The most recent and substantial studies of the Assyrian eponym canon provide several surprising ramifications, ultimately revealing fraud by Sargon II and Sennacherib in the form of record tampering. Their combined manipulations produced a shrinkage of 18 years in the Assyrian and Babylonian records for their era, a period of extreme astronomical significance and a loss in exact cadence with Babylonian eclipse lists of the same era which kept records at 18 year intervals—one lost entry meant 18 lost years. As a matter of record, the basic discrepancy between the Bible’s chronology and Assyrian/Babylonian records from 781-700 BC is 12 and 18 years at various intervals, intervals that fit Sargon’s tampering and, later, Sennacherib’s adjustments exactly.
Sennacherib’s motives and tactics are more easily understood and discerned. Once his fraud is sniffed out, Assyriology actually needs the Bible to rescue its remaining credibility. Otherwise, any discovered fraud renders several centuries of reconstructed Assyrian history as highly suspect. Scholars could soon find themselves agreeing with the Bible. But before presenting evidence and arguments, let us review the astronomical side of this historical puzzle, keyed to three lunar eclipses Ptolemy used to anchor the years of his canon of Babylonian and Persian kings. Science says Ptolemy’s eclipses were right on schedule (see Understanding Hezekiah's Sign post), but Hezekiah’s sign says this is impossible.
To briefly review, Hezekiah faced a life-threatening illness and was told by Isaiah that God would heal him and save Jerusalem from capture as well. Isaiah asked Hezekiah which sign of confirmation he would prefer, for the sun's shadow to move forward or backward ten steps on the dial of Ahaz. Hezekiah chose the latter, knowing such a miraculous event would confirm Isaiah's predictions of healing and deliverance. Though Ahaz’ step sundial has long been destroyed, by process of elimination we can know its design exactly. All we need to know is that the Jews kept time in hours, which they did. So how many steps per hour did Ahaz’ dial have? Not one, two, four or any other number but three. There are not enough daylight hours to allow one step per hour because Hezekiah's choice of 10 steps forward or backward requires 20 hours. The science of eclipses also eliminates any number but three because any other number would not permit science to calculate Ptolemy’s eclipses as precisely on schedule--if earth's rotation changed to move the shadow backwards.
A design of three steps per hour means each step counted 20 minutes of time. Ten steps counts 3 hours 20 minutes. Since the shadow went backward, a minimum of another 3 hours 20 minutes is needed to get the shadow (and earth’s rotation) back to its original position—at which point modern astronomical calculations are valid again. God very likely did not slam rotation into reverse then violently reverse rotation once more after 3 hours 20 minutes. Just as we do when driving our cars, God put on the brakes, decelerating for about 30 minutes each time before changing direction. That brings the total length of Hezekiah’s miracle sign to 7 hours 40 minutes (±), which sounds a powerful alarm to every astronomer familiar with eclipse science.
Here is why. Any loss of approximately eight hours of rotation causes every subsequent solar and lunar eclipse for a period of 18 years to be a clone of its previous Saros sibling. That is unheard of in known science but science actually requires it since eclipses are very punctual, occurring in cycles of 18 years 11 days 7-8 hours. All (lunar) eclipses would be virtual clones if the cycle were just 18 years 11 days. But the earth’s rotation produces roughly 120° movement over the last few hours each cycle. Three cycles are needed before similar eclipses recur. Hezekiah’s sign produced one 18-year cycle of clones. Much as it would today, such a written astronomical record prompted denial by later generations of Babylonian magi. They recorded their lists on clay tablets, which tablets had to be transcribed as the records expanded. Back to back eclipses of largely identical description would appear to be an unfortunate blunder by weary scribes long since dead. Later generations fixed (eliminated) the mistakes, losing 18 years of history in the process since that is exactly how much history each record represented.
If we recall, the biblical record was 18 years greater than the secular historical record. At this point the Bible has science as an ally, and potentially the Babylonian eclipse lists, though based on the speculation the lists were later edited at some point before Hipparchus translated them into Greek. This would partially explain Ptolemy’s difficulties in assembling his canon. But what about Assyrian and Babylonian records?
The assembled evidence is formidable. The Assyrian canon is also known as the Eponym Canon or limmu chronicles. Several king lists and fairly substantial annals of kings support the apparent history. The Babylonian Chronicle, though slender, is in accord with the Assyrian record. We are able to find considerable agreement between the Assyrian and Babylonian records because Assyrian kings largely controlled the Babylonian throne throughout this period, either occupying dual thrones or appointing a son or Babylonian leader to govern the region. In addition, the limmu chronicles are a seemingly impartial list of honored officials appointed each year, and Assyrian documents were commonly dated to the year of the current limmu, as well as some Babylonian records. This makes it possible to further synchronize Assyrian and Babylonian records. Scholars have remarked that the various kings’ annals were written to please the king in question and preserve the record of his accomplishments. Little expense was spared so some records, however glossy, have fared well over the centuries. But the king lists and limmu lists seem impartial enough. Scholars have hoped these records were above reproach, but the surviving evidence yields clues that the record has been corrupted.
At the moment the most definitive work compiled on the Assyrian canon was published in 1994, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910-612 BC. Author Alan Millard gives exhaustive comment and review as well as including reproductions of the actual cuneiform records in his appendices. Millard’s observations and the cuneiform is all that is required to expose fraud by Sennacherib late in his reign, probably about the time his famous annals were written.
Millard points out that Assyrian kings were allowed to serve as limmu once, early in their reign. If a king was fortunate enough to reign 30 years, he was allowed to serve as limmu again in his 31st regnal year. Millard also notes that Assyrian scribes etched horizontal rulings in their records to indicate a change in government as a new king began to reign, and once after a spectacular witnessed solar eclipse. Though variations appeared over time, some scribes also included a tally of the prior king’s regnal years above the horizontal ruling. But the surviving record (which resides in the British Museum) shows a deviation for Sennacherib. Partially defaced, the cuneiform reads “[ ] years” followed by an etched horizontal ruling above Sennacherib’s name. The apparent year is 687 BC, assumed to be Sennacherib’s 19th year as king. The tally of years, though illegible, and the horizontal ruling indicate the death of Sargon II—18 years late—or the completion of a 30 year cycle by Sennacherib, which is the only historically viable choice. But this requires the conclusion 12 years are missing.
Millard’s observations again provide sufficient explanation. Limmus were officials chosen from various regions in the Assyrian empire. It seems certain traditions were followed based on superstition in which a king imitated the pattern of a great predecessor, usually his father, in selecting the geographic regions (and thus officials) honored. Presumably the gods had favored successful kings, so following their geographic order in selecting limmus was recommended to continue in divine favor. Kings did exert their will, wisely honoring their military commanders and other court officials with some discretion, but the geographic influence prevailed with only a few deviations, perhaps because a city had been destroyed (possible rebellion) or renamed, or perhaps to include new areas which had come into Assyria’s expanding empire. Kings usually began the geographic cycle anew at the start of their reign. Sennacherib did not. Instead the surviving record shows he merely continued his father Sargon’s pattern. But if we restore the traditional geographic sequence, 12 years suddenly reappear, shifting the problematic reference to Sennacherib as limmu from his 19th to his 31st year as king in agreement with Millard’s comments mentioned earlier. But if a cloud of suspicion is cast over the integrity of part of the limmu canon, the whole suffers.
Why would Sennacherib shorten his reign, thus diminishing his longevity and glory in the eyes of future generations? Because Sennacherib’s reign did not begin with a bang, but a whimper: one of his armies was divinely destroyed outside Jerusalem in the year 713 BC (not 701). Sennacherib and Assyria were severely weakened and Babylon promptly began a period of stubborn rebellion led by Merodach Baladan (II), son of Baladan. Looking back on his reign, Sennacherib saw many internal accomplishments, but a tarnished military record. It took years to subdue Babylon, sparking intense hatred for that nation. After Sennacherib’s assassination, his son Esarhaddon took steps to make peace and rebuild Babylon. But the Babylonians so hated Sennacherib they eliminated reference to his reign over their nation from most of their records. Ptolemy was forced to indicate periods of no king (interregnums) for the times Sennacherib held the throne.
For his part, Sennacherib removed mention of 12 years reign by Merodach Baladan (II) from official Babylonian records. Thus he slighted an enemy and balanced the records of Assyria and Babylon to cover his deceit. But Sennacherib’s authorized annals reveal his guilt, aided by astronomy. Sennacherib boasted he had installed Bel-ibni on the Babylonian throne early in his reign, about 715 BC. Conveniently, a Babylonian eclipse record cites the reign of Bel-ibni in 703 BC, revealing a cover-up by Assyrian scribes.
