Why I Am Not A Preterist

[Daniel Gracely]

Cyber says:

In answer to your question concerning my calculation that Darius' 2nd year was 520BC, I agree that he came to the throne Sept. 522 BC. But that became his accession year.



•Sept. 522 BC to Nisan 521 = Accession year
•Nisan 521 BC to Nisan 520 = First year
•Nisan 520 BC to Nisan 519 = Second year


So, the ninth month (Kislev 24) fell into Darius' 2nd year.

I believe the books of Ezra and Nehemiah reckon the year of ascension as ending upon the 1st of Tishri, not the 1st of Nisan. At least, Harold Hoehner's article points out that the Tishri to Tishri system of reckoning is demonstrated in Nehemiah chapters 1 and 2, and Hoehner cites the likewise reckoning of the Jews at Elephantine during the 5th century BC. Assuming this is the case would mean that Darius' ascension year came up to, but did not include, Tishri, 522, which marked the beginning of his first year of reign. This would make the 2nd year of his reign Tishri to Tishri, 521/520, with the 9th month in his 2nd year coming two months after the beginning of his 2nd year in 521. The 9th month is still counted from Nisan (oddly enough). At least that's how I'm figuring it based on Hoehner's observations.

I would be very curious to know why the Jews changed their reckoning system at some point around the 6th or 5th century BC, since it seems both the Babylonians and Persians used the Nisan system during this period (so far as I know).

[Cyberseeker]

I believe the books of Ezra and Nehemiah reckon the year of ascension as ending upon the 1st of Tishri, not the 1st of Nisan.

True of Ez/Neh, but the prophet Haggai was using the Nisan to Nisan system. Check out Haggai 1:1, 2:1 and 2:10. They speak of Elul, Tishri, then Kislev (in that order) all being in Darius' second year. The switch-point to his third year was the following Nisan.

Hoehners source is Siegfried Horn & Lynn Wood. Their book includes research on the Post exilic Jewish calendar. You would find it indispensable, as I did.

I would be very curious to know why the Jews changed their reckoning system at some point around the 6th or 5th century BC, since it seems both the Babylonians and Persians used the Nisan system during this period (so far as I know).

It seems the Jews flip-flopped between both systems. I have a few theories but Ill try not to bore you.

[Daniel Gracely]

This is news to me. Assuming Haggai 2 is not a flashback in relation to Haggai 1, then I see your point. (The narrative doesn’t seem as chronologically evident to me as, say, Nehemiah’s. But I agree it would certainly seem to progress chronologically.) So, okay, I see why you say the 2nd year of Darius would be 519 BC. But don’t you still feel it’s a problem to advocate for overlapping 69 year periods, for the reasons I gave earlier (i.e. that this would mean an approx. 84 year “rest” of the land instead of 70, and that the ‘Exile’ extends 17 years or so after the Jews have returned to their land? I’ll try to double-check when I get a chance later today, but when I ran the numbers yesterday I came up a little short of 69 years and 2 days (70 weeks of 360 days). Yet, even if it was this exact interval, again, I don’t see how this could be considered the Exile period for reasons just mentioned, though, admittedly, it would be a remarkable coincidence.

BTW I'm guessing your theory is that the Jews reckon from Nisan whenever they are back in their land and able to carry out their ceremonial duties, unless, perhaps, books like Ezra or Nehemiah stay with their system of reckoning which they begin with, to avoid reader confusion. Is that it, or is your theory different from that?

If this is the case (that Jews went back to a Nisan reckoning when they were back in the land), is there any evidence of which system was in use in the 1st century AD? From W.E. Filmer's article advocating a 1 BC or 1 AD date for the death of Herod the Great, I know, at least, Josephus used the ascension year system. I guess I'll have to go online to find the book you mention.

No, it doesn't "bore" me to hear other theories. Would you agree, at least, that Kings and Chronicles reckon from Tishri, as I see no other way out of the dilemma of solving the 'discrepancy' between Jeremiah and the early Babylonian record on the one hand, which puts the deportation of Jehoiachin in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, and 2 Kings which puts it in Nebuchadnezzar’s 8th year.

While IMO this new info about Haggai doesn't really affect anything I've already written in my book about Daniel's prophecy of the coming of the Messiah, since I never mention Haggai, and since it still appears that my focus upon the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Kings and Chronicles all used the Tishri system, I would still like to hear more info on this whole subject. Probably I will need to qualify a statement in my book about how the Jews used the Tishri system from the 5th century BC forward, since it appears Haggai did not. Having said that, it still seems to me Daniel must have used the Tishri system when he wrote his book, which I assume was sometime around the 3rd year of Cyrus or later, and that he had not returned to the Land. But feel free to give me your thoughts on this, as well.

[Cyberseeker]

I need to consider some of your points as they raise several issues where my thinking is fuzzy. One thing I do know though is the time span between the day Haggai was speaking of and the day Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem. It was 25202 days.

Please divide this number by our solar year of 365.2422 days per year. (Go to 4 decimal points accuracy)

25202 / 365.2422 = 69.0008 years.
25200 / 360.0000 = 70.0000 years.

As you can see, we are talking 'minutes' accuracy - not 'days.'

So getting back to your opening post asking preterists to reconsider their opposition to the 360-day year cycle: there is powerful mathematical and astronomic evidence of an underlying 360-day calendar. The only problem, as I said previously, is how some people have abused it trying to prove doubtful end-time theories. If you want to see my research on this matter go here.

I will try to get back to some of the other matters you raise when I get a bit of time.

[Daniel Gracely]

Hi Cyber,
I, too, am pressed for time just now. I do plan on getting back to this before too many days, though.

[Daniel Gracely]

Cyber states:

Nisan 520 BC to Nisan 519 = Second year
What dates do you measure Jeremiahs 70-year (69-year) period between? I say 17 December 589 BC to 18 December 520 BC. The scripture references are Jeremiah 52:1-4 and Haggai 2:18-19. Is that how you identify it?

Hi Cyber,

First, let me make a correction to something I said in a previous comment. I mistakenly said the seige began in the 10th day of the 10th month of Zedekiah’s 11th year. Of course, I should have said 9th year. It was in the 11th year that the City finally fell.

Anyhow, I’ve gone into the two passages again that you mentioned, when you asked if I was using Jer. 52:1-4 and Hag. 2:18-19. Though I am not using these passages, I wanted to give you the best estimate I can of the interval of days this represents, and why.

First, I come up with 588 BC, not 589, as Zedekiah’s 9th year. Tracing the path a bit, we have Neb. Ascending in early Sept. 605 BC, and so from Jeremiah’s reckoning his 1st regnal year begins in Spring, 604. This would be the 4th year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 25:1). Jehoiakim’s reign ends toward the end of 598, with his son Jehoiachin reigning for 3 months and 10 days, ending on March 16, 597, when he surrenders to Neb. in the 7th year as reckoned by Jeremiah, but 8th according to 2 Kings (using the Tishri system). I appears to me that Zedekiah came to power just AFTER the turn of the year, not before it. I don’t have the reasons it front of me, but I think there are internal statements in the Bible that led me to this conclusion, since otherwise Zedekiah would have been in his 12th year at the time he was captured. I’ll look up those reasons if that is important to you. I think it has to do with the destruction of Jerusalem coming in Neb.’s 19th year, which is 586 BC. For summer of 586 BC to be Zedekiah’s 11th year, it means Zedekiah’s 11th year began spring 586, meaning he ascended after Nisan 597, or else he would have been reckoned by Jeremiah to be in his 12th year, not 11th. I guess that’s how I figured it.

