Dating the BOM and Zedekiah

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
Post Reply
User avatar
deacon blues
Posts: 1934
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:37 am

Dating the BOM and Zedekiah

Post by deacon blues » Thu May 09, 2019 3:37 pm

I was checking Wikipedia about the siege of Jerusalem and found this little fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_ ... m_(597_BC)
This grabbed my attention. If the first siege of Jerusalem was 597 BC, and then Zedekiah was installed by Nebuchanezzar, then the 600 BC date for Lehi and family leaving Jerusalem (See: 1st Nephi 2:4 and the date at the bottom of page 3 in my 1981 BOM) was 2 or 3 years before Zedekiah was even made king. This contradicts 1st Nephi 1:4 which says Lehi had his first dream/vision in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah. The BOM doesn't even mention the first siege of Jerusalem, which has always seemed odd to me. But my new question is: Did Lehi leave in 600BC as 1st Nephi 2:4 and the whole BOM suggests or sometime around 597-5, as the wikipedia chronology (which must have some scholarly basis) suggests would have been the actual first year of Zedekiah's reign.
God is Love. God is Truth. The greatest problem with organized religion is that the organization becomes god, rather than a means of serving God.

User avatar
wtfluff
Posts: 3630
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:20 pm
Location: Worshiping Gravity / Pulling Taffy

Re: Dating the BOM and Zedekiah

Post by wtfluff » Thu May 09, 2019 3:47 pm

Well... All evidence suggests that Lehi is a fictional character.

I don't think the timeline really matters. :P
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. -Frater Ravus

IDKSAF -RubinHighlander

You can surrender without a prayer...

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 2237
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Dating the BOM and Zedekiah

Post by Palerider » Thu May 09, 2019 6:10 pm

deacon blues wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 3:37 pm
But my new question is: Did Lehi leave in 600BC as 1st Nephi 2:4 and the whole BOM suggests or sometime around 597-5, as the wikipedia chronology (which must have some scholarly basis) suggests would have been the actual first year of Zedekiah's reign.
Some poor apologist out there wants so badly to tell you that the dates are just guesstimates and approximations.

You shouldn't take anything in the modern scriptures too literally or you just get yourself in trouble. Mormon theology needs to stay quite rubbery in order to have any continuity.

I love to think in terms of silly putty as the perfect analogy. :)
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
deacon blues
Posts: 1934
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:37 am

Re: Dating the BOM and Zedekiah

Post by deacon blues » Thu May 09, 2019 6:43 pm

I found this in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

EXTERNAL CHRONOLOGY. Evidence supports two possible lengths for Nephite years: 365 days and 360 days. Each can be correlated to external history. The internal chronology is consistent, so that if the exact nature of the Nephite calendar were known, only one reference point in external history would be needed to fix the entire Nephite chronology. However, at least two such dates would be required to determine the length of the Nephite year. Three principal events are common to both Nephite and Old World sources: (1) the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, King of Judah; (2) the birth of Christ; and (3) the death of Christ. Because there are varying degrees of uncertainty about these three reference points, alternative correlation methods have been proposed, each using two of these dates.

First, Orson Pratt proposed that the Nephites used a 365-day year, as had the Egyptians previously and as did the Mesoamericans afterward (Millennial Star 28 [Dec. 22, 1866]:810). It has been noted (Lefgren) that such a year agrees, to the very day, with one choice for the birth and death dates of Christ-namely, Thursday, April 6, 1 B.C., and Friday, April 1, A.D. 33, respectively (Gregorian calendar). Both of these dates are supported by other arguments (J. Pratt, 1985 and 1990). This theory assumes that the third system of Nephite reckoning began on the very day of the birth of Christ, which is not explicitly stated in the Book of Mormon but is consistent with Sorenson's conclusions above.

Second, most historians believe that the first year of King Zedekiah began in 598-96 B.C. Lehi left Jerusalem shortly afterward (1 Ne. 1:4;2:4). The date of the birth of Christ is not known directly from historical sources, but it is believed that King Herod died in 5-4 B.C., implying that Christ was born shortly before (Matt. 2:1). Using these two events as reference points, Huber has proposed a 360-day Nephite year because 600 such years fit the interval from Lehi to Christ (3 Ne. 1:1); such a system has historical precedent, and apparently underlies certain prophecies in which the word "time" may equal 360 days (e.g., Rev. 12:6, 14).