Another curiosity of the Eponym Canon is that a 150-year tradition of brief notations (usually detailing military activities) abruptly ended during Sennacherib’s reign about the time of his disastrous campaign against Judah and Jerusalem. Never to resume again. Nor did Sennacherib honor a military commander as limmu until late in his reign, another lapse with tradition. None of these issues is individually conclusive evidence, but the faulty regnal tally, horizontal ruling and second limmu listing at the 19th year of Sennacherib is hard archaeological evidence. As an acknowledged authority, Millard has provided all the insight we need. Once we discover 12 additional years of history, eclipse science requires six more missing years beyond any possible dispute. Again, the Eponym Canon provides the clues.
The surviving record shows two faulty regnal tallies and that Shalmaneser V continued Tiglath-Pileser’s limmu pattern rather than beginning the traditional cycle anew. Restoring traditional limmu patterns produces four new years, then two more years. These discoveries actually represent the first instance of fraud by Shalmaneser’s brother, Sargon II, a deception which Sennacherib merely imitated. Shalmaneser and Sargon shared regnal chores, but Sargon was subordinate. When Sargon came to sole power late in life, his military accomplishments seemed attributed to Shalmaneser by official records so Sargon destroyed his brother’s records and tinkered with the Eponym Canon to shorten Shalmaneser’s apparent reign to five years, lengthening his own reign in the process. Sargon subsequently took the throne of Babylon, only to discover regnal records revealed Shalmaneser V held the Babylonian throne for five years, long after the Assyrian records now reported his death. So the 12-year reign of Merodach Baladan (I), son of Iakin, and the 5-year reign of Shalmaneser were inverted, restoring harmony between the records of Babylon and Assyria. Sargon also had what is now called the SDAS king list compiled with regnal tallies cited to support the newly created record. Centuries later, Ptolemy never had a chance to discern these tactics, failing to understand there were two Merodach Baladans, or that between Sargon and Sennacherib 18 years of history had been trimmed. Nor could Ptolemy imagine the consequences of Hezekiah’s sign, if he was aware of it at all.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
More Sennacherib problems
In 709 [actually 721], [Sargon] led the new-year procession as king of Babylon. He married his son, crown-prince Sennacherib to the Aramaic noblewoman Naqi'a and stayed in the south to pacify the Aramaic and Chaldean tribes of the lower Euphrates as well as the Suti-nomads.
Note: Sennacherib could have been as old as 33 at the time of this marriage in 709 [721]. The problem is Sennacherib's annals claim he put his son Assur-nadin-shumi on the Babylonian throne in 700. That he would install a son at the age of eight or less to govern rebellious Babylon is more than suspect. Actually, once we restore 12 missing years to Sennacherib's reign, Assur-nadin-shumi could have been made king at an age of 20 (or less).
Note: Sennacherib could have been as old as 33 at the time of this marriage in 709 [721]. The problem is Sennacherib's annals claim he put his son Assur-nadin-shumi on the Babylonian throne in 700. That he would install a son at the age of eight or less to govern rebellious Babylon is more than suspect. Actually, once we restore 12 missing years to Sennacherib's reign, Assur-nadin-shumi could have been made king at an age of 20 (or less).
Friday, January 12, 2007
Scholars fuss with their own construction of history
Worrying Duplications.
- The ubiquitous king of Babylon, Merodach-baladan, was already giving trouble to Assyria in the days of Tiglath-pileser III (c.744-727 BC). He then becomes a complete thorn in Sargon's side for the latter's first 12 years of reign (c.721-710). He then resurfaces at the time of Sennacherib, who defeats him in his first campaign and then, finally, in his fourth campaign (c.704-700). Kings can reign over long periods of time, but this Merodach-baladan seems greatly to have overstayed his welcome.
And
- Whilst it is not difficult to believe, for instance, that Sargon might have sent his 'son' on certain campaigns and then claimed the credit himself, it may be less easy to believe that Sargon destroyed the Chaldean king Merodach-baladan's city of Dur-Yakin, and then that Sennacherib did the same only a few years later. Thus Eric Aitchison [15]: "The city of Dur Iakin is destroyed twice according to the detailed records of Sargon and Sennacherib. Sargon records its destruction in his year 13 whilst Sennacherib records it in his campaign one".
Eponym Irregularity.
This factor, in the case of Sargon/Sennacherib, was pointed out by Professor Newton, as quoted by conventionalist defender, Carl Olaf Jonsson [16]:
... the king Sargon II is believed from other evidence to have reigned only 17 years, but the number of limmu listed for his reign is 32, according to Mr Couture (private communication); I have not verified this number independently. Thus we must allow the possibility that there are gaps in the list.
Jonsson then proceeds to take Professor Newton to task for this conclusion:
Such a conclusion rests upon the erroneous assumption that the Eponym Canon indicates that kings regularly held the eponymy in their first regnal year. But an examination of the Eponym Chronicle as well as other contemporary documents clearly demonstrates that this is not intended by the Canon. It is certainly true that in the earlier periods the kings held the eponymy in their first or second regnal years, but in later times they deviated from this practice. For example, Shalmaneser V (726-21 BC) held the eponymy in his fourth regnal year.
.... Shalmaneser's successor, Sargon II, held the eponymy in his third regnal year.
.... But the greatest departure from the earlier 'rule' is listed for Sennacherib, Sargon's successor [sic], who held the eponymy in his eighteenth year! ....
Sennacherib's eponymy in his eighteenth year is certainly a huge departure from Assyrian tradition. Perhaps easier to believe that, in the context of this paper, this was Sennacherib's second eponymy; his first being in (Sargon's) Year 3.
Clear Statements Contravened.
There is the problem that Sennacherib, with reference to his third campaign in the west, mentions that he had already been receiving tribute from king Hezekiah of Judah prior to that. Yet Sennacherib's two previous campaigns (first and second) were nowhere near Judah in the west; but were waged in the east [17]. So one wonders when had the king of Assyria managed initially to enforce his supremacy over Hezekiah?
Similarly, Sennacherib claims to have employed Manneans as slave labourers, even though he is thought never to have campaigned against this people. Russell queries this [18]:
Sennacherib says, "The people of Chaldea, the Aramaeans, the Manneans ... who had not submitted to the yoke, I removed from hither, and made them carry the basket and mold bricks". Where did Sennacherib find these workers? His first and only campaign at this point had been directed against the south. There he encountered Chaldeans and Aramaeans .... he does not, however, mention Manneans ... among the enemy .... he apparently never campaigned in Mannea at all. ... the best way [sic] to account for the captives from Mannea ... this early in Sennacherib's reign is to assume that they were left over from the reign of Sargon II, who did campaign in these areas.
SOURCE: Sargon Is Sennacherib, Damien Mackey, 2001, Internet (http://www.specialtyinterests.net/sargon.html#ei)
- The ubiquitous king of Babylon, Merodach-baladan, was already giving trouble to Assyria in the days of Tiglath-pileser III (c.744-727 BC). He then becomes a complete thorn in Sargon's side for the latter's first 12 years of reign (c.721-710). He then resurfaces at the time of Sennacherib, who defeats him in his first campaign and then, finally, in his fourth campaign (c.704-700). Kings can reign over long periods of time, but this Merodach-baladan seems greatly to have overstayed his welcome.
And
- Whilst it is not difficult to believe, for instance, that Sargon might have sent his 'son' on certain campaigns and then claimed the credit himself, it may be less easy to believe that Sargon destroyed the Chaldean king Merodach-baladan's city of Dur-Yakin, and then that Sennacherib did the same only a few years later. Thus Eric Aitchison [15]: "The city of Dur Iakin is destroyed twice according to the detailed records of Sargon and Sennacherib. Sargon records its destruction in his year 13 whilst Sennacherib records it in his campaign one".
Eponym Irregularity.
This factor, in the case of Sargon/Sennacherib, was pointed out by Professor Newton, as quoted by conventionalist defender, Carl Olaf Jonsson [16]:
... the king Sargon II is believed from other evidence to have reigned only 17 years, but the number of limmu listed for his reign is 32, according to Mr Couture (private communication); I have not verified this number independently. Thus we must allow the possibility that there are gaps in the list.
Jonsson then proceeds to take Professor Newton to task for this conclusion:
Such a conclusion rests upon the erroneous assumption that the Eponym Canon indicates that kings regularly held the eponymy in their first regnal year. But an examination of the Eponym Chronicle as well as other contemporary documents clearly demonstrates that this is not intended by the Canon. It is certainly true that in the earlier periods the kings held the eponymy in their first or second regnal years, but in later times they deviated from this practice. For example, Shalmaneser V (726-21 BC) held the eponymy in his fourth regnal year.
.... Shalmaneser's successor, Sargon II, held the eponymy in his third regnal year.
