Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Dates of Ezra and Nehemiah

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Dates of Ezra and Nehemiah
  • Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 04:11:48 +0100

Dear Shosanna,

The traditional dates for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II and of his destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (587-86) are based on astronomical dating, that is, on the interpretation of cuneiform tablets with positions of the moon and the stars in particular years of particular kings. There are about 220 datable astronomical diaries between the first century and the seventh century B.C.E. On the basis of these, we can say that there is no possibility that the date for the destruction of the temple can be two hundred years off (422-21) compared with the traditional dating (587-86).

However, science is not as scientific as scientists like to portray it. As a matter of fact, before a single cuneiform tablet was unearthed, the New Babylonian Empire was chronologically fixed on the basis of the king list of the astronomer Claudius Ptolemy (2nd century C.E.), and the newly found cuneiform tablets were interpreted in the light of this chronology. On this background, the publishing of the astronomical diary VAT 4956 in 1915 was heartily welcomed, since it contains about forty observations of the moon and the planets connected with Nebuchadnezzar´s thirtyseventh year. Now the date of the destruction of the temple could be established once and for all. After this, a few other astronomical tablets that have a bearing on the New Babylonian chronology, have been published, and these are taken as additional proofs in favor of the traditional chronology.

Two important weaknesses of modern science dealing with ancient history and chronology are the belief in the authority of the "big names" and in the tendency to minimize and explain away data that contradict the traditional view. I have for the past two years carefully studied the monuments and stelae ascribed to the New Babylonian kings, chronicles dealing with their reigns, dated business documents from their reigns, and the mentioned astronomical diaries. My conclusion is that the New Babylonian chronology is in need of a revision. There are about fifty dated business tablets that contradict the traditional chronology in addition to many other data that suggest that the traditional chronology is too short. Ancient chronology cannot be proven, but in my view a strong case can be made for a prolongation of the New Babylonian Empire by twenty years (a new interpretation of VAT 4956 corroborates this). This means that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar II was 625 and not 605 B.C.E.. Interestingly, the last thirty years of the New Assyrian Empire is a complete mess, as far as a meaningful chronology is concerned. I will soon publish a book where all these data will be presented and discussed.

The answer to your question is that a date in the fifth century for the destruction of the temple is impossible, but the traditional chronology should be adjusted somewhat.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

----- Original Message ----- From: "Shoshanna Walker" <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 2:58 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Dates of Ezra and Nehemiah


As I recall, the whole basis of discrediting Rashi, and the counting
of events from the year of creation, is that first Temple was
destroyed - according to secular sources - in 586 BC, while Seder
Olam, and Rashi, says it was 422 BC (as computed from the time of
creation of the world) - and my question, is - what are the sources
for saying that it was 586 BC?? Who had better records than
Chazal????

Shoshanna




On 9/17/06, Shoshanna Walker wrote, quoting me:

> Belief in prophecy is not a condition for reconstructing history,
much less so
> when the text involved (Daniel) is a complex prophecy that is not
clear on what
> it refers to.

It is very clear when you agree that Chazal made it their business to
know our history and record it in writing.

It is not a matter of agreement. I offered evidence, that R' Yose's dating
scheme for the Persian period was erroneous. In fact, I think most
Orthodox Jews (I don't know about Haredi Jewry), would accept that R'
Yose may have been in error. Similarly, most would accept that the
traditional interpretation of Daniel which is based / related to R' Yose's
dating scheme may be similarly wrong. In any case, even though I
offered evidence his dating scheme was erroneous based on documents
that were written (not simply copied or passed down orally) during the
times "events really happened", you have not countered this evidence.
You don't have to, but it makes no sense to then criticize me a week
afterwards for not "agreeing" that HZ"L made it their business to know
our history.

The very fact that you claim to need HZ"L to interpret the text means that the
text itself is not straightforward and simple, but complex. The HZ"L
traditions
may be one way to interpret the text, and may even offer several competing
ways to interpret the text, as is Christian tradition, and as is reviewing the
text itself to see what it means based on the merits of the text
itself. In fact,
I view the exact dating independently of the events so that I do not
necessarily
believe that the exact dating of the years corresponds to actual events. They
may or they may not, and this itself has to be judged, in my opinion, on the
merits of the text itself.

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









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page