The King's Calendar' is a computer generated mathematical synchronous chronological presentation of the history of Ancient Israel, as principally recorded in the Biblical books of Kings and Chronicles, and sets forth Apologetics for and the results of R.P.BenDedek's discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Books of the Bible, Josephus,the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah. Academic Newsletters: Bible chronology, Bible Dates, Bible Calendars.
One of the constant refrains that the religious hear from the irreligious, is that the Bible can't be trusted because different Bibles disagree with each other. The most glaring examples of disagreements are the chronological differences. Such arguments of course find their foundation firstly in a concept that the Bible is supposed to be infallible. [The concept of Infallibility comes from the declaration to King James that the work of the translators was 'infallible' in that they had translated exactly and correctly.]
This particular concept becomes the basis for all attacks against the Bible, and derives from a misguided and relatively recent doctrine, foisted on the world by some fundamentalist Christian organisations. [ Refer: Theological Newsletter - In Defense of God]
But in answer to the issue of differences between different translations, I will only say, that at various times (in the last 2200 years), various scholars, recognising chronological variances in the texts extant at those particular times, have attempted to sort out the problems. In this particular article, the discussion is limited to the issue of chronological differences between the Septuagint and the Received text, (often called the Masorete).
Defining Septuagint and Masorete:
1. Septuagint
What is the Septuagint? (sometimes abbreviated LXX)
It is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC.
2. Masorete
Masorete: A noun : Masorete, Massorete, Masorite : a scholar who is expert on the Masorah (especially one of the Jewish scribes who contributed to the Masorah) Masorah: A noun : Masorah, Masora :a vast body of textual criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures including notes on features of writing and on the occurrence of certain words and on variant sources and instructions for pronunciation and other comments that were written between AD 600 and 900.
Our current Bibles are based on the Masorah and the text we follow therein “was already fixed, at the latest, about 200 B.C. and perhaps a century earlier”
Defining the purpose of the Septuagint.
The Septuagint derives its name (derived from Latin septuaginta, 70, hence the abbreviation LXX) from a legendary account in the Letter of Aristeas of how seventy-two Jewish scholars (six scribes from each of the twelve tribes) were asked by the Egyptian pharaoh Ptolemy II Philadelphus in the 3rd century BC to translate the Torah for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria.
The Greek version, known as the Septuagint, welcomed by the Alexandrian Jews, spread quickly throughout the countries in which Greek was spoken; it was utilized by different writers, and supplanted the original text in liturgical services.
Note: The Septuagint (as stated already) was commissioned as a translation of the Torah (Penteteuch). The other books of the Old Testement were not translated until later in time. See: The Septuagint Online
Chronological Differences:
As noted above, the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts was accomplished in the 3rd Century BCE. While there are some textual differences that derive from the translation process from one language and culture form to another, the major difference is to be found in the chronological 'errors'. For example, According to the authorised version, 1 King's 6:1, tells us that Solomon's 4th year is the 480th year since the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt. The Septuagint however tells us that it is the 440 th. Year. (1 kings 6:1 - The 480 years.)
The usual explanation for this contradiction is that the Septuagint records only the years since entry into Canaan while the authorised version includes the Forty (40) years in the wilderness, and thus is a reference to the exodus itself.
This sounds logical, but does not explain why neither one clarifies their intended parameters for their chronological reference. This same view was expressed in the Seder Olam Rabbah [Earliest post-exilic chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language.
The King's Calendar:
The King's Calendar Chronology of Israel, works backward from 586 BCE, and determines Solomon's First year to have commenced in 973 BCE. Measuring years 'artificially', the King's Calendar calculates Solomon's 4th year to commence in April 970 BCE. It is The King's Calendar Premise:
Left column numbers 409- 420 are the Line numbers on the 'King's Calendar' which make for easier mathematical calculations.
[The 'King's Calendar', unlike 'popular opinion', proceeds through history via a mathematical artificial construct which cannot be arbitrarily adjusted to compensate for difficulties encountered. It is either correct or it is not. Unlike archaeology and ancient history, it cannot be adjusted and re-adjusted to suit changing opinions. For a specific article on 1 King's 6:1 - The 480 years:
The 480 years of 1 Kings:6.1
Working backwards from the date established for Solomon's 4th year, a series of Biblical events can be established which remain consistent when synchronised with the whole body of Biblical and extra Biblical chronological material. From this it is determined that the King's Calendar application is correct.
HOWEVER, the whole methodology of the King's Calendar, demonstrates two unusual situations in relation to the discrepancies between the Septuagint and the Masorete at this particular point.
1. The 480 (artificial) King's Calendar years of 1 Kings 6:1
While it is said the Septuagint at 1 Kings 6:1 implies that 440 years applies to the time since the Israelites entered Canaan and that the Masorete at 1 Kings 6:1 includes the 40 years Wandering in the Wilderness, The King's Calendar indicates that the latter is not correct. Since the King's Calendar interprets years to be artificially comprised of 336 days duration (12 months x 4 mths x 7 days) , when one calculates 480 artificial years back from Solomon's 4th year (970 BCE) one arrives at 1412 BCE, which is 442/443 Solar years.
This fact tells us two things; firstly that both the Masorete and the Septuagint are Correct at 1 Kings 6:1 in stating that there are 480 (artificial) and 440 (solar) years between Entry into Canaan and Solomon's 4th year; and secondly, that it indicates a lack of 'absolute' precision.
2. Why the lack of Precision?
From a study of chronological discrepancies between the Septuagint and the Received Text (The Masoretic Text), the King's Calendar has determined, that the Septuagint's discrepancies are, unlike the Received Text chronologies, recorded in actual Solar years.
While there are exactly 480 artificial years (Received Text) between these two events, there are not exactly 440 solar years (Septuagint).
However, it is worth noting, that while both synchronise their chronologies with Solomon's 4th year, the Septuagint does not exactly read the same as the Received Text (Masorete – Authorised Version), which reads; 1 Kings 6:1 “And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD”.
In the Septuagint, there is a duplication of reference to Solomon's 4th year.
And it came to pass in the four hundred and fortieth year after the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt, in the fourth year and second month of the reign of King Solomon over Israel, that the king commanded that they should take great and costly stones for the foundation of the house, and hewn stones. And the men of Solomon, and the men of Hiram hewed the stones, and laid them for a foundation. In the fourth year he laid the foundation of the house of the Lord, in the month of Ziv, in the second month. In the eleventh year, in the eighth month, the house was completed according to all its plan, and according to all its arrangement.
Since by virtue of the fact that it contains artificial chronologies, we know that the original documents (Masoretic) were altered, we might safely assume that the original textual reference points were also altered.
It is feasible to conclude that the original documents at 1 Kings 6:1 recorded there to be 440 SOLAR years between the Entry into Canaan and Solomon's FIRST year.
According to the King's Calendar calculations, the Israelites passed into Canaan in the artificial year commencing February 1412 BCE. Solomon's first artificial year commenced July 10th 973 BCE. From this perspective (given Regnal calculations) it is highly probably that there was a record that indicated that 440 solar years after Entry into Canaan, Solomon became King.
When the artificial construct was introduced however, 440 solar years only converted into 476 artificial years. Adjusting the parameters “From Entry into Canaan until Solomon's 4th year” however, the 480 artificial years of the Masoretic text fits in very neatly.
It is quite likely that the original verse in the Septuagint said: 1Kings 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and fortieth year after the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt, in the first year of the reign of King Solomon over Israel, that the king commanded that they should take great and costly stones for the foundation of the house, and hewn stones......... In the fourth year he laid the foundation of the house of the Lord, in the month of Ziv, in the second month. In the eleventh year, in the eighth month, the house was completed according to all its plan, and according to all its arrangement.
Playing with History
The Premise of 'The King's Calendar:The Secret of Qumran”, is that the Jubilee Calendar of the Essenes which measured 364 days per year, was the foundation upon which an 'artificial sectarian calendar' was founded.
It artificially divided the 'perceived' 364 days per year into thirteen months (13) of four (4) weeks of seven (7) days, and then 'carried over' the 13th month (so to speak), so that every twelve (12) solar years, an extra year (13th) was created.
By this process, real Jewish history was extended. Biblical Synchronisms from this perspective then, do actually synchronise, and the 'King's Calendar' demonstrates this. King's Calendar – Concise Introduction
The mere fact that the 'King's Calendar', introduces a mathematical computer generated artificial construct, is enough to earn the scorn of many people, and yet the fact is, that no one has yet determined how the Biblical Chronologies fit together. Many commentators over the Millenia have tried to sort out the problems. Refer: Seder Olam Rabbah, Solomon's Temple, & Zerrubabel.
But the rejection of the 'King's Calendar' concept of the introduction of an artificial calendar into the Hebrew (Masoretic) 'writings' (they were not yet at that time the now famous 'BIBLE'), totally ignores the many historic approaches that Jews took and had (before and after the Canonisation of Scripture), in relation to the Divine workings in history.
For example, in “Parshat Terumah (1 Kings 5:26-6:13) Feb. 12, 2005” in refering to Abrabanel and his reference to Seder Olam Rabbah (Chapter 15), it is stated that; “Abrabanel saw in this verse's manner of expressing time an opportunity to teach about divine providence and history. He felt that God expressed Himself in history by making events happen in symmetrical patterns of time”.
This article goes on to say that: “...the sages put great emphasis on how time is organized and defined. Their search to lend significance to time sent them to Biblical stories for authenticity. By linking the sacred history of the Bible with the continuity of time, every moment became something to cherish”.
Now while this may apply to students of the Bible since it became the Bible, there is sufficient academic suggestion, that prior to the canonisation of the Bible, the same thing was going on.
The following references provide sufficient indication that the 'King's Calendar' is not alone in its contention.
Wise.M., Abegg.M., Cook.J.R., Cook.E. (1996) Dead Sea Scrolls: A comprehensive translation of the controversial ancient scrolls with material never published or translated before now, and including the most recently released texts. Hodder & Stoughton – Aust.
Refer Page 172 on the community's rewriting of scriptural portions
Refer Page 199 clarifying confusing chronology concerning Sinai Refer Pages 119 & 125 on the 'pesher' approach to biblical interpretations.'
Robinson T.H. (1932) A History Of Israel. Vol I From the Exodus to the Fall of Jerusalem, 586 B.C. Clarendon Press.
Refer Page 19, discusses at length the 'fictitious scheme' of Old Testament chronology. His argument is designed to demonstrate the complete untrustworthiness of that chronology. The whole point of the 'King's Calendar' is that this chronology is indeed 'fictitious' in that it is artifically manipulated. This does not mean however that it is WRONG.
Schonfeld.H.J. (1984) The Essene Odyssey : the mystery of the true teacher and the Essene impact on the shaping of human destiny. U.K. Element books.
Refer Page 44 in relation to 'ciphers'. He suggests that the Chasidim may have influenced the Biblical texts more than we might appreciate, and that the Qumran scribes were expert at playing didactic games with ciphers.
Conclusion:
Despite the insistence of some groups whose religious faith depends on the infallibility of each and every (translated into English) word of a series of ancient historical books, the reality is that the Old Testament, contains a series of books that were edited, collated and reorganised many times before they became 'set in stone' to be used by people 2000 years later as proof of God's existence & justification for their personal faith. [Both God and my faith exist with or without proof.]
The ancient writings, which revealed HaShem's (God's) ongoing process of calling out Israel, were constantly at the mercy of mortal men. The King's Calendar assertion, is that one particular group, transliterated the chronological material into an artificial calendar.
While there is plenty of evidence of the existence of the original material that was transliterated, there are not now in existence, any masoretic copies containing the original chronological information.
Where the Septuagint differs chronologically from the Masorete, it does so because it's references are provided in the original Solar year chronological reality.
This does not make the Bible unreliable. The fact that the chronological material was altered, does not rebutt HaShem's existence, or his ongoing personal involvement in the history of Humankind.
The ongoing process to discover the 'chronological' truth of the History of Israel, is nothing more than a search for 'the original material'.
R.P. BenDedek
Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com
To Compare and understand the concept of using an Artificial as opposed to Solar Year calendar go to
Josephus, The Jewish Historian & The KingsCalendar Special Offer
Few students of Jewish and Christian history could be unaware of the works of Flavius Josephus, for they contain some details of Jewish History not found in the Bible.