.... But the greatest departure from the earlier 'rule' is listed for Sennacherib, Sargon's successor [sic], who held the eponymy in his eighteenth year! ....
Sennacherib's eponymy in his eighteenth year is certainly a huge departure from Assyrian tradition. Perhaps easier to believe that, in the context of this paper, this was Sennacherib's second eponymy; his first being in (Sargon's) Year 3.
Clear Statements Contravened.
There is the problem that Sennacherib, with reference to his third campaign in the west, mentions that he had already been receiving tribute from king Hezekiah of Judah prior to that. Yet Sennacherib's two previous campaigns (first and second) were nowhere near Judah in the west; but were waged in the east [17]. So one wonders when had the king of Assyria managed initially to enforce his supremacy over Hezekiah?
Similarly, Sennacherib claims to have employed Manneans as slave labourers, even though he is thought never to have campaigned against this people. Russell queries this [18]:
Sennacherib says, "The people of Chaldea, the Aramaeans, the Manneans ... who had not submitted to the yoke, I removed from hither, and made them carry the basket and mold bricks". Where did Sennacherib find these workers? His first and only campaign at this point had been directed against the south. There he encountered Chaldeans and Aramaeans .... he does not, however, mention Manneans ... among the enemy .... he apparently never campaigned in Mannea at all. ... the best way [sic] to account for the captives from Mannea ... this early in Sennacherib's reign is to assume that they were left over from the reign of Sargon II, who did campaign in these areas.
SOURCE: Sargon Is Sennacherib, Damien Mackey, 2001, Internet (http://www.specialtyinterests.net/sargon.html#ei)
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Eclipses, history and the Bible
Ancient eclipses, both solar and lunar, are the bedrock of modern astronomy as it relates to the movement of the earth around the sun and the movement of the moon around the earth. Because eclipses are periodical and predictable, they are of great value to historians.
Historians and astronomers are also very dependent on each other. Astronomers are able to verify many ancient astronomical observations (events) from a variety of sources, including Ptolemy’s Almagest. But actually, astronomers first need a reliable, approximate date or year to confirm records of observed events like a solar or lunar eclipse. Mistakes are possible, but unlikely, and astronomers and historians are usually well aware of when predicted dates are really just educated guesses. Appropriately, they warn readers when giving tentative information.
There is an important exception however which involves the history of the Near East and Ptolemy’s Canon, not to mention the Bible. Having survived 19 centuries of scrutiny, Ptolemy’s Canon is an invaluable aid to astronomy and historical research. Its oldest information dates to what is called the era of Nabonassar, believed to be 747 BC (or its equivalent) since the second century AD. Ptolemy used the regnal information of Near East kings and Babylonian astronomical records, especially of lunar eclipses, to establish dates much as modern astronomers and historians do.
Ptolemy actually relied heavily on Babylonian material gathered and translated by the Greek astronomer Hipparchus several hundred years before him. The earliest lunar eclipses Ptolemy was able to find have long been dated (mistakenly) to 720 and 721 BC. These three eclipses of the moon in such close proximity present a fairly unique astronomical cluster that modern astronomy is able to almost exactly verify when comparing contemporary calculations to Hipparchus’ translation of the Babylonian observations.
To say these eclipses are mistakenly dated would invoke a storm of protest by leading authorities of the day. The issue has been around for centuries, but the debate largely ceased by at least 1700. From this same era, a footnote in Whiston’s translation of Josephus’ writings indicates that these eclipses were well understood by historians and theologians. What was there to understand? Hezekiah’s sign.
Hezekiah’s sign followed the trio of lunar eclipses described by the Babylonians by not many years. Here is the problem. The Bible says the shadow of the sun went backwards ten steps (on the step sundial of Ahaz). This poses a serious problem to astronomers. By calculation, these eclipses seem to occur how, when and where the Babylonians said in the year Ptolemy’s Canon identifies. But for a shadow to go backwards, the earth’s rotation had to change, in this case not merely stop but go backwards. Or the whole universe would need to reverse-rotate by a Ptolemy-like view of the heavens.
Somewhere between Ptolemy’s era, c. 150 AD, and Whiston’s day theologians succumbed to the science of man. It means Bible scholars and authorities abandoned literal interpretation to satisfy astronomers and historians, an error which permeates all chronology and biblical interpretation to this day. For example, reference and study bibles that give dates for Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem basically deny the truth of the Bible regarding Hezekiah’s sign, not to mention many other details found in the books of Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah. Instead, theologians acquiesce to an interpretation supporting a smoke-and-mirrors miracle that somehow made the shadow go backwards without altering the earth’s rotation as science understands it.
Other Jewish writings plainly say the sun went backwards in the sky. Theologians silently skirt the implications that the God of Joshua’s long day could not or would not work such a miracle, preferring to render subsequent centuries of praise as hollow and foolish to the bewilderment of every angel in heaven.
The Bible says the shadow of the sun went backwards and Bible chronology supports it, though at the expense of our imperfect history of the Near East and Ptolemy’s Canon. Science actually helps us solve the problem, an 18-year error in our understanding of the history of the region.
The science of when and where an eclipse is seen and how it appears depends on the movement of the earth and moon around the sun. In addition, the rotation of the earth (360° in 24 hours) determines the local time of eclipses of the moon, in this case what time the Babylonians saw the three eclipses, two near moonrise and one near midnight. Normally, eclipses recur in cycles of 18 years, 10 or 11 days, 7 to 8 hours. The last few hours cause a lunar eclipse seen after moonrise to recur 7 to 8 hours later next time, then 7 to 8 hours the following, then 7-8 hours the third time. So after three more eclipses, 54 years and a month later the third eclipse occurs near moonrise again. It is impossible for two eclipses of the same family to both occur at moonrise back-to-back (18 years apart).
But there are times when science must bow to the sovereignty of God or eventually He will confound the wisdom of man. In this case, God reverse-rotated the earth or the universe to fulfill Hezekiah’s request. It took about 20 to 30 minutes to slow the earth’s (or universe’s) rotation, then about 3 hours 20 minutes for the shadow to move back 10 steps. Then a similar period of slowing followed by another 3 hours 20 minutes as the shadow returned to its beginning position. Hezekiah would not have seen this latter period as anything other than normal, but it is critical to the science of eclipses because every subsequent solar and lunar eclipse known to man was now about 7 hours 30-40 minutes behind schedule. It was as if the usual cycle had only been 18 years 10-11 days.
This has peculiar consequences. Modern science cannot predict it and of course works back in time (history) based on current (technically off-schedule) eclipses. To the Babylonians, the leading astronomers of the day, the consequences were more radical. For the 18 years following Hezekiah’s sign, every eclipse of the moon was identical to its preceding family member. Some eclipses that were expected to recur (after 3 cycles), could not be seen in Babylon at all. The Babylonians were so astonished that the Bible notes they came to inquire about the “wonder done in the land” on their subsequent visit to Jerusalem to see miraculously healed Hezekiah — a lunar eclipse viewable in Babylon and Jerusalem had occurred the night* the angel of the Lord destroyed the Assyrian army outside Jerusalem! At the wrong time (7-8 hours early)!
The fact that modern science wrongly but exactly confirms Ptolemy’s trio of eclipses as precisely on schedule is scientific evidence of the duration of Hezekiah’s sign. As for the Babylonians, they kept records of observed and predicted eclipses by (Saros) families — in other words, lists of eclipses or predictions at 18-year intervals. By keeping accurate records, the Babylonians compiled lists which later magi would be unable to understand. It would appear that their predecessors were guilty of a rash of scribal errors. Eventually, the embarrassing and potentially dangerous duplicate records were eliminated as information was transcribed to new clay tablets. By Nebuchadnezzar’s era, about 150 years later, it seems Babylonian science could measure and describe an eclipse of the moon to within 4 minutes (1°) of accuracy. At some point before Hipparchus’ time, they became victims of their own sophistication, though without suffering any practical consequences. Except that 18 years of history had now vanished.
To historians, the sudden reappearance of the missing 18 years is more humbling than damaging. It does expose some fraud by Sargon and Sennacherib in Assyrian records, but nothing historians cannot accept. Science suffers no real damage either, except to take the Bible more seriously and acknowledge God can and did reverse-rotate the earth…or the universe. I have to smile, because there is tangible Assyrian historical evidence in the British Museum that He did.
* Passover eve, 14 Abib, 713 BC or April 11/12, 713 BC proleptic Gregorian (Midrash Rabbah, Exod., 18:5;
Song, 1:12:3). Hezekiah’s sign was probably April 9.
