In this newsletter, I want to say something about the naivete of some people who hold to an evangelically fundamentalist religious viewpoint.
Religious Compartmentalisation:
In the matters of Religion and Science, the west has undergone a tremendous upheaval during the last one hundred years or so, and if the rise of various religious fundamentalisms is any indication, despite our reliance upon science, as human creatures, we seem to need an inherent 'Reliance' on the 'scientifically dubious' Divine Power.
Many folk wonder why it is that their children have turned from their religious traditions to new or exotic forms of religious observance, and it is not at all unreasonable to suggest that this is because our materialistic, logical, and science driven society, has robbed us of the inner emotional stability which comes through 'trusting in a higher power'.
As far as Christianity in all its forms is concerned, fundamentalism has as its catchcry, 'God says!', or 'The Bible says!' or other such foundations of authority. This willingness to 'Rely on God', often flies in the face of the 'scientifically' demonstrable. But we don't worry about that because 'Faith is all we need'.
Now on the matter of 'Faith' versus 'Science', I personally prefer 'faith'. I have seen enough 'dubious' scientific results and pressures on society which were ultimately overthrown, never to blindly trust in science, or any person irrespective of their qualifications.
But in the matter of the historical content of the Bible, it is in fact a very difficult thing to ignore the evidence of archaeology and history, which demonstrates that the chronology of the Bible is incorrect, and of course, this is what 'The King's Calendar:The Secret of Qumran' is all about; demonstrating that while it appears to be erroneous, it is in fact quite reliable.
But what facinates me, is that many 'fundamentalists', while publicly preaching the Bible to be the Word of God, will, when confronted by the anomolous situation between the chronological facts of history and the chronological record of the Bible, maintain that biblical chronology is not important, saying "we don't feel that the historical information is important".
To put it in the Australian vernacular: 'What a Crock!'
If the Bible was inspired and ordained by God, how dare anyone who holds to this position then maintain that God couldn't get the factual details recorded correctly. It is a blatant contradiction to that persons 'foundational faith', and in terms of psychology, is explained as 'compartmentalisation'.
Now while we have this type of person maintaining that the Bible is actually the Word of God whilst ignoring the facts of history, we also have others who while maintaining that the Bible is inspired of God, have so sold out to 'academia', that they just accept as gospel everything that they are told, and have given up even bothering to find the answer to this chronological problem, or worse, have allowed themselves to be convinced that God does not exist at all.
When I first put the results of my research on the internet, I fully expected to become known as a 'crackpot'. In a telephonic conversation (c 1996) with Professor D.J. Wiseman of the British Academy he kindly pointed out that my task would be difficult, for over two dozen 'crackpots' each year claim to have solved the problem.
I expected to be called a crackpot, or to be ignored, but I never expected that the religious communities would have so completely sold out to academia, or so completely retreated from reality, as to tell me that it doesn't matter that the historical details of the Bible are wrong.
As an example of how the religious communities have blindly accepted academic opinion, allow me to draw your attention to the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE.
The date for this battle is apparently fixed beyond question, and I certainly would not gainsay it. However this event and this date severely interferes with Biblical Chronology. The 'King's Calendar' indicates that King Ahab of Israel, died in 863 BCE, a decade prior to the Battle of Qarqar (853 BCE), in which, according to the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser III, Ahab participated.
So it appears that there is archaeological evidence that the 'King's Calendar' chronology is wrong at this point in history, but, when you look at all the archaeological evidences and in particular, to the 'Two' records of this Battle, it becomes obvious that the academics have pulled the wool over our eyes, just so that they might manipulate 'their' versions of Biblical History.
Chapter Seven: The Battle of Qarqar: 853 BCE which is currently only available to Academics who request a password to study it argues soundly against the 'false evidence' and 'unscientific opinions' offered by academics in their pursuit to alter the History of Israel as recorded by the people of History at that time.
But it is not necessary for you to study this chapter to see what effect the 'popular academic' opinion has. By comparing Appendix 5 with the Scriptural references in Appendix Thirteen, you can see for yourself that to put Ahab at the Battle of Qarqar (and the Bible makes no mention of this Great Event) is to seriously change so much that the bible records about Israel and Judah at this point in History.
The Academics admit that the information in the 'Kurkh Stela' is erroneous and exaggerated, and that despite it's claim that Ahab alone (irrespective of all the other kings in Syro-Ehraimitic alliance) had more chariots than the enemy, that not only was such not possible, but had such been the case, he could hardly have been the lacky of the Sryian King. Not only this, but when the two records of this event are compared, in one, Ahab is not even mentioned.
The real reason why they ignore the true evidence and prefer the obvious fraud, is that it enables them to build their own neat little history of Israel.
Unfortunately as I have already said, too many 'fervent' religious people, either suffer a form of religious 'denial', or else 'sell out their faith'.
What a pity that so few people in the world are able to submit their own faith to real honest to goodness scrutiny.
2. Academic Opinion, specifically in relation to the Battle of Qarqar 853 BCEIn this issue, I want to discuss the issue of Academic 'arrogance'.
It is a strong thing to publicly state that Academics are arrogant, but what can you call the attitude of 'professional or scientific' people, whose refusal to look at an issue is based solely on their 'personal' reactions to and prejudices against people and their ideas. Chapter Fifteen of the 'King's Calendar' entitled: Polemical Introduction to Moses, discusses the issues of Academic (prejudiced) Opinion, and offers a number of comments from a variety of writers, as well as examples of Academic attempts to 'push their own prejudices' (sometimes despite the evidence).
But in this instance, I would like to refer to a more publicly available article in the Yahoo Ancient Chronology Forum on the subject of 'The Osorkon Jar' [From: "Vern Crisler" Tue Feb 3, 2004 Samaria, part 8 THE OSORKON JAR]
The issue to which I wish to draw attention, is that Academics can sometimes refuse to examine an issue, simply because of their own threatened or offended pride. I Quote:
Immanuel Velikovsky was apparently the first to call attention to the Harvard excavation report on the relation between the Ostraca House and the Osorkon House, but he did so in the context of questioning the very science of archaeology itself, which is why archaeologists did not take him seriously at the time (cf. Ramses II and His Times, p. 246). However, the basic problem he describes must be taken seriously.
Note here the call is for the actual problem to be taken seriously, and not as one might say, 'to be like a baby thrown out with the bathwater.' In other words, the problem was not addressed, because the speaker who raised the issue was not appreciated.
Now the 'King's Calendar' has not been on the Internet long enough to draw much attention (ranked for the first time by Google Mid-November 2003). To date, only Jim Davila of has made any comment at all, but it is to be expected that once academics can get passed the idea that I am a crackpot, to seriously looking at the results of this research, that many will not wish to give it any merit, for it will in all probability close the door of opportunity for them to continue publishing their 'own' fanciful theories. Link at KingsCalendar to Mr. Davila's comments.
And herein lies the rub. Whilst the 'King's Calendar' is a 'theory', it is in fact 'a scientific theory' and can therefore be subjected to scientific testing, under which, should it fail, it would be proven beyond doubt to be false. By way of example, let me draw your attention to some points mentioned in another article at Yahoo Ancient Chronology forum. In this article
King Jehoash of Israel is assigned the year 798BCE as his commencement year, reigning until 783/782BCE.
He is assigned a co-regency with his son Jeroboam II, commencing in 793 BCE.
The 'King's Calendar' also assigns Jeroboam the year 793 BCE as his commencement year, thereafter reigning for forty-one 'artificial' years until 756 BCE.
The 'King's Calendar' uses all the Biblical Chronological Data as it appears in Scripture, and for some reason, unlike the rest of the academic world, finds no need to INVENT co-regencies, or to alter the chronological figures, in order to fit all of the reigns into the time frame historically available.
Whilst the 'King's Calendar' relies solely upon the figures provided in the Scriptures, the secular approach is to simply accept that Biblical writers did not know what they were talking about, and couldn't get anything right. This is not so.
