Hi Björn:

--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "bjorn07se" <bjorn07se@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Larry,
>
>
> I have already given you the answers that destroy your arguments, so
> there is no need for me to repeat them. See my old posts ##3191, 3195
> and 3205.
>
It is clear you misunderstood the reference so in fact, you did not address the
issue, as I will demonstrate below:


> You are constantly mixing apples and oranges. Finkelstein's refs.
> to "multi-testing and averaging [] showing ranges of 10 years and
> less" concern the uncalibrated dates, not the ranges after
> calibration. We have then an uncalib date ± 8 BP or something, i.e.
> a span of less then 20 years. The calibrated span will be much wider,
> because of the wiggly calibration curve. Is this too difficult to
> understand?
>
I am not concerned with these details, but only with Finkelstein's statement
that 14C dating was more precise now than before.  That is, that the old dating
methods and applications were much improved now.  So what did he mean?  Was he
saying the precision with within 30 years now rather than 100?  Or within 10
years?  Here is his statement.  Please clarify what YOU think he is saying...

Page 141 "Until recently it was impossible to use radiocarbon dating for such
relatively modern periods as the Iron Age because of its wide margin of
probability, often extending over a century or more.  But refinements of carbon
14 dating techniques have greatly reduced the margin of uncertainty."

So what margins do you think he is talking about.

In the meantime, the published results of the 14C destructive level for City IV
at Rehov for the 95.4% probability shows a peak within less than 10 years over
874-867 BCE.  It is a chart that contrasts BC dates with "relative probability."
The scale is from 0.0 to 1.0, with the highest probability peak being assigned
to 1.0.

Here is that chart:

http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/Chapter15%20Bayesian%20Analysis%20Tel%20\
Rehov%20-%20Bruins%20et%20al.pdf

Go to page 291.

You said:
> The "Egyptian history that dated the Exodus to the end of the reign
> of Amenhotep III" exists only inside your head. The Isaiah quote does
> no such thing.
>
This is where you misunderstood.  The EGYPTIAN HISTORY (vs Biblical history?
Isaiah?) is a reference to Manetho and the "Book of Sothis". Manetho is the
"Egyptian historian" I'm referring to, not Isaiah.

But as far as Isaiah is concerned, it does mention an altar being built in the
middle of Egypt, a blow to Egypt and "healing" and a great "savior" out of Egypt
and Egypt worshipping YHWH. So my assessment is that this is a reference to
Akhenaten and the ten plagues.  That's my opinion.  I certainly accept it if you
don't agree.


> You are also mixing absolute and relative probabilities. Let's say
> there is a 99% (*absolute*) probability for a person to be say 60
> years old. Then he *is* probably 60 years old! Let's now say that
> he is somewhere between 50 and 59 years old, and the *relative*
> probability for each of these ages is 1.00, i.e. it's equally
> probable for him to be 50, or 54, or 55, or 59 years old. The sum of
> years 50-59 is 10 years. So the total (*absolute*) probability for
> these 10 years is 1.0 (100%). The *absolute* probability for him to
> be exactly 54 years old is 100/10=10%, not close to 100%. This is
> very elementary.
>
>
> I will illustrate this in more detail below. Please go to the article
> by Bruins et al. at
>
http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/Chapter15%20Bayesian%20Analysis%20Tel%20\
Rehov%20-%20Bruins%20et%20al.pdf
> and scroll down to Figure 15.8 (p. 291). There we find a 68.2%
> probability of having the destruction samples of Rehov IV at 903-845
> BC, with 13.4% at 903-892 BC and 54.8% at 885-845 BC. <snip>
>
HELLO?  Bjorn.  The chart you have in reference and that I also reference has a
graph with shaded areas.  It reveals on one side from 0.0 to 1.0 "relative
probability."  The only dates reaching 1.0 or let's say 0.95 to 1.0 are dates
ranging from 874-867 BCE.  Those are the only dates I'm concerned with, those of
the highest probability between .95-1.0. Who cares about the other dates?  The
chart gives you the calibrated highest "relative probability" for dates between
0.95 to 1.0.

