Lars Wilson
2008-02-14 23:33:10 UTC
WHERE BIBLE AND SECULAR HISTORY CONTRADICT: NOT WITH FINKELSTEIN'S
"MYTHICAL" DAVID AND SOLOMON
Of note, when you compare the Biblical history with the secular records
available, there is excellent agreement for everything from the Exodus in
the 1st of Akhenaten down through the entire Assyrian Period, with only
minor discrepancies. But the people and the state of affairs during those
years are well reflected in what has survived archaeologically.
The differences start when the pagans needed to revise their timeline, which
affected the NB Period and the Persian Period.
The first critical surviving document is the "Babylonian Chronicle" which
when compared to the Bible:
THE NEO-BABYLONIAN PERIOD
1. Combines the events of the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar II with his
first year, thus all events occur a year earlier in the Nabonidus Chronicle
than in the Bible. For instance, the deportation of Jehoiachin takes place
in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar per the Bible but the 7th per the
Chronicle. That's why when speaking of the fall of Jerusalem it is usually
a two-year reference, like 587/586 BCE.
2. Though the Bible does not give the years of rule for Evil-Merodach,
Josephus does, who assigns an 18-year rule rather than a 2-year rule. Since
the interval of 70 years from the last deportation until the 1st of Cyrus is
reflected in the Bible, we consider this another discrepancy of revision,
with the NB timeline removing 16 years of the rule of Evil-Merodach.
3. Likewise 2 years were also removed from the 19-year rule of Nabonidus,
down to 17 years.
4. The Bible specifically assigns a 6-year rule to "Darius the Mede" before
Cyrus the Persian comes to rule over all of Persia. This is ignored in the
revised Chronicle since it shows Cyrus beginning his rule immediately after
the overthrow of Babylon. This merely means an addition 6 years were
removed from the NB Kings; Darius the Mede was half-Babylonian, being the
son of the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar II. So the Babylonian Empire did not
technically end until Cyrus, the Persian took over rulership, six years
after Darius the Mede and ruled as king.
The total number of removed years from the NB kings is 26 years. Thus the
Bible and secular history for this period shows a 26-year longer period for
the NB Empire per the Bible.
THE PERSIAN PERIOD:
During this period, the contradictions are more dramatic.
1. A co-rulership years for Kambyses becomes a sole-rulership year in the
revised timeline so that he rules 8 years instead of 7. Chronologically
this means 1 extra fake year.
2. Per Ezra 6:14,15, Darius the Great only ruled for 6 years instead of 36
years. The archaeological investigations at Behistun, Naqshi-Rustam and
Persepolis support this dating. Chronologically, this means 30 extra fake
years.
3. Also per Ezra 6:14,15 compared with Daniel 11:2, it is clear that the
Bible calls Xerxes, "Artaxerxes." This means both were the same king. This
notion is also supported from comparisons of Xerxes with Artaxerxes at
Persepolis.
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/nehemiah.html (Nehemiah at Persepolis)
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/xerxeshand.html (Xerxes hand position)
Loading Image...
(Xerxes at Palace
of Darius)
Chronologically this mean 21 extra years added for the concurrent reign of
Xerxes with Artaxerxes.
4. Finally, since it is clear Xenophon adjusted Greek history during the
reign and at the behest of Artaxerxes II, an extra flattering 30 years were
added to the rule of Artaxerxes II, who only ruled 17 years,
chronologically, this means an extra 30 fake years.
All told, the number of fake Persian years added are 82. Thus the 1st of
Cyrus per the current secular timeline is 537 BCE compared to 455 BCE per
the Biblical timeline.
OF WHAT RELEVANCE TO ARCHAOLOGY? Well for one, Israel Finkelstein's belief
that because the archaeology findings usually associated with Solomon,
meaning the monumental buildings and the evidence of full statehood are now
effectively dated to the early 9th century, which is much later than the
current secular timeline dates David and Solomon, he presumes the
post-exilic Bible writers for some reason revised their history and created
David and Solomon as great heros who did the impressive buildings that Omri
actually did. This assessment would be incompetent since if there was
truly any comparison of the Bible's history with the secular timeline, the
criticial differences are during the NB and Persian Period, something that
Finkelstein apparently knew nothing about or chose to ignore. The main
point being, if you are going to claim revisionism, it should be done where
the evidence shows the critical differences are: during the NB and Persian
Period, not during the time of Solomon!
The fact is, therefore, Finkelstein in using say the date of 925 BCE as the
official Biblical date for Shishak's invasion, is actually mistaken. That
is a spurious and illegitimate Biblical date for Shishak's invasion. The
direct Biblical date for Shishak's invasion would be 871 BCE. In that case,
though, Shishak's invasion matches the chronological dating, and so do the
buildings of Solomon now match his rule from 910-870 BCE.
So did the post-exilic Jews revise their chronology? Maybe!! If you
believe the secular records over the Bible account. But it was NOT during
the time of Solomon and David. The contradictions are with the NB and
Persian Period rulers. This, Finkelstein, apparently completely missed or
ignored. But of no great matter, his theory about a "mythical" David and
Solomon clearly falls quite flat on its face like the walls of Jericho that
fell flat when they were turned into mere dust, leaving no trace of those
walls at this level, confirmed by archaeologists!
SUMMARY: If an archaeologist is going to venture from his field of expertise
and start Bible-bashing, he should do so with some integrity and actual
facts.