As valuable as they are to us today, Josephus' records do raise difficulties for historians. Nevertheless, as Cornfeld (1982) in his introduction to the Jewish Wars, wrote: '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...' [Cornfeld.G. (1982) Josephus: The Jewish War. Zondervan Publishing House Michigan].
One of the great problems found in Josephus' writings, is that same problem found in the Biblical records, that is, in the matter of chronology.
'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' contains a chapter within it devoted specifically to the deconstruction and reconstruction of Josephus' Chronological details.
The premise of 'The King's Calendar', is that between the 5th and 3rd centuries BC, as the ancient books were collected and collated, the historical chronological details were converted into a 'religious/sectarian' calendar. As these same people were largely responsible for the production of these records (the Bible as we know it did not arrive until centuries later), and as no former copies remained, their particular historical chronology passed down through history as the 'real and legitimate' chronology of Israel.
Some people of course reject this notion, for no other reason than it would appear to indicate that God was 'not in control' of the Scriptures. Such people admit to 'no errors' in the Bible. Yet any serious student of Biblical Chronology can find numerous discrepancies, that indicates the all too human influence in the transmission of the Scriptures. For Example:
2 Chronicles 36:5-10 and 2 Kings 23:36 – 24:17 claim that King Zedekiah was both King Jehoiachin's brother and uncle. Both cannot be correct.
1 Sam 13:1, literally reads that King Saul was only one year old when he began to reign and that he reigned two years. This, despite the fact that he had sons and committed suicide in the face of defeat by the Philistines.
2 Chronicles 22:1 and 2 Kings 8:26 make king Ahaziah, (the youngest son of Jehoram) to be both twenty-two and forty-two years of age when he ascended the throne. Both cannot be correct.
Those who indulge in 'Bibliolotry', cannot accept the validity of the Bible if they must admit to some errors in it, and are often quite inventive in explaining away quite obvious 'human' errors in the transmission of the records.
My purpose here today, is to state that when the chronologies of Josephus were examined in the same way as 'The King's Calendar' examines Biblical Chronology, Josephus' errors became not only clearly evident, but could be understood and reconstructed.
Many people who have examined the 'Free to Air' 'King's Calendar files at http://www.kingscalendar.com, (which does not provide access to research on Josephus), have expressed doubt about my claim to be able to deconstruct and reassemble Josephus' chronological material. For this reason I am making these files available for a limited time.
Both chapter 20 (Josephus) and Appendix 12 (Josephus time line chart) will be freely available online at Kingscalendar.com for a limited time, in order to provide all interested parties an opportunity to freely assess the validity of the KingsCalendar reconstruction of Josephus' chronologies. Chapter 20 is no longer available - June 2006
My decision to do this is twofold. Firstly it is in response to 'lay' inquiries about the likely success of the King's Calendar reconstruction of Josephus' material, and Secondly, it is to celebrate the 1st anniversary of the KingsCalendar being on sale on the internet.
Because there are numerous sites on the internet that claim to solve the problems involved in Biblical Chronology, I have received some disparaging feedback about my site. This was to be expected and does not upset me. What does upset me are those occasions on which I have received negative feedback from some who call themselves academics, who like to throw off at my work, but who can not argue against it's validity, in any rational way.
Although some have claimed that no chronological problems exist, and others claim that the chronological problems are impossible to solve by 'sole reliance' upon the Bible, no one to date has been able to debunk my research results.
On one Academic internet site my research was dismissed, (without investigation or rebuttal) because it had never been submitted to a 'peer review'.
But in fact, a number of institutions (including BiblioTheca Sacra, Dallas USA and Vetus Testamentum in Holland), turned down articles submitted to them, on the basis that my work was 'too technical' for their readership. (Rejection letters available to interested parties).
Being unable to have my papers 'peer reviewed', I finally set up my own website and published there.
So, for all those interested in understanding the Chronological Material found in the works of Josephus, as from November 1st 2005 and extending to December 31st 2005, the two files listed will be available, 'free to air'. Their direct links in the 'no frames' version are:
This article addresses just two small but connected issues in relation to the Biblical Exodus from Egypt.
The Hyksos - and -
Pharaoh Rameses II.
Josephus calculates the Time frame between
the Hyksos Expulsion and Rameses II
I have written elsewhere (and in Chapter 20 – Josephus) that when Josephus speaks of the Exodus he speaks merely of the going out from Egypt, and that this refers to the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, (not the Mosaic Exodus), calculated by the King's Calendar at 1554 BCE
In Flavius Josephus Against Apion Book 1 :15 Josephus provides a list of dates of the Egyptian Pharaohs from the time of that expulsion to the time of Rameses II. [From:The Works of Flavius Josephus Translated by William Whiston]
When you calculate the total of reigns to Rameses (which are provided in both year and months of reigns), there expires a total of 254 years.
If one calculates 254 years from 1554 BCE (Hyksos expulsion), one arrives at the year 1300 BCE.
When one searches for the commencement date for Rameses II, a variety of possible dates are provided, ranging from 1328 BCE to 1290 BCE.
Clearly, the archaeological evidence is able to be interpreted in a variety of ways, resulting in different conclusions.
However, the much maligned Josephus determines from extant records, that Rameses II commenced +/- a few months, in 1300 BCE.
Despite the current belief that Josephus' chronological data is incomprehensible, the King's calendar demonstrates that despite his carelessness, it is possible to deconstruct and reconstruct his chronological details.
To assist in your studies, for a Limited time Appendix 12 & 17 are freely available online.
R.P.BenDedek
To see how effective the King's Calendar method of synchronising the Biblical data is, SEE : Appendix 5: Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE
The Following is the Preamble to the article entitled: How long did King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon Reign? and has strong bearing on some comments made in the article above. What is often called Archaeological evidence, is just a jigsaw of opinion.
The Jigsaw Analogy: If you have ever done a jigsaw puzzle then you know that it is possible for a number of pieces to look like they fit, but it is not until you are down to the last few pieces, that you discover that some pieces that originally seemed to fit, were misplaced.
This article is devoted to demonstrating that pieces of the historical jigsaw in relation to Ancient Near Eastern History that were thought to fit the jigsaw, have actually been forced to fit; and many pieces thought by Historians to have been superfluous and which were consequently thrown away, actually do belong.
Note:
You will find nothing in this article by way of chronology or narrative, that contradicts the Egyptian, Assyrian or Babylonian Records of events that transpired during the period from 609 BCE to 562 BCE, the period covered in this article.
This article does not in any way dispute the Archaeological Evidence of any of the events listed herein.
PREFACE
The Stated aim of this article is to challenge many false academic assumptions which have been accepted by the general community as academic fact. In short, this article strives to demonstrate where the Academics got it wrong!
We sometimes tend to think that our knowledge of history is based on irrefutable evidence, but as pointed out by Sir Alan Gardiner (1961) [James Et.Al 1991 p.222] in reference to Egyptian History, our knowledge is based in a collection of rags and tatters. That there are probably many errors and circular arguments in relation to ancient history is attested to by many, including Colin Renfrew, Professor of Archaeology, Cambridge University (James Et. Al. 1991 : foreword pages.xiii-xv)
As pointed out by Peet. T.E. (1924. p 75): "Archaeology is not an exact science, and deals more often in probabilities and possibilities than in irrefutable demonstrations.'
Whilst it is understandable therefore that some conclusions might be occasionally incorrect, it remains a fact however that it is sometimes difficult for scholars to admit to errors. (Aharoni 1978, p.183). A good example of this is provided by James et.al. (1991, p.250) in 'Centuries of Darkness', which cites Mazar (1986, pp231/47) in relation to Mazar's preference for accepted dating despite his own evidence to the contrary.
Sir Charles Marston (1935, p.156) made similar comments in relation to prejudiced refutation of evidence in reference to potsherds from Jericho that indicated a 15th century Exodus. His point was that rather than change the then current academic opinion, the system of pottery dating indicating a 15th century Exodus was considered questionable. In short, the evidence itself was disbelieved in preference for current academic opinion.
Unfortunately however, there is a bigger problem than merely losing a little face at having to admit that some conclusion or other was incorrect. Miller and Hayes (1986, p.74 'Taking the Account as It Stands') whilst offering an honest and even-handed approach to their examination of various historical matters, offer us insights into some of the less than scientific approaches that are taken by some academics that lead one to speculate that for some, admitting that the scriptural record of history might be right, may be sufficient incentive to ensure that that Scriptural Record be summarily rejected.
James et.al. (1991, p.162) are quite straightforward in their criticisms of Academic "poor methodology, hypercritical treatment of Scripture, blindness, prejudice and a sectarian like rejection of the Biblical Record".
Such observations lead us to consider that some historians and archaeologists would rather provide us a factually incorrect history, than one which might cause us to give credence to anything recorded in the Bible.
What is hypocritical however is when many of these same Academics, quote the very Scriptures which they consider to be fictional, to support their many and various hypotheses.
In this article, through the use of a computer generated mathematical artificial calendar, (What is the King's Calendar?) I am going to demonstrate, that without any contradiction to any Ancient Historical Record, that the chronological data recorded in the Bible, for the period from 609 BCE to 586 BCE, is correct, and that some of the chronological conclusions reached by historians, are incorrect.
R.P. BenDedek
Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com
Newsletter No. 20
November 17th 2005
Is the Bible God Inspired or just the History of Israel?
This is an interesting question, and one that causes many people to enter into heated debate. A more interesting question however, would be, 'Are the ancient documents in the Bible reliable?'
When it comes to matters Biblical, there is a whole section of the Christian community that 'worships' the Bible like an idol, insisting that each and every word was virtually 'G-d dictated', or inspired to such an extent, that IT CAN CONTAIN NO ERRORS! They say this despite the very plainly obvious errors, such as 1 Samuel 13:1 "Saul was one year old when he commenced to reign and reigned two years". Their explanations for these types of occurrences ultimately contradict their basic premise, that there can be no errors in the Bible.
On the other hand, modern 'liberal' academics are just as fanatically evangelical in their rejection of the 'reliability' of the Biblical documents. For the one, the Bible is sacrosanct, and for the other, a second rate piece of historical fiction.
But when it comes to Biblical chronology, there can be no denying that there are a great number of problems within it. In touting their agendas, both the Academic and the Bible worshiper will indulge in 'arrogant' arguments designed to deceive the naive, and feed the ignorance of the listener.
My personal opinion is that if G-d did have such a powerful, lasting and personal hand in 'each and every word' recorded in the Bible, then he is fairly incompetent at delivering his message with clarity.
This does not mean however that I absolutely 'reject' the concept of Divine Biblical inspiration. I fully accept that the Biblical documents are a true historical record of Israel's national and religious history. I do not for one moment believe that these records are contrived or second rate, and nor do I believe that they were recorded and passed on by ignorant people. It is the contrary which I believe to be true.
Whether we believe the Biblical record to be G-d inspired or not, that the record as we have received it contains human errors of fact, is beyond all reasonable doubt. And why should they not contain some errors? The writings were collected and collated hundreds of years after the events that they record. The books of Kings and Chronicles plainly state that they are a collation of other works.
As for chronological errors, some are merely and clearly, 'transcription errors', whilst others obviously result from mathematical miscalculations.
But beyond these, there is a greater problem in understanding Biblical chronology.
Because the academic world cannot understand Biblical chronology, particularly the synchronous chronology of the Divided Kingdom period, they assume that the fault lies with the record, when in fact, the true fault lies with their simple inability to understand that chronological record.
The 'King's Calendar' contention is that the Biblical chronological details are not recorded in any system currently used or recognised. It is a system that has a specific origin, and that it was a very deliberate intent on the part of the ancients, to 'change or conceal' the true chronological history of Israel, substituting it with an 'artificial calendar'.
This concept is clearly beyond the ability of the Bible worshipers to entertain, because of its' heretical nature, and academic arrogance, being what that is, means that most modern Academics similarly react. So sure are they of the 'things that they do not know', that to even entertain such an idea, is truly beyond them.
Nevertheless, the reality of the proposition is demonstrably true.
