EGYPT REF: Note that ****shak is relevant to the redating of the NB Period.
****shak was an EGYPTIAN pharaoh who invades Palestine, now debated as
invading in 925 BCE or 871 BCE, though RC14 dating points to 871 BCE, as
well as Kathleen Kenyon's dating the fall of Jericho shortly after the
reign
of Amenhotep III includes the date of 871 BCE for ****shak's invasion.
=============================================
Thanks to archaeology, we have an astronomical text from the Seleucid
Period
that was found called the Strm. Kambyses 400 (SK400). It presents an
interesting challenge to the current NB timeline.
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/523-541comj.JPG
Notice that the text is dated to "Year 7" of Kambyses, 523 BCE, but the
specific times of the eclipses are given establi****ng a specific interval
of
2:46 between the eclipses. The interval in 523 BCE is a mismatch because
the interval between the eclipses is 4:46. But of note, the ecilpse of
541
BCE is 2:45. Is there a historical significance or connection? Below
are
the times of the 18-year lunar eclipse cycle for the two similar eclipses
occurring every 18 years and the increasing interval between them:
559 BCE DEC 19 1.868 6:06 5:66
559 BCE JUN 25 0.831 5:30 -5:30
INTERVAL: :36
541 BCE DEC 29 1.860 14.59 14:59
541 BCE JUL 05 0.678 12:14 -12:14
INTERVAL: 2:45
522 BCE JAN 9 1.845 23:49 23:49
523 BCE JUL 16 0.533 19:03 -19:03
INTERVAL: 4:46
504 BCE JAN 20 1.820 8:30 8:30
505 BCE JUL 27 0.398 2:00 -2:00
INTERVAL: 6:30
QUICK TEXT CALCULATION: Basically to calculate the times of the interval
we
follow the text. The first eclipse is 3:20 "after night" and the second
is
5 hours "before morning." "Morning" and "night" is a standard division
of
32 minutes after sunset and 32 minutes before sunrise. Sunset was at
7:09
and sunrise at 7:19 on dates indicated. We have a further confirmation
from Ptolemy's canon that the first eclipse occurs "one hour before
midnight." Calculations are accurate within 4 minutes.
First eclipse: 7:09 sunset. Thus we just add 3:20 to 7:09 to get 10:29
p.m. We add 32 minutes to that to get 11:01 p.m., which fits 1 hour
before
midnight.
Second eclipse: 7:19 sunrise. Convert to 6:79 and subtract 32 minutes
for
the beginning of "morning" which is 6:47. Then just subtract 5 hours from
that to get 1:47 a.m.
Calculating the Interval: 11:01 is one hour before midnight minus a
minute.
1:47 is one hour and 47 minutes past midnight. So if we just add one hour
to 1:47 to get 2:47, then subtract 1 minute we get the interval of 2:47
from
the text.
As you notice, the interval in 541 BCE is 2:45+ which precisely matches
the
text time for the interval. But, again, 523 BCE, which is the customary
year 7 of Kambyses is a mismatch, since that interval is 4:47.
HOW SMART ARE WE? So at this point we make a judgment call. Is the
specific reference in this text in any way suggesting a "year 7" in 541
BCE
cryptic senario, perhaps to some other dating or timeline? Guess what?
We
don't know for sure, so all we can do is check it against other timelines
out there. There are two references to consider:
1. The VAT4956, like this text, appears to have double-dating in it. In
this case, year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar is dated to 511 BCE and 568 BCE.
The
511 BCE dating for year 37, though, would date year 7 in 541 BCE, the same
dating we're looking at for this text!!!
2. Martin Anstey in his "Romance of Bible Chronology" likewise determined
the strict Biblical dating for the 1st of Cyrus was 483 years prior to the
baptism of Christ, thus dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE based on Jesus'
baptism in 29 CE. Josephus in Ant. 11.1.1 confirms a 70-year interval
between the 1st of Cyrus and year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar, which would date
to
525 BCE. In that case, obviously, year 7 falls in 541 BCE, the same
dating
suggested in the text.