In the case of the 68.2% results, you just take the high date of 903 (13.4%) and
the low date of 54.8% of 845 and calculate the midpoint date.  903+845=1748
divided by 2 = 874.  You can do the same thing with the 95.4% dates of 918-823
BCE: 918+823=1741 divided by 2 = 870.5 which is 871 BCE.  871 BCE and 874 BCE
are both within the 0.95-1.0 highest "relative probability" range of 874-867 BCE
as shown by the shaded area over these dates.

The chart is not difficult to read.  One side has dates, the other has "relative
probability" results.  The highest results close to 1.0 is a shaded area over
the corresponding dates found at the bottom of the chart.  Very simple. The
shaded area reaching close to 1.0 looks like a less than 10-year range c.
874-867 BCE.  All dates earlier or later decrease in relative probability.

The chart clearly shows you the highest "relatively probable" dates.  I don't
understand why you are resisting the evidence.

Finally, just for the record.  Do you have an official comment on Manetho and
the "Book of Sothis" claiming Amenhotep III was the pharaoh of the Exodus? 
Isn't that a secular "historical" source

Thanks, Björn!

Larry

>

Hello Ian:

--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, Ian Onvlee <sambacats@...> wrote:
>

You said:
Accepting Sammuramat as a reigning queen in her own right, resolves all current
synchronistic problems as well as the mismatches with most carbon dates. The
credits for the discovery and for pointing it out to me I give wholly to Tory.
And I'm thankful to my friend Bjorn (the one with all the carbon dates on this
list) for giving me the hint to contact him.
>

I don't see how this addition of 35 years, pushing everything back by 35 years
helps the 14C issue. That's because the 14C is already considered to be too late
for Shishak dated to 925 BCE.  If you add another 35 years you will be dating
Shishak to 960 BCE, even farther away from the 14C that would date Shishak's
invasion to 871 BCE.

So this addition is only making matters worse, not better, as far as 14C goes.

Larry

--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "verncrisler" <vcrisler3@...> wrote:

> The purpose of the citation requirement is to place speculative
> theorizing under the healthy influence of the evidential order.
> The more one has to work at referencing, the less likely is one
> to be carried away by fancies and folly.
>
> Scholarly journals always require documentation for that very
> reason. Why should a List like this be any different?

> I always wanted this List to be useful to scholars, and I think
> this requirement will go a long way to ensuring that.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Vern
>

Hi Vern,

Above there are a few details which IMO need some comments. First of
all I agree about the importance of a fact-based discussion, if that
is what this documentation and citation thing implies. You state that
you always wanted this List to be useful to scholars. I'm delighted
about this statement, but we ought to define 'scholar' a little. You
say that "Scholarly journals always require documentation", which is
very true. Most (or maybe *all*) established journals would need a
new observation or a new theory to be backed by either refs. to well-
known and established verifiable facts *or* extensive and convincing
descriptions of the observations or deductions that form the basis
for the results that the author wants to present. If that is the case
also with this List, then everything is well and sound. Or does this
List in any way deviate from my description above?


In the new List version we read:

<<<
Description [partially slimmed down]:

For purposes of discussion, the Bible is regarded as truthful in its
historical narratives in both the Old and the New Testament. However,
it is not necessary that all participants be Christians or believe in
the Bible, only that they be respectful.

What not to do:

2. No attacks against archaeologists or the science of stratigraphy.
6. No discussions of creation and Flood, or the theory of evolution.
7. No discussions of eschatology.

What to do:

1. Discuss all topics related to ancient history and chronological
revision, from the Old Testament to the New Testament. As defined
here, ancient history does not include the Mediaeval period or the
American Civil War.