Perhaps instead of arguing over whether the Bible is or is not, 'Infallible' or 'Inspired', we should be asking ourselves why it is that modern academics give less credence to the Bible's Chronological details than to other ancient documents.
If one believes that the Bible is G-d inspired, then it ought to be an obvious conclusion, that non-alignment between the Biblical Chronological information and History, results from either failure to correctly apply that information, or because our current knowledge of history is Erroneous.
On the other hand, if one does not believe that the Bible is G-d inspired, but that it contains the history of a nation and its people, written and compiled by qualified authors, commentators and redactors, then we ought to be able to conclude that the chronological information contained within it ought to be as trustworthy as any other ancient record, and its failure to synchronise with known history, results from either Our failure to correctly apply that information, or because our current knowledge of History is erroneous.
Both premises require us to conclude, that the academics have failed in their work. Either they don't understand the data, and so should not be sprouting off as though they do, or the things they tell us about ancient history are wrong.
If on the other hand we do not wish to dispense with the academic understanding of history, that is to say, if generally speaking, we accept that the academics are reasonably 'spot on' in their reconstruction of history, then we must conclude, that their failure to synchronise the Biblical chronological information with that history, results from their failure to apply the Biblical data correctly.
With this in mind, let me state quite clearly, that it is not only hypocritical, but deceitful for Academics to 'quote and otherwise use' the Bible, to support any of their findings.
Let me just put this another way for you. Ask yourself; "Was the information that now appears as 'the Bible', meant to be factually representative?"
If your answer is 'No!', then the Bible was not meant to be factually representative, and so Academics demonstrate a highly unscientific approach to history, when they use Scripture to support various archaeological and Historical propositions.
On the other hand, if your answer is 'Yes!", and the Bible was meant to be factually representative, then we must conclude that it either is still correct, or that it is not still correct.
If it is still in fact correct, then Academics who propose schemes that differ from Biblical Chronological projections, are just plain wrong and we can conclude that current historical perception and research is not reliable since it clearly conflicts with Biblical Chronology.
In this case archaeologists and historians are highly suspect in their research methods.
If the material was meant to be correct and still is, then Chronological conflict arises between the Bible and history, because the academics have failed to apply the Biblical Chronological information correctly, and we should be wary of listening to them.
If however, the information is no longer correct (for whatever reason), then modern Academics demonstrate a highly unscientific approach to history, when they quote Scripture to support various archaeological and Historical propositions. When they do this, they are quite clearly 'manipulating' the public. No matter how you look at it, Modern Academics are playing a 'self interested and self promoting' game, when they try to beguile readers by quoting from the Bible to support their findings.
Of course there is another proposition, which is that the Biblical data has become so corrupt through the transcription and transmission process, that while originally correct, the data today is no longer correct. If this were the case, it would be pointless for academics to jump on their soapboxes and quote the scriptures as 'proof' of this or that assertion.
Ultimately, we have to face the fact, that modern academics are involved in a deliberately deceptive manipulation of Biblical Texts, in order to get the gullible and the ignorant to accept their findings. If the Bible is a piece of 'rubbish' then academics should stop trying to manipulate people's religious beliefs, by quoting from it.
We need to ask and answer the question, 'Was the data meant to be correct, and is it still correct?' If we conclude that it is, 'despite all the indication to the contrary', then we must conclude that nobody understands the way the data is presented.
If this is our conclusion, then we must admit that the reason we don't understand it, derives from either our lack of knowledge concerning ancient Jewish Calendars and chronological recordings, or that the chronological information contained within the Historical Books has been presented in some 'unfamiliar' fashion.
Either way, Academics who use the Scriptures to 'prove' or back up their particular theories, are suspect to say the least, for logic dictates that you cannot use an 'unknown or not understood' system of mathematics, to prove anything.
If the academics have failed to understand ancient Jewish Calendars and Chronological recordings properly, then criticism of those records by Academics is unwarranted, and contradiction of them is unfounded. Criticism and use of such information is unscientific and demonstrates gross ignorance.
If on the other hand, the data has been presented in some unknown or unrecognised format, then Criticism and use of such information in its un-deciphered form is also unscientific and demonstrates gross ignorance.
However, if the Biblical data has been presented in an 'heretofore unknown' manner, which is to say, in some 'cypher', then it is logical to assume that what has been encrypted, ought to be able to be deciphered and understood, and any claim to have achieved such a 'deciphering or decoding', ought to be reviewed and subjected to scientific methods of testing.
It is the claim of the 'King's Calendar', that the Biblical Data as it appears, is not understood because it was recorded in a 'coded' form, and it has been our failure to understand this that has prevented us from discovering the truth. We have been presumptuous in believing that the Biblical redactors were obliged to record data in a way that fits our own perceptions of what is 'Rational' and 'Logical'.
As Davies (1992, The Mind of G-d. New York. Simon and Schuster p.225) points out, our concept of rational explanation is subjective, and even in its most refined and formalised sense, in mathematics, there is paradox and uncertainty (probability). 'There will always be', he says, 'truth that lies beyond, that cannot be reached from a finite collection of axioms. The search for a closed logical scheme that provides a complete and self consistent explanation for everything is doomed to failure
The most fundamental operational procedure of the 'King's Calendar', has been to ignore both the 'logical and illogical', both the 'apparent and real', and to investigate the outcomes of a mathematical hypothesis.
It is from this perspective then, that the 'King's Calendar' can declare, 'We now have the keys to understanding Biblical Chronology!', and it is why the 'King's Calendar' can also say with confidence, that 'scientific testing of this mathematical hypothesis' can definitively prove or disprove its' validity.
When the academics finally do 'validate' the King's Calendar hypothesis, the next question will then be, how many more pet theories can be foisted on the ignorant and unsuspecting public?
Legal Issues related to Chapter Seven of the King's Calendar
The First of 4 articles on the Rules of Evidence.
Prologue
The intention of this article is to offer a Polemical rebuttal of Academic methodology in reconstructing the history of Israel. A number of articles at KingsCalendar are devoted to academic error and poor methodology, but this first series on the Rules of Evidence, concentrates specifically on the legal processes related to reliability of Evidence.
The Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE. is an important event in relation to the Chronology of the Ancient Near East. The 'King's Calendar' position however, is that current academic attempt to link King Ahab of Israel to the Battle of Qarqar is based upon completely false foundations.
The 'King's Calendar' indicates that King Ahab of Israel died in 863 BCE, a decade prior to the Battle of Qarqar (853 BCE). Academics relying upon the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser III, maintain that King Ahab participated in the Battle. As we shall see, reliance on this piece of evidence is not only unjustifiable, but the process of doing so contradicts everything that the academic community tells us about Israel at that point in history.
This article is divided into the following sections:
A. THE BATTLE OF QARQAR 853 BCE
B. KURKH STELE OF SHALMANESER III
C. LEGAL EVIDENCE
D. WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE?
E. THE PROBLEM WITH EVIDENCE.
F. AN EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE:
G. EXPERT OPINION
H. BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Conclusion:
A. THE BATTLE OF QARQAR 853 BCE
1. Introduction
Derived from the archaeological evidence left to us, it has been determined that king Shalmaneser of Assyria, in the year 853 BCE, fought against a coalition of kings at Qarqar on the Orontes.
Ahab king of Israel is named in the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser as one of the leaders of this coalition. Although Shalmaneser claimed victory, the records indicate that the battle was probably a stand-off.
The significance of this battle is that despite this particular archaeological identification of Ahab, and current academic insistence that he died shortly after the battle, the 'King's Calendar' demonstrates that he died a decade earlier in 863 BCE.
"So what?", you ask, "It is just your theory against theirs!"
Well actually it is not! It is actually a legal argument based soundly on the principles of Law, specifically the laws relating to the giving of evidence, as practiced in (if no where else) the Australian Law Courts. The 'evidence' offered by historians for their chronological schemes, is 'false evidence', and under any other circumstance, would be unacceptable as 'legal proof' of anything at all.
B. KURKH STELE OF SHALMANESER III
The Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser III in the British Museum is the lynch pin upon which all current theories concerning the reign of King Ahab of Israel are hinged, and with good reason.
This archaeological record specifically names this King of Israel, as being one of the Kings in coalition against Shalmaneser, in the Battle of Qarqar, in 853 BCE.
This is what is referred to in law as, 'Direct Evidence'. An historical document has been offered into evidence by the prosecution, as legal evidence that 'proves' that a specific event occurred, and that the defendant is indeed, the person involved in that incident.
C. LEGAL EVIDENCE
In all matters to do with the proving of a point in a case of law, there are two "types of Legal evidence" that are introduced to the judges. These are: 'Direct Evidence' of the facts in contention, and 'Circumstantial Evidence' tending to demonstrate the verity of the facts presented to the court.
'Direct Evidence is evidence of the facts in issue themselves and will be constituted either by the testimony of a witness who perceived the event or the production of a legally admissible document which constitutes the fact in issue.'(Bates,1985,p.2)
'Circumstantial Evidence is evidence of facts which are not in issue, from which a fact in issue may be inferred. (Bates, 1985, p.2)
D. WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE?
What evidence do the historians present to prove that Ahab was at the Battle of Qarqar in 853BCE?
Interestingly enough, the evidence that they produce, exists in duplicate, with just one small detail missing in one of them; his name.
The Direct Evidence of Ahab's involvement in the Battle, comes from Shalmaneser's Monolith Inscription (Kurkh Stele), and together with a second record of these events, ('The Throne Base Inscription'), are direct evidences of 'A' fact, which is, that there was a battle at Qarqar, against a coalition of specified Kings.
The Bible records no such battle (which is neither here nor there), but were it to contain an account of this battle, it too would be considered 'direct evidence'.
E. THE PROBLEM WITH EVIDENCE.
'Evidence' by definition, is not something that we merely 'claim' is evidence.
While documents do constitute a form of legal evidence, in criminal and civil law cases, it is necessary to establish their reliability. [For legal issues in relation to documentary evidence Refer to Ligertwood, 1988, p.353]
Just because a Document in Evidence is 'Legitimate', that does not mean it is correct.
Documents, which are records of "Eyewitness Testimony", must not only be scrutinised to be certain that they have not been fabricated, but examined for 'bias'. They can in fact, be so subjective in their recounting of the details of some event, as to be ultimately untrustworthy.
As an example of this, if you go to Bates, 1985, p.2 citing Wooldridge v Sumner [1963] 2 Q.B. 43, you can find an account of twelve (12) qualified witnesses whose combined testimony could not render a precise account of what actually transpired in a particular witnessed incident.
While the 'evidence was genuine' and the 'eyewitnesses' reliable and trustworthy, the testimony they gave was ultimately too distorted by their own 'personal' perceptions. They were in fact, unreliable.
Succinctly, we should be warned not to take anything at face value, without proper investigation; and be aware that there is always the possibility that the evidence as presented, is fabricated, or results from a 'prejudiced' viewpoint.
In this case today, [The State of Current Opinion Vs The KingsCalendar], the "Direct Evidence" offered by the 'State', is the Kurkh Stele, in which it is plainly stated that Ahab was at the Battle.
F. AN EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE:
Shalmaneser's Monolith Inscription - Kurkh Stele records that:
a) Shalmaneser III defeated the coalition, which included Ahab of Israel
- AND -
b) It records the size and composition of the individual armies. Ahab provided 2,000 chariots and 10,000 foot soldiers.
a) Ahab's Involvement in the Battle
Ahlstrom (1993, p.578 Footnote 2) points out that a second record of this battle recorded on Shalmaneser's throne base fails to mention Ahab, indicating that he was not one of the leaders of the coalition. [He refers readers to Aharoni.Y. (1966) & Burns and Oates. p 336 and Bright. J.(1981) p. 243.]
He makes the assumption that the failure to mention Ahab on the Throne base inscription indicates that Ahab was not a leader in the coalition, without considering the possibility that Ahab was not in fact there. This is what happens when 'Assumptions' take the place of 'facts in Evidence'.
However the important point in law is that this failure to mention Ahab in the duplicate copy, indicates from a legal viewpoint, that there is no legally acceptable corroboration between the two documents with regard to Ahab's identity. (Refer to Bates, (1985, p.82) for an elaboration on the legal implications in 'corroboration'.)
Corroborating testimony must be independent.
