JosephusThe acknowledged problem with Josephus is that his chronological details are flawed! They don't make sense! They are excessive! But the real problem is the mindsets of those studying Josephus. If one starts with an assumption that one's viewpoint is correct, then when 'impasses' are encountered, one has to rationalise them in order to get past them. Very few people seem to have the ability to study the material without preconception; without imposing on it their own prejudices. The fact is that Josephus has passed on to us a far superior chronological knowledge of the History of Ancient Israel than has previously been appreciated
Josephus, Ancient History and Biblical Contradictions
This article weaves all the material in the several articles in the Josephus Section of the King's Calendar, into one article. It's purpose is to provide just one text that sets forth the King's Calendar understanding of Josephus and his controversial chronologies for the Ancient History of Israel.
The Article contains the following Sections:
1. Josephus the Man
2. Josephus was careless.
3. Josephus did not know about the Artificial Nature of the Records.
4. Josephus mixed regular Solar Years with Artificially recorded Years.
5. Josephus had access to Original Data no longer in Existence.
6. Josephus and the Exodus
7. Current Perception of the Exodus & Pharaoh's Identity
8. King's Calendar Short Comment on The Pharaoh of the Exodus.
9. Josephus' Chronologies
10. Contradictions to the Biblical Record
11. Conclusion
12. Footnote: What is the King's Calendar
King's Calendar Premise.
The King's Calendar operates on three fundamental premises.
1. The chronological records contained in the Bible are Artificial.
Josephus, Ancient History and Biblical Contradictions
[For Background information on Josephus go to: The Catholic Encyclopaedia:]
1. Josephus the Man
Josephus was a Jewish Historian, who left for us a history of the Jews that is somewhat troublesome in many details. Cornfeld (1982) in his introduction to the Jewish Wars says:
'Despite all discrepancies, ambiguities, contradictions and plain mistakes, the fact remains that Josephus was a highly reliable witness, not only with respect to events in Palestine and Jerusalem of his own time, but also, though to a somewhat lesser extent, with regard to earlier times, for which he depended on available traditional sources. In sum, despite ambiguities and exaggerations, his is the most comprehensive surviving account in existence...'
The acknowledged problem with Josephus' material, is the same problem that exists in relation to the Bible, which is, 'its' Chronology'. It is flawed! It doesn't make sense! It is excessive!
The problem that we face with both the Bible and Josephus, is the mindsets of those studying them. If one starts with an assumption that one's viewpoint is correct, then when 'impasses' are encountered, one has to rationalise them in order to get past them. Very few people seem to have the ability to study the material without preconception; without imposing on it their own prejudices.
Now despite the obvious carelessness with which Josephus recorded some of his chronological material, it is apparent that he worked from original, chronologically correct data. As one begins to deconstruct his calculations, it becomes obvious that he had great difficulty in both understanding and applying the data that not only he himself researched and recorded in his own private notes, but that which was obviously supplied to him by other sources.
Despite the complexities of his chronological compositions however, as one begins to deconstruct his calculations via comparative studies of all his chronological quotations, it becomes very clear that his material is far from incomprehensible, and can assist in accurately guiding us through Israelite history.
As one example of both a plain mistake and a contradiction (for he quotes otherwise elsewhere in his writings), take a look at what Josephus says in The Jewish War Book 6 Chapter 10.1.(439) [Cornfield, 1982, pp.451], in regards to the time lapse between King David and the Babylonian Exile. He states that 477.5 years elapse between these two events.
This contradicts what can be found in the Biblical records. The Southern Kingdom (Judah) timeline, according to the Bible, only records 473.5 years for this period. Josephus is obviously in error, but as is argued in the 'King's Calendar' Chapter 20, such errors arise because
Josephus was not a very organised person;
He little understood what was before him;
He appears to have had at his disposal materials that were 'supplied' to him,
And he never kept track of what he had previously written.
He was, to put it clearly, 'very sloppy'.
This does not mean however that he made anything up, or that the information upon which he relied was erroneous.
2. Josephus was careless.
Josephus was either careless or misunderstood his own, or some other person's notes. For example:
In Antiquities of the Jews - Book Thirteen, he states that 82 years elapse between the Death of Judas Maccabeus (c.161 BCE) and the Death of Queen Alexandra (c.67 BCE), and in so doing, he under quoted by Twelve Years. There were in fact 94 solar years.
