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

Aris: The dating of the Exodus Notes

Expand Messages
  • aris hobeth
    Larry, if the sun stood still for about a day, I suspect that retro-calculations for eclipses would be a bit shaky. I recall a long night also, but cant
    Message 1 of 278 , Sep 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Larry, if the "sun stood still" for about a day, I suspect that
      retro-calculations for eclipses would be a bit shaky. I recall a "long night"
      also, but cant yet cite it. Likewise, I am suspicious on most ancient historians
      versions of Egyptian and/or Jewish history. Therefore, I mostly trust the
      Egyptian version of their history, especially as it appears to be immediate and
      compelling. Propably written by eye-witnesses. Of course, I also see propaganda
      and gaps ignoring negative events, just as I see the same selectiveness in the
      Bible. However, certain historical events cannot be competely disguised and/or
      omitted, such as murder, and individual family events. Sincerely, Aris M. Hobeth

      ________________________________
      From: Larry Wilson <larsinger58@...>
      To: AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 1:00:56 PM
      Subject: Re: ABH The dating of the Exodus Notes

       
      Hello Ian,

      Just some passing comments...

      1.  It might be your opinion that dating the Assyrian Period by the July 17, 709

      BCE is not correct, but it certainly can be dated to that date if you wish to. 
      It is an academic assignment.  The only reason, for instance, 763 BCE was
      assigned that eclipse was because of the distortion of 57 years in the NB Period

      created by Xenophon.   That is, in this case, the eclipse is nonspecific enough
      to have several match options.  The only reference is that it occurs in the
      third month of Simanu.

      If you will permit me, the more detailed an eclipse report is, the less flexible

      are the possible matches.  For instance, if there is a report of a solar eclipse

      "during the summer" of the 3rd year of some war, you have have more potential
      matches for that eclipse than if the eclipse was described as occurring during a

      specific month, or in the "early" summer, etc.   Or if an eclipse is described
      as total versus partial.  If not, any total or partial eclilpse can be a match. 

      I'm sure your research has shown how others not satified with the 763 BCE
      eclipse have suggested other dates for an eclipse during that month seen in
      Assyria.   So the only criteria for dating the Assyrian Period to that eclipse
      is that the eclipse occur in the month of Simanu; it is a very briefly described

      event. 

      2.  As far as a co-rulership between Rehoboam and Solomon are concerned, the
      only criteria I need for that presumption is his appointment/identification as
      the successor king prior to the death of Solomon.  But I will grant you that the

      Biblical narrative does chronologically speak of the invasion by Shishak after
      it completes the history of Solomon.  But that is a device by the Bible writers
      to confuse the history to outsiders.  That is, there is likely a literal attempt

      to hide this specific co-rulership to the casual reader.  So I will definitely
      concede that the superficial reading does suggest this event occurs after the
      end of Solomon's rule.  However, once confronted with specific chronology
      wherein an overlap is forced, a close look at the context of this invasion shows

      no metion of Jeroboam and the "princes of Israel" still dealing directly with
      Jeroboam.  That's clearly consistent with his being king over the north at that
      time. I accept that we will agree to disagree about this co-rulership.

      3. As I noted numerous times before, the pottery assemblage comparison for City
      IV of Rehov is matched to Megiddo 5a-4b.  Since that level is the level of the
      "Solomonic" palaces, that level specifically would linked to Shishak's
      destruction.  That is, Shishak does invade after Jeroboam and Rehoboam were
      divinely appointed as kings of Judah and Israel, respectively.   The Bible
      indicates this was a time of great wealth and lots of building and so that level

      of building is found at Megiddo 5a-4b.  So while I appreciate you respectfully
      disagreeing, there is a sufficient "academic comfort level" for linking this
      level to Shishak, which is all I need.

      4. As far as the Greek and Persian revisions go, it may interest you to know
      that the details of what actually happened and when are preserved in different
      works.  For instance, Darius I died at Marathon.  He was tricked into seeing a
      beautiful Greek woman privately who killed him and cut off his head.  The result

      of this outrage was the invasion by Xerxes, the son and co-ruler of Darius I, 10

      years later.  Now how do I know that?

      But none of this really matters because at Ezra 6:14,15 the Bible limits the
      rule of Darius I to just 6 years.  If we look at the archaeology at Persepolis,
      we find he began to build there in his 4th year, but only barely finished one
      building, his palace.   This building demonstrates that Xerxes was already a
      young man at the time and also co-ruler with Darius I.  So you can't squeeze
      more than 2 years out of the Persepolis buildings.  The fact that Xerxes as
      already a young man in the 4th of Darius, though, contradicts popular Greek
      historical references that Darius I married Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, after

      he became king and inherited the harem handed down first from Cambyses and then
      Bardiya.  Xerxes is said to have been born that first year and thus was always
      known as "Prince Xerxes", making him a stronger legal choice as the heir to the
      throne than his older brothers.  But of course, in year 4 of Darius I, Xerxes
      should have been a 4-year-old, which he wasn't.    Explaination?  This part of
      the history was revised.  In truth, Darius I had already been married to Atossa
      and Xerxes was born the year his grandfather, Cyrus, came to the throne in 455
      BCE.  That means in the 4th  of Darius Xerxes was 19-20 years of age.  That fits

      his image in the bas-reliefs at Persepolis vs. a 4-year-old.  So again, there is

      a clear "academic comfort level" for following the Biblical records specifically

      vs revised Greek chronology. 

      Of course, you claim this is not your area of interest, but the fact is, the
      timeline back to the Exodus is all connected.  If you use the 763 BCE eclipse
      for dating the Assyrian Period then you are using the wrong eclipse event. So at

      this point, I would simply note that when you use the 709 BCE eclipse Shishak's
      invasion is dated to 871 BCE.  RC14 dating confirms a destructive level at
      Rehov, a city mentioned in the annals of Shishak, City IV, which was destroyed
      around 871 BCE by advanced radiometric technique.  So one source confirms the
      other from my perspective.

