Can secular chronology be trusted?

[George88]

I believe that God may share the same sentiment when individuals who claim to be peaceful reveal their inner turmoil and secrets to the public. The recent display of hypocrisy from this group is troubling, with someone expressing goodwill towards an apostate who writes about child abuse within the Watchtower, instead of addressing the larger issue of global child abuse. Furthermore, the endorsement of such a book alongside spiritual content is disheartening. This place seems to epitomize insanity.

Why bother coming up with excuses that only you convince yourself are true?

[BTK59]

20 hours ago, George88 said:

Proving the year 607 through 539 is easier for me than 530. It's perplexing that no one can align historical facts for 607.

You mentioned 539 over 530. Is there a good reason behind it?
 

[George88]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

You mentioned 539 over 530. Is there a good reason behind it?

Certainly, you may have noticed the illogical approach people took with the Eclipse War, also known as the Haly's War, when it was mentioned.

The same can be said for the Pelusium War that occurred during Cambyses' reign from 530-522 BC, specifically in 525 BC. This conflict began with Egyptian ruler Ahmose II (also known as Amasis II) from 570-526 BC, but unfortunately, he passed away before the full-scale conflict could come to fruition. Subsequently, Psamtik III assumed the leadership role from 526-525 BC. When it comes to individuals who oppose something they do not fully comprehend, the situation becomes quite challenging. It is akin to teaching history to children. Interestingly, Cambyses himself took on the role of Egyptian Pharaoh from 525-522 BC.

At this point, Cambyses wore a double crown, one Persian and the other Egyptian. Once again, since no king could be in two places at once, whom did Cambyses leave in charge as vassal to his kingdoms?

Instead of arguing about years and events involving many players, I prefer to refer to months. I have witnessed uninformed individuals arguing over seconds, minutes, hours, days, and weeks, demanding details as though they alone have the authority to make decisions about information that doesn't meet their false standards, when they didn't even experience the events themselves. Their approach becomes irrational and nonsensical. Therefore, I refuse to engage in their foolish games of distorting facts. An honest person, not seeking recognition, finds the revelation refreshing.

Certainly, there is an extensive amount of information that I haven't included in that timeline. However, as I mentioned before, it is more convenient for me to utilize the year 539.
 

[BTK59]

On 4/5/2024 at 10:07 AM, George88 said:

Certainly, you may have noticed the illogical approach people took with the Eclipse War, also known as the Haly's War, when it was mentioned.

You mentioned no one can tell BC, therefore the years cannot be applied, why is that?
 

[George88]

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

You mentioned no one can tell BC, therefore the years cannot be applied, why is that?

Don't you start sounding like others, hear, lol!

Do not misunderstand my words. The answer is simple: the scribes did not operate using a parallel calendar year system like the one we are familiar with today.

This does not imply that scribes did not record a year. They would record the year of the King's reign, but not in the way we understand it today. They did not use a calendar system like "14/10/587 Jerusalem was destroyed" (Day/Month/Year).

Hence, if an event corresponding to Jerusalem had occurred, a scribe would have likely documented it as follows: "on the 14th day of Tašrîtu in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign," based on an observation from the walls of Lachish, witnessing a raging fire in our neighboring city, Jerusalem. In this context, the year 587 is nonexistent. Therefore, it could easily be interpreted as 607, if there were a specific secular inscription supporting it, which unfortunately does not exist.

For millennia, archaeologists, historians, and scholars have speculated about what a concurrent year system might have looked like. They eventually settled on the flawed system that we use today, despite its inherent limitations. So, we work with what we got.

Why Lachish? How likely is it for a scribe or anyone, for that matter, to stop in a burning city and record the events with such detail? One would assume that they would have escaped the city first and then written about it once they were safe elsewhere. Providing that was their intention to document the event, bible or secular.

Nowadays, the vast majority of tablets and parchments available were recorded long after the actual events or are copies with added information to highlight more recent events.

An example is: 6th day Adar 37th year:

Now, let me clarify that there is no "exact" formula that all scribes used. Some scribes would write the year first, followed by the day and then the month. However, there were also those who didn't adhere to this specific order. For instance, they might write "On the 6th day of Adar, in the 37th year of King So and So's reign..." during this time, the cost of barley was high due to conflicts along the trading routes.