Lars Wilson
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html
"MYTHICAL" DAVID AND SOLOMON
Of note, when you compare the Biblical history with the secular records
available, there is excellent agreement for everything from the Exodus in
the 1st of Akhenaten down through the entire Assyrian Period, with only
minor discrepancies. But the people and the state of affairs during those
years are well reflected in what has survived archaeologically.
The differences start when the pagans needed to revise their timeline, which
affected the NB Period and the Persian Period.
The first critical surviving document is the "Babylonian Chronicle" which
when compared to the Bible:
THE NEO-BABYLONIAN PERIOD
1. Combines the events of the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar II with his
first year, thus all events occur a year earlier in the Nabonidus Chronicle
than in the Bible. For instance, the deportation of Jehoiachin takes place
in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar per the Bible but the 7th per the
Chronicle. That's why when speaking of the fall of Jerusalem it is usually
a two-year reference, like 587/586 BCE.
2. Though the Bible does not give the years of rule for Evil-Merodach,
Josephus does, who assigns an 18-year rule rather than a 2-year rule. Since
the interval of 70 years from the last deportation until the 1st of Cyrus is
reflected in the Bible, we consider this another discrepancy of revision,
with the NB timeline removing 16 years of the rule of Evil-Merodach.
3. Likewise 2 years were also removed from the 19-year rule of Nabonidus,
down to 17 years.
4. The Bible specifically assigns a 6-year rule to "Darius the Mede" before
Cyrus the Persian comes to rule over all of Persia. This is ignored in the
revised Chronicle since it shows Cyrus beginning his rule immediately after
the overthrow of Babylon. This merely means an addition 6 years were
removed from the NB Kings; Darius the Mede was half-Babylonian, being the
son of the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar II. So the Babylonian Empire did not
technically end until Cyrus, the Persian took over rulership, six years
after Darius the Mede and ruled as king.
The total number of removed years from the NB kings is 26 years. Thus the
Bible and secular history for this period shows a 26-year longer period for
the NB Empire per the Bible.
THE PERSIAN PERIOD:
During this period, the contradictions are more dramatic.
1. A co-rulership years for Kambyses becomes a sole-rulership year in the
revised timeline so that he rules 8 years instead of 7. Chronologically
this means 1 extra fake year.
2. Per Ezra 6:14,15, Darius the Great only ruled for 6 years instead of 36
years. The archaeological investigations at Behistun, Naqshi-Rustam and
Persepolis support this dating. Chronologically, this means 30 extra fake
years.
3. Also per Ezra 6:14,15 compared with Daniel 11:2, it is clear that the
Bible calls Xerxes, "Artaxerxes." This means both were the same king. This
notion is also supported from comparisons of Xerxes with Artaxerxes at
Persepolis.
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/nehemiah.html (Nehemiah at Persepolis)
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/xerxeshand.html (Xerxes hand position)
Loading Image...
(Xerxes at Palaceof Darius)
Chronologically this mean 21 extra years added for the concurrent reign of
Xerxes with Artaxerxes.
4. Finally, since it is clear Xenophon adjusted Greek history during the
reign and at the behest of Artaxerxes II, an extra flattering 30 years were
added to the rule of Artaxerxes II, who only ruled 17 years,
chronologically, this means an extra 30 fake years.
All told, the number of fake Persian years added are 82. Thus the 1st of
Cyrus per the current secular timeline is 537 BCE compared to 455 BCE per
the Biblical timeline.
OF WHAT RELEVANCE TO ARCHAOLOGY? Well for one, Israel Finkelstein's belief
that because the archaeology findings usually associated with Solomon,
meaning the monumental buildings and the evidence of full statehood are now
effectively dated to the early 9th century, which is much later than the
current secular timeline dates David and Solomon, he presumes the
post-exilic Bible writers for some reason revised their history and created
David and Solomon as great heros who did the impressive buildings that Omri
actually did. This assessment would be incompetent since if there was
truly any comparison of the Bible's history with the secular timeline, the
criticial differences are during the NB and Persian Period, something that
Finkelstein apparently knew nothing about or chose to ignore. The main
point being, if you are going to claim revisionism, it should be done where
the evidence shows the critical differences are: during the NB and Persian
Period, not during the time of Solomon!
The fact is, therefore, Finkelstein in using say the date of 925 BCE as the
official Biblical date for Shishak's invasion, is actually mistaken. That
is a spurious and illegitimate Biblical date for Shishak's invasion. The
direct Biblical date for Shishak's invasion would be 871 BCE. In that case,
though, Shishak's invasion matches the chronological dating, and so do the
buildings of Solomon now match his rule from 910-870 BCE.
So did the post-exilic Jews revise their chronology? Maybe!! If you
believe the secular records over the Bible account. But it was NOT during
the time of Solomon and David. The contradictions are with the NB and
Persian Period rulers. This, Finkelstein, apparently completely missed or
ignored. But of no great matter, his theory about a "mythical" David and
Solomon clearly falls quite flat on its face like the walls of Jericho that
fell flat when they were turned into mere dust, leaving no trace of those
walls at this level, confirmed by archaeologists!
SUMMARY: If an archaeologist is going to venture from his field of expertise
and start Bible-bashing, he should do so with some integrity and actual
facts.
Lars Wilson
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html