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.
Legal Challenge to Archaeologists - KingsCalendar
The following article is the COMPLETE unabridged version
of a four part series entitled
"The Law, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology".
The Law, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology Part 1.
(Legal Issues related to Chapter Seven of the King's Calendar : "The Battle of Qarqar - 853 BCE")
Prologue
The intention of this article is to offer a Polemical rebuttal of Academic methodology in reconstructing the history of Israel.
The Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE. is an important event in relation not only to the Ancient Near East, but specifically to the 'King's Calendar' chronology for Ancient Israel, for the accepted archaeological evidence suggests that the 'King's Calendar' is in grievous error in its' placement of the reign of King Ahab of Israel.
The 'King's Calendar' indicates that King Ahab of Israel, died in 863 BCE, a decade prior to the Battle of Qarqar (853 BCE), in which, according to the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser III, Ahab participated.
End of Days Sale: The king's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran, which has been available to academics at an academic price for 6 years now, has run its course. Before the Merchant Banking contract expires in November 2010, this book is being made available [From August 20th] to 'lay readers' at the all time low price of US$10. This offer only lasts until November 2010. 'PURCHASE NOW'.
A. THE BATTLE OF QARQAR 853 B.C.
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. [Ref: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule902 : 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 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule702 - 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.
Part 2 After the next box
The Laws of Evidence & Archaeology: Part 2.
We 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.
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 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule805 - 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.
1) Omri's reign commences November 894 BCE
2) Israel has suzerainty over Moab 40 (solar) years (893 - 853 BCE)
3) Omri and his son Ahab reign 31 solar years ( 894 to 863 BCE)
4) Mesha's rebellion occurs in 854 BCE Nine (9) solar years after Ahab's death.
5) This is the year before the Battle of Qarqar if the 40 years is 'exact/literal'
6) If the 40 years is an approximate, then the event may have occurred after the Battle of Qarqar.
7) 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.
8 ) 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 witness 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
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 reject 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.
The Laws of Evidence & Archaeology Part 3.
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. http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/2AC3DE52-9273-4C49-BD0FC13728A9CA11/alpha/I/
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'.
From a legal perspective, in order to do this, you must demonstrate 'intent' to do so. [Legal definition of Specific Intent [http://americandefenseleague.com/specint.htm]
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. [ See: Biblical Infallibility, Divine Inspiration & Academic Deceit and Manipulation http://www.kingscalendar.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=234
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,
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.
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: skepticism 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.
The Laws of Evidence & Archaeology Part 4.
(Installment 4 of Legal Issues related to Chapter Seven of the King's Calendar :
"The Battle of Qarqar - 853 BCE" - and -
Including Issues related to Chapter Nine : 883 BCE. to 756 BCE. The Ancient Near East)
Prologue
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.
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 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule106 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.
Gardiner. A. (1961) Egypt of the Pharaoh's. Oxford University Press. The Ancient Military Road between Egypt and Palestine. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. No. 6
Hanfmann. G.M.A. (1951) The Bronze Age in the Near East. A Review Article. A.J.A. 55, 355-65
Herrmann,S. (1981) A History of Israel in Old Testament Times. Philadelphia. Fortress Press.
Jagersma,H. (1983) A History of Israel in the Old Testament Period. Philadelphia. Fortress Press
James P. Thorpe.I.J., Kokkinos.N., Morkot.R., Frankish.J. (1991) Centuries of Darkness. Rutgers Uni Press. New Jersey
Mazar. B. (1986) The Early Biblical Period. Jerusalem Exploration Society.
Miller,J.M., Hayes,J.M. ( 1986 ) A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. USA. Westminster Press.
Na'aman.M. (1976) Two notes on the Monolithic Inscription of Shalmaneser III from Kurkh. Tel Aviv 3. pp89-106)
Peet. T.E. (1924) Egypt and the Old Testament. University Press of Liverpool
Reade.J. (1970) JCS CCIII 'The Accession of Sinsharishkun'
Roux.G. (1982) Ancient Iraq. Suffolk. Penguin Books
Roy.A. (1982) The astronomical basis of Egyptian Chronology. Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Review 6, 53-55.