 

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Don't you start sounding like others, hear, lol!

🤣

[JW Insider]

22 hours ago, George88 said:

Hence, if an event corresponding to Jerusalem had occurred, a scribe would have likely documented it as follows: "on the 14th day of Tašrîtu in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign," based on an observation from the walls of Lachish, witnessing a raging fire in our neighboring city, Jerusalem. In this context, . . .

This is interesting. Jeremiah said:

Jeremiah 34:6–7: Then Jeremiah the prophet spoke all these words to Zedekiah king of Judah, in Jerusalem, when the army of the king of Babylon was fighting against Jerusalem and against all the cities of Judah that were left, Lachish and Azekah, for these were the only fortified cities of Judah that remained.

When the letters of Lachish were discovered in the mid 1930's, the initial understanding among secular scholars was the same way the "Insight" book explains it:

*** it-2 p. 188 Lachish ***
Captured by Babylonians. When the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar overran Judah (609-607 B.C.E.), Lachish and Azekah were the last two fortified cities to fall before Jerusalem was taken. (Jer 34:6, 7) What are known as the Lachish Letters . . . appear to relate to this period. Letter number IV, evidently directed by a military outpost to the commander at Lachish, reads in part: “We are watching for the signals of Lachish, according to all the indications which my lord hath given, for we cannot see Azekah.” This message suggests that Azekah had already been taken so that no signals were received from there.

That's a very dramatic reading/interpretation of the letters, and would imply the time just after Jerusalem was destroyed. (607? / 587?). People have read them and say that they would thus harmonize with Jeremiah 34. Statements like this are common:

"The archaeological discovery called the “Lachish Letters” support Jeremiah’s verse."

"These words included a draft letter to Jerusalem that harmonizes with Jeremiah 34:7."

"The archaeology at Tel Lachish combines perfectly with biblical history to weave a unified story, supporting what the Bible says."

https://waynestiles.com/blog/lachish-blending-the-bible-history-archaeology

But this ignores the fact that the Lachish letters include a comment about a normal visit from a military official from Jerusalem. And this has bothered some scholars because it more readily contradicts the message from Jeremiah 34. 

So another interpretation has been proposed based on what has been discovered in the decades since the unearthing of the Lachish letters. 

The idea is found here: Does Lachish Letter 4 Contradict Jeremiah XXXIV 7?  The "stable" address for those with a different JSTOR login should be: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1585087

There is a good wayback machine link about the actual letters here: https://web.archive.org/web/20121111022237/http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Lakhish_Ostraca,_c._587_BCE

And there is a footnote there to a currently non-existent link at the bottom of that wayback page: 

• Scholars’ Corner: Yadin Presents New Interpretation of the Famous Lachish Letters, Oded Borowski, BAR 10:02, Mar/Apr 1984.

I haven't read Yadin's interpretation yet (from Biblical Archaeological Review - BAR) but it was nearly 20 years prior to the JSTOR link. It might even refer to the same idea, but I like the JSTOR link because it makes sense and gets rid of the potential Jeremiah contradiction. 

If I get a chance after the meeting today, I will post at least a summary of the "new" interpretation. 

[JW Insider]

The updated theory is that these letters are more likely based on the re-organization of military outposts soon after Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem exiles (including top military commanders) back in 597 BCE (astronomy dates) or 617 BCE (Watchtower dates). 

The map in my prior post shows where Lachish and Azekah are located, and this is on a strategic outpost road to Jerusalem from the south (Egypt). Note "Insight:"

*** it-2 p. 188 Lachish ***
A Judean city in the Shephelah. (Jos 15:21, 33, 39) Lachish is identified with Tell ed-Duweir (Tel Lakhish), a mound surrounded by valleys and lying some 24 km (15 mi) W of Hebron. Anciently this site occupied a strategic position on the principal road linking Jerusalem with Egypt. 

The letters to the commander at Lachish didn't just name Lachish and Azekah but apparently identify that they are from a place near or between the two cities called B-Y-T Ha-R-P-D (meaning House of the R-P-D, vowels unknown). Some scholars for many years had claimed that the contents of the Lachish letters made sense if there was a town or outpost somewhere between the two cities. The site known as Maresha is 5km NE of Lachish, and would be a perfect fit. It has a geographic line of sight to Lachish, but not to Azekah. 

