Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Tory:
This is why arguing dates is off list for this group.

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 3:37 AM, Tory Thorpe <torythrp AT yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no> wrote:
> >
> > Again, ancient history and chronology cannot be
> > proven, so why should we dogmatically rely on the
> > present consensus?
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Rolf Furuli
> > University of Oslo
>
> Simple. Because a better or equally persuasive alternative to the standard
> chronology of Neo-Babylonia has yet to be successfully defended.
>
> Regards,
> Tory Thorpe
>

Secular historians give one sequence of dates, the Bible gives another. As
long as it is recognized that the secular dates are so full of holes that
they are questionable, I have no problem with them being listed.

To give an illustration, this is off topic so used only as an example, when
was the 15th year of Tiberius mentioned in Luke? Did it start at the death
of Augustus, as modern historians normally date it, or did it start with
when Tiberius was designated the next emperor and assigned some of the tasks
and authority of emperor? If the dates around the first century can be off
by as much as a decade, how trustworthy are dates based on less surviving
evidence from centuries earlier? Are those dates trustworthy enough to
question the sequence of events as recorded in Daniel? When Rolf mentions
that "Yet there are at least eight other solar eclipses that may fit the
description." how can we dogmatically insist that only one particular one is
accurate? How many secular historians accept the consensus only with the
proviso that it is open to amendation when better data is found?

Then there are different interpretations of Biblical data. I accept one
interpretation: professional etiquette says that while I may mention which
interpretation I accept, in fact it is preferable that I do so so others may
understand other statements I make, I may not push it as the only correct
one while on this discussion group.

To sum up: while there is a scholarly consensus, we must recognize that it
is based on a certain amount of guesswork, educated guesses, but fuzzy
enough that one cannot use that scholarly consensus dogmatically.

Karl W. Randolph