This is not the case in relation to these two Assyrian Records.
Corroboration must directly indicate or implicate a direct relation to the issue in question.
In the case of the Throne Base inscription, its' record in relation to Ahab, does not corroborate.
IRRESPECTIVE OF THIS HOWEVER, is the fact that even if it did corroborate the Kurkh Stele's assertion, it could still not be considered corroboration, because corroborative testimony must be independently sourced.
In Short, of the Two Documents presented in evidence, only one mentions Ahab.
A matter may not be decided on the basis of only one witness - and -
A matter will be thrown out of court if two witnesses disagree with respect to basic facts.
b) The Size of Ahab's Army
The size of Ahab's army as recorded in the Kurkh Stele is incompatible with the Archaeological evidence, particularly in relation to the number of his chariots. Its' numerical claim indicates that Ahab 'alone', had an army of equal size to that of the Assyrians. This is assumed to be a scribal error. [Ahlstrom (1993, p.578 Footnote 1, Citing Na'aman.M. 1976 pp89-106)]
Not only do the two documents disagree with each other, but 'the State's' own 'independent' evidence is, that the testimony of their witness is either deliberately or accidentally erroneous.
Refer to: :Rule 902. Self-authentication : Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility in relation to both authenticity and accuracy of documents.
Under these circumstances, the legal requirement would be to throw out 'the evidence', because it is neither effective as evidence nor effective as a witness to an event.
In this case, if errors exist in one section of the evidence, then the defense counsel can claim that errors exist in other sections of the evidence. It can then be asserted that not only is the size of Ahab's army incorrect, but Ahab's identity as well. The legality of the evidence is called into question.
Another thing to bring to your attention in relation to legal evidence, is that sometimes, third parties are called in to give their 'expert opinion' on the reliability of certain evidence.
When it comes to expert opinion about the content of the Kurkh Stele, the experts have differing opinions. [Ahlstrom, citing Aharoni and Bright, maintains that Ahab was not a leader in the coalition but Miller and Hayes (1986, p.270) disagree.]
From this academic disagreement, we learn an important lesson; that academics, and especially experts, often differ in their opinions concerning the same material presented them.
G. EXPERT OPINION
If the claims mentioned above are presented as being based upon 'expert opinion', it becomes obvious that the facts surrounding this historical event are not readily apparent, and that what is offered is not 'fact' but 'opinion' or 'assumptions'. [For a legal definition of 'expert' see Freckelton 1987, p.18 Quoting: Order 34 Rule 2 (2) of the Australian Federal Court Rules].
1) Presumption:
Presumption and assumption are generally speaking, synonymous. In law, presumptions cannot be given concrete value. That we believe (presume or assume) that something is so, is insufficient in law to justify legal 'action'.
Presumption and assumption are not permitted as evidence in legal issues. (See Bates, 1985, p.46)
Opinions, Assumptions and Presumptions are not facts in relation to evidence. [For a sociological explanation of why presumption is often accepted as fact, see Bates, 1985, p.46]
Presumption can rightly be described as an attempt to establish as a fact something for which no legal evidence or proof exists.
2. Opinion
A clear connection may be seen between 'Opinion' and 'subjective inferences', which like presumption and assumption, are inadmissible in court. [Ligertwood (1988, p.284) in discussing 'opinion evidence' makes it clear, that opinion is an attempt to establish a fact from other facts]
Archaeologists and historians must be permitted their opinions; to draw inferences from fragmentary evidence, but they cannot, by commission or omission, be allowed to pass off opinions, as 'actual evidence of the facts' in question.
3. Partiality
In law, expert witnesses are not permitted to become involved in final decision making with regard to the 'fact' of a disputed matter or issue. [Gobbo. Et.Al.(1979, p.430) Cross on Evidence 2nd Edition. Sydney. Aust. Butterworths Pty.Ltd.]
The exception occurs when there is no other way of concluding the matter. In such cases, experts must be both highly qualified and impartial. This is clearly not the case when it comes to this particular issue of Ahab's presence or otherwise at the Battle of Qarqar.
It is paramount to Academic interests, that Ahab be at the Battle of Qarqar, for it is the lynchpin upon which their chronologies turn. They are anything but impartial.
H. BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Criminal cases require matters to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt exists as to a person's guilt, the 'benefit of the doubt' is required to be given. It is also the duty of judges to draw attention to 'legal' weaknesses in evidence. (Ligertwood, 1988, p.111)
When we rely on the 'testimony' of 'highly qualified expert witnesses', the question of "doubt" becomes clouded by our inability to assess the validity of the testimony.
This is especially so in cases in which 'experts' offer 'conflicting opinion'. [See: Freckelton.I.R. (1987) The Trial of the Expert. A Study of Expert Evidence and Forensic Experts. Melbourne.Aust.Oxford University Press. p.165. : see also p.137 for his discussion on cognitive and affective decision making processes in relation to decisions made by jurors. Refer also to: Vinson.D.E. (How to Persuade Jurors: 1985)]
In Short, the 'experts' have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluation of the evidence. They know that the evidence they present in support of their claim is untrustworthy, they even demonstrate how and where it is untrustworthy, but in the final analysis, they insist that the evidence is reliable.
See also: Legal Information Institute : Federal Rules of Evidence : ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS - may testify if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.]
Conclusion:
The only evidence that places King Ahab of Israel at Qarqar in 853 BCE, comes from the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser III. This Stele finds no support in the Syrian record, is repudiated by the Biblical Chronologies and Narratives, and finds no corroboration in the Throne Base Inscription.
In Part Two, we will continue with a discussion on the various evidential witnesses and discuss the 'legal acceptability or otherwise of certain evidence'.
The Jury is Back:
The Verdict is Given to the Judge:
THE 'STATE'S' EVIDENCE IS THROWN OUT!
InPart2. we will look at The Documentary Evidence. There are only five (5) sources that qualify as legally valid witnesses to the historical event known as the Battle of Qarqar. They are:
i) The Witness of the Biblical Narrative
ii) The Witness of the Syrian Documents
iii) The Witness of the Stele of Mesha
iv) The Witness of the Kurkh Stele and Throne base Inscription
v) The Testimony of the Expert Witness of Archaeology.
Related off site article:
Principles of Evidence as applied in the Quest for Religious truth By Henry Hock Guan Teh
R.P. BenDedek
Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com
Legal Bibliography
Bates.F. (1985) Principles of Evidence. 3rd Edition. Sydney The Law Book Company Limited.
Freckelton. I.R. (1987) The Trial of the Expert. A Study of Expert Evidence and Forensic Experts. Melbourne.Aust.Oxford University Press.
Ligertwood. A.L.C. [ 1988 ] Australian Evidence. First Edition. Butterworths P/l. North Ryde
Vinson.D.E. (1985) How to Persuade Jurors. American Bar Association Journal 72, 76
Gobbo. J.A., Byrne. D., Heydon J.D. (1979) Cross on Evidence 2nd Edition. Sydney. Aust. Butterworths Pty.Ltd.
Vinson.D.E. (1985) How to Persuade Jurors. American Bar Association Journal 72, 76
The intention of this article is to continue to offer a Polemical rebuttal of Academic methodology in reconstructing the history of Israel, specifically in relation to the Presence of King Ahab of Israel at 'The Battle of Qarqar' in 853 BCE.
Last week's article concluded that while there are two 'Direct Documentary Evidences' used to support the Academic contention that King Ahab fought at the Battle of Qarqar, in fact, their testimonies conflict with each other in that one completely omits the 'fact in issue'. Additionally, we saw that even if they agreed, they could not legally be considered 'corroborative' evidence, as corroborative evidence must be independent evidence.
Furthermore, it was demonstrated that the testimony of 'expert witnesses' does not qualify as either independent or unquestionably impartial.
In fact, no legally satisfactory evidence has been provided to justify the assertion that Ahab was at the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE.
Today, we will continue to look at the evidence from the perspective of 'legally acceptable evidence'.
A. The Witnesses - Documentary Evidence.
There are only five (5) sources that qualify as legally valid witnesses to the historical event known as the Battle of Qarqar. They are:
i) The Witness of the Biblical Narrative
ii) The Witness of the Syrian Documents
iii) The Witness of the Stele of Mesha
iv) The Witness of the Kurkh Stele and Throne base Inscription
v) The Testimony of the Expert Witness of Archaeology.
i) The Witness of the Biblical Narrative
a) Direct Evidence
The bible does not provide any information at all regarding Ahab's involvement in the coalition against Shalmaneser III. Rule 602. Lack of Personal Knowledge
That the Bible does not remark on this event, would normally disqualify it from giving evidence. However it does provide' circumstantial evidence'. ['Circumstantial Evidence is evidence of facts which are not in issue, from which a fact in issue may be inferred. (Bates, 1985, p.2) ]
We could discuss the Bible's 'silence' about this event, from several perspectives, but from a 'legal' perspective, the only thing that counts, is that the documentary evidence it provides, 'does not support' the accusation made.
Legally, this is a 'neutral' event, equivalent to "sorry your honour, I can offer no testimony, or information that speaks directly to the issue of the Battle of Qarqar itself".
Using this lack of testimony to their advantage, historians make a presumption (attempting to prove a point without evidence), that this silence results from a deliberate 'tampering' with the evidence; that the redactors deliberately 'omitted' the details of this event.
This allegation is made without any 'direct, circumstantial or corroborative evidence' indicating that the accusation is true. It has no foundation or support in law, and is unacceptable in a court of Law. "He who accuses, must prove" their allegation.
The allegation is made based upon a presumption that despite its' demonstrable inaccuracies, and failure to find corroboration in any other 'evidence', the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser III is a reliable witness and ought to be accepted as authentic and reliable.
One cannot argue from Silence. This argument is fallacious and completely unacceptable in a court of law. While it is always possible that the lack of any Biblical record indeed indicates that the redactors chose not to include it, it is equally true and possible, that the failure to include this event indicates that there was no such event to record during Ahab's lifetime.
While no 'expert' can legally prove that the record of Ahab's actual involvement is definitely 'true and accurate', given what is known of the inaccuracies in these Assyrian records, it can be legally proved that there is reasonable doubt as to the probable reliability of the Kurkh Stele's identification of Ahab.
b) Circumstantial Evidence
The Biblical narrative is direct archaeological documentary evidence, and while it may not provide 'Direct Evidence' for or against Ahab's participation at Qarqar, it does however provide 'Circumstantial Evidence' against it.
The Kurkh Stele identifies Ahab at the battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE and The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser identifies Jehu as the King in Israel who paid tribute to him in 841 BCE.
Between these two events 12 years transpire, however the Biblical chronologies indicate quite clearly, that between the death of Ahab and the succession of Jehu, 14 solar years elapse.(Actually Jehu ascended in 849 BCE - so that there were only 4 years in which to fit the 14 years mentioned. This is a matter for a different article).
If Jehu ascended in 842-41 BCE, as most academics commonly state (albeit unsubstantiated), then Ahab must have died in 856-55 BCE, two to three years prior to the battle of Qarqar.
The Bible therefore can be seen to offer 'circumstantial' evidence, to discredit the claim of the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser, that Ahab was at the battle in 853 BCE.
ii) The Witness of the Syrian Documents
There are no extant documents other than the Assyrian, which provide any details of the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE.
If one of three nations leaves contradictory, erroneous and uncorroborated records of events involving those three nations, and there is no reference to such events recorded in the annals and histories of those nations, then then is no legal reason to accept the only record (alleged documentary evidence) of the event. Rule 806. Attacking and Supporting Credibility of declarant The credibility of the Kurkh Stela may be attacked in the same was as if it were a personal witness in the courtroom.
Historians, commencing with the illogical assumption that the Kurkh Stele is (despite errors of fact) dependable, presume that the absence of Syrian records, that is to say, that the absence of evidence does not negate the validity of their assertion. They are of course entitled to their opinion.
However in law, there is a little thing called 'precedence', and in relation to the claims of one Hormuzd Rassam concerning 'Balawat', academic precedence required that when there is an absence of evidence to support an assertion, the assertion must be rejected. [In all fairness however it must be pointed out that he was ultimately justified. British Museum. (1970) Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities: Assyrian Palace Reliefs p. 16].