In Antiquities of the Jews - Book Fourteen, he states that 32 years elapse from the Death of Queen Alexandra (c.67 BCE) to the Death of Antigonus (c.37 BCE), and over quoted by Two years.
However if you notice, in calculating the time lapse between the extreme parameters Josephus listed in Books thirteen and fourteen,(from the death of Judas Maccabeus in 161 BCE. to the death of Antigonus in 37 BCE), he has only provided 114 of the 124 years that exist. His has under quoted by Ten (10) years.
Since Queen Alexandra reigned 10 years, we can conclude that Josephus has failed to understand the material before him, and failed to 'actually' include her Ten Year reign, despite having referred to her Death.
From the abovementioned references, it is obvious that while Josephus relied upon reliable records, his use of them was careless.
He was not however, always careless or incorrect.
His reference in Book Fifteen to the 18 years from the Death of Antigonus (c.37 BCE) to the Completion of Herod's Temple (c.18 BCE) was correct in Solar Years,
as was also his reference in Book Sixteen to the 12 years between completion of the Temple and Deaths of Alexander and Aristobulus (c.7 BCE).
But Note that these references are in Solar years.
3. Josephus did not know about the Artificial Nature of the Records.
In his reliance on data recorded in artificial years, Josephus erred when he tried to separate specific sections of 'known Solar year' history from the 'artificial' references he had at his disposal. In particular, it is the conclusion of the 'King's Calendar' that he had at his disposal an artificial record of the time lapse between the reign of King David, and the overthrow of Babylon by King Cyrus.
This artificial record would have stated that 525 years elapse between these two parameters, and it would have consisted of
The 473.5 Biblical Artificial years between David and the Exile,
Plus 51.5 Artificial years between the Babylonian Exile in 586 BCE and Cyrus conquest of Babylon.
These 51.5 artificial years however are only equal to 47.5 Solar years.
Had Josephus used such a record to determine the length of the monarchy in Israel, all he would have done is deduct 47.5 solar years from 525 artificial years, to arrive at 477.5 years for the period from David to the Babylonian Exile. He would not have realised that he was in error, unless he actually checked his figures against the record in Scripture.
Interestingly enough, in The Jewish War Book 6 Chapter 10.1 (439) [Cornfield, 1982, pp.451] These 477.5 years are exactly those which Josephus determines to have elapsed between King David and the Babylonian Exile.
It is not the only time he has erred like this of course. In The Jewish War. Book One - Chapter III [Cornfeld 1982, p.25. Ch. III (1) 70.], Josephus maintained that from Cyrus to Aristobulus, 471 years elapse. However he later amended this in Antiquities 13:11:1 to 481 years. (Cornfeld, 1982, p.25).
Interestingly enough, these 481 years in Antiquities, are exactly the number of Solar Years to elapse between the Babylonian Exile and Aristobolus, which is to say, that they include the total number of years from 585 BCE to 105 BCE inclusive. As such these years constitute the number of years transpiring 'between' these parameters, but not including them.
However, Josephus' narrative does not talk about the Babylonian Exile in 586 BCE, but the time lapse between Cyrus and Aristobolus, which also interestingly enough, (according to the 'King's Calendar' artificial calendar), amounts to precisely the number of years that he originally quoted, that is, 471 years.
What appears to have happened is that Josephus originally quoted from an 'artificial record' before him, relating to the period from Cyrus to Aristobolus, and then later, ignoring his own stated parameters, calculated the period from the Exile to Aristobolus in solar years.
From the foregoing we see that Josephus was not really conversant with the material with which he was dealing, and had no awareness of their artificial nature.
Now the reason I mention these two particular erroneous chronological references, is that there is another reference, which, until the present time, has been considered erroneous. In the light of the foregoing however, we can 'see' how his error was made, and in the process, determine what the true chronology ought to have been.
4. Josephus mixed regular Solar Years with Artificially recorded Years.
Between King David and Titus 1179 years elapse. The Jewish War Book Six Chap. X.I. (440) [Cornfeld, 1982, p.452]
Josephus calculated that the period to elapse between King David, the first king of Jerusalem, to the city's destruction by Titus in 70 CE, was 1,179 years.