In 1996, hundreds more potsherds from the 4th century BCE with writing (like the Lachish letters) mentioned an administrative outpost called R-P-D from around the same area. The full name was MARESHA R-P-D.  There is still a nearby HIRBET MARASH which preserves a linguistic link. And a nearby Hellenistic burial inscription speaks of "the community of Marisa" in this area.

It's enough evidence for some to validate a theory that was already in place which fits a more natural translation of the Lachish Letter #4 to mean: "From here we can't see the smoke signals from Azekah, so we will watch the signals from [you there in] Lachish."

This takes away some of the drama that may have been "read into" the letters as if they had been based on an attack by Nebuchadnezzar from the north, after he had sacked Jerusalem and now on his way down to Azekah. (Thereby signaling the outpost between them to warn Lachish because they might be next.) But there is no real sense of urgency or warning about a burning city of Jerusalem or Azekah, and in fact the letter seems to very casually mention the fact that there is NO SMOKE visible from Azekah even though they expected to be able to see their signals. If Nebuchadnezzar had just sacked either Jerusalem or Azekah, then there might be nothing but smoke visible.

After a review of all the fortresses and outposts that archaeologists have found from that region in that age (called: Iron II) it turns out that MARESHA/MARASH/MARIS has no possible "line of sight" to Azekah, even if the tallest "watchtowers" were built. But it does have a "line of sight" to Lachish. The tone of the letters makes more sense as if a new team of military commanders is setting up "watch tower" and outpost logistics in case of attack by outside armies, or the need to send signals to other outposts. 

That's why some would now put it in the time of Judean military personnel replacements just after Nebuchadnezzar's 7th/8th year taking of exiles rather than the more dramatic time of his 17th, 18th and 19th year.

To me, this network of watchtowers and "line-of-sight" ability to send signals reminds me of this verse:

(Genesis 31:48, 49) . . .That is why he named it Galʹe·ed, and the Watchtower, for he said: “Let Jehovah keep watch between you and me when we are out of each other’s sight.

Cities themselves were already built on high hills with "watchtowers" on their walls, but between fortified cities there was a network of outposts with watchtowers as implied in this expression:

(2 Kings 18:8) . . .He also defeated the Phi·lisʹtines clear to Gazʹa and its territories, from watchtower to fortified city.
 

[George88]

@BTK59

In response to your email, the Ostraca Tablets can be classified in the same category as the Babylonian Chronicles. They share a common language, but offer a unique Jewish perspective. Interestingly, archaeologists rely on the same dating system to reach a consistent conclusion. It is no surprise, then, to them, that Jerusalem fell in 587. The irony lies in the scholars' endorsement of this date, as it bolsters the modern-day legitimacy of Israel.

I have always been skeptical about the authenticity of the Babylonian chronicles since Gadd's time, and the same applies to Jewish antiquity. There have been several documented instances in the past where forged items have been discovered, casting doubt on their validity.

Anyway, the process of calculating the year 587 has been extensively debated for about a decade here. People have firmly embraced the incorrect interpretation, while those with faith in God understand the simple calculation of subtracting 70 from 607 to arrive at 537 the desolation period on judgment, just as critics do with 568 to 587. They cannot insist that their decision is right while dismissing the same formula for other dates. Such a stance is ridiculous and unfounded.

When were the Lachish letters written? There are different theories regarding the timing of their creation. Some argue that they were originated during the actual occurrence of the events, serving as firsthand accounts. On the other hand, there are those who suggest that the letters were compiled retrospectively, once the observation of certain signals, like communication through fire, ceased. If individuals failed to witness a signal fire, it was an indication that something unusual was taking place. It has been concluded by some scholars that certain tablets were written prior to specific events taking place. Therefore, we can't place an "absolute" on these tablets either.

the lachish letters -- Volume 1, 1971

"The documents forming this “dossier”’, and brought to the court, possibly cover a period of a few years. Some of them, as Letter IV, telling that Azeqah, the great sister-fortress of Lachish, no longer sends signals, can date only a few weeks before the fall of Lachish, while other messages were written probably months or years before this time. Letter IV also brings definite proof that Tell ed Duweir is the site of ancient Lachish."