I find the third paragraph the most interesting. In order for the BOM to be completely consistent with external chronology the Nephites would have had to have 360 days per year. I couldn't find anything on FAIR addressing this particular issue. Significantly, this would contradict a common LDS belief that Jesus was born 1830 years to the day, from the time that the Church was organized, because it assumes a 4-6 BC date for the birth of Jesus.
Last edited by deacon blues on Thu May 09, 2019 6:54 pm, edited 3 times in total.
God is Love. God is Truth. The greatest problem with organized religion is that the organization becomes god, rather than a means of serving God.

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 2237
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Dating the BOM and Zedekiah

Post by Palerider » Thu May 09, 2019 6:44 pm

Just to add to the pot...

Nephi states that the brass plates contained many of the holy prophecies until the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah:

"And also a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah."

So in order for the brass plates to even mention Zedekiah, wouldn't Lehi have to have left sometime after Zedekiah's reign began?

Apparently the brass plates were kept very up to date as a current chronicle.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
deacon blues
Posts: 1934
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:37 am

Re: Dating the BOM and Zedekiah

Post by deacon blues » Thu May 09, 2019 6:51 pm

This is from the Wiki article on Zedekiah:

Chronological notes
The Babylonian Chronicles give 2 Adar (16 March), 597 BC, as the date that Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem, thus putting an end to the reign of Jehoaichin.[10] Zedekiah's installation as king by Nebuchadnezzar can therefore be firmly dated to the early spring of 597 BC. Historically there has been considerable controversy over the date when Jerusalem was captured the second time and Zedekiah's reign came to an end. There is no dispute about the month: it was the summer month of Tammuz (Jeremiah 52:6). The problem has been to determine the year. It was noted above that Albright preferred 587 BC and Thiele advocated 586 BC, and this division among scholars has persisted until the present time. If Zedekiah's years are by accession counting, whereby the year he came to the throne was considered his "zero" year and his first full year in office, 597/596, was counted as year one, Zedekiah's eleventh year, the year the city fell, would be 587/586. Since Judean regnal years were measured from Tishri in the fall, this would place the end of his reign and the capture of the city in the summer of 586 BC. Accession counting was the rule for most, but not all, of the kings of Judah, whereas "non-accession" counting was the rule for most, but not all, of the kings of Israel.[1][11]

The publication of the Babylonian Chronicles in 1956, however, gave evidence that the years of Zedekiah were measured in a non-accession sense. This reckoning makes year 598/597 BC, the year Zedekiah was installed by Nebuchadnezzar according to Judah's Tishri-based calendar, to be year "one," so that the fall of Jerusalem in his eleventh year would have been in year 588/587 BC, i.e. in the summer of 587 BC. The Babylonian Chronicles allow the fairly precise dating of the capture of Jehoiachin and the start of Zedekiah's reign, and they also give the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar's successor Amel-Marduk (Evil Merodach) as 562/561 BC, which was the 37th year of Jehoiachin's captivity according to 2 Kings 25:27. These Babylonian records related to Jehoiachin's reign are consistent with the fall of the city in 587 but not in 586, as explained in the Jehoiachin/Jeconiah article, thus vindicating Albright's date. Nevertheless, scholars who assume that Zedekiah's reign should be calculated by accession reckoning will continue to adhere to the 586 date, and so the infobox contains this as an alternative.


The Babylonian Chronicles are considered quite reliable by historians. There is a lot to assemble here, but no matter which way you look at it, Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem in 597 BC and set up Zedekiah as a puppet king, and the BOM curiously makes no mention of this huge event. :o
God is Love. God is Truth. The greatest problem with organized religion is that the organization becomes god, rather than a means of serving God.

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 2237
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Dating the BOM and Zedekiah

Post by Palerider » Thu May 09, 2019 9:35 pm

Wait....I'm a little confused.

If Lehi left in 600 BC, which was 3-4 years before King Zedekiah was placed on the throne, then wouldn't it be impossible for Lehi to know about Zedekiah's reign? He wouldn't have been there for the commencement.