Historians and astronomers are also very dependent on each other. Astronomers are able to verify many ancient astronomical observations (events) from a variety of sources, including Ptolemy’s Almagest. But actually, astronomers first need a reliable, approximate date or year to confirm records of observed events like a solar or lunar eclipse. Mistakes are possible, but unlikely, and astronomers and historians are usually well aware of when predicted dates are really just educated guesses. Appropriately, they warn readers when giving tentative information.
There is an important exception however which involves the history of the Near East and Ptolemy’s Canon, not to mention the Bible. Having survived 19 centuries of scrutiny, Ptolemy’s Canon is an invaluable aid to astronomy and historical research. Its oldest information dates to what is called the era of Nabonassar, believed to be 747 BC (or its equivalent) since the second century AD. Ptolemy used the regnal information of Near East kings and Babylonian astronomical records, especially of lunar eclipses, to establish dates much as modern astronomers and historians do.
Ptolemy actually relied heavily on Babylonian material gathered and translated by the Greek astronomer Hipparchus several hundred years before him. The earliest lunar eclipses Ptolemy was able to find have long been dated (mistakenly) to 720 and 721 BC. These three eclipses of the moon in such close proximity present a fairly unique astronomical cluster that modern astronomy is able to almost exactly verify when comparing contemporary calculations to Hipparchus’ translation of the Babylonian observations.
To say these eclipses are mistakenly dated would invoke a storm of protest by leading authorities of the day. The issue has been around for centuries, but the debate largely ceased by at least 1700. From this same era, a footnote in Whiston’s translation of Josephus’ writings indicates that these eclipses were well understood by historians and theologians. What was there to understand? Hezekiah’s sign.
Hezekiah’s sign followed the trio of lunar eclipses described by the Babylonians by not many years. Here is the problem. The Bible says the shadow of the sun went backwards ten steps (on the step sundial of Ahaz). This poses a serious problem to astronomers. By calculation, these eclipses seem to occur how, when and where the Babylonians said in the year Ptolemy’s Canon identifies. But for a shadow to go backwards, the earth’s rotation had to change, in this case not merely stop but go backwards. Or the whole universe would need to reverse-rotate by a Ptolemy-like view of the heavens.
Somewhere between Ptolemy’s era, c. 150 AD, and Whiston’s day theologians succumbed to the science of man. It means Bible scholars and authorities abandoned literal interpretation to satisfy astronomers and historians, an error which permeates all chronology and biblical interpretation to this day. For example, reference and study bibles that give dates for Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem basically deny the truth of the Bible regarding Hezekiah’s sign, not to mention many other details found in the books of Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah. Instead, theologians acquiesce to an interpretation supporting a smoke-and-mirrors miracle that somehow made the shadow go backwards without altering the earth’s rotation as science understands it.
Other Jewish writings plainly say the sun went backwards in the sky. Theologians silently skirt the implications that the God of Joshua’s long day could not or would not work such a miracle, preferring to render subsequent centuries of praise as hollow and foolish to the bewilderment of every angel in heaven.
The Bible says the shadow of the sun went backwards and Bible chronology supports it, though at the expense of our imperfect history of the Near East and Ptolemy’s Canon. Science actually helps us solve the problem, an 18-year error in our understanding of the history of the region.
The science of when and where an eclipse is seen and how it appears depends on the movement of the earth and moon around the sun. In addition, the rotation of the earth (360° in 24 hours) determines the local time of eclipses of the moon, in this case what time the Babylonians saw the three eclipses, two near moonrise and one near midnight. Normally, eclipses recur in cycles of 18 years, 10 or 11 days, 7 to 8 hours. The last few hours cause a lunar eclipse seen after moonrise to recur 7 to 8 hours later next time, then 7 to 8 hours the following, then 7-8 hours the third time. So after three more eclipses, 54 years and a month later the third eclipse occurs near moonrise again. It is impossible for two eclipses of the same family to both occur at moonrise back-to-back (18 years apart).
But there are times when science must bow to the sovereignty of God or eventually He will confound the wisdom of man. In this case, God reverse-rotated the earth or the universe to fulfill Hezekiah’s request. It took about 20 to 30 minutes to slow the earth’s (or universe’s) rotation, then about 3 hours 20 minutes for the shadow to move back 10 steps. Then a similar period of slowing followed by another 3 hours 20 minutes as the shadow returned to its beginning position. Hezekiah would not have seen this latter period as anything other than normal, but it is critical to the science of eclipses because every subsequent solar and lunar eclipse known to man was now about 7 hours 30-40 minutes behind schedule. It was as if the usual cycle had only been 18 years 10-11 days.
This has peculiar consequences. Modern science cannot predict it and of course works back in time (history) based on current (technically off-schedule) eclipses. To the Babylonians, the leading astronomers of the day, the consequences were more radical. For the 18 years following Hezekiah’s sign, every eclipse of the moon was identical to its preceding family member. Some eclipses that were expected to recur (after 3 cycles), could not be seen in Babylon at all. The Babylonians were so astonished that the Bible notes they came to inquire about the “wonder done in the land” on their subsequent visit to Jerusalem to see miraculously healed Hezekiah — a lunar eclipse viewable in Babylon and Jerusalem had occurred the night* the angel of the Lord destroyed the Assyrian army outside Jerusalem! At the wrong time (7-8 hours early)!
The fact that modern science wrongly but exactly confirms Ptolemy’s trio of eclipses as precisely on schedule is scientific evidence of the duration of Hezekiah’s sign. As for the Babylonians, they kept records of observed and predicted eclipses by (Saros) families — in other words, lists of eclipses or predictions at 18-year intervals. By keeping accurate records, the Babylonians compiled lists which later magi would be unable to understand. It would appear that their predecessors were guilty of a rash of scribal errors. Eventually, the embarrassing and potentially dangerous duplicate records were eliminated as information was transcribed to new clay tablets. By Nebuchadnezzar’s era, about 150 years later, it seems Babylonian science could measure and describe an eclipse of the moon to within 4 minutes (1°) of accuracy. At some point before Hipparchus’ time, they became victims of their own sophistication, though without suffering any practical consequences. Except that 18 years of history had now vanished.
To historians, the sudden reappearance of the missing 18 years is more humbling than damaging. It does expose some fraud by Sargon and Sennacherib in Assyrian records, but nothing historians cannot accept. Science suffers no real damage either, except to take the Bible more seriously and acknowledge God can and did reverse-rotate the earth…or the universe. I have to smile, because there is tangible Assyrian historical evidence in the British Museum that He did.
* Passover eve, 14 Abib, 713 BC or April 11/12, 713 BC proleptic Gregorian (Midrash Rabbah, Exod., 18:5;
Song, 1:12:3). Hezekiah’s sign was probably April 9.
Ptolemy duped
One repercussion of the validity of Hezekiah’s sign is that Ptolemy’s Canon is wrong. The era of Nabonassar becomes 765 BC and Ptolemy’s invaluable trio of early eclipses shifts back 18 years to 738-739 BC. All is not as simple as it may seem however. Suddenly, historical voids appear in the records of Assyria and Babylon.
For Ptolemy, the majority of the problem is best resolved by understanding that there were two Babylonian leaders by the name of Merodach Baladan. Merodach Baladan, son of Iakin, had newly come to power at the time of the three lunar eclipses so important to Ptolemy. He may have been appointed by Tiglath-Pileser about 739 BC, or began a stint as a rebel leader but was acknowledged in political circles. This could cause a scribe to cite him as king in an astronomical record, perhaps prematurely since Tiglath-Pileser did not die until late in the Babylonian year 738 (Nisan reckoning).
Merodach Baladan, son of Baladan, would follow his father by at least 715, at which time he is soon mentioned in the Bible in relation to Hezekiah’s illness and recovery. Ptolemy had little chance to distinguish son from father since the Babylonian record (presumably resembling what is now called the Babylonian Chronicle) had been falsified by Sargon II and his son Sennacherib.
After or while destroying his older brother Shalmaneser V’s Assyrian records, tinkering with the Assyrian king lists and the Eponym Canon, Sargon II came to hold the Babylonian throne as well. This immediately followed the death of Shalmaneser who had also enjoyed dual regency. The Babylonian record showed Merodach Baladan had ruled 12 years, followed by Shalmaneser for five years. After Sargon’s Assyrian manipulations, the Babylonian record showed Shalmaneser V was alive long after his apparent death. In part, the solution was to invert the reigns of Merodach Baladan and Shalmaneser in the Babylonian record. This would more or less match the Assyrian record since Sargon had shortened the Assyrian Eponym Canon by six years and appropriated some of his brother’s years, most likely to recoup deserved military glory.