      Thanks, again, for the feeback.  Obviously, if you can't follow this very well
      certainly those less knowledgeable will not.  I had surmised some time ago that
      a focus on destroying the Greek history from the time of Pericles would be more
      effective in correcting the timeline than debating about details of relative NB
      or Assyrian chronology.  That is, if it is clear you have to remove some 57
      years of fake Greek history then the entire timeline all the way back to the
      Exodus will be affected. 

      Even so, the VAT4956 in and of itself forces you to re-date the 37th of Neb2 to
      511 BCE in order to be academically correct.  The text was created in the form
      of a diary with lots of other references to provide a safe place to "hide in
      plain sight" references to the original chronology.  The VAT4956 is not the only

      text  to have this "double dating" back to the original timeline.  So once you
      realize that some evidence of the original timeline does survive in some
      critical astronomical texts then there is little academic choice in where to
      correct the revisionism.  At least that is what my research led me to. 

      I feel well served to have shared some general details of the revisionism with
      you, leaving you with your own choice to acknowledge the possibility.  Thanks,
      again, for your comments and consideration.

      Larry

      ________________________________
      From: Ian Onvlee <sambacats@...>
      To: AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Mon, August 30, 2010 5:05:03 PM
      Subject: Re: ABH The dating of the Exodus Notes

       
      Hi Larry,

      Larry: I will concede to your "options" here in interpreting this history.  But,


      if you

      date the Assyrian Period using the 709 BCE eclipse, which I do, then the
      absolute date for Shishak moves from 925 BCE to 871 BCE.  There is no
      flexibility here.

      Ian: But the3 point is, Larry, you cannot date the Assyrian Period using the 709


      BC eclipse at all, as  you do, so there is nothing that moves the Shishak
      invasion from 925 BC to 871 BC. Besides, in my chronology the Shishak invasion
      does not date to 925 BC, since I do not follow Thiele's rendering of the
      Biblical data. My date is 933/2 BC (see
      www.intercube.nl/chronology/divided_kingdom.htm, which according to your
      standard would become 879 BC instead. Others have reasons to date the Shishak
      invasion differently, so the Thiele-based date 925 BC is already not even that
      secure as you think, and therefore your simple calculation to bring it 54 years
      down to 871 BC has no meaning either. It could still be anywhere between 925 and


      860 BC, depending on what is believed to be true by the various chronologists
      according to their standards. So your statement "There is no flexibility here"
      is utterly false.

      Larry: So while this is not specific in Scripture regarding the co-rulership, it


      is

      unavoidable when using the above presumptions, so that is where year 39 vs 38,
      37 or 40 comes in.  It is just where it falls.

      Ian: Not true. see above.

      Larry: So while this is not specific in Scripture regarding the co-rulership, it


      is

      unavoidable when using the above presumptions, so that is where year 39 vs 38,
      37 or 40 comes in.  

      Ian: you contradict yourself. You said that a corulership was not contradicted
      by the Bible, and I have pointed out where it specifically is made clear in the
      Bible that Solomon was already dead when Rehobeam came to the throne and
      Jerobeam returned from Egypt, thus in their very first year. This means that 4
      years later, the Shishak invasion, cannot be 39 Solomon, unless you claim that
      this was posthumus year 39 of Solomon and that thus Solomon actually ruled only
      for 34 or 35 years. Such a claim cannot be made from any Biblical statement of
      course, but neither can your claim of a corulership at this point. And therefore


      you simply avoid answering me on this specific point. You claimed that it does
      not contradict the Bible but it does. So if you can surpass the Bible at every
      whim of your own, to fit your theory, then you can surpass anything else the
      Bible claims, such as the 480 years statement. Wouldn't you agree? 

      Larry: They even found a stele by Shishak at Megiddo.

      Ian: yes, but it is not dated by context.

      Larry: As far as the cities attacked by Shishak, he lists over 100 in his
      inscription of the attack, most of which were in the northen kingdom, including
      Rehov and Megiddo. 

      Ian: yes, that is a list of cities noted by Shashanq I, but that's all it is. It


      is not stated that he attacked or destroyed those cities. It is a list of cities


      he apparently visitied or perhaps subdued or made vassal, to collect
      tributaries. That's all. There is certainly no archaeological context that dates


      this campaign or list of cities specifically to Rehove IV, or to any level of
      Megiddo. 

      Larry: So archaeology/archaeologists have long known Shishak attacked northen
      fortified cities based not only on archaeology but on the inscription by Shishak


      himself. 

      Ian: No, they do not know, have never known either. Shashanq I, not Shishak,
      gives us a list of those cities, but it is not known why he lists those
      cities, most of which are known as northern cities. It is possible that he
      intimidated those cities, but whether he destroyed them, or even WHEN, is a far
      cry from what can be proven archaeologocally. There are theories, yes, and a few


      possibilities, but nothing yet has surfaced to bolster those theories
      sufficiently. But in any case, IF Shashanq I destroyed Rehov, it would not have
      been Rehov IV but Rehov V instead.

      Larry: Of course you will, because if you actually did investigate you'd have to


      come

      to the same conclusion of the revisionism as I have. 

      Ian: No I wouldn't. I have indeed investigated your claims on this issue with
      great interest and came to the definite conclusion that they do not hold at all.


      Since that period doesn't really interest me, I'll leave it to someone else to
      be bothered about.

      Larry: But the more evidence we keep digging up the more obvious the truth will
      become. 

      Ian: exactly!

      Larry: to suggest the Persians or the Greeks revised their history is considered


      ridiculous, as you do, since you don't even consider it worthy of examination.  


      Ian: O, they certainly did try to revise history to their own advantage,
      continuously, and so did Saddam Housein. But not they way you say they did.

      Regards,
      Ian Onvlee

       

       

      ________________________________
      From: Larry Wilson <larsinger58@...>
      To: AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sun, August 29, 2010 11:06:56 PM
      Subject: Re: ABH The dating of the Exodus Notes

       
      Hello Ian,

      I will concede to your "options" here in interpreting this history.  But, if you


      date the Assyrian Period using the 709 BCE eclipse, which I do, then the
      absolute date for Shishak moves from 925 BCE to 871 BCE.  There is no
      flexibility here.