Take for example, a statement made in the above mentioned article concerning the Earthquake that happened in the days of Uzziah, which according to Josephus, occurred at the same time that Uzziah became ill with leprosy and was forced to turn over the government to his son Jotham. It is speculated in the article that Jotham must therefore have become regent around 750BCE.
The 'King's Calendar', in it's determination of the commencement year for Jotham's governorship (749BCE), relies on a Scripture that everyone else has maintained is erroneous. 2 Kings 15:30 maintains that Hoshea killed Pekah of Israel during the 20th year of Jotham, but as anyone will tell you, this is not possible, because it conflicts with all of the other chronological references. But in fact it does not, and, as demonstrated from the Yahoo Ancient Chronology article, this scripture paints a picture consistent with secular academic chronological opinion on the matter.
The real point I wish to draw from all of this, is that we too often just accept what 'The Professionals' tell us, without ever forcing them to make a clear distinction between 'proof' and 'opinion'. (I'm sure George Bush would appreciate this difference at the moment.)
Every professional is entitled to express opinions, to make reasonable guesses, to draw reasonable inferences, but these must always be clearly labeled as such and not passed off as 'gospel'.
The 'King's Calendar' does not ASK anyone to blindly accept what it proposes, but invites all who are courageous enough to embark on the journey for truth, TO TEST what it proposes, and prove it to be right or wrong.
For those of you who are armed with nothing more than your Bibles, you can check the 'King's Calendar' chronology by going to Appendix 5.
KingsCalendar Academic Newsletter - Archaeology and the Bible No.3
Academic Opinion Versus Fact Friday 20th February 2004
In the last newsletter I wrote about Academic opinions and arrogance, and made the statement that academics can refuse to examine an objection to some matter because their noses are out of joint. I also talked about their 'sometimes' failure to draw a clear distinction between 'Opinion' and 'Fact'.
In this issue I want to talk about this issue of 'Opinion versus Fact'.
Opinion Vs. Fact.
In the first Issue I made mention of the Battle of Qarqar and the erroneous opinion that Ahab was party to that Battle; and in the second issue, I made mention of 2 King's 15:30 which refers to the twentieth year of Jotham's reign, but which is rejected by everyone as erroneous.
When we read that some expert says this or that, we are naturally inclined to accept that they know what they are talking about, but in reference to the two cases sited above, the 'fact' of the matter is, that neither religious nor secular academics have ever 'proved' their theories to be correct, and the 'fact' that these points in history are constantly being challenged, examined and argued over, demonstrates clearly enough, that the 'chronological' aspect at the very least, has not yet been satisfied beyond everyone's doubt. [At this point, take note that between Ahab's death (c.853BCE current academic opinion) and the death of Menehem (in Uzziah's 39th year), 123 years elapse. If Ahab died c.853BCE, then Menehem died c.730 BCE. We will come back to this.]
'But what about the evidence?' you ask. Well what about it? The only people in antiquity to have recorded their history in any fashion similar to ourselves (sequentially and synchronously), were the Israelites, but the record that they left is excessive of what is known to have existed for the divided kingdom of Israel (From Solomon's death until Samaria fell in 722BCE).
Every time you see or hear an historian or archaeologist quote chronological material from the Bible, they are 'pulling your chain'. They manipulate your trust in the Bible and direct it toward 'themselves'. You see, THEY not only cannot fit the Biblical chronological data into known history, but as it is currently perceived, it does not in fact, fit into known history. The true history of the Jews was concealed in an artificial calendar, which transformed twelve real years into thirteen artificial years, and thereby lengthened history.
So while in one place they will quote Scripture to back up what they say, in another place, they will simply dismiss what the Bible says, and adjust the figures to suit themselves. The 'King's Calendar' does not do this. It accepts the Biblical Chronological figures as they are, but gives each year a value of 336 days instead of 365 days.
This of course might be considered to be idiotic, but to quote Davies. P. [1992 The Mind of G-d. New York. Simon and Schuster. p.25] ' A powerful theory is one that is highly vulnerable to falsification, and so can be tested in many detailed and specific ways'. The 'King's Calendar' claim that the Biblical Chronological Data is recorded in years of 336 day years, can be demonstrated, by synchronizing all the synchronous material and seeing if it fits into the known history for this period. No one else has ever been able to do it, AND THAT IS A FACT.
So when academics talk about Biblical Times in a 'factual' manner, in fact they are really only giving you their opinion, and some of it is extremely highly qualified. Their opinions are worth hearing, and deliberating upon, and examining, but never be misled into believing that they are speaking 'factually'.
Now take for example the matter of King Uzziah's son Jotham. The Bible makes it plain that he reigned as governor for his father after his father fell ill, and no one knows when the event occurred, except for Josephus' mention of an earthquake around that time. The Bible says that Jotham reigned sixteen years, but most academics will make his reign disappear as a co-regency, because it is the only way they know how to fit his reign into all of the other chronological data.
The fact of the matter is, that between 750BCE and 701 BCE (Hezekiah's fourteenth year) when Sennacherib invaded Judah, everything recorded in the Bible 'appears' to be topsy turvy, and no one has yet been able to figure it all out.
Currently historians require Menehem of Israel to be alive in either 743 BCE or 738BCE (depending on which historian you follow), and his last year according to the bible was the 49th of the 52 years that Uzziah reigned.
Therefore until 701 BCE which is Hezekiah's 14th year, 49 years must pass; being the three years left to Uzziah, the sixteen year reign of Jotham, the sixteen year reign of Ahaz and Hezekiah's fourteen years.
Therefore, Menehem (if we follow ordinary solar years) must have died in 750 BCE (not 730BCE as mentioned previously),
but this is an impossibility from an historical point of view because he could not have had dealings with Tiglath-Pileser III, because he did not take the throne of Assyria until 745 BCE.
So there is a problem.
Everyone makes guesses, they opinion, and they presume, but they don't actually know how it all fits together, and to this day they continue to argue over this and that in an effort to marry all the chronological and historical data. And should you check the lengths of the reigns that they assign to the various kings of this period, you will see that they don't agree with what the Bible says, let alone each other, but they will still use the Biblical quotes to prove that they are right. Go to the following address and click down by two pages to the Blue chart and see for yourself how various writers disagree on the length of reigns for this period.
At the end of the day, they are not offering 'facts', just 'learned opinion', and as far as that is concerned, they are even still arguing over when the various dynasties of Egypt ruled, disagreeing with each other by up to 200 years, and caught up in that disagreement, is the whole question of the Israelite Exodus from Egypt under Moses.
In the final analysis, despite what they appear to say, the boys in the 'know', don't actually 'KNOW'; they are still trying to work it all out.
The 'King's Calendar' on the other hand, relying totally on the CHRONOLOGICAL information provided in the Bible, has been able to demonstrate that it is correct, and that apart from some small disagreements with CURRENT OPINION, demonstrates that the history recorded within it, neatly fits within (broadly speaking) the understanding of Ancient Near Eastern History.
In my last newsletter, I spoke about academic Opinion versus Fact, and how quite often, what is portrayed as fact, is nothing more than opinion. In this Newsletter, I want to continue the theme, by discussing Academic Disagreements.
Academic Disagreements.
In the last newsletter I mentioned King Jotham specifically, and mentioned that between his governorship and the 14th year of Hezekiah, 49 years elapse.
2 Kings 18:13 informs us that in the 14th year of King Hezekiah, he was besieged by Sennacherib of Assyria. That Sennacherib of Assyria invaded Judah in 701 BCE is perhaps the only thing in relation to the Biblical Narratives upon which academics agree, and it is therefore the cornerstone of chronology for this period in history.
Another cornerstone for this period, is that in 722 BCE, Israel/Samaria under King Hoshea, fell to the Assyrians. According to 2 Kings 18:10 Samaria fell in the 6th year of Hezekiah. If 722BCE is Hezekiah's 6th year, then 701 BCE is his 27th year, not his 14th year. A variety of opinions are put forth to explain this, but the 'King's Calendar', which deals with CHRONOLOGY (not history) is the only proposition which synchronizes all the chronological references, and for this period of history, it did something which no one else has ever attempted.