Jerusalem fell to Titus in October CE 70.
Calculating back in time by 1,179 Solar years, we arrive at 1109 BCE,
This is about a century earlier than what is possible as the commencement year of David's reign.
Naturally, we must conclude that this figure is wrong.
However, if we understand that some of this figure is provided in the artificial calendar, and that some of it is erroneous calculation, we can determine the process by which Josephus arrived at this figure, by adopting the following methodology.
1. Between A.D. 70, the fall of Jerusalem under Titus and 104/3 BCE (the reign of Aristobulus), 173 solar years elapse.
2. The addition of these 173 years to the 481 Solar years Josephus applied to the time frame between Cyrus (538 BCE) and Aristobulus (104 BCE), a total of 654 years is derived.
3. To these 654 Solar years we can add the 47.5 Solar years that transpire between the Babylonian Exile (586 BCE) and Cyrus (539 BCE).
4. To this total of 701.5 Solar years, we add the false figure of 477.5 artificial years that Josephus calculated as transpiring between David and the Babylonian Exile.
5. The Final Total is 1179 years.
The Correct figures that Josephus ought to have used here are:
a. 187.5 (artificial years) ie 173 solar years from Titus to Aristobolus
b. 471.0 (artificial years) Josephus original and correct quote from Cyrus to Aristobolus
c. 51.5 (artificial years) not the 47.5 Solar years between 586 BCE and Cyrus' control of Babylon
d. 473.5 (artificial years) not 477.5 Solar years from David to Exile in 586 BCE
A total of 1183.5 artificial years from the Start of King David's reign to Titus.
When you remove from this the 13.5 duplicate years within the Biblical Narratives Assumptions & Limitations, the final figure becomes 1170 Artificial years.
The correct figures that Josephus ought to have used are
Calculating back in time we arrive at 1010 BCE for the commencement of David's Reign.
Throughout the 'King's Calendar' deconstruction of Josephus' material, the 525 year figure (mentioned earlier) and the 701.5 year figure listed in point 4 are recurring themes in his references.
Although Josephus did in fact provide erroneous references, the 'King's Calendar' is able to demonstrate that there is in fact a 'logical' basis for the figures he quotes. His figures are not really erroneous, it was his understanding of the application of those figures that lead him into incorrect conclusions, and he is not the only one whose application of little understood data, leads him to wrong conclusions. All Biblical Chronologists, historians and archaeologists do likewise today.
5. Josephus had access to Original Data no longer in Existence.
Now despite his errors, the conclusions reached in 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' (Chapter 20) indicate that it is reasonable to believe that Josephus had access to at least Six (6) Original chronological pieces of datum, that are no longer available to us. These are:
1.That Jerusalem was founded 995 years prior to David's reign.
2.That 'an' Exodus (Hyksos expulsion from Egypt) occurred 589 years prior to David's reign.
3.That 525 years elapsed between the Exile and Cyrus' kingship in Babylon.
4.That 995 years elapsed between the commencement of David's reign and Aristobulus in 104 BCE.
5.That 423 years elapsed between Cyrus' as King of the Medes, and the death of Judas Maccabeus.
6.That 908.5 years elapsed between the Israelite entrance into Canaan, and the Babylonian Exile.
These datum were not invented by Josephus, but were made available to him either by specific persons, or extant records, and were provided from within the perspective of the 'artificial' calendar in which the historical records were transcribed into 'yearly' periods of time comprised of 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days (ie. 336 days). This process in effect created an artificial period of 13 years, for every true 12 years of recorded Israelite History.
The original premise of research in 'The King's Calendar:The Secret of Qumran', was that chronological contradictions are only apparent, but not real. This premise facilitated in the discovery of the artificial nature of the chronological records of Israel, and ultimately those of Josephus, and demonstrated that while some contradictions are real, most are not. They are just references based within a different chronological approach.
I would repeat here that although Josephus did in fact provide some erroneous references, there is a 'logical' basis for the figures he quotes. His figures are not so much erroneous, as that his understanding of the application of the chronological references led him to incorrect conclusions.