In effect, academics demand the right to 'have their cake and eat it too!.
In a court of law, he who accuses, must offer the proof of the validity of the accusation, beyond what a reasonable person might doubt.
If the witness of the Syrian record is silent, offering no proof or evidence, Academics ought also to be silent. Whatever evidence or proof is introduced in evidence, it must be 'substantial', 'real', and 'concrete'. It must never take substance from silence.
iii) The Witness of the Stele of Mesha
There is no direct evidence provided by this witness to substantiate the claims of the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser, that Ahab was at the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE.
However, it does provide 'Circumstantial evidence' that Ahab could not have been at the Battle of Qarqar.
This Stele, known also as the Moabite Stone, appears to claim that up until halfway through Ahab's reign, the Omride dynasty had exercised dominion over the land of Medeba (Moab). (Miller & Hayes, 1986, p. 283)
The direct evidence available to us concerning the validity of Mesha's claim, and his rebellion from Israel's sovereignty, is to be found in the Book of King's [2 Kings 1:1 & 3:4-27].
a) The Direct Documentary Evidence of Mesha's Stele states that:
Omri Occupied Medeba
Omri and his son ruled over it 40 years. It does not say Omri and Ahab, but Omri and his Son.
That rule ended halfway through the reign of Omri's son.
b) The Direct Documentary Evidence of the Book of Kings states that:
After the Death of Ahab, Moab rebelled against Israel.2 Kings 1:1
When Ahab died, the King of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. So King Jehoram marched out of Samaria at that time and mustered all Israel. 2 Kings 3:4-27
We note Two important points here:
1. Mesha's Stele maintains that the rebellion occurred midway through Omri's Son's reign.
2. In contradiction, the Book of King's maintains that the rebellion occurred during Omri's Grandson's reign.
The prima facie evidence suggests contradiction between the two accounts. However, when one examines the issue from the perspective of an already established Academic fact and precedence [See Bright, 1981, p.248, footnote 56], that the term 'Son of' frequently means 'descendant of', we can see that Mesha's reference to Omri's son, refers not to Ahab, but to Omri's grandson Jehoram.
These two accounts therefore corroborate each other.
The 'King's Calendar' indicates that Omri commenced to reign in November of 894 BCE (effectively 893 BCE). If we apply the details from the Biblical Narrative and the Moabite Stone to this date, the following picture emerges.
i) Omri's reign commences November 894 BCE
ii) Israel has suzerainty over Moab 40 (solar) years (893 - 853 BCE)
iii) Omri and his son Ahab reign 31 solar years ( 894 to 863 BCE)
iv) Mesha's rebellion occurs in 854 BCE Nine (9) solar years after Ahab's death.
v) This is the year before the Battle of Qarqar if the 40 years is 'exact/literal'
vi) If the 40 years is an approximate, then the event may have occurred after the Battle of Qarqar.
vii) 2 Kings 3:4-27 implicitly involves Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, therefore Mesha's first rebellion can have occurred no earlier or later than 862 BCE and 857 BCE respectively (Jehoram's First year and Jehoshaphat's death), which is between four (4) and nine (9) years earlier than Qarqar.
viii) In 849/48 BCE, four (4) years after the battle of Qarqar, the House of Omri and Ahab perished (in both Judah and Israel). With the deaths of Ahaziah of Judah and Jehoram of Israel, Israel (Omri's house) perished forever.
Not only do these two documentary evidences corroborate each other, but they demonstrate that Ahab had been dead a decade prior to the Battle of Qarqar.
Therefore, the Moabite Stone and the Bible, both act as witnesses providing circumstantial evidence contradicting the testimony of the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser. [As Dixon. J. put it in the case of Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367 at 375: "If an issue is to be proved by circumstantial evidence, facts subsidiary to or connected with the main fact must be established from which the conclusion follows as a rational inference".' (Bates, 1985, p.2)]
iv) The Witness of the Kurkh Stele and Throne Base Inscription
Already discussed in the last issue, we have already seen that these two 'direct documentary evidences' do not corroborate. Furthermore, there is every reason to be suspicious of them.
v) The Expert Witness Testimony of Archaeology
Academic Reliance upon the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser III has as it's foundation, an inherent distrust of the Bible. Finding support in the Biblical Records only as a last resort, Academics commence their chronological reconstructions for this time period, with a presumption that the Bible is a 'non-historical' document, and does not constitute 'evidence' within the legal definition of the word.
They automatically and without question, accept the Kurkh Stele's assertion of Ahab's Presence, while rejecting the Kurkh Stele's assertions with regard to the size of Ahab's army; and realising that Jehu must be on the throne of Israel by 841 BCE, they kill Ahab off very quickly after the Battle of Qarqar, thus leaving Biblical Chronology in a shambles.
This methodology is not only an unsound and an unscientific approach to evidence gathering and examination, but derives from unsubstantiated 'bias'. The direct documentary evidence of the Biblical Narrative is rejected, in favour of 'one' and only one piece of 'admittedly dubious' evidence, that places Ahab at Qarqar.
Academics promote the claims of the Kurkh Stele, despite the following academic objections to it:
a) Shalmaneser's boast was without foundation - It was pure propaganda. (Ahlstrom, 1993, p.579)
b) There is no mention of Tribute being paid - justifying the belief that Shalmaneser did not obtain victory
c) Shalmaneser did not return for four years - indicating a lack of victory and possible severe losses
d) Shalmaneser credits Ahab the Israelite 'with a larger chariot force than all of his allies combined, and even more than Shalmaneser himself claims to have deployed.' (Miller & Hayes, 1986,p.270)
e) Despite Ahab's superior force, Israel was but a satellite state of Aram Damascus (Ahlstrom, 1993, p.576)
f) Despite Ahab's superior force, and prominent position, he is not mentioned in the throne base inscription
g) Judah and Edom did not participate in the Battle because they were farther removed from the Assyrian threat (Miller & Hayes, 1986, p.270). How much farther is Judah from Israel?
CONCLUSION:
The only evidence to place Ahab at Qarqar, comes from the Kurkh Stele. This Stele finds no support in the Syrian record, it is repudiated by the Biblical Narrative and Moabite Stone, and finds no corroboration in the Throne Base Inscription. Furthermore, the expert testimony of archaeologists and historians, is that most of the information contained in the Stele is fabricated.
The 'King's Calendar' which provides precise chronological information for the Kings of Israel and Judah during this time period, is not an opinion (an inference drawn from facts), nor a presumption (an attempt to prove without evidence).
The 'King's Calendar' is direct, documentary, mathematical evidence, that the chronological data in the biblical narrative is encoded, reliable and reasonably accurate. As such, it is highly susceptible to falsification (disproof). This means that it can be tested to see if it is True or False.
InPart 3. we are going to look at the circumstancial evidence provided in the Bible. For Instance:
If Jehoshaphat commenced reigning in the 4th year of Ahab
And Ahab reigned 22 years,
Then Ahab died in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat
If Ahaziah of Judah was slain in 842 BCE (as Academics Claim) after one year of reign,
And Ahaziah's father Jehoram reigned 8 years prior to that,
Then the 18th year of Jehoshaphat's 25 year reign was in 856/857 BCE
So Ahab died before the Battle of Qarqar
Related off site article:
Principles of Evidence as applied in the Quest for Religious truth By Henry Hock Guan Teh
R.P. BenDedek
Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com
Academic Newsletter No 23.
Laws of Evidence & Archaeology Series
Part Three.
"The Battle of Qarqar - 853 BCE"
Legal Issues related to Chapter Seven of the King's Calendar
The intention of this article is to offer a Polemical rebuttal of Academic methodology in reconstructing the history of Israel.
Currently Historians insist that King Ahab of Israel was at the Battle of Qarqar which occurred in 853 BCE. In Parts 1 and 2 of this series, it was demonstrated that the direct evidence that they offer is (legally) unacceptable direct evidence, and it was further concluded, that there is no 'circumstantial evidence' to support the claim that Ahab was at the Battle.
The 'King's Calendar' chronology for Ancient Israel insists that Ahab died in 863 BCE, a decade prior to the Battle of Qarqar (853 BCE).
In this article we will discuss circumstantial evidence that rebuts the testimony of the Kurkh Stela of Shalmaneser III in its' claim that Ahab was at the Battle.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
'Circumstantial Evidence is evidence of facts which are not in issue, from which a fact in issue may be inferred. (Bates, 1985, p.2)
In this article some direct evidence in relation to the reign of Ahab will be provided to demonstrate that the claim made by the Kurkh Stela is incorrect. ['Direct Evidence is evidence of the facts in issue themselves and will be constituted either by the testimony of a witness who perceived the event or the production of a legally admissible document which constitutes the fact in issue.'(Bates,1985,p.2)]
DIRECT EVIDENCE:
The Biblical Documents are direct documentary evidence of certain historical details, which, unless successfully rebutted, must be accepted as 'factual'.
It is accepted within the academic community that the Battle of Qarqar occurred in 853 BCE, and that King Jehu of Israel commenced his reign in 842/841 BCE. Furthermore, the Biblical Story relating to Jehu usurping power in Israel, and killing the King's of Israel and Judah (Jehoram and Ahaziah) is accepted without question. [We will come back to this later.]
All academic chronological reconstructions are based upon the PRESUMPTIVE ACCEPTANCE of the 'factual truth' of the Biblical assertion in relation to Jehu, Jehoram and Ahaziah, even though there is no corroborating evidence to indicate that the story is true.[Refer to Bates, (1985, p.82) for an elaboration on the legal implications in 'corroboration'. ]
If it is accepted that the story of Jehu slaying both of these Kings is true, then unless evidence is provided to indicate that other parts of the story are false, the balance of the data must be accepted as true.
BALANCE OF THE DATA: KINGS OF JUDAH
The Direct Documentary Evidence that provides us with details about the deaths of Jehoram and Ahaziah, also provides the following details about them.
1. Jehoshaphat : 2 Chronicles 17:1 & 20:31 and 1 Kings 22:41 - succeeded his father Asa, commencing his reign in Ahab's 4th year and reigned 25 years (2 Chron 20:31 & 1 Kings 22:42)
2. Jehoram of Judah : 2 Chronicles 21:1 & 2 Kings 8:17 - succeeded his father Jehoshaphat, and reigned 8 years. [He was also co-reigned with his father. This is evidenced in the Septuagint 4 Kings 8:16 and 2 Kings 1:17 which indicates that Jehoram of Israel came to the throne in the second year of Jehoram of Judah, who commenced in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat.]
3. Ahaziah of Judah : 2 Chronicles 22:2 - succeeded his father Jehoram of Judah and reigned one year. Together with King Jehoram of Israel, he was murdered by Jehu 2 Kings 8:24,27.
THE MATH:
If Ahaziah of Judah was slain in 842 BCE after he had reigned one year,
Then Ahaziah commenced in 843 BCE
If Ahaziah's father Jehoram reigned 8 years prior to that,
Then Jehoram commenced in 851 BCE
If Jehoram's father Jehoshaphat reigned for 25 years prior to that
Then Jehoshaphat commenced in 876 BCE.
If Ahaziah of Judah was slain in 842 BCE
If the Battle of Qarqar occurred in 853 BCE [11 years earlier]
If between them Ahaziah and Jehoram reigned 9 years, [commencing 2 years after 853 BCE]
If Jehoshaphat reigned 25 years
Then the Battle of Qarqar occurred in the 23rd year of Jehoshaphat.
If the Battle of Qarqar occurred in the 23rd year of Jehoshaphat of Judah
If Jehoshaphat commenced reigning in the 4th year of Ahab
If Ahab reigned 22 years,
Then Ahab died in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat [22 - 4 = 18]
So Ahab died 5 years before the battle of Qarqar.
RESULT:
The Circumstantial evidence of the Biblical Chronological data demonstrates that Ahab could not have been involved in the Battle of Qarqar in 853.
The evidence upon which the Academics build their Historical reconstructions, is 'false' evidence, that can be demonstrated to be incorrect.
"Oh! You can't be serious! You don't honestly expect us to believe that that Biblical mishmash of confusing chronological data can be relied upon do you?"
'Actually I don't expect you to 'believe' anything other than the evidence! As for the mishmash of chronological evidence, what evidence can be offered to prove that the Bible is unreliable?