      If you, likewise, use the Book of Sothis/Manetho to date the Exodus at the end
      of the reign of Amenhotep III and use the KTU 1.78 dated to year 12 of Akhenaten


      as does Rohl (for whatever reason), then the date of the Exodus is specific to
      1386 BCE in which case the rule of Solomon would be from 910-870 BCE.   When you


      combine the two, 871 BCE falls in year 39 of Solomon.

      So while this is not specific in Scripture regarding the co-rulership, it is
      unavoidable when using the above presumptions, so that is where year 39 vs 38,
      37 or 40 comes in.  It is just where it falls.

      But as noted, the context of Rehoboam's rebellion and the presence of the
      "princes of Israel" cooperating with Rehoboam after this invasion is sufficient
      for me to indicate he was still king over the princes of Israel.  As far as the
      cities attacked by Shishak, he lists over 100 in his inscription of the attack,
      most of which were in the northen kingdom, including Rehov and Megiddo.  They
      even found a stele by Shishak at Megiddo.  So archaeology/archaeologists have
      long known Shishak attacked northen fortified cities based not only on
      archaeology but on the inscription by Shishak himself.  So I'm not clear on why
      you think there is no evidence he attacked any northern cities.  ??

      You said: "I´ll leave your enigmating Persian theory to some one else."

      Of course you will, because if you actually did investigate you'd have to come
      to the same conclusion of the revisionism as I have.  Closing your eyes is just
      avoiding coming to the truth.  But I have all the archaeological and
      astronomical text evidence to reestablish the true, original chronology, so I'm
      in the least bit worried about your not wanting to hear about the details.  But
      I will say you are missing a fascinating study here.  The Greek historians
      played both sides of the fence, weaving a revised history while between the
      lines leaving clues to the original events and original timeline!  It's quite
      fascinating.  But when all is said and done, because of astronomy the specific
      original timeline is quite recoverable and it now is in complete agreement with
      the RC14 data we are now getting for the early dynasties of Egypt and the
      archaeology from Jericho and Megiddo and Rehov.  So you can avoid reality as
      long as you can.  But the more evidence we keep digging up the more obvious the
      truth will become. 

      Denial and confusion are two defensive mechanisms when you lack any good
      rebuttal.  But this is a FUN topic for me.  For instance, "The Delian Problem"
      claims that Plato was consulted in the 2nd year of the Peloponnesian War (PPW)
      to try and solve a math problem which if he did would stop the plague raging
      Greece at the time.  The plague breakout is historical.  The math problem is
      historical as well.   But at this point with the revised date for the PPW dated
      to 431 BCE it is impossible for Plato to have been consulted to solve this math
      problem since he was not born until 428 BCE.

      However, when you use a critical eclipse event to date the PPW to 403 BCE, Plato


      would have been 26 years old at the time, which is old enough to have been
      consulted for this problem.  So what happens is, even though it sounds rather
      challenging and perhaps ridiculous to someone inexperienced in this part of the
      history, the absolute objective effect of removng these extra years actually has


      a positive effect on the history since it is clear it is more logical that Plato


      was at least born and 26 years of age in the 2nd year of the PPW rather than not


      being born. 

      Same with his younger brother, Glaucon, who served in the 7th year of the PPW. 
      The 7th year falls in 424 BCE with the revised dating.  If Glaucon was born a
      year after Plato in 427 BCE, we are looking at am amazing 3-year-old serving in
      the army.  Once we correctly redate the PPW down to 403 BCE, Glaucon would have
      been in his early 30's.  There is example after example of this type of
      inconsistency in the background history that contradicts the revised history. 

      What I find ironic is that many scholars automatically presume the Bible writers


      and Jews revised their history as needed, but to suggest the Persians or the
      Greeks revised their history is considered ridiculous, as you do, since you
      don't even consider it worthy of examination.   Just the opposite tends to be
      the case, though.  The Jews kept good, accurate records and the pagans revised
      their chronology for polical reasons quite regularly.   To presume that the Jews


      always lied and the pagans never lied is simply biased and non-objective from my


      point of view.   But fortunately, there is more than enough "circumstantial
      evidence" to establish revisionism and the original timeline, thanks to
      astronomy.  But if you refuse to look at any of this information, that's up to
      you.  That doesn't mean I can't prove the original timeline from the Greek
      records, which I can.  But that's your choice.

      As I stated, this is an amazing time for Biblical chronologists who find lots of


      coordination with science and archaeology for the true original timeline, and
      certainly encouragement for the Exodus event with Akhenaten converting to
      monotheism all of a sudden, which is a textbook response to an event like the 10


      plagues.

      Thanks, again, though, for discussing these issues and representing your
      interpretation of the records.  Certainly some things will be a matter of
      interpretation, but I'm comfortable with my timeline and don't mind sharing the
      details with others which I think is constructive, whether they choose to agree
      with me 100% or not.

      Larry

       

      ________________________________
      From: Ian Onvlee <sambacats@...>
      To: AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sun, August 29, 2010 3:19:13 PM
      Subject: Re: ABH The dating of the Exodus Notes

       
      Hi Larry,

      Larry : I do not "invent" a co-rulership out of convenience but by specific
      reference. That is, based on 2 Chronicles 12:1 and 6.

      Ian :  Yes you do invent it. Even if there was a co/regency, you have no way to
      equate 39 Solomon with 5 Rehobeam on the basis of 2 Chronicles 12:1 and 6,
      because nothing in the text makes clear how many years such a coregency may have


      lasted, so you have nothing solid to connect 1386 to 871 BC.

      Larry : 1 And it came about that, as soon as the kingship of Re·ho·bo´am was
      firmly established and as soon as he was strong, he left the law of Jehovah, and


      also all Israel with him."

      Ian : It may just as wel mean that after Jerobeam had built his own two temples
      for the calf worship in the North and created his own harvest feast in the
      eighth month, finally no one of Israel went after Rehobeam anymore.