So NOW we make the JUDGMENT CALL: YOUR decision is whether or not this is
a
cryptic reference to the above Bible-VAT4956 timeline or not. Is this
just
a quirk error? Or is it an intentional reference? This text, like the
VAT4956 comes from the Seleucid Era, so automatically is suspected of
revisionism. But finding the "error" suggests the "diary" was created as
a
secret code to the original chronology. This is sup****ted by the fact
that
this text was copied multiple times; we have five extant copies/fragments
of
this text!
REDATES ****SHAK TO 871 BCE: Of course, we may decide that this is up for
grabs and not really know for sure if this is a reflection of the original
chronology or not. But what else we CAN do is use archaeology dating for
comparison to other events. In this case, the best dated ancient event
based on improved RC14 dating is the fall of Rehov by ****shak c. 871 BCE.
That is 871 BCE per a new method of using RC14 dating by using
multi-testing
and then finding the "weighted average" of those tests pointing to a
single
year or small range of years points to 871 BCE/874-867 BCE.
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/REHOVPROB.JPG
(comparison 871 vs 925
BCE)
This comparison already has proven that the customary date of 925 BCE
based
upon the current timeline is 54 years too early. The astronomical choices
involved here, based upon the ARCHAEOLOGICALLY FOUND Assyrian eponym is an
eclipse occurring in month 3, Simanu. The choices are either 763 BCE or
709 BCE. The 709 BCE eclipse would be used if the 7th of Nebuchadnezzar
is
dated to 541 BCE, thus dating ****shak's invasion 54 years later from 925
BCE
to 871 BCE.
Therefore, we can see the IMPACT of using the SK400 to redate the 7th of
Nebuchadnezzr to 541 BCE as compared with RC14 dating, meaning, it
improves
the matching since the RC14 dating also points to c. 871 BCE as the
highest
probability date for this event.
If so, then archaeologists still using the current timeline and ignoring
this reference, albeit rather cryptic and cir***stantial, are using the
incorrect original secular timeline for dating ****shak's invasion, and
conclusions based on this dating to 925 BCE are not actually accurate.
The
combined reference of the SK400, however, with the RC14 dating from Rehov
pointing to the very same dating becomes a double confirmation that,
indeed,
the original year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar fell in 541 BCE, and thus would
explain why the SK400 eclipses point to 541 BCE rather than 523 BCE based
on
the specific interval between the eclipses.
WILL ARCHAEOLOGISTS EVER FIGURE THIS OUT? It's not a question of really
WILL THEY? figure this out, but WHEN WILL THEY? figure it out? Most
don't
realize this research exists yet, nor seriously consider adjusting the
secular timeline to fit the archaeological evidence for this period. In
the meantime, it is most significant to note that the critical internal
Biblical timeline agrees with the double-dating in the VAT4956 to 511 BCE
for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar and the double-dating in the SK400 to 541
BCE
for year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar. Therefore, Biblicalists already have a
confirmation of harmony for ****shak's invasion in 871 BCE. They are just
waiting for the archaeologists to correct the timeline they use or at
least
include the redated secular timeline in thei anlyses. The reason they
need
to is because if you have a text with double-dating, that is, with both
dates of the original and revised chronology, the cryptic dating preempts
the primary dating in the text, always. Thus 511 BCE preempts 568 BCE
and
541 BCE preempts 523 BCE. That means the current best reference to dating
Nebuchadnezzar is not the fall of Jerusalem in 587/586 BCE but rather 529
BCE.
This is NOT A CHOICE, therefore, but an UPDATE. That is, if you're
honest
and have a need to be academically correct. Otherwise...any dates you can
self explain, obviously, will do.
Lars Wilson
(New!) Corrected Timeline Outline:
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html
|