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
Whiston. W. (1993) The Works of Josephus. Hendrickson Publishers. Massachusetts. USA
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
Dates for Nabopolassar & Nebuchadrezzar Kings of Babylon - and - Josiah and Jehoiakim Kings of Judah as per (Wiseman.D.J. (1961) Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings (626-556 BC) in the British Museum. Trustees of the British Museum. London) Using Babylonian Chronicles B.M. 22047 (p.65) and BM 21946 (p.67) But with a one (1) year adjustment for the Reigns of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar.
607 bce - Sep - Nabopolassar engaged at Bit-Hanunia / Urartu - 18th year - B.M. 22047 Line 1-4
607 bce - Dec - Josiah's 31st year commences
607 bce - Dec/Jan - Nabopolassar returns to Babylon - B.M. 22047 Line 1-4
606 bce - May/Jun - Campaigning to the north - 19th year - B.M. 22047 Lines 5-7
606 bce - Jun/Jul - Nabopolassar returns to Babylon - B.M. 22047 Line 8
606 bce - Jul/Aug - Necho heads North for Carchemish
606 bce - Aug/Sep - Nebuchadrezzar returns to Babylon - B.M. 22047 Line 12
606 bce - Aug/Sep - Josiah of Judah slain
606 bce - Aug/Sep - Jehoahaz becomes king of Judah
606 bce - Sep/Oct - Nabopolassar Heads to Kimuhu - B.M. 22047 Line 12
606 bce - Nov - Nabopolassar captures Kimuhu - B.M. 22047 Line 14
606 bce - Nov - Jehoahaz deposed by Pharaoh Necho - taken to Riblah
606 bce - Nov - Jehoiakim commences - 1st Artificial year commences.
The Premise: Between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE (but continuing down to at least 104 BCE), Sectarian redactors transcribed the legitimate 'solar year' chronological records of Israel and Judah, into an artificial form, with listed years as each comprised of 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days, or 336 days per year, thus creating a 13th artificial year where 12 solar years existed.
When the Synchronous Chronological Data provided in the Books of Kings and Chronicles for the Divided Kingdom Period are measured in years of 336 days, the synchronisms actually align. [Refer to Appendix Five to see how it synchronises the Divided Kingdom Period]
General formula for Biblical Data conversion:
The formula for constructing the artificial calendar was:
'X' times 364 equals 'Y' days
'Y' days divided by 336 equals 'Z' artificial years.
Values are:
'X' = any given number of 'real/solar' years
364 = perceived days in the sectarian calendar
'Y' = number of days calculated
336 = number of days in an artificial year
'Z' = artificial years = 1.083'X' and represents the original number of the converted years plus 8%.
To reverse the process by hand:
'Z' years times 336 equals 'Y' divided by 364 equals the Number of 'X' years converted.
To see how effective this method is, SEE:Appendix 5:Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE:
The Principle of Linear Causality
The King's Calendar is a very simple approach to Biblical Chronology. It substitutes a value of 336 days for every year listed in Scripture. As far as the Divided Kingdom is concerned, when you use this 336 day year value, the synchronisms actually work. To see how effective this method is, SEE:Appendix 5: Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE
Because it is a mathematical system, the King's Calendar must abide by certain mathematical rules, the most important of which, is that if you change any date for any day, month, or year every other day, month, or year is effected and must also change. It's like a 'domino effect'. Chronological references cannot be 'forced' to fit, and nor can they simply be ignored or 'compressed' as is the usual case with historians and archaeologists.
If any King's Calendar chronological determination disagrees with anything in the history books, it must argue the case as to why the history books are wrong, or why the evidence for an assertion is untrustworthy. If the King's Calendar successfully defends its' position, then the history books cannot be treated as definitive, and if the King's Calendar is 'proven' wrong, then every other chronological reference it provides is also wrong.
R.P.BenDedek is from Brisbane Australia and is the author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' at http://www.kingscalendar.com His academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah.
He writes photographic 'Stories from China' and social editorial commentaries, both at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing newspaper columnist. He currently teaches Conversational English in China and in addition to his English Lessons at KingsCalendar, he has created specific sites for Students of English.