So the beginning of Neb’s siege in the 10th month of the Zed’s 9th year would be the latter part of 588 BC, according to my calculations. Now I’m checking the new moons under NASA moon phase chart. (Remember, when looking up the BC dates on NASA chart, the year you’re looking for is one year less than what you would normally suppose, since NASA adds a year “0” where 1 BC is, making 2 BC “-1” on the NASA chart. Pretty confusing.) Anyway, new moons for NASA’s “-587” (i.e. 588 BC) occur on Mar 4, Apr 2, May 2. Since Elephantine records for the 5th century show in 14 instances that the Jews began their Nisan from about Mar 26 to Apr 24 inclusively, then it would seem that for year 588 BC it would be fairly safe to say Nisan began Apr 2 of that year. Counting the new moon in Apr as the 1st month means the new moon of the 10th month occurs on Dec. 25 (00:55), and so perhaps the new crescent is seen the sunset of Dec. 25, or else 26. Theoretically, we’ll say 25th for the sake of this example. Adding 25,200 Julian days brings us to Dec. 23, 519 BC. So this is the date that would yield 70 years of 360 days, if in fact that is the interval between when Neb began his siege to the 24th day of the 9th month of Darius’ 2nd year, according to the verses (Haggai 2:18-19) you gave me in an earlier comment.

At this point we need to know in what month of Darius’ 2nd year the 9th month would be considered. Looking up NASA moon phase chart for “-518” (i.e., 519 BC) gives us the following new moons surrounding spring of that year: Feb. 19, Mar 21, Apr 19, and May 19. IMO either Mar 21 or Apr 19 are possibilities. I say this because, although earlier I mentioned the Mar 26 to Apr 24 dates in Elephantine records, I assume the interval is larger than what this data alone suggests, since in modern times I think the Passover has about a 6 week window. Anyway, we’ll use Mar 21 and Apr 19—whatever one favors your hypothesis the best. Assuming Mar 21 begins the 1st month would mean the new moon of the 9th month began Nov. 12 after sunset (though the margin of error here is allegedly 4 hrs 51 minutes either way), so perhaps allow for one day for the new moon crescent to be visible. Let’s be generous to your hypothesis and say two days. This would mean the 1st of the 9th month of Darius’ 2nd year would be Nov. 14. Moving forward to the 24th day would bring us to Dec. 7, 519. This is about 16 days shy of Dec. 23, 519 BC, the date we were looking for. However, it is, in fact, very close. Now if we assume Nisan began Apr 16, that would push the new moon to Dec. 12, before 7 AM, so let’s again be favorable to your hypothesis and say sunset was observed just after sunset on Dec. 12 (this is the time when the new crescent is visible; sorry, probably you know that, but it may help 3rd party readers). This would mean the 24th day of the 9th month of Darius’ 2nd year would be Jan 4, 518 BC. This is even closer to Dec. 23; just off by 12 days.

Okay, so just now I realize I have totally fouled up by assuming late 519 was in Darius’ 2nd year. For I have just reread your chart showing the 2nd year ended in Nisan, 519. So according to my calculations all that I said about Nov and Dec 519 are actually in Darius’ 3rd year. Of course, if somehow you are right about the 589 date for Zed’s 11th year, then what I said in the last paragraph would be okay. But I don’t know how you’re coming up with that. In fact, if Zed ascended BEFORE Nisan, 597, this would make spring of 589 his 12th year. So that doesn’t work either.

Anyhow, you might want to double-check my figures, but I thought this might give you some data against which to check your own calculations.

I want to say one other thing. This may encourage you, or it may discourage you—I don’t know which. Last year I printed up about two-hundred dollars worth of books, only to find out that my estimation of what I thought was a 69 year period was in fact only 59, all because I did a simple math mistake of the mind! Talk about a blunder. I had only given out 5 or so copies out of about 50 I had purchased, but because this calculation was in some ways THE KEY to my whole book, I had to throw out the other copies. Or at least most of them. I still have a few to remind me of the dangers of hubris. Anyway, it’s not the first time I’ve found mistakes in books I’ve written, but it was the first time I had to throw books away. If for some reason you feel you have to rewrite something you thought was okay, well, I know that feeling. I’m not saying that is the case for you. I’m just saying I’ve been there. The good news for me is that I ended up studying the matter much more deeply after engaging in debate with some atheists, and ultimately the extra study made my book much stronger. In fact, debating on this forum has IMO helped confirm conclusions I drew in my book, and brought certain things to my attention I wish now I could have known then, so that I could had included those points in my book. All for now,

Cordially,

[Cyberseeker]

First, I come up with 588 BC, not 589, as Zedekiah’s 9th year. ... I appears to me that Zedekiah came to power just AFTER the turn of the year, not before it. I don’t have the reasons it front of me, but I think there are internal statements in the Bible that led me to this conclusion, since otherwise Zedekiah would have been in his 12th year at the time he was captured. I’ll look up those reasons if that is important to you. I think it has to do with the destruction of Jerusalem coming in Neb.’s 19th year, which is 586 BC. For summer of 586 BC to be Zedekiah’s 11th year, it means Zedekiah’s 11th year began spring 586, meaning he ascended after Nisan 597, ...