Would it truly be astonishing if Nebuchadnezzar were to appoint or assume control of a city while he carried out his military campaign elsewhere? Absolutely not! In that era, numerous monarchs were known to task their esteemed field commanders, regardless of their hierarchical position, with the responsibility of maintaining order within a city or completing post-battle operations. The Bible itself speaks of such matters.

The Ostraca Tablets and the Babylonian Chronicles pose the same dilemma as they are in the same language. The mention of the year of the King's reign becomes the obstacle, leading to ambiguity.

If we consider 625 as the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's reign instead of 605, we are faced with the notorious 20-year gap. Let me provide you with an example of another researcher who is diligently attempting to prove the significance of 587, much like many others. However, what they fail to consider is the crucial aspect of linking dates together to support their interpretation.

When considering a dating system, a decisive choice arises: sticking to the Babylonian timeline or following the Judean timeline. Scripture maintains a clear distinction between them, offering consistency, while secular history interweaves them.

Either we start with 605 for everything, or we use 610 for everything under secular rules, not scripture. I commend this person for giving their best shot. It's worth noting that 610 marks the reign of the King who was elected by the people, after the death of his father, following his deposition by King Necho II. His reign actually began in late 610, not 609.

610: After King Jehoahaz (Judah) was taken captive to Egypt by Pharaoh-necho in the year 610 BC, there were actually six different groups taken captive by Babylon at different times.

ME: Missing timeline of Riblah

610/609: King Jehoiakim, The first group was taken when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the third year of King Jehoiakim (610-3 = 607), and the captives of Judah which were taken included Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (Daniel 1:1-6).

ME: Missing Battle of Megiddo King Josiah

606: The captives were not actually taken to Babylon until the fourth year of Jehoiakim (610-4 = 606), after Nebuchadnezzar had defeated Pharaoh-necho at Carchemish up by the Euphrates river (Jeremiah 46:1-2). 

599: The second group taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar in his seventh year of reign (606-7 = 599 BC) and during the reign of king Jehoiakim were three thousand and twenty­ three Jews (Jeremiah 52:28; 2 Kings 24:1-6; 2 Chronicles 36:1-6).

598: The third and largest group was taken captive in Nebuchadnezzer's eighth year of reign (606-8 = 598 BC) during the three month reign of Jehoiachin, and at that time he carried away over ten thousand captives (2 Kings 24:12-16; Jeremiah 24:1). DJ Wiseman Babylonian Chronicle can be used as well.

588: The fourth group taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzer was taken in his eighteenth year (606-18 588 BC) during the reign of King Zedekiah (Jeremiah 52:29). The fifth captivity occurred when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the ninth year of Zedekiah (598-9 = 588 BC), and then afterward destroyed it in Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year (606-19 = 587 BC) and carried away the remainder of the people except certain of the poor which he left for vine-dressers and husbandmen (Jeremiah 39:6-10; 52:1-17).

583: There was one more group of people taken, but that took place four years later in the twenty-third year of Nebuchanezzar (606-23 = 583 BC) when the last seven hundred and forty-five people were taken (Jeremiah 52:30).

However, this researcher declares the following:

 ANTICIPATED DIFFICULTIES
Even though we confidently believe the scriptures to have been without error, in their original form, it is obvious that a few errors have been introduced into nearly all versions available today. The possibilities for error fall into four main categories, and each must be addressed.

Do the errors lie in scripture itself or in the people attempting to interpret scripture? It is evident that he mentions the year 607 and makes use of the correct Judean starting point. However, the lack of wisdom here is: why would Nebuchadnezzar wait until 589 to lay siege to Jerusalem once more, only to destroy it in 587, when he already had control of Judah and Jerusalem in 607?

Misinterpreting Scripture is a common mistake that can lead many astray. Those who do not seek a deep understanding of the mysteries of Scripture may struggle to find true faith. God desires us to seek knowledge with diligence and humility, for only then can we grasp the profound wisdom hidden within the sacred texts.