Instead of insisting that the chronological data was wrong, it maintains that the Name/Identification of Jewish kings is wrong. You see of the four kings of Judah that reign during this period, THREE are known to have reigned under names OTHER THAN their real names.
King Uzziah's name was Azariah
His son Jotham's real name is unmentioned, but it can be demonstrated to have been JEHOAHAZ,
Ahaz is a diminutive for either Ahaziah or Jehoahaz.
Only Hezekiah reigns under his real name.
Furthermore, Jehoahaz, Ahaziah and Hezekiah, are all very very similar in Hebrew, sufficiently so for there to have been transcription errors involved in the continual copying of the historical books.
When one relies SOLELY upon the chronological data and not the names, the chronological problems disappear. It is from this perspective that you can see the misidentification of names, so that in fact, it was during Ahaz' reign that Hoshea of Israel was defeated, and during Jotham's reign that Hoshea became King. When you see it this way, all the confusion caused by the allegedly erroneous Scriptural references disappears.
As it is however, based upon current academic opinion of events (in reference to the Biblical identification of particular names) quite a number of Scriptures appear erroneous. For example:
2 Kings 15:27 synchronizing the reigns of Pekah and Uzziah is erroneous.
2 Kings 15:32 synchronizing the reigns of Pekah and Jotham is in error.
2 Kings 15:23 synchronizing the reigns of Pekahiah and Uzziah is in error.
2 Kings 15:17 synchronizing the reigns of Menehem and Uzziah is in error.
2 Kings 15:19 synchronizing the reigns of Menehem and Tiglath-Pileser is in error.
2 Kings 18:1 and :9-10, fails to synchronise the 7th and 9th years of Hoshea with the 4th and 6th years of any Judean King.
The 'King's Calendar' proposition will of course upset fundamentalists who PRETEND that there are no inconsistencies in the Bible, but the fact must be faced that either the Chronology is WRONG, or the identification of the names of the kings is wrong.
As the Biblical Narrative stands, (with specific name identification) there are at least four (4) Self-Contradictions in the HISTORICAL story that the Bible portrays.
1.Both Jotham and Ahaz are named as the Victims of Rezin and Pekah.
2.That Rezin and Pekah Did and Did Not Conquer Ahaz.
3.That Tiglath-Pileser Did and Did Not Hearken to Ahaz.
4.That Rezin and Pekah acted in Unison BUT YET separately on their own.
By changing the identification of Kings Names, these Historical AND Chronological references suddenly lose their dubious nature. I have in writing all of this of course, only scratched the surface of the argument.
Now while the 'King's Calendar' can 'polemically' assist to clarify the situation in this particular period, there is another not nearly so startling place in history, where it can help solve an academic problem.
The Damascus Campaign of Adad-Nirari.
Adad-Nirari was king of Assyria from 810-783 BCE, and between 805 and 803 BCE commenced a series of western campaigns. The Saba'a Inscription mention of Adad-Nirari's 5th year (806/05 BCE), appears to indicate that it was in that year that he reached Damascus BUT there is disagreement as to whether one is meant to read that it was in this year that he reached Damascus, or merely that it was in this year that he commenced his western campaigns.
The accepted dating for this Damascus campaign has been 801 BCE. - 800 BCE., although there are alternatives:
Bright, [ 1981, p.256, fnt.68 ] puts it in 802 BCE;
Roux (1982, p.279) places it at the very beginning of the western campaigns 806/05 BCE.,
Miller & Hayes [ 1986, p.298 ] put it in 796 BCE during Adad-Nirari's last western Campaign.
One of the reasons that doubt exists is that no-one currently places Jehoash on the throne of Israel until several years later than 806/805 BCE. According to the 'King's Calendar' however, Jehoahaz of Israel reigned until 808/807 BCE, being followed by his son Jehoash, who by the way, definitely had a three year co-regency with his father, ascending the throne in 810/09 BCE during his fathers 15th year, (the 37th year of Joash of Judah - 2 Kings 13:10). His first regnal year corresponded to the 40th year of Joash of Judah (807 BCE). During his second year (806 BCE), Amaziah of Judah commences his first regnal year (2 Kings 14:1).
Therefore, according to the 'King's Calendar', both Jehoash of Israel and Amaziah of Judah, were kings of their respective countries during the 5th year of Adad-Nirari, and therefore the 'Primary Text' reading of the Saba'a Inscription is historically possible, and need not be 'interpreted' to fit the variety of chronological opinions concerning the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah.
The fact that Academics disagree in their placements of certain events is not always evident to the ordinary reader, for example, there is another academic disagreement pertinent to this period (for which the 'King's Calendar' offers no assistance, that revolves around the identification of a Saviour for Israel. 2 Kings 13 informs us that Jehoahaz was constantly given into the hand of Hazael of Syria until G-d provided for them a Saviour (:5) 'so that they escaped from the hand of the Syrians'.
Miller & Hayes [ 1986, p.298 ] suggest that this was in the person of Adad-Nirari III, and his western campaign into Southern Syria, in 796 BCE., while James et.al. (1991, p.385. fnt.134) suggests that the Saviour was Sheshonq I, around 800 BCE. who came to the assistance of Israel to recover lost territory.
The point to be made here is that while we are often tempted to accept what the 'Bible Knockers' say is EVIDENCE, the reality is that such evidence is usually subject to ongoing academic disagreement.
One very important academic disagreement that has sprung up in the last few years, and which was mentioned in passing in the last newsletter, is that Academics are arguing over the placement of certain of the Pharaonic Dynasties of Ancient Egypt, disagreeing by up to as much as 200 years.
The Sothic Cycle.
When you read about Ancient Egypt and the dates provided for the reigns of the Pharaohs, what you might not be aware of is that much of the dating is based on guesswork. Egyptian chronology is calculated using something called the Sothic Cycle, but the whole process has come under close scrutiny in the last few years.
Peter James and his associates [James P. Thorpe.I.J., Kokkinos.N., Morkot.R., Frankish.J. (1991) Centuries of Darkness. Rutgers Uni Press. New Jersey.] call for a complete revision of the current chronology of the Ancient Near Eastern Nations, pertinent to dates provided relating to the Hittites, Kassites, Mitanni and Egyptians. They base this upon evidence to demonstrate that the Sothic cycle upon which Egyptian Chronology is based, is in great error. (Refer James Et. Al. 1991,p.304)
[For a quick read on the problem go to: this - While this link relates to David Rohl's work, [Rohl, D.M. (1995) A Test of Time : the Bible - from Myth to History. Century Ltd. London, I prefer the work presented in Centuries of Darkness by James Et.Al.
Both shift Egyptian dynasties (by up to two hundred years), and while it seems more appropriate to follow the Centuries of Darkness chronology, it does create a problem, for whereas Rohl keeps the Exodus in the Fifteenth Century BCE within the Eighteenth Dynasty (where it belongs), by the standard of James et.al. this dynasty also gets shifted.
I mention this problem for two reasons; firstly so that you can be aware that Egyptian History is still under challenge, and secondly, because within the Centuries of Darkness proposal, Pharaoh Merenptah will have reigned in the Eleventh Century BCE.
Merneptah (Merenptah) was an Egyptian Pharaoh of the Nineteenth Dynasty, who, in his fifth year, had inscribed a stele (Israel Stele) to commemorate and extol his victories. [ Miller & Hayes 1986 p.68 ]. The significance is that according to the current chronological placement of Merneptah's reign, the stele's reference to 'Israel' as a national entity, occurs centuries before Israel was anything other than a loose confederation of tribes. As such, it is somewhat of a mystery.
However, if his reign is shifted to the eleventh century BCE, then the 'King's Calendar' will suggest that the battle referred to is that one in which King Saul was killed, and this year has been identified. Since the Israel Stele refers to a battle in Merenptah's Fifth year, the 'King's Calendar' is able to be of assistance in re-aligning the Dynasties of Egypt for this period in History.