2. Provide citations for your claims. If this rule is not followed,
the moderators may return your post for revision.
>>>

At least for my own sake I probably need some closer definition of
'truthful' and 'respectful'. My personal experience is that one could
comment, discuss or even criticize a person's opinions or concepts
without being in any way disrespectful.


I agree much with the importance of the "science of stratigraphy",
also in geological terms, but I will leave further comments and
questions (incl. the definition of 'scholar') to a later post.


Best wishes, Björn

--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" <larsinger58@...> wrote:

> I am not concerned with these details, but only with Finkelstein's
statement that 14C dating was more precise now than before. That is,
that the old dating methods and applications were much improved now.
So what did he mean?  Was he saying the precision with within 30
years now rather than 100?  Or within 10 years?  Here is his
statement.  Please clarify what YOU think he is saying...
>
> Page 141 "Until recently it was impossible to use radiocarbon
dating for such relatively modern periods as the Iron Age because of
its wide margin of probability, often extending over a century or
more.  But refinements of carbon 14 dating techniques have greatly
reduced the margin of uncertainty."
>
> So what margins do you think he is talking about.
>

[BL:] Yes, of course 14C dating is (generally) more precise now than
before. Thirty years ago we could see uncalibrated dates ± 100 years
BP or even more. Today the margins are often ± 20 or even less. I
found two examples by Finkelstein:

At
https://www.uair.arizona.edu/objectviewer?o=http%3A%2F%2Fradiocarbon.library.ari\
zona.edu%2FVolume48%2FNumber3%2F373-386.pdf ,
Finkelstein and Piasetzky quote (pp. 377-8) from results by Mazar et
al. (2005) for Rehov Str. V giving
<< an uncalibrated date of 2743 ± 9 BP, which translates to a 1 sigma
date of 905-890 (18,6%) and 880-840 BCE (49.6%). Therefore, the full
1 sigma range is 905-840 BCE. >>

The precision of the uncal date is ± 9 years BP (a span of 18 years),
which translates to a span of 65 years (905-840 BC) for the calibrated
1 sigma range.

At http://megiddo.tau.ac.il/info/Radiocarbon_48_2006.pdf ,
Finkelstein and Piasetzky give (p.378)
<< an uncalibrated date of 2758 ± 16 BP [a span of 32 years] for
Rehov Str. IV, which translates to 925-890 (40.9%) and 875-845 BCE
(27.3%). The full [calibrated] 1 sigma range for this stratum would
be 925-845 BCE. >>
[This is a span of 80 years.]

You didn't indicate where this p. 141 belongs, so I can't comment on
that citation. But I'm convinced he meant something like my examples
from two other Finkelstein papers above. Look into the last paper
( http://megiddo.tau.ac.il/info/Radiocarbon_48_2006.pdf ) p.379. In
the Figure 1 we have the full 1 sigma ranges for Tel Rehov strata D-3
to IV superimposed on the IntCal04 calibration curve. The IntCal04
curve is drawn with a vertical extension of ca. 30 years BP, i.e.
± 15 years. The combined uncalibrated dates for the resp. strata are
given with their margins. The rectangle for Str. V has a vertical
extension of ca. 18 years BP, i.e. ± 9 years. For Str. IV this is ca.
32 years BP, i.e. ± 16 years.

These are some of the margins Finkelstein is talking about. Now look
at Figure 1 and tell us what *calibrated* ranges these uncalibrated
BP dates correspond to. They are the areas that overlap for the
IntCal curve (range) and the rectangles for resp. stratum. My guess
is then that the probabilities for finding the **true** dates would
be slightly *less* at ca. 880-890 BC.

This discussion is continued below.