6. Josephus and The Exodus
Note: You can check the King's Calendar application of Josephus' data using:
When one compares the figures provided by Josephus for the Exodus, it does not tally with what we see in the Bible, but when you check his figures it becomes obvious that he was not talking about the Mosaic Exodus but the Hyksos Exodus from Egypt. (Even if he didn't mean to).
Antiquities. Book 10:8:5
Re: The burning of the temple : From the Departure from Egypt to the Fall of Jerusalem (in 586 BCE) 1062.5 years elapse.
Chronologically this is excessive of anything indicated in biblical or profane sources. In true Solar years, it takes us to 1648 BCE, which by no stretch of the imagination can refer to the Mosaic Exodus.
In artificial years however, it points to the year 1566 BCE, some 117 solar or 127 artificial years earlier than the Exodus. As such, it falls within various dates for the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt. Such dates range from 1583 BCE (Marston 1935, p 83) until after the commencement of the 18th Dynasty under Ahmose (c. 1570 - 1550 BCE)
Josephus never stated that this reference was to the Mosaic Exodus, we just presumed it. The texts simply states 'from the departure out of Egypt'. When you remove the excess 13.5 years from the Biblical Sources, the final date for this event becomes 1554 BCE (Line 1048 on the King's Calendar)
The reference is provided in Artificial years,
and points to the Expulsion of the Hyksos in 1554 BCE.
Whatever may be the current perception of Josephus' chronological references, they are not the wild imaginings of a drug crazed religious zealot. He used legitimate data without understanding it.
7. Current Perception of the Exodus & Pharaoh's Identity
Many academics today, despite their rejection of the historicity of the Biblical Record, put the Exodus in the 13th Century BCE, in the Reign of Rameses II.
However, In Flavius Josephus Against Apion Book 1 :15 Josephus provides a list of dates of the Egyptian Pharaohs from the time of the expulsion from Exodus ie. Hyksos 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.
Whilst clearly, the archaeological evidence is able to be interpreted in a variety of ways, resulting in different chronological conclusions.
Josephus demonstrates that the Hyksos Expulsion occurred much earlier than Rameses II.
The much maligned Josephus determines from extant records, that Rameses 11 commenced +/- a few months, in 1300 BCE.
“There arose a new king Egypt etc.” It turns out that from the death of Levi to the Exodus were 116 years. The slavery extended not more than that time and not less that 86 years, the age of Miriam at Exodus, since she was named for the bitterness. Part 1 Pentateuch 3 The Covenant and Slavery
8. King's Calendar Short Comment on The Pharaoh of the Exodus.
When you read Josephus' account of the life of Moses, there arises some very interesting statements, that lead me to ask, “Was it in Fact the actual Pharaoh with whom Moses dealt? Or could it have been the Grandvisier Rekhmire?”
If we start with the presumption that the Exodus is a fact and it occurred within the 18th dynasty, and that chronologically speaking Amenhotep II was the new pharaoh as Egyptian Chronology for this period would indicate, then there is indication that it was not with Amenhotep himself that Moses dealt, but with his Grandvizier Rekhmire.
While by all accounts Amenhotep II was far worse by nature and practice than even the Biblical Narrative indicates, by the measure of Petrie's chronology, the Exodus would have taken place during Amenhotep II's co-regency during the last two years of Thothmes III. During these years, and again during his 7th and 9th years, Amenhotep left Egypt to campaign in Asia, leaving the administration of the kingdom in the hands of the Grandvizier.
Some rather odd statements in both the biblical narratives and in Josephus lend support to the hypothesis that Moses dealt not with Pharaoh himself, but with the GrandVizier Rekhmire. We are informed that Rekhmire met perhaps a violent end and 'almost certainly with disgrace' (James, T. 1984 p.21 / p.52). If indeed he was the Pharaoh with whom Moses dealt, then his final disgrace might be understood within the context of the Exodus event.
The young twenty/twenty-two year old Amenhotep would not have been pleased when he returned home to discover that this 'old' and up until this time, very powerful Grandvizier, had allowed such a large number of slaves escape.