The brotherly jealousy was inadvertently caused by Tiglath-Pileser, who had hoped a two-king system would better manage the growing Assyrian empire. Tiglath-Pileser even took up the Babylonian crown and brought Shalmaneser along as vice regent to begin the process of transition of power, but he died less than two years later. Sargon II was kept subordinate to Shalmaneser, but he was probably the only competent military leader of the two. Shalmaneser managed to reign 737-722, long enough to inherit the formal credit for much of Sargon’s hard work. When Sargon came to sole power late in life he took steps to balance the record. (Assyria’s dual king system was mentioned in the Bible at 2 Chron 28:16.)
When a young and ambitious Sennacherib came to power he was probably aware of his father’s tactics. (And his counselors certainly were.) Sennacherib was old enough to know who had ruled when regardless of the apparent record. Not that it mattered — until one of his armies was annihilated near Jerusalem. Not only was Assyria greatly weakened, but Sennacherib and his generals knew something unheard of had happened in Judah. Were the gods against Assyria? Or just against Sennacherib?
Upstart Merodach Baladan wasted no time soliciting support in rebellion. His usual allies had been lured into rebellion by his father, however, with disastrous results and were not eager to follow the youthful Babylonian to war. The nine years following 713 BC were troublesome for Sennacherib as Assyria recouped, unable to manage Babylon. Eventually, Sennacherib installed Bel-ibni as a puppet king on the Babylonian throne, but this proved unsatisfactory as well so Sennacherib’s own son, Ashur-nadin-shum, was seated. Though Assyria’s enemies had missed a golden opportunity, the Babylonians would soon assassinate Ashur-nadin-shum. In all, the second Merodach Baladan (II) managed another 12 years (in the eyes of the Babylonians), but the surviving record only gives a second 9 month stint for Merodach Baladan and does not distinguish between father and son.
Sennacherib himself had ruled Babylon after Sargon’s death but abandoned the throne. Late in his reign, he took the throne a second time, and like his father he took care to adjust the historical records of Assyria and Babylon, this time to erase 12 years of his ill-fated beginnings. Sennacherib authorized glossy personal annals to praise his military prowess, which was only nominal. (In Sennacherib’s own words he twice described one of his military campaigns as wearisome.) In the process, Merodach Baladan II fell through the cracks of history. Likewise, the Babylonians so hated Sennacherib Ptolemy had trouble finding the years he had ruled Babylon, citing interregnums instead. And so the mystery was born.
For Ptolemy, the majority of the problem is best resolved by understanding that there were two Babylonian leaders by the name of Merodach Baladan. Merodach Baladan, son of Iakin, had newly come to power at the time of the three lunar eclipses so important to Ptolemy. He may have been appointed by Tiglath-Pileser about 739 BC, or began a stint as a rebel leader but was acknowledged in political circles. This could cause a scribe to cite him as king in an astronomical record, perhaps prematurely since Tiglath-Pileser did not die until late in the Babylonian year 738 (Nisan reckoning).
Merodach Baladan, son of Baladan, would follow his father by at least 715, at which time he is soon mentioned in the Bible in relation to Hezekiah’s illness and recovery. Ptolemy had little chance to distinguish son from father since the Babylonian record (presumably resembling what is now called the Babylonian Chronicle) had been falsified by Sargon II and his son Sennacherib.
After or while destroying his older brother Shalmaneser V’s Assyrian records, tinkering with the Assyrian king lists and the Eponym Canon, Sargon II came to hold the Babylonian throne as well. This immediately followed the death of Shalmaneser who had also enjoyed dual regency. The Babylonian record showed Merodach Baladan had ruled 12 years, followed by Shalmaneser for five years. After Sargon’s Assyrian manipulations, the Babylonian record showed Shalmaneser V was alive long after his apparent death. In part, the solution was to invert the reigns of Merodach Baladan and Shalmaneser in the Babylonian record. This would more or less match the Assyrian record since Sargon had shortened the Assyrian Eponym Canon by six years and appropriated some of his brother’s years, most likely to recoup deserved military glory.
The brotherly jealousy was inadvertently caused by Tiglath-Pileser, who had hoped a two-king system would better manage the growing Assyrian empire. Tiglath-Pileser even took up the Babylonian crown and brought Shalmaneser along as vice regent to begin the process of transition of power, but he died less than two years later. Sargon II was kept subordinate to Shalmaneser, but he was probably the only competent military leader of the two. Shalmaneser managed to reign 737-722, long enough to inherit the formal credit for much of Sargon’s hard work. When Sargon came to sole power late in life he took steps to balance the record. (Assyria’s dual king system was mentioned in the Bible at 2 Chron 28:16.)
When a young and ambitious Sennacherib came to power he was probably aware of his father’s tactics. (And his counselors certainly were.) Sennacherib was old enough to know who had ruled when regardless of the apparent record. Not that it mattered — until one of his armies was annihilated near Jerusalem. Not only was Assyria greatly weakened, but Sennacherib and his generals knew something unheard of had happened in Judah. Were the gods against Assyria? Or just against Sennacherib?
Upstart Merodach Baladan wasted no time soliciting support in rebellion. His usual allies had been lured into rebellion by his father, however, with disastrous results and were not eager to follow the youthful Babylonian to war. The nine years following 713 BC were troublesome for Sennacherib as Assyria recouped, unable to manage Babylon. Eventually, Sennacherib installed Bel-ibni as a puppet king on the Babylonian throne, but this proved unsatisfactory as well so Sennacherib’s own son, Ashur-nadin-shum, was seated. Though Assyria’s enemies had missed a golden opportunity, the Babylonians would soon assassinate Ashur-nadin-shum. In all, the second Merodach Baladan (II) managed another 12 years (in the eyes of the Babylonians), but the surviving record only gives a second 9 month stint for Merodach Baladan and does not distinguish between father and son.
Sennacherib himself had ruled Babylon after Sargon’s death but abandoned the throne. Late in his reign, he took the throne a second time, and like his father he took care to adjust the historical records of Assyria and Babylon, this time to erase 12 years of his ill-fated beginnings. Sennacherib authorized glossy personal annals to praise his military prowess, which was only nominal. (In Sennacherib’s own words he twice described one of his military campaigns as wearisome.) In the process, Merodach Baladan II fell through the cracks of history. Likewise, the Babylonians so hated Sennacherib Ptolemy had trouble finding the years he had ruled Babylon, citing interregnums instead. And so the mystery was born.
The Step Dial of Ahaz: Understanding Hezekiah's sign
Though we know little about the dial of Ahaz other than its role in Hezekiah’s miraculous sign, we can make some very useful guesses as to its design with regard to knowing the duration of the shadow of the sun going back 10 steps. For instance, we can know for certain Ahaz’ dial must have had a minimum of 10 steps per six hours (if and only if the event began at noon). This would allow Hezekiah the choice of the shadow going forward or backward 10 steps.
However, the Jews kept time in hours. The exact era this observance began may not be known, but the Egyptians also had this practice by at least 300 years prior to Hezekiah’s miracle. We can at least be sure Ahaz’ dial was not in increments of one step per hour. Two or three steps per hour would be sufficient, and four steps per hour could be argued. Designs of 5 steps per hour or more would present too much visual detail or clutter to be very practical. In fact, even four steps an hour, presenting our familiar 15, 30, 45 and 60 minute intervals, would offer little added practical value in a culture devoid of wrist watches, automobiles, telephones and other conveniences of technology. Court messages were most likely sent by a runner and other business would hardly require any better discipline than could be accomplished within intervals of 20, 40 and 60 minutes.
By science we can also know that increments of two or four steps per hour are not viable. The famous trio of lunar eclipses undergirding Ptolemy’s Canon seem precisely on schedule in 720 and 721 BC. Though they actually occurred 18 years earlier, a sun dial design of two or four steps per hour would have thrown these lunar eclipses off schedule contrary to modern calculations.
Even with a design of three steps per hour, there is some room for discussion. Hezekiah had the choice of the shadow going forward or back 10 steps. The tenth step, inclusive of the top (sunrise) step would be 9 a.m. Inclusive of the 9 a.m. step, 10 steps would carry us forward to a vertical (noon) shadow. The bottom would be counted as a step by this reckoning. But such a scenario would require that Isaiah approached Hezekiah with such a proposal perhaps minutes before 9 a.m. This presented the option of the sun going forward 10 steps. When Hezekiah opted for 10 steps backward, the shadow continued forward past the 9 a.m. step as God decelerated the earth’s rotation — we assume the shadow never reached the 9:20 a.m. step, but as rotation slowed as much as 20-30 minutes elapsed before rotation changed directions. There is no reason the shadow could not have crossed the 9:20 threshold if we also assume normal rotation resumed before the sunrise step. A similar period of deceleration would be in order at the end of the backward movement of the sun’s shadow. Since there are no secular accounts of a double sunrise in known Near East history, we might prefer to believe the shadow went past the 9:20 mark before reversing. A mid morning event seems to allow the simplest reading in which the shadow could continue forward (down) or go backward in contrast to a late morning or midday timetable. Moreover, scripture says the shadow went back the ten steps it had gone down — not nine, not eleven.