      Remember that we do not know WHEN Jerobeam set up his temples of worship or
      instituted his feast to compete with Rehobeam. In fact, we only know that part
      of Israel followed Jerobeam in the first year of Jerobeam, after Rehobeam was
      already elected king. Building two new temples does not heppen overnight.
      Knowing that it took Solomon seven years to build his temple, we should alow for


      at least three or four years if not more for Jerobeam to build his two
      temples and to institute his feast in those temples. So it would be at least
      about the 5th year of Reobeam that all of Israel finally left Rehobeam! There is


      nothing implying that Solomon was still alive. The only coregency you could
      point out to is the one between David and Solomon, since scripture does mention
      that Solomon was made king while David was still alive. But this would not
      influence your theory. 

      Larry : Furthermore, we know that Jeroboam, out of jealousy over the temple at
      Jerusalem, set up calf worship soon after he became king. 

      Ian : No, Larry. We do not know is Jerobeam was jealous. In fact, it is moere
      likely that Rehobeam was jealous and therefore stiffened his neck against
      Israel, as the text states. As I said, it would take a few years, before the
      calf cultus was up and running, with two temples built and a new feast to
      counter the feast in Judah. Perhaps this occurred in or directly after 5
      Rehobeam. Your notion makes this scenario even more likely.

      Larry : Note the refer4ence to the "princes of ISRAEL."  These princes of Israel


      still considered Rehoboam their king and they are representing along with
      Rehoboam here in his 5th year.  There is specifically no mention of any Jeroboam


      here. 

      Ian : and there is no mention of Solomon either.

      Larry : Of course, archaelogy clearly shows that Shishak destroyed lots of
      cities in the northern kingdom region!

      Ian : Where is that archaeological evidence of destruction by Shishak. Name a
      few. It is not there. You would be the first to know more than any archaeologist


      I know of.

      Larry : Specifically, of course, we know that both kingships of Rehoboam and
      Jeroboam  were divinely declared prior to the death of Solomon. 

      Scripture only tells us that Solomon made Jerobeam captain of the North, but
      thereafter Jerobeam revolted and had to flee to Egypt, and he returned only
      AFTER he heard of the death of Solomon, and it was only after he had returned
      that Rehobeam was made king and  Israel separated from Rehobeam because he had
      stiffened his neck even more than Solomon had done. So this is contrary to your
      coregency scenario. It simply cannot be. There was no coregency at this point.

      Larry : So you tell me why the "princes of Israel" are still subject to Rehoboam


      in this 5th year invasion by Shishak?

      Ian : There is nothing in the text that says that those princes humbled
      themselves for Rehobeam. They humbled themselves for Shishak, since it referred
      to Yahaweh having given Jerusalem into the power of Shishak: 

      6 At that the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves and said:
      “Jehovah is righteous.”

      Apparently not all of Israel was yet behind Jerobeam, or perhaps the princes
      were there to pressure Jerusalem in support of Shishak.

      Larry : if Solomon's 4th year is dated to 906 BCE ...

      Ian : but that´s not where you should start arguing. One might just as well
      start arguing± if Slomon´s 4th year is dated to 666 BC based on the Exodus dated


      to 1145 BC, then 871 BC falls in .... (whatever). This line of reasoning
      is known as circular argumentation. What cause do you have to date Solomon´s 4th


      year in 906 BC.... You have yet not given an argument for that.

      Larry : If Shishak was such friends with Jeroboam, why did his campaign focus so


      much on the northern cities as well? 

      Ian : where did you get that idea from. There is nothing that says that Shishak
      campaigned against Jerobeam´s realm. This would be especially impossible in your


      coregency scenario. Instead, Jerobeam would have actually returned from Egypte
      together with Shishak as his ally to confront Rehobeam.

      Larry : So the idea of a co-rulership is NOT CONTRADICTED by the Scriptures,
      whether you interpret this as a co-rulership or not.

      Ian : Yes, it is contradicted by scripture. As I´ve pointed out: Jerobeam
      returned to Jerusalem only AFTER he had heard of Rehobeam´s accession, and it
      was only after this that Israel decided to turn away from Rehobeam and to follow


      Jerobeam. At this point of Solomon is clearly only spoken of as a person of the
      past (2 Chronicles 10:4), because he was already dead. Read your Bible  again at


      this point. Rehobeam did not consult his father what to do with the revolt,
      because his father was dead by now, so he consulted the elders and the young
      men. This contradicts your coregency theory. It settles the case: there was no
      coregency, at least not according to the Bible, or any other Bible version I
      know of.  

      Larry: This is not an "invention" of mine but a requirement based on the
      specific chronology coordination of the RC14 from Rehov and the KTU 1.78 text. 

      Ian: No Larry, it is not a requirement based on the specific pieces of evidence
      you refer to. It is a requirement of your theory only, and it is known as
      circular argumentation.

      Larry: Finally, as far as Manetho and "Amenophis" goes, the Book of Sothis
      confirms the Amenophis in reference was Amenhotep III.  Syncellus considered
      both these references as reliable.  But lets say Manetho and the Book of Sothis
      were not reliable.  At the least it would mean that they accidentally got the
      pharaoh of the Exodus correct, since Kenyon's dating for the fall of Jericho
      requires the pharaoh of the Exodus to be Amenhotep III.

      Ian: No, we cannot say they at least had the Exodus correct. We can only say
      that whoever they are, they agreed upon each other. That is the same as having
      three hands on one belly, all agreeing to something, making sure everybody has
      their faces in one direction (like sitting in the church together, all
      looking in the same direction, singing the same songs, reading out loud from the


      same book, and praying to the same god), but which is not necessarily the truth
      they are committing themselves to. Its just an agreement, as every convention
      is.

