leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il
Sun May 23 03:26:35 EDT 2004
No, Herm, if you want to argue a theory, you have to give us all the
> <<Given a choice, I'll go for an Assyrian Capivity ca. 722 BC to reckon a
> <<chronolgy from.
> Ok, for the time being, I won't convey the scripture that confirms this,
> however, the Northern Kingdom lasted for 260 years.
Jeroboam - 22 years (1 Kings 14:20). Nadab - 2 (15:25). Baasha 24 (14:33).
Elah 2 (16:8). Zimri and Tibni in one year, together with Omri (16:15-22).
Omri - 12 (16:23). Ahab 22 (16:29). Ahaziah 2 (22:52). Joram 12 (2 Kings
3:1). Jehu - 28 (10:36). Jehoahaz 17 (13:1). Jehoash 16 (13:10). Jeroboam II
41 (14:23). Zechariah and Shallum 1 (15:8,13). Menahem 10 (15:17). Pekahiah
2 (15:23). Pekah 20 (15:27). Hoshea 9 (17:1).
Unless I missed one, that's 243 years. And that's without taking into
account the possibility of one king's last year also being counted as the
next kings first (which would mean up to 16 years less), and the possibility
of a son ruling as regent during his father's lifetime, and those years
being counted for both kings (there are many examples of this in the ANE).
While many scholars have tried to calculate and correlate the reigns of the
kings of both Israel and Judah with the little extra-biblical evidence there
is, I think that Thiele has done the best job.
> After going
> back 260 years, that brings us to 982 BC, for the year that Solomon
> dies, and the division of the united kingdom.
Assuming that the Shishak = Sheshonq I equation is correct, we still have to
give c.930 as the death of Solomon.
> Next, we have 120 years for the combined reigns of Solomon, David,
> and Saul. Therefore, Saul began the monarchy in 1102 BC.
The 40 years each for David and Solomon are suspicious, but let's use them
for lack of anything better. But 1 Sam. 13:1 says, "Saul was a year old when
he reigned, and he reigned over Israel two years". This is obviously
corrupt, but ALL the various reconstructions are just that. We just don't
know how long Saul ruled.
> we need an accurate defined length of time for the period of the Judges.
> In Acts chapter 13, Paul gives a historical narrative of the nation of
> Israel. He cites that there was a total of 450 years for the Judges,
> yields the year 1552 BC for the end of the conquest.
The chronology of Judges is extremely problematic. First of all, so many of
their dates are typological multiples of 40. Second, how can you know that
some of them did not act at the same time (say, a Shamgar in Zebulun at the
same time as Jair in Gilead and Samson in Dan)?
The numbers that "Luke" puts in Paul's speach in Acts 13 are an attempt to
make sense of the numbers (based on the LXX).
> Add 6 years (5.5)
> for the conquest, we now have 1558 BC for the fall of Jericho.
> Now. Why is 1st Kings 6:1 in error (or miscopied)? If you withdraw
> 480 years from 1018 BC, the fourth year of Solomon, you have
> 1498 BC as being the year of the Exodus. But that is not correct. It
> is 100 years off. Go backward 40 years from 1558 BC, you have 1598
> BC as the correct year of the Exodus.
So why are you willing to accept every other number, however problematic,
except the ONE that doesn't fit your theory?
Ms. Kathy Kenyon confirmed
> the 1558 BC date for the fire damage of the Jericho walls. Archaeology
> provides the key to the correct chronology.
And what do you do with Ai? Gibeon? Arad? Heshbon? Hazor (destroyed c.
1250)? The appearence of Israelite settlements only about 1200? You can't
take the one piece of outdated archaeological evidence that seems to fit and
ignore all the rest.
> Therefore, Israel became slaves in 1998 BC, and Jacob brought his
> family to Joseph (during the famine) into Egypt in 2028 BC. Joseph,
> being thirty years old, was appointed governor in 2038 BC.
> What I said was, "the fall of MODERN man was in 4267 BC.
And where the .... does that come from?
More information about the b-hebrew