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING WRONG AND UNRELIABLE.
In Part 1 of this series, the following statement appears:
At Bates, 1985, p.2 citing Wooldridge v Sumner [1963] 2 Q.B. 43, you can find an account of twelve (12) qualified witnesses whose combined testimony could not render a precise account of what actually transpired in a particular witnessed incident. While the 'evidence was genuine' and the 'eyewitnesses' reliable and trustworthy, the testimony they gave was ultimately too distorted by their own 'personal' perceptions. They were in fact, unreliable. See 'Inadmissible Evidence
There is a difference between being wrong and and being unreliable. A reliable witness can testify to a witnessed event without presenting a demonstrably 'correct' version of the event.
All historical documents are susceptible to presenting testimony that is not demonstrably correct. Some historical documents are of course forgeries, whilst others are incompetently composed, misinformed or biased.
In the case of the Historical Direct Evidence Documents upon which historians rely, documents like the the Bible, Mesha's Stela, the Kurkh Stela of Shalmaneser III and the Babylonian Chronicles (Wiseman 1961), not only are they written from the perspectives of the writers, but their methods of chronological recording are all different.
The Historical Documents of Israel however, are the only documents which present history in a truly linear and synchronistic fashion, and are therefore more susceptible to scientific verification and falsification. As such, they, of all the historical records, ought to be the most reliable.
Whether or not you believe in 'Divine Inspiration', the historical records of the Bible cannot have been written with any less intention to be factually correct than any other historical record, unless that is, that you commence with the assumption, [Presumption and assumption are not permitted as evidence in legal issues. See Bates, 1985, p.46 ] that they were deliberately meant to 'deceive'.
REDACTORIAL INTENT: BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY MAKES NO SENSE.
If the Biblical chronological details, like other ancient records, were meant to accurately reflect the history of the nation, then we must conclude that the fact that they do not 'appear' to do so now, results from either:
a) Corruption of the documents (Demonstrably untrue!)
b) Historians have misrepresented most of Ancient History (Demonstrably untrue!)
c) The Documents are not presented in a fashion with which we are familiar.
Unless we 'illegally' (from the perspective of the Rules of Evidence) terminate the discussion by insisting that Israel's historical documents were meant to deceive and are therefore not reliable, we must determine that the reason that the data does not now appear to be correct, is that it is presented in an unfamiliar fashion.
The King's Calendar of course, is all about demonstrating that the fashion in which it was presented is now understood, and can be seen to align with history.
Nevertheless, it does contain errors. Errors of which I'm sure, some academics reading this article, will have wanted to point out. Let's deal with those 'errors', from the perspective of 'intent' and 'evidence'.
CHRONOLOGICAL ERRORS:
[The purpose here is to argue the 'The Law, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology', not 'justify' the King's Calendar chronological reconstruction, some of which may be found HERE
One of the popular and of course 'ignorant' proclamations about the Bible, is that it is full of contradictions. I don't believe in the modern 'religious fundamentalistic' concept of Biblical Infallibility, but I can say, that generally speaking, most complaints about Biblical contradictions arise because people are 'ignorant' about the 'background' of the subject over which they pontificate.
Errors in testimony can arise, because people simply make mistakes when they talk/write. For instance: Ahaziah, the youngest son of Jehoram (2 Chronicles 22:1), is said to have been 22 years of age when he ascended the throne (2 Kings 8:26), despite the obvious error in Chronicles which makes him 42 years old. It is nothing more than a transcription error.
People get confused, read the wrong name, speak the wrong amount, or use an ambiguous phrase. Being wrong, is not the same as being unreliable. The chronological data provided in Israel's Historical documents is demonstrably accurate, albeit, encoded in an artificial system of time reckoning.
In relation to Ahaziah of Judah, Jotham of Judah and Jehoram of Israel however, there are a number of scriptural references that seem particularly contradictory. The ignorant (though from bias) have ignorance as an excuse for disparaging the Historical record. The Academics of course do not.
A number of chronological references which appear contradictory, are demonstrated within the 'King's Calendar reconstruction of chronological events' to in fact be correct. For Example:
2 Kings 8:25 Ahaziah of Judah commenced in the 12th year of Jehoram of Israel
2 Kings 9:29 Ahaziah of Judah commenced in the 11th year of Jehoram of Israel
Some apparent errors are in fact, errors. Jehoram of Israel for instance, is accorded a 12 year reign 2 Kings 3:1. This error also compounds some other apparent errors, but via the King's Calendar reconstruction, it can be demonstrated "how and why" the error occurred.
Some apparently contradictory references merely reflect different time recording methods. One method is the standard calendrical system of the day, and the other is the artificial calendar. Compare Appendix 5and 13
Some apparent contradictions are not the the result of 'real errors' and the compounding factor of those errors {example: Jehoram of Israel reigned 12 years}, but appear as contradictions because they are recorded from two differing methods of presenting not only differing calendrical systems but differing forms of information presentation.
For Example:
2 Kings 8:16 Jehoram of Judah commenced to reign in the 5th year of Jehoram of Israel
2 Kings 1:17 Jehoram of Israel commenced to reign in the second year of Jehoram of Judah.
While the King's Calendar demonstrates both references to be correct, the result of this apparent conundrum is that some academics have come to believe that the two Jehoram's are in fact the same person ruling the two countries and counting regnal years from his commencement date in each.
This would be like someone maintaining that George Bush became President of America in 1989, had two wives, (Dorothy then Laura), and twice invaded Iraq.
It might be understandable that someone gets confused, but if you do your homework, you ought to see the differences between the two accounts of the two different people.
If King Jehu killed both Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah, and, Jehoram of Judah and Jehoram of Israel are the same person, then Ahaziah of Judah who was killed at the same time as Jehoram of Israel, would have been no other than his son. To make this assertion would be to defy all logical considerations about 'historical recording processes', unless at the same time, it was to be asserted that later in history, someone deliberately erased the 'evidence' relating to the true 'facts'.[Refer Miller & Hayes 1986.p.59 re:scepticism of all things biblical]
When you examine the historical evidence, the truth can easily be seen, and if you logically follow some 'contrary academic explanations' that are offered without 'evidence', the fanciful theory ultimately turns into a 'conspiracy theory', that defies both evidence and logic.
CONCLUSION:
The Circumstantial evidence in the direct documentary evidence of Israel's Historical Documents, demonstrates that the claim of the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser III is wrong. Furthermore, it demonstrates that 'prejudice and bias' unduly influence evidentiary investigations undertaken by archaeologists and historians.
In Part 4 of this series, we will turn our attention to the chronological significance of the reign of Jehu of Israel.
InPart 4. we are going to look at some of the alleged facts upon which Academics rely in creating their chronology for this time period.
The first 'fact' of which to be aware is that traditional chronologies for Ahab, Ben-Hadad II and Hazael, have all depended on the Kurkh Stele, and the dating for the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE., and the Biblical Narratives, together with the Moabite Stone, and other circumstantial evidence, discredits the 'opinion' that Ahab was at the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE and that he died soon thereafter.
Related off site article:
Principles of Evidence as applied in the Quest for Religious truth By Henry Hock Guan Teh
R.P. BenDedek
Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com
Academic Newsletter No 24.
Laws of Evidence & Archaeology Series
Part Four.
Archaeological and Biblical Evidence
The Law, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology Part 4 continues on from where Part 3 left off in relation to Legal Issues related to "The Battle of Qarqar - 853 BCE" - and - Includes Issues related to Kings Calendar Chapter Nine : 883 BCE. to 756 BCE. The Ancient Near East)
Prologue
The intention of this article is to offer a Polemical rebuttal of Academic methodology in reconstructing the history of Israel.
Currently Historians insist that King Ahab of Israel was at the Battle of Qarqar which occurred in 853 BCE. In Parts 1, 2 and 3 of this series, it was demonstrated that the direct evidence that they offer is (legally) unacceptable direct evidence, and that the circumstantial evidence rebuts the claim that Ahab was at the Battle.
The 'King's Calendar' chronology for Ancient Israel insists that Ahab died in 863 BCE, a decade prior to the Battle of Qarqar (853 BCE).
In this article we will discuss the issues pertinent to the current Academic perception of events in Israel and Syria during this particular century, and will commence where Part 3 left off, with the deaths of Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah.
WHEN DID JEHORAM AND AHAZIAH DIE?
According to the chronology of the King's Calendar, whose chronological reconstruction is calculated backward in time from the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, Jehoram and Ahaziah commenced their respective final years, (in both Artificial and Solar calendars), in Nisan of 849 BCE.
Since the purpose of this chapter is not to justify the King's Calendar chronology [in a court of Law the two sides do not argue at the same time], but to offer rebuttal to current academic opinion [referred to here as 'The State of Opinion'], no argument is offered as to why the King's Calendar date for Jehoram and Jehu should be accepted. [The chronology can be visually appreciated by going to Appendix 5 and comparing its' presentation with the references provided in Appendix 13]
The following chart provides visualization of the reigns of the Kings of Israel and Judah, so that you can appreciate the King's Calendar perspective.
From this chronological position, it can be seen that Ahab was not at the Battle of Qarqar. More importantly, acceptance of the King's Calendar chronology as it pertains to Israel and Judah, would require a change in the current academic position in relation to events in Syria.
According to Josephus [Antiquities 9:6:1] Hazael of Syria came to the throne prior to Jehoram's death. [Bright, 1981, p.254 - places Hazael c. 842 BCE - 806 BCE]
Since the King's Calendar puts Jehoram's death at 849 BCE., current academic opinion that Hazael of Syria commenced to reign around 842/841 BCE. can be seen to be incorrect.
There are three important reasons for putting Hazael on the throne around 842/841 BCE.
The first is that it 'reasonably' allows Ahab to be at the Battle of Qarqar, 'if he died immediately thereafter' (so that Jehoram could rule and die before Hazael came to the throne of Syria).
The second reason, is that the first documentary evidence of his reign, is dated to this period. It is known that Hazael withstood Shalmaneser's siege of Damascus in 841 BCE. (Judaica, 1972, Vol 7, p.1516).
This, as Professor D.J. Wiseman of the British Academy put in writing to me many years ago, does not constitute proof that this was when Hazael commenced his reign. (I can't in this article prove that Prof. Wiseman wrote anything to me at all. When I checked my photo files, I discovered that I had not copied his letter to my computer. Nevertheless, the actual document can be produced. It is in safe keeping in Australia. In this is an important lesson. Just because you can't prove something right now, does not mean that it cannot be proved at all.)
The third reason, relates to two subsequent battles (848 BCE & 845 BCE) to the Battle of Qarqar (853 BCE), for which there is 'evidence' that Ben-Hadad II was still the ruler of Syria, for he is mentioned in the Assyrian records. Therefore Hazael could not have commenced earlier than 844 BCE.
SO WHAT ARE THE FACTS?
No. 1 The first 'fact' of which to be aware is that traditional chronologies for Ahab, Ben-Hadad II and Hazael, have all depended on the Kurkh Stele, and the dating for the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE., and the Biblical Narratives, together with the Moabite Stone, and other circumstantial evidence, discredits the 'opinion' that Ahab was at the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE and that he died soon thereafter.
No. 2 The second 'assertion' here is that Ben-Hadad II, according to Josephus, was replaced by Hazael prior to Jehoram's death, which is established by the King's Calendar at 849 BCE. [For apologetics relating to the reliability of Josephus' chronologies, GO TO Josephus, Ancient History and Biblical ContradictionsNOTE: For a limited time the Josephus Appendix 12 is available online: Find it on the Precis Page
Whilst modern academia may not put much credence in Josephus, the reality is that he had available to him, documents no longer available to us, and that it cannot be stated today, that current knowledge of events from that period, must be more accurate.
Cornfeld (1982) in his introduction to the Jewish Wars, makes this statement: '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...'
No. 3 Direct Documentary evidence has been provided to indicate that Ben-Hadad II of Syria, was still on the throne of Syria, as late as 845 BCE. However, that documentary evidence is provided by the exact same 'witness' that provided discredited evidence in the matter of Ahab's presence at the Battle of Qarqar.