So you see, nothing is certain in the Ancient History Arena, and for people to BLINDLY accept academic argument that tends to 'knock' the Biblical Account, is to 'give up without a fight'. Such is as despicable as those whose 'faith' in the Bible is such that it will not allow them to look at or admit to obvious errors.
When faith refuses to allow itself to be tested, it can hardly be called faith. At best, it is only 'living in a sound proof box'.
This article is about The Bible, The Exodus, and Ancient Egypt.
Academic Newsletter
Archaeology and the Bible No.5
ANCIENT EGYPT - March 5th 2004
In the last newsletter I spoke on three things:
1. The current impossibility of maintaining the accuracy of Biblical Chronology for the period from Uzziah to Hezekiah;
2. The difficulty in interpreting the Saba'a Inscription which does not fit current opinions in relation to the kings of Israel and Judah; - and -
3. The challenge to the Sothic Dating System for the History of Ancient Egypt.
Today I want to continue the discussion on the History of Ancient Egypt.
ANCIENT EGYPT : The 18th Dynasty.
There are a number of difficulties involved in determining an 'accurate' history of Egypt.
As mentioned last time, there is a significant challenge to the current placement of Egyptian Dynasties.
Last time I mentioned Merenptah's 'Israel Stele', which, if it is to be believed, records a victory over the 'nation' of Israel, centuries before Israel was a 'nation' as such. Rohl and James et. al. have been working on providing a more reliable chronology, with James et.al. suggesting that Merenptah's dynasty ought to be shifted to the Eleventh century BCE.
Now you might wonder how such a thing can be contemplated. I don't intend to discuss this issue here, but as an example of how unreliable the data for reconstructing the history of Egypt really is, I would draw your attention to the 18th Dynasty, the one which traditionally (not currently) is designated as that dynasty within which Moses was born and grew up.
[For an easy internet review of the 18th Dynasty go to: Dollinger.A. (2000) An Introduction to the History and Culture of Pharaonic Egypt: The 18th Dynasty.]
If one compares the dates assigned by various authors to the Pharaohs of the 18th dynasty, that there are differing applications of archaeological evidence becomes painfully obvious. In comparing the data for just three Pharaohs for instance, we discover a diversity of opinion, as to when they ruled. For example:
a) Amenhotep I is assigned a reign commencing somewhere between 1560 & 1515 BCE
b) Thotmes II commenced somewhere between 1528 & 1482 BCE
c) Amenhotep II commenced somewhere between 1447 & 1425 BCE
Over a six generation period therefore, (concerning which the same information is available to all) what commences as a Forty-Five (45) year discrepancy in the commencement date for Amenhotep I, concludes with a 22 year discrepancy in the application of the data for the reign of Amenhotep II.
It is obvious that precise dating is impossible and that one is free to choose the chronological table which best suits one's particular purpose.
The Exodus.
Whilst Biblical chronology places the Exodus in the 15th century within the 18th Dynasty, recently it has become popular to remove it to the 13th Century B.C.E.
Whilst very definite arguments are provided for the later dating by Miller & Hayes, (1986, p.67) including:
i) Earlier misunderstanding of the term 'Habiru' in the Amarna Letters;
ii) Biblical mention of Pithom and Rameses (Ex 1:11);
iii) Mention that Israel was not a nation as per the 'Israel Stela' of Merneptah,
iv) Lack of corroborating Egyptian Records to support Scripture;
Jagersma (1983, p.37) in arguing the same points, warns us that the archaeological basis is not strong, and conclusions are not based on direct evidence. In short, the 'expert' opinions upon which we often rely, do not always rest on incontrovertible fact.
Peter James et.al.(1991, p.309), citing Hanfmann (1951, pp.355/65) support Jagersma, pointing out that the basis of all chronologies, that of the Egyptian and Mesopotamian, rests heavily on academic guesswork. This in no way demeans or invalidates conclusions reached, but it is necessary to keep in mind, that there is a great deal of difference between 'absolute' and 'perceived' truth.
The Biblical Chronological details concerning Moses and his relationship to Pharaoh, require that Pharaoh reigned a very long time, and the choice of Pharaoh to play this role is limited to two. They are either Thutmoses III of the 18th Dynasty in the 15th Century, or Rameses II of the 19th Dynasty in the 13th Century.
Generally speaking, academics do not believe that 'The Mosaic Exodus' is an historical event, but that it reflects some sort of migration over time of Semites into Palestine. What is ludicrous, is that this alleged 'non-event', should be chronologically placed at all. If it did not happen, then you can't logically argue over which century it did not happen in.
But as for those who see it as an historical event in the 13th century, their reasoning and logic is not substantive. To re-iterate, according to Jagersma (1983, p.37) the archaeological basis for this opinion is not strong, and conclusions are not based on direct evidence.
There is of course evidence of a Semitic exodus from Egypt, and that relates to the Hyksos. Some academics see the Mosaic Exodus as a re-write of the Hyksos expulsion from Egypt. However Josephus,(whose chronologies up to the present have not been able to be understood, but which can through the lens of the 'King's Calendar' be reconstructed), lists chronological information that clearly portrays both the Hyksos and Mosaic Exodus.
The Mosaic Exodus occurred 480 years earlier than the Building of Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 6:1), which by current opinion occurred in the 10th Century. Therefore the Exodus occurred in the 15th Century, but Josephus' most direct chronological reference to the Exodus falls within the 17th Century if measured in Solar years and the 16th Century when measured in artificial 'King's Calendar' years.
He maintains that from the Departure from Egypt to (586 BCE.) the Fall of Jerusalem, 1062.5 years elapse [Antiquities. Book 10:8:5]. In solar years, this reference takes us to the year 1648 BCE, which by no stretch of the imagination can refer to the Mosaic Exodus. In artificial years however, it points to the year 1554 BCE (Line 1048 in the 'King's Calendar') which is 105 Solar years or 113 artificial years earlier than the Mosaic Exodus in 1449 BCE.
Clearly, whatever Josephus thought he had before him, it did not refer to the Mosaic exodus. The reference does however fall within various dates provided by various Academics, for the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt. Such dates range from 1583 BCE (Marston 1935, p 83) until after the commencement of the 18th Dynasty under Ahmose (c. 1570 - 1550 BCE)
While he himself assumed that he was referring to the Mosaic Exodus, if we note the wording of his text, Josephus simply states; 'from the departure out of Egypt'.
There is recorded therefore, within the chronological history of the Jews as found in both Biblical and extra-biblical documents, two chronologically distinct Exoduses, and attempts to pass off the Mosaic Exodus as a legend reflecting the Hyksos Exodus are nothing more than 'unscientific' and anti-religious attempts to dissuade people from their trust in the historical accuracy of the Bible, and by that means, to turn them from their religious faith.
Of course no one will admit to such, for they will all logically argue that they are only presenting the known 'facts', and that their failure to support Biblical stories is not sourced in prejudice. But the reality is, that much of what is now known to be 'historical', was previously considered to have been 'historical fiction'. For example; The cities of Capernaum, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Ninevah (not to mention Troy) as well as the people known as the Hittites - paragraphs Five to Seven. The fact that at this time, there is insufficient evidence to prove some particular historical Biblical claim, is insufficient reason to 'deny' the claim.
The reality is that the very fact that something comes from the Bible, is sufficient reason for some academics to reject its veracity. It is one thing to prove that something is 'incorrect', another thing to opinion that it is incorrect, and yet again, it is a completely different thing to claim that because you have been unable to 'prove' something, that it is 'definitely' not so.
In the Next issue, we will continue this theme by looking at what the 'King's Calendar' has discovered about the Mosaic Exodus.
Did the Mosaic Exodus Take Place? If so, Who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus? Did the Exodus occur in Egypt's 15th Century BCE 18th Dynasty or later in 13th century BCE? These are just some of the usual questions about this event. In this article we will discuss some of these issues.
Academic Newsletter No.6
Archaeology and the Bible
Friday 12th March 2004
What the King's Calendar demonstrates regarding the Exodus.