> > You are also mixing absolute and relative probabilities. Let's say
> > there is a 99% (*absolute*) probability for a person to be say 60
> > years old. Then he *is* probably 60 years old! Let's now say that
> > he is somewhere between 50 and 59 years old, and the *relative*
> > probability for each of these ages is 1.00, i.e. it's equally
> > probable for him to be 50, or 54, or 55, or 59 years old. The sum
> > of years 50-59 is 10 years. So the total (*absolute*) probability
> > for these 10 years is 1.0 (100%). The *absolute* probability for
> > him to be exactly 54 years old is 100/10=10%, not close to 100%.
> > This is very elementary.
> >
> >
> > I will illustrate this in more detail below. Please go to the
> > article by Bruins et al. at
> >
http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/Chapter15%20Bayesian%20Analysis%20Tel%20\
Rehov%20-%20Bruins%20et%20al.pdf
> > and scroll down to Figure 15.8 (p. 291). There we find a 68.2%
> > probability of having the destruction samples of Rehov IV at 903-
> > 845 BC, with 13.4% at 903-892 BC and 54.8% at 885-845 BC. <snip>
> >

> HELLO?  Bjorn.  The chart you have in reference and that I also
reference has a graph with shaded areas.  It reveals on one side from
0.0 to 1.0 "relative probability."  The only dates reaching 1.0 or
let's say 0.95 to 1.0 are dates ranging from 874-867 BCE.
>

[BL:] Yes, we agree about all this. I transferred these relative
probabilities year for year to lines (rows) with the corresponding
years below. Then I added all these relative probabilities. But they
are not the *absolute* probabilities. Do we agree that the sum of all
absolute probabilities must be 1.00 (100%)? I.e. one of the years
must in theory be *the* correct year?


> Those are the only dates I'm concerned with, those of the highest
probability between .95-1.0. Who cares about the other dates?  The
chart gives you the calibrated highest "relative probability" for
dates between 0.95 to 1.0.
>

[BL:] "Who cares about the other dates?" A statistician, maybe.
Yes, those years give the highest "relative probability". I agree.
But then I calculated what the *absolute* probability would be that
one of these (say) five 'hottest' years was the correct one. In my
example,
<<
Years 873-870 BC, with .99 rel probability, give together 5.58%, so
there is 94.5% chance of finding the correct date **outside** this
interval, in spite of the fact that these years *are* the most likely
years of them all!! >>

Do you have any objections to my way of calculating? If we instead
choose years 874-867 BC, that would be
98 + 99 + 99 + 99 + 99 + 98 + 96 + 95 = 783 % units out of a total
7100. 783 x 0.0140845% = 11.0 % *absolute* probability, i.e. there is
89% *absolute* probability of finding the correct date *outside*
874-867 BC. I could as well quote you: I don't understand why you
are resisting the evidence.

(Then you explain in length how you choose a few years in the middle
of the 1 sigma range and disregard everything else. My calculations
show why this is incorrect.)


> You said:
> > The "Egyptian history that dated the Exodus to the end of the
> > reign of Amenhotep III" exists only inside your head. The Isaiah
> > quote does no such thing.
> >
> This is where you misunderstood.  The EGYPTIAN HISTORY (vs Biblical
history? Isaiah?) is a reference to Manetho and the "Book of Sothis".
Manetho is the "Egyptian historian" I'm referring to, not Isaiah.
>
> But as far as Isaiah is concerned, it does mention an altar being
built in the middle of Egypt, a blow to Egypt and "healing" and a
great "savior" out of Egypt and Egypt worshipping YHWH. So my
assessment is that this is a reference to Akhenaten and the ten
plagues.  That's my opinion.  I certainly accept it if you don't
agree.

[BL:] And I explained at the end of my post #3191 why the Isaiah text
most likely refers to the late 8th century BC.


> Finally, just for the record.  Do you have an official comment on
Manetho and the "Book of Sothis" claiming Amenhotep III was the
pharaoh of the Exodus?  Isn't that a secular "historical" source
>

[BL:] At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manetho we see that The Book of
Sothis is considered a *fourth* generation of Manetho. According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Sothis

<< The Book of Sothis is a document known mainly through transmission
by George Syncellus, purporting to have been written by the historian
Manetho. Modern scholars are nearly unanimous that the book was in
fact written by someone other than Manetho, making it a forgery. Its
contents are consequently regarded as being of little value to
Egyptology. >>

Excuse me for not putting much faith in such a source. I confess not
having read the lines in question. But OK. If you can give us some
quote from the book that you consider important, then I could comment
on it. Even if it *was* written by THE Manetho, this was ca. 1000
years or more after the actual events. Otherwise I think a direct
piece of evidence, e.g. a contemporary text, would be needed to link
Achenaten to any Exodus of Asiatics/Israelites.