      Larry : Finally, as far as the walls of Jericho are concerned, the Bible says
      they fell down miraculously.  That does not exclude the walls being destroyed or


      disintigrated in the process.  Archaeology, of course, finding "no trace" of any


      walls would confirm the walls were DESTROYED completely, which does not
      contradict the Biblical record.  Thus archaeologists thinking there should be

      some evidence of walls from the LBA city is potentially a false presumption on
      their part.  At any rate, the complete absence of any evidence of walls at this
      level simply means the walls were destroyed completely, not that there were
      never any walls here.   That is, if we are to interpret from the Biblical
      context that the walls falling "flat" meant they were decomposed and completely
      destroyed, then archaeologically we would expect to find "no trace" of any
      stones from the walls from that level, which is precisely what we do not find. 
      So "no trace of any walls" at that level in no way contradicts the Biblical
      narrative. 

      Ian : Well, Larry, if that is all the evidence you have, then you have no
      evidence at all, since there is none, as you yourself frankly admit. In that
      case, anything goes. There was an Exodus, but because it was a miracle and the
      waters flowed back again to normal, the miracle could have occurred anyway. So
      be it.

      I´ll leave your enigmating Persian theory to some one else.

      Regards,
      Ian Onvlee

       

       

       

          

      ________________________________
      From: Larry Wilson <larsinger58@...>
      To: AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sun, August 29, 2010 11:41:36 AM
      Subject: Re: ABH The dating of the Exodus Notes

       
      Hello Ian,

      I do not "invent" a co-rulership out of convenience but by specific reference. 
      That is, based on 2 Chronicles 12:1 and 6.  Your own interpretation is your
      choice, of course:

      1 And it came about that, as soon as the kingship of Re·ho·bo´am was firmly
      established and as soon as he was strong, he left the law of Jehovah, and also
      all Israel with him."

      Note that here, Rehoboam is influencing ALL of Israel in this error.  If this
      was after the division of the kingdoms, in what way could Rehoboam still have
      this influence?  His influence would have only been over the 2-tribe kingdom. 
      Furthermore, we know that Jeroboam, out of jealousy over the temple at
      Jerusalem, set up calf worship soon after he became king.  But if this is still
      during the reign of Solomon during a co-rulership, then it makes sense without
      contradiction that Rehoboam's influence was still over all 12 tribes.   Adding
      to this is the reference in verse 6:

      6 At that the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves and said:
      “Jehovah is righteous.”
       
      Note the refer4ence to the "princes of ISRAEL."  These princes of Israel still
      considered Rehoboam their king and they are representing along with Rehoboam
      here in his 5th year.  There is specifically no mention of any Jeroboam here. 

      Of course, archaelogy clearly shows that Shishak destroyed lots of cities in the


      northern kingdom region!  This is in harmony with the princes of Israel being
      affected by this invasion; all consistent with a co-rulership, which is quite
      common.
       
      Specifically, of course, we know that both kingships of Rehoboam and Jeroboam 
      were divinely declared prior to the death of Solomon.  It would not be
      uncustomary for both kings to officially begin their rulerships from this point
      in time, another basis for the context of a co-rulership. 

       
      So you tell me why the "princes of Israel" are still subject to Rehoboam in this


      5th year invasion by Shishak?
       
      In the meantime, the RC14 dating from Rehov c. 871 BCE for a destructive level
      that matches the Solomonic palaces at Megiddo is the only possible dating for
      Shishak, sorry.  Feel free to disagree with that if you wish.  But having noted
      that, if Solomon's 4th year is dated to 906 BCE based on the Exodus dated to
      1386 BCE, then 871 BCE falls in his 39th year.  So it is incidentally noted that


      an 871 BCE Shishak invasion is not contradicted by Scripture, which suggests or
      confirms that Rehoboam was still over the princes of Israel and influencing "all


      of Israel" as late as his 5th year, which only means there was a co-rulership of


      6 years.  Co-rulerships were more common than not, so there is no problem with
      this assessment, especially since the divine appointment of both kings of Israel


      and Judah did occur before the end of the rule of Solomon.  Remember, once
      Solomon knew that Jeroboam was to become king of the 10 tribes he chased him
      away, Jeroboam fleeing to Egypt where he made close friends with Shishak!
       
      That brings up a final issue as well.  If Shishak was such friends with
      Jeroboam, why did his campaign focus so much on the northern cities as well? 
      But if this was during the co-rulership of Rehoboam with Solomon, destroying the


      fortified cities in the northern kingdom weakened the ability of Rehoboam to
      wage war in the north and so was actually a help to Jeroboam.  Thus Shishak was
      attacking Rehoboam in the north and south and not Jeroboam.  Again, the context
      of Scripture shows that the princes of Israel were involved in the bad influence


      by Rehoboam at this time, something contraindicated post the division of the
      kingdoms. 

       
      So the idea of a co-rulership is NOT CONTRADICTED by the Scriptures, whether you


      interpret this as a co-rulership or not.  This is not an "invention" of mine but


      a requirement based on the specific chronology coordination of the RC14 from
      Rehov and the KTU 1.78 text. 

       
      Finally, as far as Manetho and "Amenophis" goes, the Book of Sothis confirms the


      Amenophis in reference was Amenhotep III.  Syncellus considered both these
      references as reliable.  But lets say Manetho and the Book of Sothis were not
      reliable.  At the least it would mean that they accidentally got the pharaoh of
      the Exodus correct, since Kenyon's dating for the fall of Jericho requires the
      pharaoh of the Exodus to be Amenhotep III.
       
      Finally, as far as the walls of Jericho are concerned, the Bible says they fell
      down miraculously.  That does not exclude the walls being destroyed or
      disintigrated in the process.  Archaeology, of course, finding "no trace" of any


      walls would confirm the walls were DESTROYED completely, which does not
      contradict the Biblical record.  Thus archaeologists thinking there should be

      some evidence of walls from the LBA city is potentially a false presumption on
      their part.  At any rate, the complete absence of any evidence of walls at this
      level simply means the walls were destroyed completely, not that there were
      never any walls here.   That is, if we are to interpret from the Biblical
      context that the walls falling "flat" meant they were decomposed and completely
      destroyed, then archaeologically we would expect to find "no trace" of any

      stones from the walls from that level, which is precisely what we do not find. 
      So "no trace of any walls" at that level in no way contradicts the Biblical
      narrative. 