Over the course of the last five weeks, I have raised and demonstrated two important points. The first is that it is 'profound blindness' to insist that there are no errors in the Bible. While it might be so shattering to some people's faith that they will not admit to it, at the other end of the spectrum, there are those whose admission of it has tended to 'rob' them of trust in Biblical reliability and value, and in the process, have abandoned their faith at a fundamental level.
Secondly, there is one thing of which we may be certain, despite some claims to the contrary, nobody has ever proved that the Biblical portrayal of Israelite History is 'fictitious'. What some Academics do claim is that 'their findings' do not support this or that particular matter. What I have demonstrated in the last few weeks is that none of such academic findings are 'irrefutable'; all of their findings are constantly being 'tweaked' and challenged in many different ways by many different people in many different academic fields.
Having said that, let me now say, that no matter what someone might like to assert or claim, there is absolutely no evidence currently in existence, nor likely to be forthcoming, that can demonstrate that the chronology offered by the 'King's Calendar' is impossible, untenable or contrary to the 'evidence'. It has equal merit with any currently suggested construction of Israelite History, with one excelling exception. It can demonstrate itself mathematically. There is only one possible justification for rejecting the 'King's Calendar' Chronology, and that would be to demonstrate that it's computer generated mathematical foundation is erroneous in that its determination at some point of history can be proven to be incorrect.
The Bottom line is, that the 'King's Calendar', in relying upon and supporting Biblical Chronology, can demonstrate that its' information does in fact fit into the overall claims of Archaeology and Ancient History.
Before moving on to look at some of the things that the 'King's Calendar' has rediscovered about the Exodus, let's first take a look at some events in the Chronological Timetable presented by the 'King's Calendar'.
SOME EVENTS IN THE 'King's Calendar' CHRONOLOGICAL TIMETABLE:
DISCOVERING THE EXODUS:
From the Fall of Jerusalem
To Discover the exodus, we must start at the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE.
The Babylonian Exile commenced in 586 BCE, contrary to 'the now' current opinion that it occurred in 587 BCE. One of the demonstrations provided by the King's Calendar to prove this point, is that historians have established that the successor to Nebuchadrezzar, Amel-Marduk (the Biblical Evil Merodach) came to the throne in 561 BCE. Wiseman (1985, p.9) relates that Amel Marduk ascended to the Babylonian throne on October 8th 562 BCE. (the 37th year of the captivity of Jehoiachin), commencing his first regnal year in Nisan of 561 BCE.
The reference to the Thirty-Seventh (37th) year of Jehoiachin's captivity is demonstrably an artificial one, since in solar years it would require that his captivity occurred in either 599 BCE or 598 BCE. Neither of these dates correspond to the two dates assigned to the invasion during Nebuchadrezzar's 7th year, in which the Bible asserts that Jehoiachin was taken captive during his 11th year. Within the 'King's Calendar' perspective, Jehoiachin's release occurs on March 18th 561 BCE., five (5) months after Amel Marduk's accession and just before he commences his first regnal year. The 'King's Calendar' therefore concludes that the Fall of Jerusalem occurred in 586 BCE.
Since Amel-Marduk's accession year of 562 BCE is Nebuchadrezzar's last regnal year, it is not possible that Nebuchadrezzar reigned forty-three (43) years, if his reign is to be synchronised with the reigns of the Judean Kings, as is indicated in the Biblical Narratives. There is no 'absolute' proof that Nebuchadrezzar reigned 43 regnal years. A business contract referring to his 43rd year appears to indicate a 43 year reign, but it was common practice to include the accession year as a regnal year. Current academic opinion however REQUIRES us to accept that the Scriptural references are wrong at this point in history.
The Building of Solomon's Temple
Having established the date for the Fall of Jerusalem as 586 BCE, the scriptural references lead us back to 970 BCE, the fourth year of King Solomon, and the commencement of the building of the Temple at Jerusalem.
Egyptian Exodus and Entrance into Canaan
From 970 BCE and the Building of Solomon's Temple, we can calculate backwards using 1 Kings 6:1 to the Israelite entrance into Canaan in 1412 BCE, and to the Exodus in 1449 BCE. (To view the issues involved in using 1 King's 6:1, please go here )
From this point we can calculate the divisions in Moses life:
Born 1523 BCE
Fled to Midian in 1486 BCE
The Exodus occurred in 1449 BCE
Moses died in 1413/1412 BCE
From within this time frame we can see that the events of Moses life take place from within the perspective of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty.
The 18th Egyptian Pharaonic Dynasty
The founder of the 18th Dynasty was Ahmose/Amosis.
Amosis succeeded in expelling the Hyksos 'Shepherd kings' from Egypt,
and he enshrined the precedent that succession to the Egyptian throne would be legitimised by Matrilineal descent (Aldred 1988,p.139).
As it transpired, this formula ensured the survival of that dynasty, for although Ahmose/Amosis was succeeded by his son, it was the husband of his daughter Ahmes who in turn succeeded as Thutmosis I (Grimal 1992, p.27).
When their son Amenemes died prematurely, Thutmosis' son by a minor wife, was legitimised by marriage to his half sister Hatshepsut (Ahmes' daughter / Amosis' granddaughter). He reigned under the name Thutmosis II.
Thutmosis II and Hatshepsut had only one child, a daughter Neferure, who died prematurely (Aldred, 1988, p.140).
Thutmosis II's son by a secondary wife, eventually became Pharaoh Thothmes III,
Thothmes III commenced his reign as a child under the regency of his stepmother Hatshepsut,
Thothmes III later reigned with Hatshepsut,
and finally after Hatshepsut's death, Thothmes reigned in his own right.
Note the importance of matrilineal descent within the 18th dynasty. Not only because it ensured dynastic survival, but because it plays an important role in substantiating Moses' historical existence within this dynastic family structure. The Pharaoh's daughter who pulled Moses from the bull rushes was in fact Hatshepsut.
What was the name of Pharaoh's Daughter?
According to Josephus (Antiquities Book 2 Ch. 9:5 - Whiston, 1993) her name was Thermuthis.
Marston (1935, p.185) saw in Moses' name a correlation with that of 'Thotmes' (Thutmosis).
Hatshepsut's father, husband, and stepson all ruled under that name.
The Biblical record refers to her as 'pharaoh's daughter',
but Josephus, having identified her as the 'King's Daughter',
thereafter several times refers to her as 'Queen'.
The archaeological record itself, despite 'reasonable opinions' as to the actual fact of the matter, informs us that Hatshepsut described herself as her father's co- regent (Grimal, 1992, p.207),
and so Hatshepsut was therefore, 'a most sovereign queen of Egypt!'.
Moses' adoption - 1519 BCE (Born 1523 BCE)
Moses was not immediately adopted by Pharaoh's Daughter. In Antiquities Book Two Chapter Nine (6:230) Josephus tells us that as Moses grew, he was advanced and superior in every way: in beauty, ability and intellectual capacity; so much so, that the impressed Thermuthis/Hatshepsut decided to adopt him.
His age at adoption is not specified, and from a textual viewpoint (Antiquities Book Two Chapter 9:7 [232]), he could have been anywhere between four and six years of age.
The adoption is stated to have been necessitated by the fact that Thermuthis/Hatshepsut did not have a child of her own to offer as her father's (Thothmes/Thutmosis 1st) successor. From this we may infer either that her father's death was imminent, that she believed herself to be incapable of having children, or for some other reason, feared that she would not bear children.
By the time Moses was four years of age, Hatshepsut, if of a similar age to her future husband (Thutmosis II) was only about 20 years old, and her father Thutmosis I, had but five years left to live. Her decision to adopt Moses was advantageous, for we are told that there was no male candidate at this time to succeed her father. One reason for this belief may be substantiated by the fact that her future husband Thutmosis II was apparently deformed and died prematurely in his thirties (Newby, 1980, p.51).