But honestly, I have great difficulties in seeing the old and senile
Amenhotep III (or the probably handicapped Achenaten) a-gallopin'
after the fleeing Israelites. Forgive my lacking imagination. :-)


Best wishes, Björn

Hi, Ian!

There seems to be no problem with me, since I tend to side with Newton on many
issues, but (still to this day) are connected with modern "Chronolgy!"  It seems
that the "muddle headed" or "insane" words of Sir Isaac Newton, who revised many
parts of "ancient history" by hundreds or even one thousand years, from the
Scaligarian chronology, and the chronology of his ancestors also!


Thus, I ask you, as well as your co-hearts on this list, "Just what relevance
does anyone really place upon the words of Newton?  As well as "Have any of you
ever read his books(s)?

Very simply, do you admire him for his "scientific" views, and then "vilify" him
for his "historical" views?

Regards, Ron

Added by moderator:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronology_of_Ancient_Kingdoms_Amended
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton





-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Onvlee <sambacats@...>
To: ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, Nov 4, 2009 9:11 pm
Subject: Re: [ancient_chronology] Re: Low Chronology (the final countdown)








Hi Ron,

What seems to be the problem?

Regards,
Ian Onvlee



From: "Opuslola@..." <Opuslola@...>
To: ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, November 4, 2009 10:13:57 PM
Subject: Re: [ancient_chronology] Re: Low Chronology (the final countdown)




May I give you a little of the words of Isaac Newton, who wrote the following in
his not authorized book, entitled "The History of Ancient Kingdoms, Amended", in
the section entitled "Of the Empire of Egypt", Page 204;  The following was
copied by my fingers directly from the book.  Ron

"The Shepards therefore did not Reign ofver Egypt while Israel was there, but
either were driven out of Egypt before Israel went down thither, or did not
enter into Egypt 'til after Moses had brought Israel from thence: and the latter
must be true, if they were driven out of Egypt a little before the building of
the temple of Solomon, as Manetho affirms.

Diodorus saith in his 40th book, that in Egypt there were formerly multitudes of
strangers of several nations, who used foreign rites and ceremonies in
worshipping the Gods, for which they were expelled Egypt; and under Danus,
Cadmus, and other skilled commanders, after great hardships, came into Greece,
and other places; but the greatest part of them came into Judaea, not far from
Egypt, a country then un-inhabited and desert, being conducted thither by one
Moses, a wife and valiant men, who after he had possest himslef of the country,
among other things built Jerusalem, and the Temple.  Diodorus here mistakes the
original of the Israelites, as Manetho had done before, confounding their flight
into the wilderness under the conduct of Moses, with the flight of the Shepards
from Misphragmuthosis, and his son Amois, into Phoenincia and Afric;  and not
knowing that Judaea was inhabited by Canaanites, before the Israelits under
Moses came thither: but however, he lets us know that the Shepards were expelled
Egypt by Amosis, a little before the building of Jerusalem and the Temple, and
that after several hardships several of them came into Greece, and other places,
under the conduct of Cadmus, and other Captains, but the most of them settled in
Phoenicia next Egypt.  We may recon therefore that the explusion of the Shepards
by the Kings of Thebias, was the occasion that the Philistims were so numerous
in the days of Saul; ..."