DG, you are quoting the commonly accepted chronology of Edwin Thiele whose dates became widely accepted after his publication in 1951. Most modern commentaries date the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC as he did and as you have done. However, after his work was published, the Babylonian Chronicles came to light showing the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. (google it up )

Most folks don't fuss about a mere year so the commentaries tend to follow the original research. However serious historians with an eye for precision have tweaked that period back by a year. For example Roger Young, Gershon Galil and Kenneth Kitchen.

Without going into detail with a fine tooth comb I would just say that Im satisfied with my dates as given previously.

[Daniel Gracely]

Hi Cyberseeker,

First, I have never followed Thiele. I have only followed the historical date of Nebuchadnezzar’s accession on Sept. 7, 605 BC, and counted his 1st year of reign from the month of Tishri, which followed shortly afterward, meaning Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st year of reign began in 605, and that by Jeremiah's reckoning (from Nisan) his 19th year of reign would have begun in 586, the year in which Jerusalem fell. I will give further reasons for this view below.

So far, I have found the Rodger C. Young article: “When Did Jerusalem Fall?”, advocating a 587 BC fall of Jerusalem, less than satisfying. It appears to me that, despite his appeal to “Decision Tables” in which he claims he will sift all the data of possible hypotheses in neutral fashion, that he himself is prone toward flexing the data back and forth between this or that writer and whether in this or that particular passage of a book the same writer may be switching back and forth from either accession or non-accession years for kings. That doesn’t leave me feeling very confident. For example, since Nebuchadnezzar ascended to the throne on Sept. 7, 605 BC, why does he keep assuming the Tishri system places his first regnal year in 606? For Tishri came after Sept 7, meaning Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st year began on the 1st of Tishri, 605, meaning his 19th year in which Jerusalem was captured was in 586. This seems straightforward to me. In fact, despite Young’s claim of evaluating things with complete neutral objectivity, I find this kind of statement about Ezek. 40:1 in his writing: .[note: in the following quote my computer has failed to capture the Hebrew letter font in Young’s article, and supplied “l}” instead]

In this verse, the Hebrew preposition l}, representing “of ” in the phrase “of the captivity,”
implies non-accession reckoning

Really? Why would that be the case? Why would a phrase like “of the 14th year of captivity” IMPLY either an accession or non-accession system of reckoning? I mean, I agree with Young that “of” implies counting from the beginning of the Exile. But what Young apparently ASSUMES is that the captivity began with the all but simultaneous twin events of Jehoiachin’s capture/Zedekiah’s installation, and therefore not in Jehoiakim’s 3rd year (as I contend), which alone explains an Exile in which Jews are taken out of the Land for 70 years. Thus it seems that Young’s view is that Zedekiah’s accession coincided with the Exile, and therefore there was no accession year.

Yet another statement Young must reconcile to support his view is that the “8th year” of 2 Kings 24 is in discrepancy with the “7th year” of Jeremiah 52. But here again Young ASSUMES these years are the very same. Thus in the following paragraph, Young makes no mention of the possibility I have raised on this forum, that the statement in 2 Kings 24 was written by an Exilic or post-Exilic writer who arguably followed the Tishri system of Ezra and Nehemiah and the Elephantine Jews of the 5th century BC, and so reckoned the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign upon Tishri, 605, thus placing the entire reign of Jehoiachin in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar, whereas Jeremiah, following the Nisan system, put it in Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year. This is a much more natural explanation than the kind of machinations we see in Young’s paragraph, where he tries to justify a much different hypothesis:

Jer 52:28–30 gives the number of captives taken by Nebuchadnezzar in his seventh, eighteenth, and twenty-third years. There is one thing certain about the counting of captives—the captives themselves are in no position to do it. Every king and pharaoh must have had an official assigned to this task, so that the number of those vanquished could be recorded on a stela or in the annals glorifying the king’s exploits. Thus the list of captives in Jer 52:28–30 could not have originated in a Judean record—it came from the official records of Nebuchadnezzar. The years of the monarch would therefore be the Nisan, accession years used in Babylon. This is an independent verification of the use of non-accession years when Jeremiah and the author of the last two chapters of 2 Kings referred to Nebuchadnezzar: the seventh (accession) year of Jer 52:28 corresponds to the eighth (non-accession) year of 2 Kgs 24:12, and the eighteenth (accession) year of Jer 52:29 corresponds to the nineteenth (non-accession) year of 2 Kgs 25:8. These are not mistakes, as some have assumed. They are a valuable clue that the synchronisms to Nebuchadnezzar in 2 Kings were to be taken in a non-accession sense, and this conclusion could have been reached from these texts alone without going through the more thorough analysis of the present article.

First, the writers of the Bible under the full inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, who knows all things from beginning to end before they occur, are not reliant upon human sources for information. For Young to claim that the record of scripture “could not have originated in a Judean record” makes me wonder if he does not include himself in the following group of those who entertain the possibility of errancy in the Bible’s original autographs, when he states:

A possible outcome is that no set of reasonable presuppositions satisfies all the data; this is the outcome that should generally be expected by those who maintain that the authors of Scripture lived many years after the events described, and these authors were not able to write down accurately things as they actually happened.

And so, although Young claims to take the scripture data at face value, indeed, even if he embraces the formal idea of the inerrancy of Scripture and refers only to other persons when he makes implicit mention of those who embrace errancy, his approach is nevertheless liable to error since he makes assumptions that the writers of the Bible are constrained by outside historical sources. In other words, even if Young assumes inerrancy, he is making a dubious assumption about the how of transmission of records that end up in the Bible, and these lead him to make further assumptions about accession and non-accession years that are not necessary at all.

One proof of this is that his article feels no responsibility to mention, let alone harmonize, Jeremiah’s prophecy of a 70 year Exile. Nowhere at all in Young’s long and complex article is there a single occurrence of the words “70”, “seventy”, “Cyrus”, “Darius”, or “Artaxerxes,” the discussion of which at least some of these are necessary to demonstrate the inerrancy of Jeremiah’s prophecy which in my opinion MUST be taken into account as a corroboration of any proposed timeline in the vicinity of the Exile. That is, to show the reliability of the Scriptures of Jeremiah and 2 Kings, one cannot simply talk about accession and non-accession reckoning systems, as though so narrow a subject formed a closed sphere of inquiry which didn’t ALSO have to address and account for directly relevant events arising from the disobedience of Israel and its consequences during this period, namely, the 70-year Exile prophesied by Jeremiah. But all this Young ignores. In fact, he also ignores another natural explanation about Nebuchadnezzar taking captives in his 18^th year, a year before the sack of Jerusalem, namely, that Zedekiah tells Jeremiah that he fears the reports of those who have already defected to Nebuchadnezzar. Doubtless, the effect of what happened to those who did NOT surrender prior to Jehoiachin’s capture 11 years before was still fresh in the minds of the besieged Jews.

But I think, Cyberseeker, YOU do feel an obligation to address Jeremiah’s prophecy. This is to your credit. But then, perhaps you have chosen authors who do not really share your appreciation for the grander problem of harmonizing all of Scripture, though in one sense their work supports an aspect of your view. Personally, I think Young has so narrowed his field of inquiry as to demonstrate that he himself is driven by presuppositions. I don’t blame a man for having them. We all have them. But especially suspect is the man who claims he has none, and that he will subject all the data to a means of objective testing. That any man should think himself above entertaining prejudice is scary. And I, for one, would not trust such a man very far.