       
      Now, all of this does not address the revisions made by the Persians to the
      timeline.  Xenophon made two adjustments to the Greek timeline which added a net


      57 years to the NB Period by the time of Nebuchadnezzar II.  As a result the
      eclipse dating the entire Assyrian Period was distorted from 709 BCE to 763
      BCE.  Thus the _absolute date_ for Shishak based on the Assyrian eponym eclipse
      is not optional.  When the 763 BCE eclipse is used, Shishak is dated to 925 BCE,


      which does not match the RC14.  But when the correct eclipse is used when the
      extra Persian years and Greek years are removed from the timeline, which falls
      in 709 BCE, then Shishak must be dated absolutely 54 years later to 871 BCE.  
      That is
       
      763 - 709 BCE = 54
      925 - 54 = 871
       
      So in the big historical picture, the current timeline used by archaeologists is


      totally dependent upon whether or not you can substantiate whether or not
      Xenophon revised the Greek timeline, which you can't, of course.  That's because


      revisionism is quite common. 

       
      So in reality, the RC14 dating from Rehov and now the RC14 dating of the
      Egyptian dynasties all correspond to the same timeline for Shishak's invasion in


      871 BCE and the Exodus in 1386 BCE, which in turn only works with the dating of
      the Assyrian Period to the 709 BCE eclipse.  Using the erroneous eclipse of 763
      BCE dates Shishak, David and Solomon a half century too early, which is why all
      the debate is going on, because it is incorrect.  But since archaeologists are
      not expert in history and in particular Greek historical revisionism, they end
      up comparing the wrong dating.
       
      In the meantime, as I noted, once you use the correct eclipse in 709 BCE to date


      Shishak to 871 BCE and the Exodus to 1386 BCE, you get Biblical timeline
      accuracy for the same dating since 1947 confirms the Exodus, per the Bible, to
      have occurred in 1386 BCE.  So in reality, the debates and controversy is
      convoluted since the Bible's timeline and archaeology and RC14 and astronomy all


      date the Exodus to 1386 BCE right now without a hitch.  But you have to know
      where to find the lies and the revisions in the popular timeline, which many
      don't, or they refuse to even look. 

       
      Thanks, again, for your commentary.  I totally agree with you that there are
      many theories out there, and mine is just one of many, but mine is critically
      supported by a lot of research, especially the RC14 evidence that is now coming
      into the field.
       
      Larry
       

      ________________________________
      From: Ian Onvlee <sambacats@...>
      To: AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sun, August 29, 2010 3:12:08 AM
      Subject: Re: ABH The dating of the Exodus Notes

       
      Hi Larry,

      In presenting the many various theories for dating the Exodus, you should be
      more precise. There are in fact a multitude of beliefs, opinions,
      interpretations regarding the Exodus which are usually nothing but conjecture,
      whether secular or alternative.

       <<However, we note at this point, that Manetho had long ago claimed that
      Amenhotep III was the pharaoh of the Exodus.>>

      Manetho did not claim that Amenhotep III was the pharaoh of the Exodus. It was
      Eusebius in the 4th century AD who did so. Other early Christian interpolators
      claimed that Manetho referred to Amosis I, while it was Josephus who claimed
      that Manetho had at least three different dates for the Exodus, one of which
      is indeed associated with Amenhotep III, the second being 393 years before that,


      and the third another 518 years before that, also claimed as "nigh a thousand
      yours before the Troyan War". None of these three alluded Exodus dates did
      Josephus - in the 1st century AD - regard as correct, yet in various other
      statements he places the Exodus anywhere in the late 3rd or early 2nd millennium


      BC, while thinking actually of the Hyksos exodus, which was in fact during
      Amosis I. So none of these claims can be rightfully attributed to Manetho
      himself.

      <<Getting right to the point, dating the Exodus in 1513 BCE, 1446 BCE or c. 1300


      BCE (Rameses II) don't match well with Shishak's invasion dated to c. 871 BCE
      based upon RC14 data from Rehov. That reference independently, when dated late
      in Solomon's rule/year 5 of Rehoboam would date the Exodus c. 1386 BCE.>>

      It would not. If - and only if - 871 BC is the correct date of Shishak's
      invasion, and IF the Massoretic version (and not for instance the Septuagint or
      the Samaritan records) is right about 4 Solomon being the 480th year of the
      Exodus, and only IF Solomon reigned for 40 years until Rehobeam acceded to the
      throne, then your Exodus date should be  479 + 41 years before 871 BC and
      thus 1391 BC, not 1386 BC! But you have simply created a coregency of Solomon
      and Rehobeam to amend that little inconsistency in your theory.

      But if you use the Ugarith eclipse of 1375 BC as your basic piece of evidence,
      your Exodus date should be 1376 BC and your date for the Shishak invasion
      according to the Massoretic version of the Bible would have to be 479 + 41 years


      later, thus 856 BC, not 871 BC.  

      So your basic problem is that there is no exact connection between the dates
      1386 and 871 BC, nor is there any archaeological proven connection between
      Shishak and Rehov City IV nor is there any between Kenyon's Jericho of the 14th
      century BC and the Conquest story.

      What you do have is a possibility that the death of Amenhotep III and
      Akhenaten's accession may have been associated (by whom?) at some time with the
      Exodus, which thus would more likely date to 1376 BC (or perhaps later, but
      certainly not earlier) and also that the Shishak invasion is certainly more
      likely to be associated with the destruction of Rehov City V, around 960-925
      BC, not Rehov IV.

      So what I think you should do is reassess your theory and explain a distance of
      only 375-410 years or so between your Exodus and the Temple building, as well as


      why Kenyon's Jericho must be and can only be the Jericho that Joshua destroyed.
      In this Kenyon's personal opinion is irrelevant. Her factual observation is
      relevant and that was that there was no wall to be destroyed by Joshua, or at
      least there was no trace of such a wall, which is exactly what Kenyon admits to
      have disappointed her own expectations and hopes. The same goes for the opinions


      surrounding Rehov V and IV. The excavators may have hoped or conjectured that
      Rehov IV may have been ended by Shishak's invasion, but it was just a wild
      thought, while Rehov V is the more likely one, although there is nothing at
      Rehov itself, other than the RC14 date of Rehov V's destruction and not that of
      Rehov IV, that supports any such suggestion.