The emphatic 'old' is important because it is significant in the light of statements in the Tyndale Commentary on Romans, (1992, p.183), to note that while Amenhotep was a very young man, Rekhmire was old. F.F. Bruce, (Tyndale Commentary on Romans, 1992, p.183) in discussing the term 'I have raised you up' (Romans 9:17) points out that the Septuagint renders St. Paul's verb 'Exegeiro' as: 'you were preserved' and comments that 'The reference may be not only to G-d's raising up Pharaoh to be king, but to his patience in preserving him alive for so long, in spite of his disobedience'.
This could not apply to 22 year old Amenhotep. It could however apply to Rekhmire, who as Grandvizier for most of Thutmosis III's 54 years, was about 70 years old. Whatever may be the preferred reading of the Israelite escape through the Red Sea, the result remains the same, disaster! The Israelites escape and the Grandvizier suffers for it. (Exodus 15: Pharaoh of the Exodus: Who was he? Did he Drown?)
The Odd Statements
No.1
Exodus 13:29-31 informs us that pharaoh, like everyone else, lost his firstborn to the angel of death, subsequent to which he ordered Moses and the Israelites to leave Egypt.
No.2
In Exodus 14:5 however, we read that Pharaoh had to be told that the Israelites had fled, as though it was unknown to him. Furthermore, he appears confused by it, asking 'Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?
No 3.
In Antiquities 2:15:3 (Whiston, 1993, p.75) Josephus records that pharaoh 'was mightily concerned that this (Exodus) had been procured by the magic arts'. How could Pharaoh have been unaware of the contest between Egyptian and Hebrew magic? Could he have forgotten his son's death?
Josephus' version of the Biblical account (Antiquities Book 2 Chs.13 & 14 -Whiston, 1993, pp.72/73), records that pharaoh was not moved by the plagues, until after the deaths of the first-born. Josephus however makes a statement not recorded in the Canonical version, indicating that Pharaoh in arriving at his decision to let the Hebrews go, was persuaded by 'many Egyptians who lived near the King's palace'.
How then can it be that the Pharaoh who witnessed firsthand the various plagues, and who was 'persuaded' by court officials to let the Hebrews go, would need anyone to explain to him the meaning of the Israelite departure?
He appears surprised, shocked and ignorant of the background to the event? Why would he, contrary to all common sense and logic in view of what had transpired, pursue the Israelites? Could it be that this pharaoh, and the one who released the Israelites, are two different people?'
If Rekhmire was the 'Pharaoh' who let Israel go, then Amenhotep would not have known about it until after the event. The Biblical portrayal of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart may simply reflect the fact that when Amenhotep returned from his campaign and learned of the Exodus, that he ordered Rekhmire to have the Israelites returned.
Rekhmire's apparent disgrace and fall from power, may find explanation in his failure to fulfill his Pharaoh's command, or as the Bible seems to indicate, his death in the Red Sea put an end to his career. (Exodus 15: Pharaoh of the Exodus: Who was he? Did he Drown?)
9. Josephus' Chronologies
The 'King's Calendar' has devoted one whole chapter to deconstructing and reconstructing Josephus' Chronologies, and does so through a process that has abandoned the traditional method of understanding Biblical Chronology. Defying logic, and accepting both the Biblical data and Josephus' data as it stands, but giving it a different value, the 'King's Calendar' in applying that data, has revealed that both the biblical record and Josephus provide genuine chronological data, by synchronising that data with known history.
For those unfamiliar with the King's Calendar, the article entitled: What is the King's Calendar? briefly explains the King's Calendar and its' methodology.
The following brief notes come from Chapter 20 of the King's Calendar, which deals with Forty-One observations concerning Josephus' chronological references.
In point fashion.
i) Aristobulus to Titus.
173 solar years = 187.4 artificial years
ii) Cyrus to Aristobulus.
The correct artificial figure is 471 years.
iii) Babylonian Exile to Cyrus.