Therefore Zedekiah shouldn't be in the BoM at all, right? And the brass plates shouldn't make mention of him either.

Or am I looking at this wrong? 🤔
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

User avatar
jfro18
Posts: 2064
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:41 pm

Re: Dating the BOM and Zedekiah

Post by jfro18 » Fri May 10, 2019 5:10 am

Palerider wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 9:35 pm
Wait....I'm a little confused.

If Lehi left in 600 BC, which was 3-4 years before King Zedekiah was placed on the throne, then wouldn't it be impossible for Lehi to know about Zedekiah's reign? He wouldn't have been there for the commencement.

Therefore Zedekiah shouldn't be in the BoM at all, right? And the brass plates shouldn't make mention of him either.

Or am I looking at this wrong? 🤔
I think that's the gist of it, but I'm pretty sure apologetics would just use the 360 day year concept or just imperfections to get around it.

It's interesting though - I wonder if there's a better way to establish the timelines in order to find the overlap, because that would be a problem like Deutero-Isaiah where Joseph just didn't know the timing wasn't what he assumed as he wrote the BoM.

User avatar
deacon blues
Posts: 1934
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:37 am

Re: Dating the BOM and Zedekiah

Post by deacon blues » Fri May 10, 2019 2:39 pm

Lehi left after Nebuchadnezzar’s putting Zedekiah on the throne and taking 10,000 captives back to Babylon, including bible figures like Daniel, Shadrach and those two other furnace survivors. Babylon records, which are considered reliable (they align with eclipses, etc.) tell us this was the year 597 BC. Nephite history tells us this was exactly 600 years before Jesus was born, which was 4 BC or earlier because that’s the King Herod died. The only way for all this to add up is if the Nephites has years with only 360 days. This means they didn’t have 365 1/4 years (solar years) but special short years, at least until apologists can come up with a better explanation.🤔
God is Love. God is Truth. The greatest problem with organized religion is that the organization becomes god, rather than a means of serving God.

User avatar
nibbler
Posts: 904
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:12 pm

Re: Dating the BOM and Zedekiah

Post by nibbler » Fri May 10, 2019 6:26 pm

Apologist hat.

Lehi left Jerusalem with his family.
Siege happens.
Zedekiah made king.
Plates updated.
Nephi et al return to Jerusalem for the plates.
We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.
– Anais Nin

User avatar
deacon blues
Posts: 1934
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:37 am

Re: Dating the BOM and Zedekiah

Post by deacon blues » Sat May 11, 2019 5:11 pm

Very smooth, nibbler. ;) 2 problems. 1. Nephi 1:4 says Lehi heard all the other prophets prophesy Jerusalem's destruction, prayed and received his vision/dream- all during the first year of Zedekiah's reign. 2. Jeremiah tells us (Jeremiah 14:13-16, 23:16-40) the other prophets, besides Jeremiah, were prophesying peace and prosperity. :o
God is Love. God is Truth. The greatest problem with organized religion is that the organization becomes god, rather than a means of serving God.

User avatar
Corsair
Posts: 3080
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:58 am
Location: Phoenix

Re: Dating the BOM and Zedekiah

Post by Corsair » Sat May 11, 2019 11:30 pm

Further apologist hat: The timeline of the Gregorian calendar was put together by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus which is literally, "Dennis the Short". It's ironically appropriate since he made a math error and shorted the count of years so that the birth year of Jesus is now commonly listed as 4 BC. That gap of 4 years mean that Lehi left Jerusalem 4 years earlier and...

Oh, wait. Jesus was born 600 years after Lehi leaves Jerusalem so this actually makes it worse. OK, I got nothin'. These dates are all over the place and I will have to retreat to a firm reliance on the unreliability of ancient dates.

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Dating the BOM and Zedekiah

Post by moksha » Sun May 12, 2019 12:43 pm

I know the first iterations of the Cinderella story have the prince putting a fur slipper on her foot. Makes sense because a glass slipper is such a far-out idea. Not even Corning Glass would attempt such an endeavor as creating a glass slipper, but one of the neat things about fiction is that all sorts of fantastic claims can be made.

Apologist Hat - It is possible that the English translator of the French word for fur had a glitch in his seer stone which interpreted fur as being glass. Sacre bleu and adieu!
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests