Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Banyai Michael" <banyai AT t-online.de>]

Joe Baker wrote:

> Banyai. I agree that the mention of Tarharqa in the account of the siege of
> Jerusalem is an anachronism. I agree that Herodotos' Anysis is a reflection
> of Hanes (which in the time of Isaiah was a major city of the Tanis
> kingdom). But I see no problem with any of this.

OK. There is a red line, beyond which you can not bring any further 
arguments.

> But when you say things like
>
> <quote>the Assyrian and Babylonian chronologies have got 18 years shorter
> than the Israelite, due to the rejection of 18 limu officials from the late
> reign of Tiglatpileser III</quote>
>
> and dating to 703 BC the notion that
>
> <quote>The troops of Merodach-Baladan besiege Assyrian ally Sidon</quote>
>
> I think its time for me to withdraw from the debate

I understand your first objection, since you may not have a notion of the
details I´m pointing to. However you have a Babylonian presence just during 
the
time of Hiskija in Palestine, and these are the officers 
Merodach-Baladans.
According for example to Kings XX,12, or to Jesajas XXXIX.

On the other hand we have the return Merodach-Baladans (to use the 
biblical
nomenclature) 704-703 to Babylon. He is named 703 again as king of Babylon. 
We
can not consider a later date for his contact with Hiskija since he later, 
even
he tryed a return to Babylon, he didn´t succeeed, so Jesaja XXI (concerning 
the
fall of Babylon) would be meaningless.

On the other hand Jesajas XXIII, 13 states categorically: The Chaldeans 
were the
people, not the Assyrians, who wanted to destroy Sidon...

Not much later, you see it, 701, treated as an Assyrian enemy and its king 
Elulaios is both king of Sidon and Tyre.

Well, make instead a better proposition, which you find worthier to 
comment.

For the first instance, I must explain in short. On a carefull study, if 
one rejects the late 8-th century BC Israelite-Judahite synchronisms as 
contradicting the mainframe of the biblical chronology, one may observe a 
linear
deviation to the Assyrian chronology of exactly 18 years. 
There are a number of 18 year contradictions within the Assyrian and 
Babylonian chronologies either, sumarily:
there is an entry in the Cb I variant of the AKL introducing a new Assyrian 
reign 763 (Bur-Sagale) not otherwise attested, 18 years before 
Tiglatpilleser III traditional advent.
For my ease I am quoting for the following myself in german:

"Nabonassars Regierung soll eine Ära gebildet haben, weil angeblich damals 
"die Festlegung und Anerkennung der Tatsache, daß der Frühlingsanfang nicht 
mehr im Zeichen des Stieres, sondern jetzt im Zeichen des Widders 
stattfand."(KAT3.24). Wie Kugler anhand der Bur-Sagale-Sonnenfinsternis 
Angabe im Monat Sivan bewies, muß der Übergang des Frühlingsanfangs vom 
Stier in den Widder vor der traditionellen Regierungs-Zeit Nabonassars 
(747-734), spätestens aber 763 stattgefunden haben! Wenn die antike Angabe 
trotzdem recht behalten sollte, müßte Nabonassar mindestens 16 Jahre früher 
regiert haben.
Man mag sich allerdings über diese Begründung einer Ära Nabonassars 
wundern. Die Aussage von Manilius, wonach das mit der Ankunft des Phoenix 
zusammenhängende große Jahr am Mittag des Tages beginnen würde als die 
Sonne ins Zeichen des Widders eintrete, könnte sie erklären. Auch der 
Thronaustieg Nabonassars soll am Mittag erfolgt sein, eine für einen 
babylonischen Thronaufstieg sonst kuriose und prezedenzlos genaue Angabe. 
Damit wäre wohl von diesen antiken Quellen die Ära Nabonassar mit der 
wohlbekannten antiken Phoenixära, gleichgesetzt.".

Hope you read german.

As you observe, there are chronological aberations within the 
Assyro-Babylonian chronology too, in the same height the biblical 
chronology differs from it. It depends now on our ability to find 
convincing fix points for the biblical chronology.

Best regards,