The Correct Chronological Reference is 52 artificial years.
iv) Monarchal Israel from David to the Babylonian Exile
473.5 artificial years As per Biblical Narratives
v) Departure from Egypt to David
From the expulsion of the Hyksos to King David is 589 artificial years
vi) Founding of Jerusalem to David
The Correct figure is 995 artificial years
vii) Departure from Egypt to Babylonian Exile
The Expulsion of the Hyksos to the Babylonian Exile is correct at 1062.5 artificial years
viii) Founding of Jerusalem to the Babylonian Exile
This is a correct artificial figure of 1468.5 artificial years
ix) King David to Cyrus
Artificially this is 525 years.
x) Error of 13.5 artificial years
The Biblical Narrative, which is reflected in all the ancient sources, contains an accumulative error of 13.5 years, the result of overlapping reigns. (Twelve years overlap Uzziah and Amaziah, one year overlap Jotham to Hezekiah, and 6 months assigned Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin)
A Further Example:
An erroneous Reference to the Fall of Samaria.
In Antiquities Book 9:14:1 [ 280 ] ( Whiston, 1993, p.264 ) Josephus states that "...the ten tribes of the Israelites were removed out of Judea nine hundred and forty-seven years after their forefathers were come out of the land of Egypt, and possessed themselves of the country......" The Date for this removal was 722 BCE, the Fall of Samaria under Hoshea of Israel.
This figure of 947 years elapsing between the exodus and the fall of Samaria in 722 BCE is written off by everyone as a complete fantasy, for it would require that the exodus occurred in 1669 BCE. While the reference is wrong however, it is not fanciful.
As previously mentioned Antiquities 10:8:5 states that between the Exodus and the Burning of the Temple, 1062.5 years elapse, and as also previously mentioned, these years refer not to the Mosaic Exodus but to that of the Hyksos from Egypt, and pinpoint the year 1554 BCE, which falls in the middle of current academic speculation.
The Breakdown of that artificial 1062.5 year figure is:
589 (artificial) Years from Exodus to David + 473.5 (Artificial) years from David to the Burning of the Temple.
Since the matter at hand is the fall of Samaria in 722 BCE, we can reconfigure the breakdown of the 1062.5 years and divided it into two different parts ie Exodus To 722 BCE + 722 To 586 BCE
When we do this however the result is 914.5 years from Exodus to 722 and 148 years from 722 to 586 BCE. This is at variance with Josephus' 947 years from Exodus to 722 BCE, and would require that we reduce the 148 years from 722 to 586 BCE., to 115.5 years. There is a variation of 32.5 years.
In this case, Josephus' intention appears to have been to subtract the time difference between the Fall of Samaria (722 BCE) and (586 BCE) the Fall of Jerusalem (136 Solar Years) from 1062.5 years, to arrive at a balance of years that he presumed would apply to the period between Exodus and the fall of Samaria.
This ought to have resulted in the following equation : 1062.5 less 136 = 926 years. Remembering that Josephus was unaware of the artificial construct, any years he personally calculates will be in solar years; What he appears in fact to have done is subtract the time difference between 701 BCE, when Sennacherib invaded Hezekiah in Judah, and the Exile in 586 BCE., or 115 Solar years.
From his original source quoting a time span of 1062.5 years between the Exodus and the Babylonian Exile, and which he believed to have been recorded in true solar years, Josephus erroneously deducted 115 years (701 - 586 BCE) instead of 136 years (722 - 586 BCE), resulting in a 947 year calculation for the period 'Exodus to Fall of Samaria', instead of 914.5 years.
These 914.5 artificial years then relate not to the Mosaic Exodus, but to the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt during the 16th Century BCE.
10. Contradictions to the Biblical Record
Within Josephus' chronological references, there are a few references to the lengths of the reigns of certain kings during the Divided Kingdom period that do not match the information provided in the Biblical records. I would like to draw your attention to them for they are not all wrong.
The Reign of Omri
1 Kings 16:23 states that "In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, and reigned twelve years; six years reigned he in Tirzah" This Scripture appears to state that he commenced his 12 years in Asa's 31st year, but a perusal of the other related references indicates that it was in Asa's 31st year that he commenced his Six (6) year sole reign.
HOWEVER Josephus in Antiquities 8:12:5 states that Omri reigned 6 years in Tirzah commencing in the 30th year of king Asa of Judah. In Appendix Five one can see that both of these references are correct.
From Josephus perspective, Omri commenced his six years in Tirzah in the 30th SOLAR YEAR OF ASA'S REIGN, whilst 1 kings 16:23 indicates that Omri ascended to the throne (of the one Nation) in the 31st artificial year.