Despite the 'improbability' of a Hebrew slave becoming a Prince in Pharaoh's household, the historical setting does permit it. Is it just co-incidence that the some later generations made up a fanciful story that just happens to fit in nicely with the facts of Ancient History?
Moses Prospects.
In 1514 BCE when Moses was around Nine (9) solar years old (11 artificial years old), Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis II had a daughter. At that time, the future would certainly have seemed secure to Hatshepsut, for her Daughter, through marriage to Moses, would have provided Egypt with a New King. Theoretically the later birth of a half brother in 1511 BCE (Tuthmosis III) would have had no dynastic effect. Unfortunately for Moses, little Neferure died at the age of Eleven years in 1503 BCE.
According to Josephus' record, there are three notable points concerning Moses adoption. These are:
i) That it takes place while Hatshepsut's father (Thotmes I 1539 - 1514 BCE) is still alive. This indicates that Moses was no older than Nine (9) years of age.
ii) The express purpose of the adoption was to make Moses the heir to Thothmes I.
iii) It was Hatshepsut not her father, who appointed Moses the Dynastic successor.
These points are significant, for in them, Josephus indicates what is now known archaeologically, that succession was a Matrilineal occurrence, and that it was Hatshepsut's role to bestow and legitimise the successor's kingship and divinity. Whether he was aware of it or not, Josephus quotes the only formula in operation at this time in Egypt, for the appointment of a new Pharaoh, and it was Hatshepsut's job to provide an heir, either naturally, by adoption, or by marriage.
A fourth point to note is that her father accepted both the child, and the reasoning behind the adoption. Despite pharaoh's acceptance however, Josephus informs us that prophetic word is given against the child. Thermuthis however, protects him, not the least reason for which, as indicated previously, is that there was no one, kin or adopted, for succession to the throne, who was likely to be of such great advantage as this child.
Moses was therefore 'educated with great care'. (Perhaps to ensure negation of any possibility of fulfillling the prophetic word, or of involvement with the Hebrews)
Despite the fact that Josephus' details match what we know of the dynastic situation of the day, he does nevertheless make errors, which, given that three kings in a row had the same name, is not at all unforgivable.
Historically, between Antiquities Book Two Chapters 10:1 [238] & 11:1 [256], the following events occur.
Moses' Flight to Midian.
According to the 'King's Calendar', at the age of 40 years, Moses fled Egypt at approximately the same time as Hatshepsut's death (1487 BCE). If the animosity that is sometimes assumed to have existed between Hatshepsut and her Stepson Thutmosis III was real, (as is 'apparently' indicated by the desecration of Hatshepsut's monuments), then it seems unlikely, that Moses would have remained in Egypt beyond her death, if Josephus' record of the Egyptian prophecy and resultant threat were accurate.
On the other hand it could be accepted that since Thutmosis had lived his life in an intimate relationship with Hatshepsut and Moses, he had no personal fear or anxiety with regard to Moses' allegiance and faithfulness, until perhaps after the Ethiopian campaign.
In either case, given priestly animosity toward him, Moses' murder of the taskmaster removes him from royal protection, and results in his flight to Midian, to a people, with whom he may have had prior contact via the mines at Serebit. [Marston (1935, pp.203-205) observes that Hatshepsut was the patroness of the monotheistic, Midianite, Semitic, temple at Serabit, and that the whole form and regulation of worship instituted by Moses, follows almost identically to that at Serebit.]
Return to Egypt.
Forty years later, 'when he understood that the pharaoh (Tutmosis III) in whose reign he fled away was dead' (Antiquities Book 2 :13:1), Moses returned to Egypt. The new king of Egypt was Amenhotep II, but he however co-reigned with his father during the latter's final two years. The 'King's Calendar' contention is that it is more than likely that it was not with Amenhotep that Moses had dealings, but with Thothmosis III's Grandvizier Rekhmire.
Since the 'King's Calendar' places the Exodus at 1449 BCE, if Petrie's chronology is correct, then Moses arrived back in Egypt prior to Thutmosis' death, contrary to Josephus' assertion in Antiquities Book 2 Chapter 13:1. This may be because Josephus' has generalised, in asserting that Thutmosis was actually dead when the 'new' king began to rule in Egypt. From an historical perspective however, Moses may have returned in the hope of obtaining the release of his people from the dying pharaoh.
The rest of this story you already know. It is history!
Newsletter Series Conclusion:
We live in an 'enlightened' and 'well educated' age, but that doesn't mean we are any the wiser for it. We assumed as we were growing up that all these Bible stories were true 'word for word'. Then along came a whole host of academic regimens that pulled apart anything and everything, and in their wake we have 'lost' so much of that in which we once believed.
The 'King's Calendar' is not a religious book. It doesn't peddle God or Religion. It doesn't say you must believe this or that. But what it does say, is that some of the people in whom you put your trust, betrayed you. Perhaps not deliberately; perhaps not maliciously, but they did betray you. So many things of which they were once sure were untrue, have since been demonstrated to have been true. Many things of which they were once certain, are now in doubt and many things that they tell you are 'historical fact', are no more than academic opinions, and a lot of reasonable guesses.
I'm not knocking the academics for doing their job, for without them I could not have done mine. But I think it is about time that they were a little more open about the flaws in their guesses. There is no part of the chronology of the 'King's Calendar' that does not conform to someone's opinion of events during Israelite history.
All I have done is say, 'Hey you guys, you often guessed correctly, here's the proof. Of course the hard part is getting them to open their eyes. And as for the 'fundamentally' inclined, many of them simply can't get beyond the concept that there are errors in the Bible. Frankly, if all that anyone ever needed to get to heaven, was a Bible, then none of the prophets would ever have been necessary.
Whether you are Jewish or Christian, ultimately, it is not the words of a book that save you, it is your right standing in the presence of the Almighty. But then again, according to one of the boys at Yahoo Religion_Forum, if you aren't reading that Bible which God himself ordained and authorised (the KJV), then you are damned to hell!
One of the themes in the last Series of Academic Newsletters (1 6), was that many religious fundamentalists, through fear of losing their faith, REFUSE to acknowledge the existence of the demonstrable errors that exist in the Biblical Historical Records. The predominating theme of those Newsletters however, was that Secular Academics have mislead us with their 'findings' in relation to archaeology and ancient history.
In this series, I want to focus attention on the matter of 'Error and Truth' as found in the Biblical and Extra Biblical Historical Records. We commence this week, by looking at Jeremiah's Prophecy of a Seventy Year Babylonian Exile.
JEREMIAH'S PROPHECY: Jeremiah Chapter 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 I will make it perpetual desolations.
Jeremiah's Prophecy has 4 Salient Points:
i) 70 years extend from its pronouncement to some future point in history.
ii) The King of Babylon is to be punished.
iii) The Nation of Babylon is to be punished.
iv) Babylon is to be laid waste forever.
Jeremiah's prophecy initially refers to the captives sent to Babylon in 604/603 BCE. 2 Chronicles 36:21 however, indicates that the people taken captive in 586 BCE at the time of the destruction of the temple was in accordance with and to fulfill Jeremiah's Prophecy, and that these seventy years were ordained because the land had not received its Sabbath year rests. This inherently implies two things:
1. That Jeremiah's prophecy was given in relation to the Babylonian exile of 586 BCE (not the 603 BCE captivity nor the 596 BCE overthrow of Jehoiachin) and -
2. That there had been a period of 490 years during which the 'Sabbath Rest' of the land had not been complied with.. The implications of 2 Chronicles 36:21 are problematical.
Leaving the former point aside for a moment and instead, looking at the latter point, we note that, 490 years (70 times the 7 years) backdated from 586 BCE. (as per Chronicles) in true solar years takes us to the year 1076 BCE., a date that has no apparent significance. We also note that while seventy years from 586 BCE, (as per Jeremiah) takes us to the completion of the restoration of the Temple in 516 BCE, (Snaith, 1963, p.17) this event is not that to which Jeremiah referred.
Irrespective of how you wish to explain this, the textual and factual rendering of either or both of these Scriptural records is erroneous.
