehoiakim: The writer of Daniel claimed that he and others were taken captive in Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the "third year of the reign of Jehoiakim" and carried away to Babylon (1:1-3), where he was selected to be educated in "the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans" (v:4). Jehoiakim was king of Judah from 609 to 598 B. C. (Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, 1987, p. 559), so if Nebuchadnezzar took him captive in the "third year of Jehoiakim," this would have occurred in 606 B. C., which was a year before Nebuchadnezzar became king. From Babylonian records previously mentioned, we know that Nebuchadnezzar engaged the Egyptians under the command of Pharaoh Necho II and defeated them at Carchemish in 605. Later that year, his father died, and he succeeded to the throne. The next year he sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon for refusing to pay tribute to him, and from 604 to 601, he was kept busy securing the Egyptian front. He suffered a setback in 601 at the hands of Pharaoh Hophra, but by 598, he had recovered sufficiently to lay siege to Jerusalem. The Bible records this siege (2 Kings 24:10), and says that it was at this time that captives from Jerusalem, along with treasures from the temple, were taken to Babylon (2 Kings 24:13-16). This siege of Jerusalem happened not in the third year of Jehoiakim but in his last year. The Bible is unclear about what happened to him, whether he was killed during the siege or captured and taken to Babylon. Jeremiah 22:19 predicted that he would be "buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem," but 2 Chronicles 36:6 claims that Nebuchadnezzar "bound him in fetters" and took him to Jerusalem. Second Kings 24:6 merely says that Jehoiakim "slept with his fathers and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead," after which the chapter describes Jehoiachin's surrender to Nebuchadnezzar, who then carried him, the royal family, and other "chief men of the land" to Babylon. So both biblical and Babylonian records indicate that Jerusalem fell to Nebuchadnezzar in the last year of Jehoiakim's reign and not in his third year as the writer of Daniel indicated. It seems rather strange that this man, who possessed all of the great wisdom claimed in this book, did not even know what year he was taken captive to Babylon. It's reasonable to think that someone living four centuries later could have been confused about when Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem and took captives back to Babylon, but it's hard to believe that one of these captives would not have known when it happened.

yummyfur · 10-27-2005, 08:41 PM

The author of Daniel might have been confused when reading his sources, to create his historical fiction. My guess is the reference to the third year of Jehoiakim, is a reference to the fact that Jehoiakim served as a vassal to Nebuchadnezzar for three years(as mentioned in Second Kings, which I assume the author of Daniel used as a source). So the third year, was his third year as vassal, after which he rebelled and Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem.

spin · 10-28-2005, 12:47 AM

Well, Daniel 1:1! Good place to start.

I've been thinking for quite a while that we could have a leisurely read through all of Daniel. The notion that we could read a section at a time, preferably without any hot debates, so probably best without any intervention from the more bible literalist christians. Get as much history, textual analysis, and other interest facets as we can, as we go through the text. I feel more comfortable with the second half, so I need a good in depth read of the first part and I'm sure there's a lot of interest to be found in the text.

What we need are at least five people who would be interested in battering the text about to see what it can yield.

The aim would be less speculation and more text mining, ie dig out what the text seems to actually say. Again, in the spirit of greatest value, there should not be any confrontationalism, but expression of what understanding can be derived from the text, stressing the notion of evidence as being primary material.

So, what do you say?

spin

Chris Weimer · 10-28-2005, 10:04 PM

Hey, I'm in. I need a good education in the OT, and Daniel is just as good as anyplace to start.

Chris Weimer · 10-28-2005, 10:32 PM

BTW - might I add a condition? Anyone who disrupts the discussion should be ignored by the participants therein? I think it will make for easier reading and less of a distraction by having to refute Christian backreading or ludicrous argumentation. What say ye?

spin · 10-29-2005, 12:45 AM

Yeah, sure. That's why I said, "preferably without any hot debates". I don't think any of the traditional slinging matches we see on BC&H should be welcome. :angel:

That's 2.

OK, folks, looking for at least 3 more people to take part in an analysis of Daniel.

spin

Chris Weimer · 10-30-2005, 08:41 PM

No one? Toto? Anat? Anyone? Heck, I'd be willing with merely 2 more...

10-27-2005, 02:45 AM	#1
Decessus Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21	Daniel 1:1 I was reading Curt van den Heuvel's analysis of Daniel titled "Revealing Daniel". It is posted on the Infidel's website in the prophecy section of their library. At one point, a criticism of the historical accuracy is given. In Daniel 1:1, it reads: "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it." According to Mr. Heuvel, the first siege actually occured during his son Jehoiachin's rule, eight years after what was stated in Daniel. He quotes 2 Kings 24 8-13 as the source of information. "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months...At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged...And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign...And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord..." According to 2 Kings 24 1 however, Nebuchadnezzar did invade Jerusalem during Jehoiakim's reign. "During Jehoiakim's reign, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon invaded the land, and Jehoiakim became his vassal for three years. But then he changed his mind and rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar." I would like to know if I am misinterpreting the passage, or if Mr. Heuvel is incorrect in his statement.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-27-2005, 03:32 AM	#2
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	It seems that Heuvel (btw, it's not technically in the Secular Web Library, it's hosted offline) refers specifically to a Jerusalem siege, and not a general attack against Jehoiakim's kingdom. 2 Kings 24:1 did not say that Nebuchadnezzar sieged Jerusalem (Jerusalem isn't specified, nor that it indicated a siege at all) but an "invasion of the land". That's how I understand his argument, but I think it's best to contact Heuvel himself.

10-27-2005, 08:41 PM	#4
yummyfur Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 351	The author of Daniel might have been confused when reading his sources, to create his historical fiction. My guess is the reference to the third year of Jehoiakim, is a reference to the fact that Jehoiakim served as a vassal to Nebuchadnezzar for three years(as mentioned in Second Kings, which I assume the author of Daniel used as a source). So the third year, was his third year as vassal, after which he rebelled and Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem.

10-28-2005, 12:47 AM	#5
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Well, Daniel 1:1! Good place to start. I've been thinking for quite a while that we could have a leisurely read through all of Daniel. The notion that we could read a section at a time, preferably without any hot debates, so probably best without any intervention from the more bible literalist christians. Get as much history, textual analysis, and other interest facets as we can, as we go through the text. I feel more comfortable with the second half, so I need a good in depth read of the first part and I'm sure there's a lot of interest to be found in the text. What we need are at least five people who would be interested in battering the text about to see what it can yield. The aim would be less speculation and more text mining, ie dig out what the text seems to actually say. Again, in the spirit of greatest value, there should not be any confrontationalism, but expression of what understanding can be derived from the text, stressing the notion of evidence as being primary material. So, what do you say? spin

10-28-2005, 10:04 PM	#6
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Hey, I'm in. I need a good education in the OT, and Daniel is just as good as anyplace to start.

10-28-2005, 10:32 PM	#7
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	BTW - might I add a condition? Anyone who disrupts the discussion should be ignored by the participants therein? I think it will make for easier reading and less of a distraction by having to refute Christian backreading or ludicrous argumentation. What say ye?

10-29-2005, 12:45 AM	#8
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Yeah, sure. That's why I said, "preferably without any hot debates". I don't think any of the traditional slinging matches we see on BC&H should be welcome. :angel: That's 2. OK, folks, looking for at least 3 more people to take part in an analysis of Daniel. spin

10-30-2005, 08:41 PM	#9
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	No one? Toto? Anat? Anyone? Heck, I'd be willing with merely 2 more...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.