The Reign of Athaliah
According to Josephus 9:7:1 Athaliah reigned 5 years. Within Appendix Five it appears to be correct, but it is not. Athaliah's 6th Artificial year commenced in October 844, and her 6th Solar Regnal year ought to have commenced in Nisan of 843 BCE. Had it not, then Joash would claim 843 BCE as his First Solar Regnal Year. The Synchronisms do not appear to support this. So we can only assume that while technically Josephus was incorrect, we might assume that she died very shortly after the New Year (Nisan) so as to not in any practical sense, be considered to have reigned her 6th year.
The Reign of Jehu
2 Kings 10:36 states that Jehu reigned 28 years. Josephus in Antiquities 9:8:1 says it was for 27 years. Either we have an error in transcription in relation to the artificial calendar, or an error in Solar year reckoning, for Jehu reigned 25 solar years.
The Reign of Jehoahaz of Israel
According to Antiquities 9:8:5 Jehoahaz son of Jehu of Israel, reigned for 17 years commencing in the 20th year of Jehoash of Judah. The Bible however states that he reigned for 17 years commencing in the 23rd year of Jehoash of Judah - 2 Kings 13:1. Both of these references are correct, for in the one it refers to artificial reckoning and in the other to the solar year reckoning. See Appendix 5 chart.
The Reigns of Jehoash of Judah and Jehoash of Israel
According to Josephus Antiquities 9:8:6 and 2 Kings 13:10 Jehoash of Israel commenced to reign in the 37th year of Jehoash of Judah. From these we can assume that Jehoash of Israel commenced during his father's reign. However, it can also be demonstrated that the reference has a solar year application. Jehoash of Israel's first Regnal/Solar year commences in Nisan of 806 BCE which is the 37th Regnal/Solar year of Amaziah. These references can be seen as both artificial and solar year references.
The Reign of Jeroboam II
In Antiquities 9:10:1 Josephus says that in 15th year of Amaziah, Jeroboam commenced to reign for 40 years - not the 41 Years of 2 Kings 14:23. In Appendix Five you can see that in all, Jeroboam reigned only 37 Solar Years, therefore Josephus reference cannot be to Solar Years. Its' variation from Scripture can be seen as a calculation commencing one year later than the presentation in Appendix five, based on the 41 years of the Biblical record. The Biblical record actually requires him to share both his first and last years. Josephus has not included both of these years.
The Reign of Uzziah
In Antiquities 9:10:3 Josephus writes: 'After the same manner did Uzziah, the son of Amaziah, begin to reign over the two tribes in Jerusalem, in the fourteenth year of the reign of Jeroboam'. this is correct in Solar Year Synchronism.
The Reigns of the Kings of Israel and Judah.
The original premise of research in 'The King's Calendar', was that contradictions are only apparent, but not real. This premise facilitated in the discovery of the reality behind apparent contradictions. As we have seen, some contradictions are not truly contradictory, they are just references based within a different chronological approach.
In the following three photographs you can see the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah for the period of the divided kingdom. The reigns are presented from three perspectives.
The first two columns on the left represent the original data quoted in the Scriptures.
The Second two columns contain the adjustments that occurs when the reigns are synchronised according to Scripture.
The third two columns provide the actual lengths of reigns in Solar years.
11. Conclusion:
Whatever may be said of Josephus, he did have at his disposal, material that was correct, albeit in an artificial time reckoning system. His chronological references can be understood, and for the most part, his references provide us with a far clearer chronological history of the Ancient world, than is currently understood by modern Academics.
I do hope that this article has been of assistance to you in understanding Josephus' chronologies.
Copyright 2013 is held by the nominated authors on this article page.
The Download book does not contain a section on Seder Olam
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.
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 also 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.
He has been a conversational English Teacher in China since 2003 and is currently (2013) teaching in SuZhou City Jiangsu Province in China.
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' years364 = perceived days in the sectarian calendar'Y' = number of days calculated336 = 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.
Because of this, the King's Calendar Chronological Reconstruction of Israel's history is unique, in that its' methodology can be scientifically (mathematically) tested and demonstrated to be either true or false. Its' chronological predictions are able to be 'proved' or 'disproved'.