ELEMENTS OF TIME: The Chronological Background to Jeremiah and his prophecy.
There are three things to note about this prophecy:
1. It was given in the 4th year of Jehoiakim, and the first year of Nebuchadrezzar (Jeremiah 25:1), and is therefore given between September 603 BCE. and April 602 BCE. (According to the King's Calendar) or 604/603BCE according to current chronology. Therefore the 70 years is completed somewhere between 534 and 532 BCE. Chronologically, the prophecy is inaccurate.
2. In Chapter 29:1-2, we are told that Jeremiah sent a letter to the elders, priests, prophets and peoples of the exile in Babylon. In verse 10 we are informed that the exile will last 70 years. - "For thus saith the LORD: After seventy years are accomplished for Babylon, I will remember you, and perform My good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place." - This letter is dated ...'after Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) had departed for Babylon..' indicating that the letter was written around 596/95 BCE. We should textually require that this event is 'a follow up' if you will, to the prior event of nominating a 70 year exile as from 603 BCE, but at the very least, it must be calculated as from 596 BCE. In that case, the Prophecy should be fulfillled in 526/525 BCE., but there is no chronological fulfillment.
3. In Chapter 28: 1, in the story of Jeremiah's conflict with Hananiah, which is dated to the 4th year of Zedekiah, i.e. 592 BCE., Hananiah maintains that the exile will end in two (2) years While Jeremiah expresses his hope that it will be so, he also expresses some doubt.
In hoping that the prophecy was true, Jeremiah is saying that 'he hopes that his own prophecy is false'. He does not for a moment state that the prophecy is false, until the Lord sends him back to Hananiah with a message, declaring it to be so. Jeremiah at least, if not everyone else as well, ought in fact to have been aware that Hananiah was a false prophet, if in fact Jeremiah had previously prophesied a specific 70 year time period.
If the 'Seventy Years' had been known, Hananiah would have been a fool to prophesy as he did, and Jeremiah would have been a fool to say 'Amen!' to it. There would have been no need for G-d to send him back to pronounce judgement. The conclusion to be reached here, is that while Jeremiah undoubtedly prophesied 'AN Exilic Return', he did not specify the time period.
Of course, some will say, 'it is just a matter of interpretation'. Well yes of course it is, after all, isn't the 'King's Calendar' just an 'interpretation'? Of Course, but what of the other prophets? What did they say about Jeremiah's prophecy?
WHAT THE OTHER PROPHETS HAD TO SAY:
EZEKIEL:
Ezekiel (Jeremiah's counterpart in Babylon), makes no mention of this prophecy at all. Instead, he comes up with his own version of a time period. (430 Prophetic Years Ezekiel 4:1-8 : King's Calendar Chapter 22)
EZRA:
Ezra (1:1) writing of Cyrus' Decree (538 BCE) declares that the proclamation of Cyrus was made so that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished.
This occurs: 65 Solar years after the first captivity in 603 BCE / 48 Solar Years after the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE / 51.5 Artificial years after the Exile of 586 BCE. / BUT 70 Artificial years after the first captivity in 603 BCE
ZECHARIAH:
Zechariah (1:12) in reference to Darius' 2nd year (522/521 BCE), states that the indignation of the Lord has been against the Jews for Seventy years.
This occurs 81 Solar Years after the First captivity in 603 BCE / 64 Solar Years after the Exile of 586 BCE / 89 Artificial Years after the First captivity in 603 BCE / BUT 70 Artificial Years after the Exile of 586 BCE.
DANIEL:
Daniel (9:2) perceives, during Darius' first year, i.e. 522/21 BCE, the number of years referred to by Jeremiah, with regard to the desolation of Jerusalem.
He does not recognise that the 70 years have been fulfillled; does not state that Jeremiah prophesied 70 years; states that his research in the books has resulted in his ability to perceive the number of years that must come to pass concerning Jeremiah's prophecy (surely redundant if Jeremiah had already stated the number of years); AND states that the 70 years were weeks (i.e. sevens) of years or 490 years.
THE REDACTORS:
2 Chronicles 36:20-22
According to this reference, Nebuchadrezzar took the exiles to Babylon where they would remain until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths. That the exile extended until the king of Persia conquered Babylon, is an historical fact. Jeremiah however, made no mention directly of the Persians, nor any reference to the Sabbath rest of the land.
As for the period of seventy years, it equates with neither the fall of Babylon, nor the desolation of the land of the Chaldeans.
THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: Chronicles and Jeremiah
a) From 603 BCE., 70 Solar years extends to 533 BCE with no significance.
b) From 603 BCE., 70 artificial years, (depending upon the exact date of the captivity of that year), extends to 540/539 BCE which is extremely significant for it refers to Cyrus, but not the return to their homeland.
c) From 586 BCE. 51/52 artificial years transpire to the establishment of the kingdom of Persia in Babylon by Cyrus in 538 BCE.
d) From 586 BCE. 70 artificial years extend to the time of Darius' decree to return to Judea.
e) From 586 BCE. 70 solar years extend to 516 BCE and the restoration of the temple and makes the prophecy refer to the temple restoration, not an exilic return.
f) There are only three perspectives from which a 70 year period might be seen to apply.
1. In artificial years from 603 BCE to the conquering of Babylon.
2. In artificial years from 586 BCE to Darius Decree
3. In solar years from 586 BCE to the restoration of the Temple.
It seems quite clear, that Jeremiah was completely ignorant of G-d's intended duration for the Babylonian Exile, and must therefore not have prophesied one. What seems far more certain, is that such a period was later attributed to him. If Jeremiah never specified the duration of the prophecy, then each prophet was able to see the prophecy as fulfillled as each felt it appropriate. If we accord these prophets some credibility, mathematical ability, and common sense, we must accept that Jeremiah's 'Seventy Years' is a redactorial insertion within the artificial construct, based in perceptions of the causes and extent of the Babylonian exile.
Furthermore, the seventy year reference does not truly synchronise with either the prophecy as attributed to Jeremiah, nor as interpreted in Chronicles.
'King's Calendar' Conclusions.
1. Jeremiah's Prophecy was given in 603 BCE
2. The prophecy was re-iterated in 596 BCE
3. Ezekiel does not mention Jeremiah's prophecy but comes up with his own chronology
4. While Ezra 1:1 is correct in that 70 artificial years elapse from the first Captivity in 603 BCE to 538 BCE. - but Cyrus does not fulfill the terms of the prophecy.
5. Zechariah 1:12 & 7:5 are correct in artificial years from 586 BCE to 522 BCE but do not fulfill the exact prophecy.
6. Daniel does not see Jeremiah's 70 years as being fulfillled.
7. The restoration of the temple in 516 BCE does not fill any criteria of Jeremiah's Prophecy, except the doubtful 70 years.
8. 2 Chronicles 36:20-22 in qualifying the reasons for the Babylonian exile, provides three (3) reasons, none of which are contained in Jeremiah's prophecy; especially the 70 years of Sabbath Rest.
9. The reference of 2 Chronicles 36:20-22 (which relates to the captivity of 586 BCE.) in order to fulfill 70 years, in artificial years refers to the year 522 BCE, which chronologically is incorrect. The King of Persia who punished the King of Babylon was Cyrus, and the year was 538 BCE not 522 BCE.
10. In 592 BCE in dealing with Hananiah, Jeremiah appears ignorant of the 70 year time period that he quoted in 603 BCE and 596 BCE.
IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS:
In the Final Analysis, fundamentalists must accept that SOMETHING is erroneous in the received text. All that the 'King's Calendar' maintains to be incorrect, is the statement that Jeremiah prophesied a specific time period.
Next week, we will look at some of Josephus' material, which, while currently considered erroneous, is in fact correct.
Josephus left for us a history of the Jews, that is somewhat troublesome in many details. Cornfeld (1982) in his introduction to the Jewish Wars says:
'Despite all discrepancies, ambiguities, contradictions and plain mistakes, the fact remains that Josephus was a highly reliable witness, not only with respect to events in Palestine and Jerusalem of his own time, but also, though to a somewhat lesser extent, with regard to earlier times, for which he depended on available traditional sources. In sum, despite ambiguities and exaggerations, his is the most comprehensive surviving account in existence...'