This reconstruction, though hypothetical, seems to be required by the science of eclipses in the sense that the shadow would have gone backward about 3 hours 20 minutes, and more importantly returned to its original position in about 7 hours 40 minutes. Some have claimed disastrous consequences from reverse rotation. Not so. Tides are merely caused by land masses rotating into bulges in the oceans. Direction of rotation does not matter. The earth’s fluid core did slosh about somewhat, as evidenced by comparing NASA solar eclipse data with a witnessed Assyrian eclipse (781 BC). At Hezekiah’s sign, the earth’s wobble changed (or began), so NASA’s predicted latitude of greatest eclipse is off perhaps 1° south for solar eclipses prior to 713 BC. Obviously, east-west location (longitude) also requires a 115° shift for the solar eclipse noted here.
However, the Jews kept time in hours. The exact era this observance began may not be known, but the Egyptians also had this practice by at least 300 years prior to Hezekiah’s miracle. We can at least be sure Ahaz’ dial was not in increments of one step per hour. Two or three steps per hour would be sufficient, and four steps per hour could be argued. Designs of 5 steps per hour or more would present too much visual detail or clutter to be very practical. In fact, even four steps an hour, presenting our familiar 15, 30, 45 and 60 minute intervals, would offer little added practical value in a culture devoid of wrist watches, automobiles, telephones and other conveniences of technology. Court messages were most likely sent by a runner and other business would hardly require any better discipline than could be accomplished within intervals of 20, 40 and 60 minutes.
By science we can also know that increments of two or four steps per hour are not viable. The famous trio of lunar eclipses undergirding Ptolemy’s Canon seem precisely on schedule in 720 and 721 BC. Though they actually occurred 18 years earlier, a sun dial design of two or four steps per hour would have thrown these lunar eclipses off schedule contrary to modern calculations.
Even with a design of three steps per hour, there is some room for discussion. Hezekiah had the choice of the shadow going forward or back 10 steps. The tenth step, inclusive of the top (sunrise) step would be 9 a.m. Inclusive of the 9 a.m. step, 10 steps would carry us forward to a vertical (noon) shadow. The bottom would be counted as a step by this reckoning. But such a scenario would require that Isaiah approached Hezekiah with such a proposal perhaps minutes before 9 a.m. This presented the option of the sun going forward 10 steps. When Hezekiah opted for 10 steps backward, the shadow continued forward past the 9 a.m. step as God decelerated the earth’s rotation — we assume the shadow never reached the 9:20 a.m. step, but as rotation slowed as much as 20-30 minutes elapsed before rotation changed directions. There is no reason the shadow could not have crossed the 9:20 threshold if we also assume normal rotation resumed before the sunrise step. A similar period of deceleration would be in order at the end of the backward movement of the sun’s shadow. Since there are no secular accounts of a double sunrise in known Near East history, we might prefer to believe the shadow went past the 9:20 mark before reversing. A mid morning event seems to allow the simplest reading in which the shadow could continue forward (down) or go backward in contrast to a late morning or midday timetable. Moreover, scripture says the shadow went back the ten steps it had gone down — not nine, not eleven.
This reconstruction, though hypothetical, seems to be required by the science of eclipses in the sense that the shadow would have gone backward about 3 hours 20 minutes, and more importantly returned to its original position in about 7 hours 40 minutes. Some have claimed disastrous consequences from reverse rotation. Not so. Tides are merely caused by land masses rotating into bulges in the oceans. Direction of rotation does not matter. The earth’s fluid core did slosh about somewhat, as evidenced by comparing NASA solar eclipse data with a witnessed Assyrian eclipse (781 BC). At Hezekiah’s sign, the earth’s wobble changed (or began), so NASA’s predicted latitude of greatest eclipse is off perhaps 1° south for solar eclipses prior to 713 BC. Obviously, east-west location (longitude) also requires a 115° shift for the solar eclipse noted here.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Adam to Egypt
4234 Adam
4104 Seth • 130 begot Seth Gen 5:4
3999 Enosh • 105 begot Enosh Gen 5:6
3909 Cainan • 90 begot Cainan Gen 5:9
3839 Mahalalel • 70 begot Mahalalel Gen 5:12
3774 Jared • 65 begot Jared Gen 5:15
3612 Enoch • 162 begot Enoch Gen 5:18
3547 Methuselah • 65 begot Methuselah Gen 5:21
3360 Lamech • 187 begot Lamech Gen 5:25
3178 Noah • 182 begot Noah Gen 5:28-29
2678 Shem • 500 begot Shem, Ham, Japheth Gen 5:32
2578 Arphaxad • 100 begot Arphaxad 2 yr/flood Gen 11:10
2543 Salah • 35 begot Salah Gen 11:12
2513 Eber • 30 begot Eber Gen 11:14
2479 Peleg • 34 begot Peleg Gen 11:16
2449 Reu • 30 begot Reu Gen 11:18
2417 Serug • 32 begot Serug Gen 11:20
2387 Nahor • 30 begot Nahor Gen 11:22
2358 Terah • 29 begot Terah Gen 11:24
2288 Abraham • 70 begot Abram, Nahor, Haran Gen 11:26
2188 Isaac • 100 Sarah bore Isaac Gen 21:3-5
2128 Jacob • 60 Rebekah bore Esau, Jacob Gen 25:24-26
1998 To Egypt • 130 stood before Pharoh Gen 47:9
Note: To keep this exposition from becoming cumbersome, we will simply observe that a few other chronological details, especially regarding Methusaleh, suggest some compression of years due to rounding. Actually Creation would be 4235 BC. The Flood would be 2580 (we can date the rains as beginning Nov 6 from scripture). From Arphaxad forward years should be fairly accurate and scripture gives us no other clues to help refine matters beyond what is stated above.
Note: Exodus 12:40-41 observes that the "sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years." Other sources read "Egypt and Canaan" which correctly points to the year 2028, when Benjamin was born. This sojourn was not that of Abraham, Isaac or even Jacob. It is specifically limited to the children of Israel, all of whom with exception of Benjamin were born in Haran, not Canaan.
4104 Seth • 130 begot Seth Gen 5:4
3999 Enosh • 105 begot Enosh Gen 5:6
3909 Cainan • 90 begot Cainan Gen 5:9
3839 Mahalalel • 70 begot Mahalalel Gen 5:12
3774 Jared • 65 begot Jared Gen 5:15
3612 Enoch • 162 begot Enoch Gen 5:18
3547 Methuselah • 65 begot Methuselah Gen 5:21
3360 Lamech • 187 begot Lamech Gen 5:25
3178 Noah • 182 begot Noah Gen 5:28-29
2678 Shem • 500 begot Shem, Ham, Japheth Gen 5:32
2578 Arphaxad • 100 begot Arphaxad 2 yr/flood Gen 11:10
2543 Salah • 35 begot Salah Gen 11:12
2513 Eber • 30 begot Eber Gen 11:14
2479 Peleg • 34 begot Peleg Gen 11:16
2449 Reu • 30 begot Reu Gen 11:18
2417 Serug • 32 begot Serug Gen 11:20
2387 Nahor • 30 begot Nahor Gen 11:22
2358 Terah • 29 begot Terah Gen 11:24
2288 Abraham • 70 begot Abram, Nahor, Haran Gen 11:26
2188 Isaac • 100 Sarah bore Isaac Gen 21:3-5
2128 Jacob • 60 Rebekah bore Esau, Jacob Gen 25:24-26
1998 To Egypt • 130 stood before Pharoh Gen 47:9
Note: To keep this exposition from becoming cumbersome, we will simply observe that a few other chronological details, especially regarding Methusaleh, suggest some compression of years due to rounding. Actually Creation would be 4235 BC. The Flood would be 2580 (we can date the rains as beginning Nov 6 from scripture). From Arphaxad forward years should be fairly accurate and scripture gives us no other clues to help refine matters beyond what is stated above.
Note: Exodus 12:40-41 observes that the "sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years." Other sources read "Egypt and Canaan" which correctly points to the year 2028, when Benjamin was born. This sojourn was not that of Abraham, Isaac or even Jacob. It is specifically limited to the children of Israel, all of whom with exception of Benjamin were born in Haran, not Canaan.