The same witness (Shalmaneser III) who provided the Documentary evidence to prove that Ben-Hadad II of Syria was present in two battles in 848 BCE and 845 BCE, has already been proven to have been either 'false' or 'inaccurate' in his documentary identification of another king.
[Rule 106. Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements Abbreviated: When a writing is introduced an adverse party may require the introduction of any other writing which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.]
This then goes to a legal matter involving the 'character of witnesses'.
It is the right of the prosecution and defense to call into question the character of a witness. Since the evidence provided by the witness of Shalmaneser's Kurkh Stele has been shown to at best be 'erroneous' and at worse 'fabricated', it is justifiable to question the 'competency' of this witness (Shalmaneser) in providing testimony on a related matter.
Rule 405. Methods of Proving Character : (a) Reputation or opinion : In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct. - (b) Specific instances of conduct : In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of that person's conduct : NOTES TO RULE 405 : Of the three methods of proving character provided by the rule, evidence of specific instances of conduct is the most convincing.]
The records of Shalmaneser cannot with any degree of confidence, be accepted as reliable. Furthermore, the records of other Assyrian rulers, are just as suspect.
MISIDENTIFICATION:
Having established that the Kurkh Stele misidentified Ahab as the king involved at the Battle of Qarqar, and in view of the fact that both Josephus and the King's Calendar contest the basic premise that Ben-Hadad II was king of Syria during the period of Shalmaneser's later attacks, it is worth looking wider afield to see just how accurate Assyrian record keeping was.
When we look into the accuracy of Assyrian record keeping, we note for instance that when a particular king is mentioned by name, the reference need not be legitimate. [Refer to discussion on erroneous identification of Tubail of Tyre, in records of tribute to Tiglath-Pileser III. - Miller & Hayes 1986, p.332. They point out that with regard to the tribute paid by Menehem, there are two differing records. One states that Menehem of Israel, Rezin of Damascus and Tubail of Tyre, paid tribute, and the other that Menehem, Rezin, and Hiram of Tyre paid tribute.]
When it comes to the lengths of the reigns of the various kings, Academics cannot be certain unless it is specifically stated in the historical records, that a particular king's length of reign, does or does not include his accession year. [Grayson.A.K. (Cambridge Ancient History, 1991, p.71/72) includes Tiglath-Pileser's accession year, whereas Thiele (1966, p97) appears to not.]
When it comes to chronological events in the records, Academics can't even agree how the chronological data ought to be applied. Referring to Tiglath-Pileser's campaigns, we have two different dates for the exact same campaign. [E.R. Thiele (1966, p.97) puts the 743 BCE campaign in 738 BCE.]
Even without these specific examples, it is already recognised that many of the historical records (eg the Eponym and Babylonian Chronicles), leave much to be desired. [Cambridge Ancient History, 1991, p 339/340]
One writer (Peet. T.E. 1924, p.75) wrote: "Archaeology is not an exact science, and deals more often in probabilities and possibilities than in irrefutable demonstrations.' Although written in reference to Ancient Egypt, it is painfully obvious that evidence is not always clearcut and precise, and inferences drawn from such evidences, are not always susceptible to scientific testing.
When one examines the Assyrian records, there is no evidence to support the claim that Israel's historical records are 'less' reliable.
ACADEMIC GUESSWORK, PREJUDICE AND BIAS
The few following brief notes provide an insight into how precise are the findings in Archaeology and History.
1. Aharoni's (1978, p.183) observation that it is difficult for scholars to admit their errors.
2. In relation to Mazar's (1986,pp231/247) preference for accepted dating despite his own evidence to the contrary - cited in James et.al. (1991, p.250)
3. Peter James et.al.(1991,p.162) discuss such issues as poor methodology and hypercritical treatment of Scripture, blindness, prejudice and a sectarian like rejection of the Biblical Record.
(p.309), citing Hanfmann (1951, pp.355/65) and supporting Jagersma (1983,p.37), points out that the basis of all chronologies, that of the Egyptian and Mesopotamian, rests heavily on academic guesswork.
(p.222) cites Sir Alan Gardiner's (1961) reference to Egyptian History as 'a collection of rags and tatters'.
(foreword pp.xiii-xv) Colin Renfrew, Professor of Archaeology, Cambridge University (1990), discusses the probable chronological errors and circular arguments in estimating ancient history.
(p.227) citing: Roy.A. (1982) re: current astronomical calculations : also p 228 in relation to the theory of Sothic dating and it's assumptions.
4. Miller & Hayes(1986,pp.67/75) provides a plethora of academic disagreements based on bias and preference [relates to Egypt].
5. Compare Petrie (1931) Trigger (1983) Grimal (1992) and Aldred,( 1988 ) in relation to differing chronologies for the kings of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty - for which the same information is available. a) Amenhotep I commenced somewhere between 1560 & 1515 BCE - b) Thotmes II commenced somewhere between 1528 & 1482 BCE - c) Amenhotep II commenced somewhere between 1447 & 1425 BCE
6. Fall of Samaria: both Shalmaneser and Sargon claim to have completed the siege against Hoshea King of Israel. [Bright (1981, p275) and Herrmann (1981, p.250) both currently favouring a victory completed by Shalmaneser]
7. Herrmann (1981,p.249) believes Pekah's (Hoshea's predecessor) end came in 733 BCE, the year before Damascus fell, while Ahlstrom (1993, p. 635) places it in the same year, that is, 732 BCE.
8. Roux.G. ( 1982,p.308 ) Citing: Oates.J. (1965, pp.135/59) -and - Reade.J. (1970, pp.1-9) Identifies Kandalanu as the name by which Ashurbanipal ruled in Babylon from 648 BCE onwards. - but - Wiseman (1961, p89) indicates that Kandalanu was Ashurbanipal's appointee.
9. Bright, 1981, p.255, Adad-Nirari c.802 BCE crushed Damascus which was ruled by Hazael's son Ben-Hadad III. - Miller and Hayes 1986, pp 291-293 indicate that the actual date is uncertain. It could have been 802 BCE or 796 BCE.
10. Like the suggestion that Jehoram of Israel and Jehoram of Judah were the one and the same person, depending on where you read, the same question is raised in relation to Ben-Hadad I and II of Syria.
THE ALTERNATIVE TO GUESSWORK.
The alternative to Guesswork would be a system that is more scientifically testable. Reliance upon the Assyrian records mentioned in this series, has led Academics to conclusions that are not demonstrably correct or verifiable.
The mathematics of the 'King's Calendar' demonstrates a preponderance of accurate specific predictions with regard to Kings and events of Judah and Israel, that do not rely upon personal preferences or opinions.
The guesswork for the period under discussion in this article presents possible scenarios for the reigns of Hazael, and Ben Hadad I & II which like those for the kings of the 18th Dynasty in Egypt, all depend upon 'how' an 'authority on the matter' likes to portray them.
Based upon the mathematical calculation of reigns for the Kings of Israel and Judah, The 'King's Calendar' reconstruction of the reigns of Ben Hadad I & II would be:
The documentary evidence provided for this period of time by archaeologists and historians lacks credibility, when viewed through the lens of the Rules of Evidence. Nevertheless, they have been preferred over the Historical Documents of Israel, precisely because they do come from Israel and because they contain unacceptably strong religious elements.
This combined with a complete failure to understand the chronological material presented therein, has resulted in an historical reconstruction that is not only unreliable but extremely patchy to say the least.
The Mathematical basis of the King's Calendar historical reconstruction for the History of Israel, is a scientifically verifiable or falsifiable system.
To date, the conclusions drawn from this Scientific system of Math, has demonstrated itself to be reliable.
It is time to 'throw out the discredited evidence' and rewrite the history books.
The Jury has Returned:
The Judge has announced the Verdict:
The Academic Evidence is thrown out of court.
Related off site article:
Principles of Evidence as applied in the Quest for Religious truth By Henry Hock Guan Teh
R.P. BenDedek
Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com
Legal Bibliography
Bates.F. (1985) Principles of Evidence. 3rd Edition. Sydney The Law Book Company Limited.
Freckelton. I.R. (1987) The Trial of the Expert. A Study of Expert Evidence and Forensic Experts. Melbourne.Aust.Oxford University Press.
Ligertwood. A.L.C. [ 1988 ] Australian Evidence. First Edition. Butterworths P/l. North Ryde
Vinson.D.E. (1985) How to Persuade Jurors. American Bar Association Journal 72, 76
Gobbo. J.A., Byrne. D., Heydon J.D. (1979) Cross on Evidence 2nd Edition. Sydney. Aust. Butterworths Pty.Ltd.
Vinson.D.E. (1985) How to Persuade Jurors. American Bar Association Journal 72, 76
As this article appears in the "Rules of Evidence & Archaeology" articles section of the King's Calendar, it is appropriate to be aware of and to read the legal notes and definitions pertinent to issues in relation to "Evidence" and the 'provision of testimony', and to keep these things in mind when reading or studying anything in which 'authoritative' claims or statements are made.
Unlike the 4 part series: "The Law, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology"this article does not focus on legal argument, but highlights the weaknesses in Academic Opinion (and therefore 'weaknesses in Law'), in relation to King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon; King Hezekiah of Judah, and the Syro-Ephraimitic War 734-732 BCE.
In the Legal Bibliography section at the end of this article, can be found some definitions that ought to be born in mind by all readers, so as not to confuse 'opinion' with 'evidence'. Claims made by any party that have a vested interest in your acceptance of those claims, ought to be approached with caution. One ought not to just 'trust' without due consideration for the evidence. [Refer to: Direct Evidence : Circumstantial Evidence : Opinions & Presumptions : Expert Witnesses in the Legal Bibliography section at the bottom of this article.]
Part One:
Nebuchadrezzar King of Babylon, Destroyer of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem 586 BCE.
Academia likes to make many authoritative claims about many things, which, standing alone, sound reasonable to the naive, but when you put them into perspective, that is, in context with the overall number of claims made, one can often see that much is amiss. Take Nebuchadrezzar (Nebuchadnezzar) for instance.
How Long Did Nebuchadrezzar reign?
The first thing to note about Nebuchadrezzar, is that no one is certain whether he reigned 43 years or 42 years. The current preferred reading is 43 years, but this is based on a business text relating to his 43rd year, that standing alone, offers no clue as to whether these 43 years "include or exclude" his accession year.
Currently Nebuchadrezzar is believed to have ascended the throne of Babylon in 605 BCE., commencing his first regnal year in Nisan of 604 BCE (Wiseman, 1985, pp.18-19), reigning forty-three (43) years until 562 BCE. (Cambridge Ancient History,1991, p.240).
This is not the picture however that Thiele paints. (Thiele, 1966, p.216 , Appendix 'G').
The chart in Appendix Six - Nebuchadrezzar's 42 year Reign & Babylonian Chronicles: 18th year of Nabopolassar to 2nd of Nebuchadrezzar of the King's Calendar demonstrates that according to Thiele's calculations, Nebuchadrezzar reigned 42 years + his Accession Year. Find App 6 in Chapter Precis
The 'King's Calendar' can demonstrate that professor Wiseman's figures are excessive by one year, and that 603 BCE is Nebuchadrezzar's first regnal year, having ascended the previous year, 604 BCE. Since Nebuchadrezzar's records are not complete, (Wiseman 1961. p.94) and other references to his reign may include his accession year as a regnal year, current academic opinion concerning the length of Nebuchadrezzar's reign can only be tentative. They can offer no evidence that would hold up in a court of Law.
As further evidence that Academic opinion ought not to be relied upon as 'legally credible' evidence; according to current scholarship, Nebuchadrezzar burned Solomon's Temple on either 15th August 586 BCE (Thiele 1966, p.164, Table XV) or August 5th 587 BCE (Wiseman, 1985, p.37).
When Did Nebuchadrezzar destroy Solomon's Temple?
The Second thing to note about the length of Nebuchadrezzar's reign, is that the date he commenced his reign, depends on whether he destroyed Jerusalem in 587 BCE or 586 BCE., for we have a synchronous historical reference to the specific regnal year in which this occurred.
Whilst the King's Calendar clearly demonstrates that Nebuchadrezzar destroyed Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem in 586 BCE. scholars still argue the issue. The importance of this year is paramount, for upon it hangs the particular and individual chronological preferences of various academics. By this is meant that they have vested interests in the issue, and as such, would not be considered credible witnesses in a court of law.