As one example of both a plain mistake and a contradiction (for he quotes otherwise elsewhere in his writings), take a look at what Josephus says in The Jewish War Book 6 Chapter 10.1.(439) [Cornfield, 1982, pp.451], in regards to the time lapse between King David and the Babylonian Exile. He states that 477.5 years elapse between these two events.
This contradicts what can be found in the Biblical records. The Southern Kingdom (Judah) timeline, according to the Bible, only records 473.5 years for this period. Josephus is obviously in error, but as is argued in the 'King's Calendar' Chapter 20, such errors arise because Josephus was not a very organised person; he little understood what was before him; he appears to have had at his disposal materials that were 'supplied' to him, and he never kept track of what he had previously written. He was, to put it clearly, 'very sloppy'. This does not mean however that he made anything up, or that the information upon which he relied was erroneous.
THE 'KING'S CALENDAR' OBSERVATIONS:
1. Josephus was either careless or misunderstood his own, or some other person's notes.
For example:
In Antiquities of the Jews - Book Thirteen, he states that 82 years elapse between the Death of Judas Maccabeus (c.161 BCE) and the Death of Queen Alexandra (c.67 BCE), and in so doing, he under quoted by Twelve Years. There were in fact 94 solar years.
In Antiquities of the Jews - Book Fourteen, he states that 32 years elapse from the Death of Queen Alexandra (c.67 BCE) to the Death of Antigonus (c.37 BCE), and over quoted by Two years.
However if you notice, in calculating the time lapse between the extreme parameters Josephus listed in Books thirteen and fourteen,(from the death of Judas Maccabeus in 161 BCE. to the death of Antigonus in 37 BCE), he has only provided 114 of the 124 years that exist. His has under quoted by Ten (10) years.
Since Queen Alexandra reigned 10 years, we can conclude that Josephus has failed to understand the material before him, and failed to 'actually' include her Ten Year reign, despite having referred to her Death.
From this we can see that while Josephus relied upon reliable records, his use of them was careless.
He was not however, always careless or incorrect. His reference in Book Fifteen to the 18 years from the Death of Antigonus (c.37 BCE) to the Completion of Herod's Temple (c.18 BCE) was correct in Solar Years, as was also his reference in Book Sixteen to the 12 years between completion of the Temple and Deaths of Alexander and Aristobulus (c.7 BCE). But Note that these references are in Solar years.
2. Josephus did not know about the Artificial Nature of the Records.
This point will become obvious when we begin to discover the mix of artificial and solar years in his chronological references.
3. In his reliance on data recorded in artificial years, Josephus erred when he tried to separate specific sections of 'known Solar year' history from the 'artificial' references he had at his disposal.
In particular, it is the conclusion of the 'King's Calendar' that he had at his disposal an artificial record of the time lapse between the reign of King David, and the overthrow of Babylon by King Cyrus.
This artificial record would have stated that 525 years elapse between these two parameters, and it would have consisted of the 473.5 Biblical Artificial years between David and the Exile, plus 51.5 Artificial years between the Exile and Cyrus. These 51.5 artificial years however are only equal to 47.5 Solar years. Had Josephus used such a record to determine the length of the monarchy in Israel, all he would have done is deduct 47.5 solar years from 525 artificial years, to arrive at 477.5 years for the period from David to the Exile. He would not have realised that he was in error, unless he actually checked his figures against the record in Scripture.
Interestingly enough, in The Jewish War Book 6 Chapter 10.1 (439) [Cornfield, 1982, pp.451] These 477.5 years are exactly those which Josephus determines to have elapsed between King David and the Babylonian Exile.
It is not the only time he has erred like this of course. In The Jewish War. Book One - Chapter III [Cornfeld 1982, p.25. Ch. III (1) 70.], Josephus maintained that from Cyrus to Aristobulus, 471 years elapse. However he later amended this in Antiquities 13:11:1 to 481 years. (Cornfeld, 1982, p.25).
Interestingly enough, these 481 years in Antiquities, are exactly the number of SOLAR YEARS to elapse BETWEEN the Babylonian Exile and Aristobolus, which is to say, that they include the total number of years from 585 BCE to 105 BCE inclusive. As such these years constitute the number of years transpiring 'between' these parameters, but not including them.
HOWEVER, Josephus' narrative does not talk about the Babylonian Exile in 586 BCE, but the time lapse between Cyrus and Aristobolus, which quite interestingly enough, (according to the 'King's Calendar' artificial calendar), amounts to precisely the number of years that he originally quoted, that is, 471 years.
What appears to have happened is that Josephus originally quoted from an 'artificial record' before him, relating to the period from Cyrus to Aristobolus, and then later, ignoring his own stated parameters, calculated the period from the Exile to Aristobolus in solar years.
From the foregoing we see that Josephus was not really conversant with the material with which he was dealing, and had no awareness of their artificial nature.
Now the reason I mention these two particular erroneous chronological references, is that there is another reference, which, until the present time, has been considered erroneous. In the light of the foregoing however, we can 'see' how his error was made, and in the process, determine what the true chronology ought to have been.
Between King David and Titus 1179 years elapse.
The Jewish War Book Six Chap. X.I. (440) [Cornfeld, 1982, p.452]
Josephus calculated that the period to elapse between King David, the first king of Jerusalem to the city's destruction by Titus, was 1,179 years.
Jerusalem fell to Titus in October CE 70. Calculating back in time by 1,179 SOLAR years, we arrive at 1109 BCE, which is about a century earlier than what is possible as the commencement year of David's reign. Naturally, we must conclude that this figure is wrong.
However, if we understand that some of this figure is provided in the artificial calendar, and that some of it is erroneous calculation, we can determine the process by which Josephus arrived at this figure, by adopting the following methodology.
1. Between A.D. 70, the fall of Jerusalem under Titus and 104/3 BCE (the reign of Aristobulus),
173 solar years elapse.
2. The addition of these 173 years to the 481 SOLAR years Josephus applied to the time frame between Cyrus (538 BCE) and Aristobulus (104 BCE),
a total of 654 years is derived.
3. To these 654 SOLAR years we can add the 47.5 SOLAR years that transpire between the Babylonian Exile (586 BCE) and Cyrus (539 BCE)
to arrive at 701.5 solar years
4. To this total of 701.5 SOLAR years, we add the false figure of 477.5 ARTIFICIAL years that Josephus calculated as transpiring between David and the Babylonian Exile.
5. The Final Total is 1179 years.
THE CORRECT FIGURES THAT JOSEPHUS OUGHT TO HAVE USED HERE ARE:
Calculating back in time we arrive at 1010 BCE for the commencement of David's Reign.
Throughout the 'King's Calendar' deconstruction of Josephus' material, the 525 year figure (mentioned earlier) and the 701.5 year figure listed in point 4 are recurring themes in his references.
CONCLUSION:
Although Josephus did in fact provide erroneous references, the 'King's Calendar' is able to demonstrate that there is in fact a 'logical' basis for the figures he quotes. His figures are not really erroneous, it was his understanding of the application of those figures that lead him into incorrect conclusions, and he is not the only one whose application of little understood data, leads him into wrong conclusions. ALL Biblical Chronologists, historians and archaeologists do the same thing.
The biggest problem we face with Biblical History, is the mindset of those studying it. They start with the assumption that they are right, and then hit impasses that must be rationalised in order to get around them. Unfortunately, when they do this, they are required to dismiss as 'nonsense', what the Bible has factually recorded.
R.P.BenDedek is from Brisbane Australia and is the author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' at http://www.kingscalendar.com His academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah.
He writes photographic 'Stories from China' and social editorial commentaries, both at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing newspaper columnist. He currently teaches Conversational English in China and in addition to his English Lessons at KingsCalendar, he has created specific sites for Students of English.
