Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Chronology - was uncancellable meaning in hebrew verbs

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Chronology - was uncancellable meaning in hebrew verbs
  • Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:01:30 +0100

Sounds like good stuff. That's the kind of thing I've been meaning to look into for a long while.

What sources do you use for astronomical events such solar eclipses etc?

James Christian

Quoting Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>:

Dear James,

The subject is clearly relevant for BH; so it can be discussed on this list.

We may start with the exile in Babylon. Daniel and the Chronicler say
that Jerusalem was a desolate waste for a full 70 years, but this
does not fit the Neo-Babylonian chronology. We should keep in mind
that this chronology was fixed long before a single cuneiform tablet
was unearthed - on the basis of the belief that the king list of the
2nd century astronomer Claudius Ptolemy was correct.

In 1915 two German scholars (Neugebauer/Weidner) published an
analysis of the astronomical Diary VAT 4956, which has more than 30
positions of the moon and some planets in relation to particular
stars. The tablet mentions year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. This analysis
showed that most of the positions fitted the year 568/67, and that
was year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II according to the chronology of
Ptolemy.

Before this, in 1892, another German scholar (Strassmaier) published
the tablet Strm Kambys 400, which also has many astronomical
positions, and which mentions year 7 of Cambyses, which according to
Ptolemy would be 523/22. Comparing these two tablets with the Bible
indicates that at least one of the three sources give wrong
information. The tablets allow for only about 50 years for the exile,
while the Bible has 70. The usual way to proceed has been, 1) either
to reject the witness of the Bible, or 2) to try to reinterpret the
texts of the Bible.

I approached the issue from a different angle. I made a careful
analysis of the passages in the Bible, and found that they,
linguistically speaking, were perfectly clear, and no one would have
tried to give them an alternative interpretation if the person did
not have a particular agenda. Then I started to look at the
Babylonian evidence with fresh eyes. The very backbone of the
Neo-Babylonian chronology is VAT 4956. Interestingly no one has
published a new analysis of it since 1915 (Sachs/Hunger published an
English translation and transliteration in 1988, but no analysis). I
made digital photographs of this tablet in Berlin, and analyzed it
sign for sign (about 600) from a philological, linguistic and
astronomical point of view (87 pages with this analysis is found in
one of my books). My conclusion is that the positions of the moon
better fit the year 588/87 than 568/67, and that would fit the
70-year chronology.

I have also visited the British Museum and read dated business
tablets. And the dates of about 90 such tablets argues in favor of
the view that the Neo-Babylonian Empire lasted longer than most
scholars today believe. In one chapter I also discuss twelve persons
that may have been kings in the Neo-Babylonian Empire, but are not
mentioned by Ptolemy (the evidence for this is by no means
conclusive, but should be considered). My conclusion, therefore, is
that the cuneiform evidence does not definitely contradict a 70-year
exile when Jerusalem was a desolate waste. But it is possible to
interpret it in a way that conforms with Daniel and the Chronicler.

Then to Assyria. As a matter of fact, the royal inscriptions of
Assyria exaggerates the victories of the kings and by and large are
propaganda. The books of kings on the other hand have a completely
different quality. The kings of Judah down to Sidkia can be followed,
and their years of reign are mentioned. The chronology of Judah is
between 30 and 40 years longer than the chronology of Assyria, and
the two chronologies cannot be conformed. And as usual when sources
differ, the Bible is the looser; the Assyrian chronology is accepted
and the Biblical chronology is rejected. When I made a thorough study
of the situation, I found something that even makes the situation
ridiculous and laughable: The Assyrian chronology hinges on the
interpretation of one single datum! Only astronomical information
connected with a particular year of a particular king or official can
be used to make an absolute chronology. Only once is such information
available for Assyria; a solar eclipse is reported in the limmu (his
one year as official) of Bur Sagale. This is viewed to be the solar
eclipse of 15 June 763 B.C.E. However, there are at least 8 other
solar eclipses that can fit the data. So, the Neo-Assyrian chronology
has a very weak foundation, but most people are not aware of that.

This was a sketch, and there are hundreds of other interesting
details that can be used to question the traditional chronology.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


Hi Rolf,

That sounds interesting. Lately I've been interested in calendars
and chronology. Can you summarise what you've found in a short
email? It might make for an interesting discussion.

James Christian


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page