God's judgment against Judah and Jerusalem was pronounced while King Josiah was still in power, so there's no clear rationale for Nebuchadnezzar's execution of that judgment 23 years later. This suggests that Nebuchadnezzar was defying the God of Israel. Why, then, would God instruct Jeremiah about a Babylonian king who would defy His will? Some may argue God's judgment over Nebuchadnezzar's actions drove his madness, but did it stem from defying God over Judah, or was it simply personal arrogance?

This raises another question: if Nebuchadnezzar was aware that his madness was a result of God's judgment upon himself, and he had not yet destroyed Jerusalem, why would he proceed to do so? If he intended to defy God, why not defy God through the entire course of his reign. Therefore, did he destroy Jerusalem out of spite? If that were the case, we would have to dismiss scripture altogether.
 

[BTK59]

3 hours ago, George88 said:

In response to your email, the Ostraca Tablets can be classified in the same category as the Babylonian Chronicles. They share a common language, but offer a unique Jewish perspective. Interestingly, archaeologists rely on the same dating system to reach a consistent conclusion. It is no surprise, then, to them, that Jerusalem fell in 587. The irony lies in the scholars' endorsement of this date, as it bolsters the modern-day legitimacy of Israel.

I understand now. I can clearly see the illustration you provided for Lachish Ostracon #2 as being manipulated.

The inscription reads as you mentioned:

“To my lord Joash 1: May Yahweh give you good news at this very time. Who is your servant [but] a dog 2 that my lord should remember his servant?"

The_Kings_of_Israel_and_Judah

"Each successive monarch of the house had, in fact, protected and encouraged the calf-worship (2 Kings x. 29–31 ; xiii . 2 , 6 , 11 ) ; it remained for the third king, Joash , openly to proclaim his adherence to it by showing that the name of its founder was that which he most delighted to honour. Jeroboam succeeded to the throne " in the fifteenth year of Amaziah " (2 Kings xiv. 23) , very shortly after his father's great victory over Judah . The military successes of his father against Benhadad (ibid . xiii. 25 ) , and against Amaziah ( ibid .xiv. 11-13 ) , naturally led him to raise his thoughts to greater enterprises than even his father had attempted ; and it appears to have been not long after his accession that he commenced that series of wars which covered his name with glory, and cause modern historians to recognize in him the predestined "deliverer " of the Israelite nation (ibid . xiii . 5) , and to speak of him as 66 the greatest of all the kings of Samaria." pp.140-141

2 Kings 13

13 Jehoash slept with his fathers, and Jeroboam [II] sat on his throne. Jehoash was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel. 14 Now Elisha [previously] had become ill of the illness of which he died. And Jehoash king of Israel came down to him and wept over him and said, O my father, my father, the chariot of Israel and the horsemen of it! [II Kings 2:12.]

2 Samuel 9:8 New International Version

8 Mephibosheth bowed down and said, “What is your servant, that you should notice a dead dog like me?”

I see the similarity in language with the phrase, "your servant [but] a dog" with that in 2 Samuel "What is your servant, that you should notice a dead dog like me"

Lachish Ostracon II

To my lord Yaosh: May Yahweh cause my lord to hear tidings of peace this very day, this very day! Who is thy servant (but) a dog that my lord hath remembered his servant? May Yahweh afflict those who re[port] an (evil) rumor about which thou art not informed! (II Sam.. 9:8)

Lachish Ostracon VI

To my lord Yaosh: May Yahweh cause my lord to see this season in good health! Who is thy servant (but) a dog that my lord hath sent the [let]ter of the king and the letters of the prince[s, say]ing, “Pray, read them!” And behold the words of the pr[inces] are not good, (but) to weaken our hands [and to sla]cken the hands of the m[en] who are informed about them [ . . . And now] my lord, wilt thou not write to them, saying, “Why do ye thus [even] in Jerusalem? Behold unto the king and unto [his house] are ye doing this thing!” [And,] as Yahweh thy God liveth, truly since thy servant read the letters there hath been no [peace] for [thy ser]vant. . . . (Jer. 38:4)

I also see the text where it states  "Lord Joash" for the year 589, but it is worth questioning who exactly this person is that is being honored. There is no record of a Judean king with that name during that specific period unless that person was referring to King Josiah.

Furthermore, there is no known governor either. It is important to note that priests were not referred to as lords as far as I can tell for that period.