If one must move the date for Nebuchadrezzar's Burning of Solomon's Temple, from 587 BCE as is fashionably preached today, to 586 BCE., the former date ascribed to this event, it causes problems for certain scholastic opinions in relation to the reigns of Kandalanu and Nabopolassar, Nebuchadrezzar's predecessors.
In that section of the King's Calendar, it is pointed out that according to Roux (1982), Kandalanu is the name under which Ashurbanipal (the Assyrian King) ruled in Babylon from 648 BCE onwards.
Wiseman (1961, p89) however, indicates that Kandalanu was Ashurbanipal's appointee, immediately upon the death of Shamash-sum-ukin in 648 BCE. [Shamash-sum-ukin revolted from his brother Ashurbanipal, and facing defeat, suicided in his palace].
This disagreement in identifying Kandalanu, demonstrates once again, that the 'evidence' is open to interpretation. The issue is mentioned here, for it is significant, in that it impacts directly upon not only Kandalanu's reign, but provides the 'window of opportunity' that permits the King's Calendar to commence Nebuchadrezzar's reign one year later as well. (That determination is a mathematical requirement, not a preferential choice.)
In order to justify the King's Calendar one year 'shift' forward in time, of Nebuchadrezzar's reign, from 605 BCE to 604 BCE, it is necessary to demonstrate that Kandalanu's reign can likewise be shifted.
The King's Calendar not only needs to show that such is possible, but demonstrates that if Kandalanu is 'an appointee', and not Ashurbanipal himself, then with just a few months delay in his appointment, Kandalanu's reign would commence in the following Babylonian year, and thus justify shifting Nebuchadrezzar's reign.
The King's Calendar presentation of Reigns
What Do We Know For Certain About Nebuchadrezzar?
The only thing certainly known, is that Nebuchadrezzar's reign ended in 562 BCE. with the ascension of Evil - Merodach (Amel Marduk), which Wiseman (1985, p.9) dates to October 8th 562 BCE.
This is an important date, for Second Kings 25:27 [Direct Documentary Evidence] informs us in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile, Amel-Marduk, during his accession year, set Jehoiachin free from his prison.
The King's Calendar insists that reference to 37 years of captivity is demonstrably an artificial reference, for it would otherwise require that he was captured by Nebuchadrezzar earlier than Nebuchadrezzar's first campaign against Jerusalem. When these 37 artificial years are calculated from 596 BCE (not 597 BCE), they arrive at 562 BCE, and validate the Biblical claim that it was in Amel-Marduk's accession year that Jehoiachin was released from Prison.
To see how Nebuchadrezzar's reign inter meshes with Jehoiachin's, see the Chart in Chapter TWO: 3. Determining the length of Nebuchadrezzar's reign.
The point I make in this article, is that generally speaking, Academics are pulling the wool over our eyes when they make definitive statements about Nebuchadrezzar.
The Death of Josiah & Nebuchadrezzar
Academic arguments concerning the Death of Josiah [in relation to the chronology for Nebuchadrezzar], are made without recourse to any documents other than the Biblical, and the Biblical documents do not provide any chronological synchronisation to substantiate Academic Opinion. Rather, there is much doubt about what Academics do insist upon. SEENo 11: Josiah to ZedekiahandNo. 12: Josiah to the Destruction of Jerusalem
Whilst I could continue to discuss holes in the academic claims for this period of time, the purpose of this section is to merely demonstrate that evidence presented by academic is not always quite what it is claimed to be.
For Example: Academic claims surrounding King Jehoiakim's death and King Jehoiachin's captivity, are other contentious issues because the Babylonian Chronicles [Direct Documentary Evidence] lack precise details in identifying King's of Judah. Presently, Academics must 'alter' the Historical records of Israel [Direct Documentary Evidence] as found in the Bible, in order to suit their chronological schemes [Opinion & Presumption], even though there is no supporting data found in the Babylonian chronicles to justify this.Refer to : No. 12: Josiah to the Destruction of Jerusalem- Also Refer to Footnotes
Solomon's Temple & Babylonian Exile
Currently, issues surrounding the precise year in which Solomon's Temple was destroyed, and the exact length of Nebuchadrezzar's reign, are significant, for the 'King's Calendar' demonstrates them to be other than what is currently accepted. Deriving from these issues, Kandalanu's identity and precise chronological placement of his reign, are justifiably contested.
To insist that because 'we' believe something to be so, is insufficient in Law to establish a matter as fact. While the King's Calendar can justifiably (mathematically) demonstrate that current opinion is in error, academics are honor bound to 'factually demonstrate' that the King's Calendar is wrong.
Whilst the 'King's Calendar' relies upon mathematics (Scientifically Testable) to demonstrate the accuracy of its chronological reconstruction of history, Academics are relying upon (legally)demonstrably untrustworthy evidence, in order to substantiate their chronological schemes.
It's time for the Academics to be up front in their claims, and clearly distinguish for 'us' plebes, between that which is 'opinion' and that which is 'established fact'.
In Part Two of this series: King Hezekiah of Judah: A man with No Equal in Israel, we will discuss the ultimate absurdity of the various academic claims about this particular King of Judah.
NOTE FOR THE ACADEMICS: Chapters 2 and 3 of the King's Calendar are a hard slog for anyone without the dogged determination and mental agility to hold all the strings together, (like a spider's web) but if you can manage it, you will see how Nebuchadrezzar's reign ought to be presented.
This Chart demonstrates the King's Calendar Placement of Nebuchadrezzar's reign in relation to Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah.
Note that
Nebuchardrezzar's 7th regnal year commences in 597 BCE
His first regnal year will have been 603 BCE
He will have commenced his accession year in 604 BCE.
Biblical Synchronisms align the reigns of Nebuchadrezzar and the King's of Judah in this fashion
The following comments are those found in the footnotes to Chapter three of the King's Calendar in relation to Nebuchadrezzars attack on Jerusalem in 596 BCE against Jehoiakim, and not as current academics insist against Zedekiah. They alter the Biblical narrative to suit their particular chronologies.
Whilst there is no necessity for Kings, Chronicles or Josephus to be given pre-eminence over each other or the Babylonian Chronicles, one must not forget, that the Babylonian Chronicles are no more 'inerrant', than the others, nor are they 'Judeo-centrically' specific.
The Jewish writings were as pre-occupied with their own history as were the Babylonian Chronicles. Omission of detail by the one or the other, does not automatically have 'implicit' meaning, other than that such detail was of no concern to the author or redactor. That the Babylonian Chronicle fails to account for one of the three Judean kings, of itself says nothing. The way it has been interpreted however, is contrary to the balance of data
The most pointed assertion, is that it was against Judah (i.e. Jehoiakim), that Nebuchadrezzar mustered his troops. (Wiseman 1961, p33)
Nevertheless, since the Babylonian Chronicles are treated as 'gospel', and they speak of only 'one' siege (Adar 2nd), and because that reference appears to necessitate that it was Jehoiachin who was captured on Adar 2nd, academics insist that it most definitely does refer to him.
Now since it was not possible for Nebuchadrezzar to have accomplished everything necessary, between Kislev and Adar 2nd (Jehoiakim's capture, his death, and a three month reign by Jehoiachin), it has been determined, that Jehoiachin had succeeded Jehoiakim prior to Nebuchadrezzar's forces leaving Babylon. (Wiseman, 1961, p.33)
There is however, no specific identification of kings in the Babylonian Chronicle. The only basis for identifying Jehoiachin's captivity as having occurred on Adar 2nd, is the reference to the captive kings' transportation to Babylon, and Wiseman's interpretation of 'encamped' to mean 'siege'.
The word 'encamped' is not used in reference to the sieges or capture of either Kimuhu (B.M. 22047 Obv. Line 14) or Askelon (B.M. 21946 Obv Line 18 ), and one can only wonder whether Professor Wiseman's insertion of the word '(besieged)' in the relevant passage, is academic clarification or personal interpretation. Certainly the word 'encamped' in its usual meaning, fits well with the other narratives which indicate that Jehoiakim made no effort to hinder Nebuchadrezzar.
Nevertheless, given that Jehoiakim was 'killed', rather than transported to Babylon, it is obvious, that either the Babylonian Chronicles is incorrect (confusing two events) or that the other three witnesses are wrong. According to the interpretation of the 'King's Calendar', the King taken captive on Adar 2nd, was not transported to Babylon, and this particular account is but a summary of events, fusing or confusing two different events occurring within a very short time of each other.
The 'King's Calendar' maintains that since Jehoiakim's 11th year commenced in February of 596 BCE and the main event referred to in the Babylonian Chronicle occurs in March 596 BCE., that it is Jehoiakim to whom the Babylonian Chronicle refers. It was Jehoiakim who was captured (and killed) in the 7th year of Nebuchadrezzar. Three (3) months later, in the spring of the year, in the 8th year of Nebuchadrezzar, he sent for Jehoiachin, to be brought to Babylon.
LEGAL DEFINITIONS:
'Direct Evidence is evidence of the facts in issue themselves and will be constituted either by the testimony of a witness who perceived the event or the production of a legally admissible document which constitutes the fact in issue.'(Bates,1985,p.2)
'Circumstantial Evidence is evidence of facts which are not in issue, from which a fact in issue may be inferred. (Bates, 1985, p.2)
Presumption and assumption are not permitted as evidence in legal issues. (See Bates, 1985, p.46)
Opinions, Assumptions and Presumptions are not facts in relation to evidence. Ligertwood (1988, p.284) in discussing 'opinion evidence' makes it clear, that opinion is an attempt to establish a fact from other facts. [For a sociological explanation of why presumption is often accepted as fact, see Bates, 1985, p.46]
Presumption can rightly be described as an attempt to establish as a fact something for which no legal evidence or proof exists.
In law, expert witnesses are not permitted to become involved in final decision making with regard to the 'fact' of a disputed matter or issue. [Gobbo. Et.Al.(1979, p.430) Cross on Evidence 2nd Edition. Sydney. Aust. Butterworths Pty.Ltd.]
LEGAL BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Bates.F. (1985) Principles of Evidence. 3rd Edition. Sydney The Law Book Company Limited.
Freckelton. I.R. (1987) The Trial of the Expert. A Study of Expert Evidence and Forensic Experts. Melbourne.Aust.Oxford University Press.
Gobbo. J.A., Byrne. D., Heydon J.D. (1979) Cross on Evidence 2nd Edition. Sydney. Aust. Butterworths Pty.Ltd.
Ligertwood. A.L.C. ( 1988 ) Australian Evidence. First Edition. Butterworths P/l. North Ryde
Vinson.D.E. (1985) How to Persuade Jurors. American Bar Association Journal 72, 76
Roux.G. (1982) Ancient Iraq. Suffolk. Penguin Books p..308 Citing: Oates.J. (1965) Iraq XXVII 'Assyrian Chronology 631-612BCE.p135-59 -and - Reade.J. (1970) JCS CCIII 'The Accession of Sinsharishkun' pp 1-9.
Thiele.E.R. (1966) The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings: a reconstruction of the chronology of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Paternoster Press
Wiseman.D.J. (1961) Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings (626-556 BC) in the British Museum. Trustees of the British Museum. London,
Wiseman.D.J. (1985) Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon. The Schweich Lectures. Oxford University Press
Copyright 2011/2012 is held by the nominated authors on this article page.
About the KingsCalendar Publisher
R.P.BenDedek is the owner and Editor of KingsCalendar.com which was originally set up to publicize his research results into the Chronology of Ancient Israel. Those results were published under the title: 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran'.
Whilst there have been many attempts to solve the chronological riddle of the Bible's synchronisms of reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah and their synchronism with other Ancient Near Eastern Nations, no other research is based on a simple mathematical formula which could, if it is incorrect, be disproved easily. To date, no one has been able to dismiss the mathematical results of this research.
Free to air 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.
During the current economic downturn, this book has been dramatically reduced in price but will eventually rise as the economy improves.
Check the Chapter Precis Page to see details of each chapter and to gain access to the Four Free to Air Chapters
R.P. BenDedek writes social commentaries and photographic 'Stories from China' both at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing columnist at Magic City Morning Star News in Maine USA.
