Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ANE-2] 480-year Chronologies (was Re: Origins of the Book of Kings)

Expand Messages
  • George F Somsel
    As I understand your suggestion, the Books of Kings were written to provide an ideological basis for the Hasmonean dynasty.  If that is the case, the author
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 29, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      As I understand your suggestion, the Books of Kings were written to provide an ideological basis for the Hasmonean dynasty.  If that is the case, the author of these writings must have been singularly unintelligent since the Books of Kings deals with the succession to David in the establishment of the Solomonic line and the subsequent revolt of the Northern Tribes and the formation of Israel in distinction from Judah.  The continual refrain of criticism regarding the northern kings was that they followed after Jeroboam.  This creates not a foundation for the Hasmonean line but rather a discommendation since they, to the best of my knowledge, were not of the Davidic line.  If that is the case, how can you then maintain a 141 BC date for the Books of Kings since your hypothesis rests upon an untenable foundation?
       george
      gfsomsel


      … search for truth, hear truth,
      learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
      defend the truth till death.


      - Jan Hus
      _________




      ________________________________
      From: frankclancy <clancyfrank@...>
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:51:54 AM
      Subject: [ANE-2] 480-year Chronologies (was Re: Origins of the Book of Kings)





      Dear Deane - Chronological studies are riddled with traps and pitfals and I have fallen into most of them at one time or another. However, the year 141 BCE is, I belive, probably the most important date for the establishment of the Biblical texts and the structure of modern Judaism. More important than 70 BCE - but it is a close call.

      I know of two ancient writers, Demetrius the Chronographer and Eupolemus, who use the year 141 BCE as the base year for their chronological systems. In 1 Maccabees, it is said that imon established the date as a sort of national holiday for Jerusalem. I think the psychological importance of the independence of Jerusalem at this time has been vastly under-reported by scholars.

      The only text that I know about which does not mention specifically the "18th year of Josiah" is Esdras. The 18th year of Josiah is the culmination of the DtrH story - as many scholars have pointed out. The 18th year in the chonological system of Kings is 621 BCE and this happens to be exactly 480 years before 141 BCE. (In addition, I would go on to argue that another 480 years stretched from the beginning of the book of Samuel to the 18th year of Josiah.) Is it a coincidence that 480 years separate these two very important events (one real and the other probably fictional)?

      I have spent a lot of time watching tennis, however, I have managed to spend the odd moments working on all the chronological information over the past decade. I am working on the second draft of a book on the subject but I am very lazy and I have no idea if or when I shall finish.

      Frank Clancy

      --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups. com, Deane Galbraith <peloni_almoni@ ...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > > Frank Clancy wrote:
      > > ...I suggest the whole ideological and chronological structure points forward to 141 BCE and the independence of Jerusalem. The whole DtrH structure seems to point to the 18th year of Josiah when he repairs the temple, finds the torah and leads a religious reformation in Jerusalem. The 18th year of Josiah is 621 BCE and that date is precisely 480 years before 141 BCE...
      >
      > Hi Frank,
      >
      > I agree with you that the ideological nature of the 480/430-year biblical chronology is a compelling argument for its Hellenistic dating.
      >
      > But can we fix it at 141 BCE, if all the contemporary chronologies add in too many years from exile to the second century BCE? Don't we need an emic chronology instead of our etic one? There are a range of such chronologies available, and many of them overestimate the number of years involved by some 30-70 years. Eg. Josephus, War 6.4.8; Ant 20.10; 13.11.1. So - back to ca.. the Maccabeans for the expiry of 480 years? Or take the start date back to 586 BCE, and add an emic 480 years to reach 141 BCE or 165 BCE??
      >
      > Regards,
      > Deane Galbraith
      > Antipodes
      .






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Marc Cooper
      The 480-year Chronology thread is closed. All email on the subject will be rejected. Marc Cooper for the Moderators
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 29, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        The 480-year Chronology thread is closed. All email on the subject will be rejected.

        Marc Cooper
        for the Moderators
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.