Then as you claim, these tablets date back to an earlier period, and are not specifically for the year 589. Even if an official has been identified by a subordinate speaking to a general Yaosh, the timeline is off, since 2 Samuel 9:8 and Jeremiah 38:4 can't be true at the same time for "Lord Yaosh" and therefore would have no relevance to 587.

Now you mention that some scholars interpret these tablets in the time of Jeremiah and King Zedekiah in Jeremiah 38. As you conclude, King Zedekiah was never called Joash. The only official called by name in that passage is Ebed-Melek, a Cushite. 

Then, you are right. These passages don't align with the timeline, and these, Ostracons must have been in a storage room when they were found but from an earlier date.  It seems like this one belongs in the other topic about conspiracies, lol!

[George88]

11 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Then, you are right. These passages don't align with the timeline, and these, Ostracons must have been in a storage room when they were found but from an earlier date.  It seems like this one belongs in the other topic about conspiracies, lol!

You got it! That would imply that official Joash lived simultaneously during the reigns of King Jehoash, and King Zedekiah reigns. It seems highly unlikely that an individual could have lived for approximately 240 years, unless people are extremely credulous. Therefore, it is evident that there are inaccuracies in the chronology of those tablets, as is the case with any historical artifacts.

The only way to consider this official Yoash is if it refers to the Kings of that time like Jehoash (Joash) of the house of David, and in a similar understanding to King Josiah's reign. Alternatively, it may all pertain to the reign of King Joash.

Was the scribe referring to King Jehoash (Joash) as Lord Joash in tablet #2, and was tablet #6 referring to King Josiah as Lord Joash?

In order to verify this information, it is necessary to identify the official referred to as Joash, as there is no known official with this name other than the King of the House of David in scripture.

If tablet #6 were to be positively identified as belonging to King Josiah, it would unequivocally establish that the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 607, regardless of the claims made by Israeli antiquities. Moreover, it would confirm that the fall of Lachish took place in 606. In light of these historical facts, any revisions or alterations become inconsequential; what is required instead is a resolution to the perplexing 240-year discrepancy.

Yet, scholars haven't given this discrepancy a second thought since they continue to assert the years 589-587 for these tablets. This is just another example of how scholars don't understand scripture as much as they think they do. Therefore, you are absolutely correct; this belongs to the realm of conspiracy theories.

[JW Insider]

There is a lot of interesting information surrounding the topic of Assyrian and Babylonian history. I'm always amazed at just how much has been preserved from the dry, arid climates, and preserved mostly due to so many inscriptions and tablets written on clay and stone, buried under sand, etc. 

I'm no expert, but a hundreds of things you have said here are quite out of the ordinary. I'll only comment on just a couple of them. 

15 hours ago, George88 said:

In response to your email, the Ostraca Tablets can be classified in the same category as the Babylonian Chronicles. They share a common language, but offer a unique Jewish perspective.

I'm not sure what category you mean as "the same category" but it's true that they both could be referring to events from the same time period. The Babylonian Chronicles are in a different language, "Akkadian" cuneiform wedges pressed into moist clay. The Lachish ostraca were carbon (almost like a charcoal pencil) writing upon shards of broken pottery. And those were in a Hebrew script. But they do share some similarities of expression between the two different languages.

One thing that makes them different is that the letters mostly describe day-to-day messages going back and forth between outposts and the guards of cities. They don't attempt to provide dates and they don't mention important events.

The Babylonian Chronicles are intended to record major things that happened in each year of each king from a national perspective. Like the tens of thousands of business tablets, the chronicles ae "dated" by the year of the kings' reigns, not like the less formal letters. 

One of the best descriptions to show that is the page found here, with pictures of several of these ostraca overlaid with an English translation.

https://www.bible.ca/ostraca/Ostraca-Lachish-Letters-Jeremiah-YHWH-Egypt-Fire-Signals-Azekah-weakening-hands-nebuchadnezzar-587BC.htm

Of course, you have to watch the translation sometimes, because a small change in choice of translation can make a difference in the way these are seen. For example, one says, basically: "I can't send that person you asked for in your last letter, because so-and-so took him to the City (Jerusalem)." If you translate the word "took" as "seized" which is the translation that some sites use, then you get a different tone to the letter.