      Regards,
      Ian Onvlee

       

      ________________________________
      From: Larry <larsinger58@...>
      To: AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sat, August 28, 2010 11:49:39 PM
      Subject: ABH The dating of the Exodus Notes

       
      I'm presenting this for the general context of how many theories there are about


      the dating of the Exodus.

      In general, there are two primary dates settled upon by the academic world. One
      is during the time of Rameses II; the other in 1446 BC which is based on the
      chronology from a solar eclipse from the Assyrian Period which is in turn based
      on the dating of the Neo-Babylonian Period.

      But there are others worth mentioning. One is the dating by Jehovah's Witnesses
      to 1513 BCE, which is quite early. Basically JWs use 539 BCE for the fall of
      Babylon as a "pivotal" and thus reliable historical date, but dismiss other
      secular dating. They introduce a 70-year exile period back to 607 BCE for the
      fall of Jerusalem based on the return occurring in 537 BCE, thus ignoring the
      current secular dating for the fall of Jerusalem (year 18 of Nebuchadnezzar II
      in 587 BCE). From this point they gain 20 years to the timeline and thus going
      into the Assyrian Period, they must ignore the Assyrian solar eclipse now dated
      to 763 BCE. At the same time, while the conventional chronology use Thiele's
      adjustments for co-rulerships, JWs ignore all these co-rulerships and thus gain
      an additional 47 or so years to their timeline, so that by the time you get to
      the Exodus, their dating is about 67 years earlier than the conventional
      timeline dating the Exodus to 1446 BCE. (1513-1446=67).

      In the meantime, the 1446 BCE chronology is quite specific. The key to that
      dating is the Battle of Karkar where King Ahab is mentioned in Assyrian records
      for year 6 of Shalmaneser III. Based on the 763 BCE solar eclipse, this event is


      "absolute dated" to 853 BCE. Shishak's invasion in year 5 of Rehoboam 72 years
      earlier is thus dated to 925 BCE. Based on this, Solomon's rule is dated from
      970-930 BCE, his 4th year falling in 966 BCE. Based on the Bible, the Exodus
      occurs 480 years earlier and so we end up with an Exodus dated to 1446 BCE by
      this method. (966+480=1446 BCE).

      KATHLEEN KENYON AND DIGGING UP JERICHO: However, in the early 1950's, Kathleen
      Kenyon dug up Jericho and found an LBA town with LBA pottery and scarabs in
      nearby tombs dated down to the reign of Amenhotep III. Based on her findings, he


      concluded that this LBA town was destroyed by Joshua between 1350-1325 BCE. This


      dating, of course, fit neither the date for the Exodus for either the time of
      Rameses or the 1446 BCE. The archaeological dating for the Exodus based on her
      conclusion would date the Exodus between 1390-1365 BCE. This dating limits the
      Exodus to the reigns of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten. That is, archaeologically
      speaking.

      However, we note at this point, that Manetho had long ago claimed that Amenhotep


      III was the pharaoh of the Exodus. Thus it becomes a very interesting note at
      this point that the "historical" pharaoh of the Exodus seems to match the
      archaeological pharaoh of the Exodus. Here is Kenyon's statement regarding this,


      where she notes that her dating confirms neither the Rameses II nor the 1446 BCE


      dating opinions:

      Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the
      Israelites, page 262:

      "As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that
      can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my

      view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a
      date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of
      the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a
      date of c. 1260 B.C."

      Page 261 of her book, "Digging Up Jericho," in the Chapter called "Jericho And
      Coming Of The Israelites," she says:

      "It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within which
      period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a trace
      remains."

      RC14, DAVID AND SOLOMON: Please note at this point that the chronology of David
      and Solomon are directly linked to the time of the Exodus, including Shishak's
      invasion during the end of Solomon's reign. So depending upon which dating you
      link to, you at the same time change the dating for David and Solomon. But at
      this point there is another objective reference to consider, that of radiocarbon


      14 dating, particularly that related to Shishak's invasion.

      Getting right to the point, dating the Exodus in 1513 BCE, 1446 BCE or c. 1300
      BCE (Rameses II) don't match well with Shishak's invasion dated to c. 871 BCE
      based upon RC14 data from Rehov. That reference independently, when dated late
      in Solomon's rule/year 5 of Rehoboam would date the Exodus c. 1386 BCE. What is
      significant about that dating reference is that it falls within the
      archaeologically dated fall of Jericho between 1350-1325 BCE, which in turn
      dates the Exodus between 1390-1365 BCE!

      So now, just by OBSERVATION, we have a connection between Manetho, the fall of
      Jericho and RC14 from Rehov all pointing to the same date and period at the end
      of the reign of Amenhotep III.

      A possible challenge to this is an eclipse record from Ugarit which is believed
      to be dated to year 12 of Akhenaten. The official solar eclipe dating is 1375
      BCE. This could potentially absolute-date the reign of Akhenaten, though there
      is much debate and likely flexibility here. At any rate, when dated to the 12th
      of Akhenaten the Exodus would fall in 1386 BCE, the precise same date you get
      with the RC14 highest probability date from Rehov for Shishak in 871 BCE! That's


      interesting.

      871, year 39 of Solomon dates his 4th year in 906 BCE, +480 = 1386 BCE.

      Eclipse in 1375 BCE, year 1 of Akhenaten dates his first year in 1386 BCE. 1375
      + 11 = 1386 BCE.

      In the meantime, the RC14 dating and archaeological dating from Jericho
      contradicts an Exodus during the rule of Rameses II, which is too late; or 1446
      BCE which is too early, and certain 1513 BCE which is way too early.