Egypt to the Period of Judges
1598 Exodus • 400 years in Egypt Gen 15:13
1558 Fall of Jericho • 40 years in wilderness Deut 1:3, others
1545 Judges • 13 years in Canaan up to Judges
Note: See 1 Kings 6:1 discussion
Note: Much studied Jericho has yielded confirming archaeological evidence. Kathleen Kenyon (Digging Up Jericho, 1952) gave c. 1550 for the destruction of Jericho. Albright fellow Stephen Rosenberg notes Jericho's walls were destroyed in about 1560 BC, according to the buried pottery. ("The Exodus Enigma," Jerusalem Post Online Edition, Apr 11, 2006.) Above, we find Jericho fell 1558 according to the Bible.
1558 Fall of Jericho • 40 years in wilderness Deut 1:3, others
1545 Judges • 13 years in Canaan up to Judges
Note: See 1 Kings 6:1 discussion
Note: Much studied Jericho has yielded confirming archaeological evidence. Kathleen Kenyon (Digging Up Jericho, 1952) gave c. 1550 for the destruction of Jericho. Albright fellow Stephen Rosenberg notes Jericho's walls were destroyed in about 1560 BC, according to the buried pottery. ("The Exodus Enigma," Jerusalem Post Online Edition, Apr 11, 2006.) Above, we find Jericho fell 1558 according to the Bible.
Judges up to Samuel as prophet
For brevity's sake our system of tallying years inverts to carrying forward in time, not back. For example the first oppression below began in 1545 and lasted 8 years. Thus Othniel began to judge in 1537. We continue this method on to the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC.
1545 Chushan-rishathaim • 8 oppressed Judg 3:8
1537 Othniel • 40 judged Judg 3:9-11
1497 Eglon of Moab • 18 oppressed Judg 3:14
1479 Ehud/Shamgar • 80 judged Judg 3:30
1399 Sisera/Jabin • 20 oppressed Judg 4:3
1379 Deborah • 40 judged Judg 5:31
1339 Midianites • 7 oppressed Judg 6:1
1332 Gideon • 40 judged Judg 8:28
1292 Abimelech • 3 oppressed Judg 9:22
1289 Tola • 23 judged Judg 10:1-2
1266 Jair • 22 judged Judg 10:3
1244 Ammon/Philistines • 18 oppressed Judg 10:8
1226 Jephthah • 6 judged Judg 12:7
1220 Ibzan • 7 judged Judg 12:8-9
1213 Elon • 10 judged Judg 12:11
1203 Abdon • 8 judged Judg 12:13-14
1195 Philistines • 40 oppressed Judg 13:1
1155 Samson • 20 judged Judg 16:31
1135 Eli • 40 judged 1 Sam 4:18
1095 Samuel prophet • 20 oppressed by Philistines after Eli 1 Sam 7:2
1075
Note: 134 years of oppression (total from above). See 1 Ki 6:1 discussion.
Note: Jepthah's reference to the 300 years Israel lived in Gilead (Judges 11:26) spans from the beginning of the Ammonite oppression 18 years earlier (c. 1244). This spans almost exactly to the beginning of the Period of Judges above, counting the years from the point Israel was established in the land and subsequently soon turned away from God. Judges 1 shows it took some time to actually possess the tribal allotments. Division and possession of lands at the individual family level would have also required time and effort not described in scripture. Judges 11:26 confirms the chronology of the era and the 12 historical references preceding it above. It DOES NOT suggest a separate chronology based on a single verse.
1545 Chushan-rishathaim • 8 oppressed Judg 3:8
1537 Othniel • 40 judged Judg 3:9-11
1497 Eglon of Moab • 18 oppressed Judg 3:14
1479 Ehud/Shamgar • 80 judged Judg 3:30
1399 Sisera/Jabin • 20 oppressed Judg 4:3
1379 Deborah • 40 judged Judg 5:31
1339 Midianites • 7 oppressed Judg 6:1
1332 Gideon • 40 judged Judg 8:28
1292 Abimelech • 3 oppressed Judg 9:22
1289 Tola • 23 judged Judg 10:1-2
1266 Jair • 22 judged Judg 10:3
1244 Ammon/Philistines • 18 oppressed Judg 10:8
1226 Jephthah • 6 judged Judg 12:7
1220 Ibzan • 7 judged Judg 12:8-9
1213 Elon • 10 judged Judg 12:11
1203 Abdon • 8 judged Judg 12:13-14
1195 Philistines • 40 oppressed Judg 13:1
1155 Samson • 20 judged Judg 16:31
1135 Eli • 40 judged 1 Sam 4:18
1095 Samuel prophet • 20 oppressed by Philistines after Eli 1 Sam 7:2
1075
Note: 134 years of oppression (total from above). See 1 Ki 6:1 discussion.
Note: Jepthah's reference to the 300 years Israel lived in Gilead (Judges 11:26) spans from the beginning of the Ammonite oppression 18 years earlier (c. 1244). This spans almost exactly to the beginning of the Period of Judges above, counting the years from the point Israel was established in the land and subsequently soon turned away from God. Judges 1 shows it took some time to actually possess the tribal allotments. Division and possession of lands at the individual family level would have also required time and effort not described in scripture. Judges 11:26 confirms the chronology of the era and the 12 historical references preceding it above. It DOES NOT suggest a separate chronology based on a single verse.
Samuel to Saul
1095 Death of Eli
1095 Samuel as prophet • 20 1 Sam 7:2
1075 Samuel as judge • 7 1 Sam 7:5-14, 1 Sam 7:15
1068 Saul anointed king
Note: See 1 Kings 6:1 disussion
1095 Samuel as prophet • 20 1 Sam 7:2
1075 Samuel as judge • 7 1 Sam 7:5-14, 1 Sam 7:15
1068 Saul anointed king
Note: See 1 Kings 6:1 disussion
Saul to the founding of the Temple...to Rehoboam
1068 Saul anointed king • 40 Acts 13:21
1028 David anointed king of Hebron • 40 1 Chron 29:27, 2 Sam 5:4
988 Solomon king • 3 1 Ki 6:1
985 Temple founded
Also:
988 Solomon king • 40 2 Chron 9:30, 1 Ki 11:42-43
948 Rehoboam king
Note on 1 Kings 6:1: The calendar years from the Exodus to the founding of the Temple total 613 (founding in the 614th year). By deducting 134 years of oppression (not under God's covenant government) noted in the Judges section and 1 Samuel, we find that the temple was indeed founded in the 480th year out of Egypt as stated at 1 Kings 6:1. The math is 479 + 134 = 613. We should mention 613 is an important number in Judaism (the number of laws found in the Torah), a parallel clearly of divine intent.
Note: The span from the Exodus to the founding of the Temple is the most challenging period in mapping out dates (years). Though we know the length of this overall span the Old Testament leaves three undefined variables: the span from the Fall of Jericho to the beginning of the Period of Judges, the span of Samuel’s years as judge up to the reign of Saul, and the span of Saul’s reign as king. In Acts 13, Paul gives sufficient detail to clear up some uncertainties, confirming the period of judges up to Samuel (as prophet, not judge) as about 450 years and then identifying Saul’s reign as 40 years. From this point we can conclude the other two spans together total 20 years. The accounts given in Joshua and Judges roughly suggest a dozen or more years, so the Period of Judges begins 1546/5 if not slightly later. From that we can know the approximate year of Eli’s death, c. 1096/5, 20 years before Samuel began to judge. If we know the year Saul began to reign, we are left seven to eight years for Samuel as judge before Saul’s reign. In all, Samuel judged Israel about 44 years.
Christian scholars wrongly suggest Paul’s cited years are broadly approximate. His stated spans were very precise. For those who would reject Paul as a source outright, the Old Testament account is sufficient, but it requires a great deal of reasoning to clarify the various periods. Perhaps the most useful detail is the account of Saul’s son Ishbosheth. 2 Samuel 2:10 says he was 40 when he began to reign. This means he was born c. 1063, after Saul’s first three sons, Jonathan, Abinadab and Malchishua. Saul’s two daughters, Merab and Michal were also born in this era or slightly later. The fact that Jonathan seems to have been older than his siblings, a more prominent leader and heir apparent is consistent with Saul’s ascension to his role as king. It is not clear if Saul took additional wives when he became king, but the proliferation of sons and daughters would help establish the ruling family’s position and amply ensure an heir to the throne. Without Paul’s account in Acts 13, we only have c. 1068 for Saul’s reign, c. 1075 for Samuel as judge, c. 1095 for Eli’s death, and c. 1545 for the beginning of the Period of Judges. We are not without other resources though. We know that sabbath and jubilee cycles began sometime soon after Joshua’s death and the subsequent opening events of the Book of Judges, which relate to the incomplete victories over the occupying nations of Canaan. These episodes ended with a visit by an/the Angel of the Lord and a rebuke for the incomplete obedience on the part of the various tribes of Israel. If we create seven hypothetical tables of sabbath years with cycles starting over seven consecutive years from this era, we can be sure that one of these tables is correct. Following the years incrementally forward in time, we also find a few details in scripture relating to harvest time or that suggest a harvest year. Those that can be dated precisely, or approximately, collectively suggest 1547 (and only 1547 by a process of elimination) as the first year counting toward Israel’s sabbath and jubilee year obligations. A separate study of jubilee cycles also works with details given in scripture, not to mention the handful of later secular records that cite or suggest observance of a sabbath year. I consider the sabbath tables helpful but not absolute proof in establishing a chronology. The gist is that we can have a very good chronology even without Acts 13. For an important independent confirmation, the span cited from the high priests records by Josephus gives 612 years of high priests from the Exodus to the temple. Aaron was not anointed high priest until a year after the Exodus however, reconciling the discrepancy.