And so, Cyberseeker, in my opinion you still have a problem with the specific dates you mentioned. In fact, even if you are right about the 589 BC question, an Exile from the dates you propose still have all the problems I mentioned earlier, including the Jews having returned 13 or so years before the end of your Exile. It seems your view requires a metaphorical understanding of the passage, i.e., that the Exile was when the Jews were ‘exiled’ from God’s blessing. I don’t think that’s the natural reading of the text. Moreover, your position implies that God’s blessing didn’t cease until the capture of Jerusalem in the 4th month of Zedekiah’s 11th year. But surely the destitution in Jerusalem during the entire siege of 1.5 years (not to mention the evil reigns of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin) was evidence that God’s blessing had long ceased, and that we should make a distinction between God’s active blessing upon a righteous people and his long-suffering patience with unrepentant sinners. I don’t believe God experiences his blessing of a people with feelings of long-suffering. And yet that is what your view seems to demand.

[vinsight4u8]

Not just the number of years in exile matter.

But the king that they were serving has to be Babylonian in order to make Jeremiah 25:11-13 come to pass.

Israel has about 4 more years to serve a Babylonian king.

[Daniel Gracely]

It appears the 70 years of service you refer to involve a compendium of nations, not just Judah. Note the text:

^25:11 And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. ^25:12 And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations. ^25:13 And I will bring upon that land all my words which I have pronounced against it, even all that is written in this book, which Jeremiah hath prophesied against all the nations. ^25:14 For many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of them also: and I will recompense them according to their deeds, and according to the works of their own hands. (emphasis mine)

Two chapters later we are told something about “these nations”:

^27:1 In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah came this word unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, ^27:2 Thus saith the LORD to me; Make thee bonds and yokes, and put them upon thy neck, ^27:3 And send them to the king of Edom, and to the king of Moab, and to the king of the Ammonites, and to the king of Tyrus, and to the king of Zidon, by the hand of the messengers which come to Jerusalem unto Zedekiah king of Judah; ^27:4 And command them to say unto their masters, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Thus shall ye say unto your masters; ^27:5 I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me. ^27:6 And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him.

Apparently, then, this Babylonian rule lasted 70 years altogether, beginning with the first of these nations conquered. For these nations did not go into captivity simultaneously, anymore than the Jews did, who first began to be exiled in Jehoiakim’s 3^rd year, prior to Nebuchadnezzar’s 1^st year as sole monarch, but continued unto the many deportations Jeremiah lists in chapter 52.

And so there are really two periods of 70 years in view in the overall divine plan, as Cyberseeker suggested earlier, though I think he misidentified their intervals and perhaps at least one of their purposes. These two slightly overlap by about two years. One is the 70 years spoken of in the passages above, involving nations (plural) serving Nebuchadnezzar and his sons; the second 70 years are those involving the exile of Judah (singular) from the Land for the 70 years Judah had disallowed the Land to rest (2 Chron. 36:21). This may further explain (but here I am speculating) why Daniel in 9:1 is searching the scrolls (plural) about the timing of the second period, for perhaps he consulted not just Jeremiah but also other historical records about when the conquering of these “nations” began, and pondered the relationship of these two periods in relation to each other. But if Daniel did not, at least we ourselves may.

The harmonization would seem to be thus: that if we take the generally accepted (Julian) date of Oct. 29, 539 BC to be the end of the Babylonian empire, that this date ended the first 70-year period described in Jeremiah concerning all the nations (plural). Calculating backward 70 years (if the years were 360 days) would mean this period began Oct. 31, 608 BC. The second 70-year period, which pertains to the resting of the Land for 70 years, due to the Jews’ failure to rest the land 70 times in the 7^th year of seven-year periods, ended (in my opinion) with the return of the Jews mentioned in Ezra 2, specifically, with the first post-Exilic sacrifice back in the land, which occurred on the 1^st day of Cyrus’ 2^nd year. The dates for the Exile appear to work out to approx. Oct. 17, 606 BC to Oct. 14, 537 BC.

[Cyberseeker]

Here is a related thread I've started on the overall subject of dating the Hebrew Kings. Have a look at the charts and see what you think.

Regards,

Cyber