      ESOTERIC JUBILEE DATING OF EXODUS: Finally, just of passing note, for those who
      use the prophetic Jubilees to date the "70th jubilee" when the Jews come out of
      exile in 1947, there is another presumed date for the Exodus. Jubilee periods
      are 49 years each, thus 70 jubilees are a period of 3430 years (49 x 70 = 3430
      years). Even though the Jews did fail to fulfill their covenant, the Bible
      indicates that a remnant would be restored to their "promised land" during end
      times and their land would be restored. That land was restored on November 30,
      1947 which officially gave the Jews their homeland back and officially ended
      their "exile." IF (and I emphasize _IF_...)this is implied at the date for the
      last jubilee, the 70th jubilee, then it fixes the date of the Exodus as well as
      the first jubilee of this 70-jubilee period. It is quite fundamental at this
      point.

      1947 starts the final 70th jubilee week of 49 years and thus ends in 1996. That
      means the 70-jubilee period began in 1435 BCE. The Exodus, 49 years after the
      week begins would fall 49 years later and thus in 1386 BCE. 1435 - 49 = 1386
      BCE.

      So based on that interpretation, the official BIBLICAL date for the Exodus is
      also 1386 BCE, which means the Exodus occurred in the 1st of Akhenaten. At this
      point, on closer examination for any evidence of an Exodus at the beginning of
      his reign, we note that Akhenaten totally flipped out and converted to
      monotheism and dismissed the popular gods of Egypt as "worthless." He was
      focussed and radical. Interesting that monotheism was linked with the Jews in
      particular. But obviously, if a monotheistic god caused the 10 plagues one would


      expect a shift toward monotheism, which apparently, indeed occurred. Thus not
      only was Akhenaten a monotheist, he was actually a Yahwehist.

      See YouTube vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpkK6XoqRQo

      and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJueiLBV3rI

      IN SUMMARY: You have many different dating theories for the Exodus based on
      either the interpretation of the Bible or secular records. But archaeology and
      RC14 dating favor dating the Exodus at the end of the reign of Amenhotep III, a
      pharaoh already identified by Manetho as the pharaoh of the Exodus, which
      presents and interesting observation. In addition, the "Book of Sothis" is also
      specific in this regard, dating the Exodus at the end of the reign of Amenhotep
      III.

      Also of incidental or coincidental note, when using the 70th jubilee to date the


      Exodus to 1386 BCE, it turns out to be the same date when you independently use
      the KTU 1.78 astrotext or RC14 dating from Rehov.

      Now anyone can make of this what they want, but from my academic perspective, if


      another dating is to be more seriously considered, there is quite a lot to
      dismiss here. Otherwise, it seems, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, there is no reason to
      at least acknowledge our current best guess at dating the Exodus is 1386 BCE,
      incorporating archaeology and RC14 dating. That is, what is wrong with dating
      the Exodus to 1386 BCE at the end of the reign of Amenhotep III? If there is a
      better date, then lets dismiss all this and examine the evidence for a better
      dating. Otherwise, this looks like we have a good date on all fronts for the
      Exodus in 1386 BCE per analysis.

      All comments welcomed!

      Thanks.

      Larry Wilson
      Research Analyst
      Palestine

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Richard Abbott
      Larry, you wrote ... only when you have a sequence of events (such as royal accessions) that you can use to tighten the figures. For a single event, C14 cannot
      Message 278 of 278 , Oct 18, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Larry,

        you wrote
        >But if you find stored grains burned at the time of destruction,
        >with modern methodology, particularly involving multi-testing, you
        >can get dating within "less than ten years."

        only when you have a sequence of events (such as royal accessions) that you can use to tighten the figures. For a single event, C14 cannot get the range down this much because of the shape of the calibration curve. Indeed, typically in the period of interest you find there are two areas of high probability, as the calibration curve wiggles quite a lot. The Egyptian regnal data can be narrowed down to this degree specifically because the succession is pretty well known (with a couple of blips, of course).

        Also
        >You suggest that new developments at Jericho might change Kenyon's
        >dating. That's possible if they find some scarabs from later kings
        >in the tombs.

        Well, there are several factors here. Clearly when Kenyon wrote about 50 years ago, she would have based her thoughts on what was considered the dates for those monarchs. It would be interesting sometime to look through her articles - I tracked down the references over the weekend but have not yet had time to look up the articles. I would be interested not just in the figures, but in her reasoning for those figures. Also, Garstang did a reanalysis of the data a while later and it would be interesting to see what he made of it. Again, I have the citations but not the actual articles yet.

        Either way, Kenyon's actual dig results cannot possibly have arrived at a year-date, so she must have factored in some additional assumptions. Are these still considered reasonable? Have additional findings over the last fifty-odd years led folk to reconsider these things? Offhand I don't know, and I strongly suspect that you don't either?

        >Further, LBA pottery was found at the "Joshua" level as well. So
        >unless there is a drastric reassessment of the pottery as well, it
        >appears that LBA town is well dated to have been destroyed between
        >1350-1325 BCE

        Again, this is muddling interpretation ("Joshua level") with data (LBA pottery). But yes, there have been a lot of questions relating to the understanding of pottery assemblages - issues such as different profiles in different regions not all changing in a single coherent move. I don't offhand know if any of these questions have affected Jericho, but they have certainly been an issue in the Judaean highlands.

        >The KTU 1.78, of course, dated to "year 12" (whomever has settled on
        >that date including Rohl) dates the Exodus to 1386 BCE also...
        >Science and history are on my side this time. Why can't you just
        >accept that?

        Because I have seen how you set aside certain snippets of information from science or history when they are inconvenient, and the KTU1.78 issue is a classic case, for all the reasons we have gone over before.

        All the best,

        Richard
        http://www.oldtestamentstudies.net

        --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, Larry Wilson <larsinger58@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hello Richard,
        >
        > Thanks for your reflections.  My comments would be:
        >
        > 1.  Jericho and Rehov are unique as far as RC14 dating because both utilize
        > short-lived grains stored that were burned at the time of a destructive level. 
        > That's incredibly significant. 
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.