1028 David anointed king of Hebron • 40 1 Chron 29:27, 2 Sam 5:4
988 Solomon king • 3 1 Ki 6:1
985 Temple founded
Also:
988 Solomon king • 40 2 Chron 9:30, 1 Ki 11:42-43
948 Rehoboam king
Note on 1 Kings 6:1: The calendar years from the Exodus to the founding of the Temple total 613 (founding in the 614th year). By deducting 134 years of oppression (not under God's covenant government) noted in the Judges section and 1 Samuel, we find that the temple was indeed founded in the 480th year out of Egypt as stated at 1 Kings 6:1. The math is 479 + 134 = 613. We should mention 613 is an important number in Judaism (the number of laws found in the Torah), a parallel clearly of divine intent.
Note: The span from the Exodus to the founding of the Temple is the most challenging period in mapping out dates (years). Though we know the length of this overall span the Old Testament leaves three undefined variables: the span from the Fall of Jericho to the beginning of the Period of Judges, the span of Samuel’s years as judge up to the reign of Saul, and the span of Saul’s reign as king. In Acts 13, Paul gives sufficient detail to clear up some uncertainties, confirming the period of judges up to Samuel (as prophet, not judge) as about 450 years and then identifying Saul’s reign as 40 years. From this point we can conclude the other two spans together total 20 years. The accounts given in Joshua and Judges roughly suggest a dozen or more years, so the Period of Judges begins 1546/5 if not slightly later. From that we can know the approximate year of Eli’s death, c. 1096/5, 20 years before Samuel began to judge. If we know the year Saul began to reign, we are left seven to eight years for Samuel as judge before Saul’s reign. In all, Samuel judged Israel about 44 years.
Christian scholars wrongly suggest Paul’s cited years are broadly approximate. His stated spans were very precise. For those who would reject Paul as a source outright, the Old Testament account is sufficient, but it requires a great deal of reasoning to clarify the various periods. Perhaps the most useful detail is the account of Saul’s son Ishbosheth. 2 Samuel 2:10 says he was 40 when he began to reign. This means he was born c. 1063, after Saul’s first three sons, Jonathan, Abinadab and Malchishua. Saul’s two daughters, Merab and Michal were also born in this era or slightly later. The fact that Jonathan seems to have been older than his siblings, a more prominent leader and heir apparent is consistent with Saul’s ascension to his role as king. It is not clear if Saul took additional wives when he became king, but the proliferation of sons and daughters would help establish the ruling family’s position and amply ensure an heir to the throne. Without Paul’s account in Acts 13, we only have c. 1068 for Saul’s reign, c. 1075 for Samuel as judge, c. 1095 for Eli’s death, and c. 1545 for the beginning of the Period of Judges. We are not without other resources though. We know that sabbath and jubilee cycles began sometime soon after Joshua’s death and the subsequent opening events of the Book of Judges, which relate to the incomplete victories over the occupying nations of Canaan. These episodes ended with a visit by an/the Angel of the Lord and a rebuke for the incomplete obedience on the part of the various tribes of Israel. If we create seven hypothetical tables of sabbath years with cycles starting over seven consecutive years from this era, we can be sure that one of these tables is correct. Following the years incrementally forward in time, we also find a few details in scripture relating to harvest time or that suggest a harvest year. Those that can be dated precisely, or approximately, collectively suggest 1547 (and only 1547 by a process of elimination) as the first year counting toward Israel’s sabbath and jubilee year obligations. A separate study of jubilee cycles also works with details given in scripture, not to mention the handful of later secular records that cite or suggest observance of a sabbath year. I consider the sabbath tables helpful but not absolute proof in establishing a chronology. The gist is that we can have a very good chronology even without Acts 13. For an important independent confirmation, the span cited from the high priests records by Josephus gives 612 years of high priests from the Exodus to the temple. Aaron was not anointed high priest until a year after the Exodus however, reconciling the discrepancy.
The Divided Kingdoms: 1048 - 586
JUDAH..........Regnal Year.............ISRAEL............Regnal Year
.......................(Tishri)...........................................(Nisan)
Rehoboam......948-932.................Jeroboam I........948-927
Abijah............931-929
Asa................928-888..................Nadab...............927-926
.................................................Baasha.............926-903
.................................................Elah.................903-902
.................................................Zimri................902 (7 days)
.................................................Tibni................902 (brief)
.................................................Omri................902-899
.......................................................................(prevailed)
.................................................Omri, cont........898-890
Jehoshaphat...887-863..................Ahab................891-870
.......................................................................(2y overlap)
Jehoram.........871-867..................Ahaziah............871-870
.......................................................................(2y overlap)
(vice-regent)
Jehoram, cont.866-863................ Joram................late 870-859
(co-regent)
Jehoram, cont.862-859
Ahaziah..........859
PURGE: Summer 859 for Athaliah; Summer 859 for Jehu
Qn Athaliah....858-853..................Jehu..................859-832
Joash..............852-813.................Jehoahaz...........831-815
...................................................Jehoash.............817-815 (3y overlap/accssn)
Amaziah.........814-809.................Jehoash, cont.....814-801
Amaziah, cont.808-786
(co-reign).....................................Jeroboam II.......813-772 (incl. accession)
Uzziah............808-757..................Zachariah..........771
....................................................Shallum............771
....................................................Menahem..........771-761
....................................................Pekahiah...........760-759
Jotham............757-738..................Pekah...............758-739 (incl. accession)
Ahaz...............741-726.................Death of Tiglath-Pileser delays Hoshea
...................................................(interim govenor?) interregnum
Hezekiah.........727-699..................Hoshea..............730-722
Manasseh........698-643
(includes accession year)
Amon..............642-640
(includes accession year)
Josiah..............639-609
Jehoahaz.........3 months
Jehoiakim........608-598
Jehoichin.........3 months 10 days
interregnum
Zedekiah..........596-586
Note: Accession procedures vary. Some accession: 6 mo accession + 6 mo reign. Partial regnal year = 1. May not be detailed above.
.......................(Tishri)...........................................(Nisan)
Rehoboam......948-932.................Jeroboam I........948-927
Abijah............931-929
Asa................928-888..................Nadab...............927-926
.................................................Baasha.............926-903
.................................................Elah.................903-902
.................................................Zimri................902 (7 days)
.................................................Tibni................902 (brief)
.................................................Omri................902-899
.......................................................................(prevailed)
.................................................Omri, cont........898-890
Jehoshaphat...887-863..................Ahab................891-870
.......................................................................(2y overlap)
Jehoram.........871-867..................Ahaziah............871-870
.......................................................................(2y overlap)
(vice-regent)
Jehoram, cont.866-863................ Joram................late 870-859
(co-regent)
Jehoram, cont.862-859
Ahaziah..........859
PURGE: Summer 859 for Athaliah; Summer 859 for Jehu
Qn Athaliah....858-853..................Jehu..................859-832
Joash..............852-813.................Jehoahaz...........831-815
...................................................Jehoash.............817-815 (3y overlap/accssn)
Amaziah.........814-809.................Jehoash, cont.....814-801
Amaziah, cont.808-786
(co-reign).....................................Jeroboam II.......813-772 (incl. accession)
Uzziah............808-757..................Zachariah..........771
....................................................Shallum............771
....................................................Menahem..........771-761
....................................................Pekahiah...........760-759
Jotham............757-738..................Pekah...............758-739 (incl. accession)
Ahaz...............741-726.................Death of Tiglath-Pileser delays Hoshea
...................................................(interim govenor?) interregnum
Hezekiah.........727-699..................Hoshea..............730-722
Manasseh........698-643
(includes accession year)
Amon..............642-640
(includes accession year)
Josiah..............639-609
Jehoahaz.........3 months
Jehoiakim........608-598
Jehoichin.........3 months 10 days
interregnum
Zedekiah..........596-586
Note: Accession procedures vary. Some accession: 6 mo accession + 6 mo reign. Partial regnal year = 1. May not be detailed above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)