Can any of you describe Sir Isaac Newton as a reliable source?  He was certainly
learned, and it appears had access to most any library material, and he was, of
course, a recognized genius!
Regards,
Ron


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Onvlee <sambacats@yahoo. com>
To: ancient_chronology@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Mon, Nov 2, 2009 10:29 pm
Subject: Re: [ancient_chronology ] Re: Low Chronology (the final countdown)








Hi Bjorn, Lars,

The passage Lars is referring to as of great importance is to be found in
Manetho's 'Book of Sothis' (Loeb Classical Library, 'Manetho', Appendix IV, p.
239) under king number 29, Aphophis, in which it is asserted that Joseph became
a slave in the 4th year of this kings reign, and was appointed 'Lord of Egypt'
in the 17th year of this king's reign. Now this king is supposed to be the
fourth king of the 17th Dynasty (Hyksos) since Silites in this Book of Sothis.
However this dynasty and the previous 16th Dynasty are strangly mentioned after
a Rammeside 'Dynasty'from kings 18 through 24, which suggests that they are
misplaced into or confused with what looks like the 21st and 22nd Dynasty.
Anyhow, Apophis is generally known as the Hyksos king Apepi of the 15th Dynasty,
prior to the 18th Dynasty. Provided that we can date Year 17 of this king, and
with the assertion that this was Joseph's 30th year of life, and provided that
we know how long the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt took (430 years? 215
years? 300 years? ??), Lars suggests that this leads us exactly to his Exodus
date in the time of Akhenaton.

So he takes his suggested Exodus date and retrocalculates from there the 30th
year of Joseph which is here said to be 17 Aphophis, which therefore proves his
Exodus date correct. So IF you believe that 1386 BC is the Exodus date, and IF
you believe that the sojourn lasted 215 years, then you will have to believe
that year 17 of Aphophis is 1610 BC, which is fairly close to the current
conventional chronological conception. So IF Year 17 of Aphophis is 1610 BC and
IF the sojourn lasted 215 years then you MUST believe in an Exodus date 1386 BC.

However, Josephus (in 'Contra Apionem', i. 26-31, par. 227-287; Loeb Classical,
'Manetho', Aegyptica, fragment 54, p. 119), Josephus fiercely opposes to this
Exodus date, because according to him Manetho has associated this Exodus with
the exile of the leprosy in the days of Amenemhotep III and Akhenaten, while
Manetho had 'doubtless forgotten that according to his own chronicle the exodus
of the Shepherds to Jerusalem took place 518 years earlier, for Tethmosis was
king when they set out'; this was '393 years before the brothers Sethos and
Hermaeus, the former of whom, he says, took the new name of Aegyptus, the latter
that of Danaus', et cetera. In effect Josephus accuses Manetho to have given two
different Exodus accounts of the Jews, 518 years apart, the former being the
true Exodus, namely that of the Hyksos, 393 years before the brothers Sethos and
Hermaeus the latter the false Exodus, namely that of the Leprosy during
Akhenaten. However, Josephus also accuses Manetho to have provided a third, even
earlier Exodus date, namely 'at a date so remote that it preceded the Trojan war
by wellnigh a thousand years' ('Contra Apionem', i. 15, 16, par. 93-105; Loeb
Classical, 'Manetho', Aegyptica (epitome), fragment 50, p. 101). If you believe
that the Trojan war occurred around 1250 BC, then this Exodus for which Manetho
supposedly had provided proof according to Josephus took place around 2250 BC.
So we have Manetho giving us three different Exodus dates according to Josephus.
Therefore, we can be certain that Manetho himself had nothing to do with this,
but his commentators and forgers did.

Regards,
Ian Onvlee


From: bjorn07se <bjorn07se@gmail. com>
To: ancient_chronology@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 2:47:31 AM
Subject: [ancient_chronology ] Re: Low Chronology (the final countdown)





--- In ancient_chronology@ yahoogroups. com, "Larry" <larsinger58@ ...> wrote:

> I am not concerned with these details, but only with Finkelstein' s
statement that 14C dating was more precise now than before. That is,
that the old dating methods and applications were much improved now.
So what did he mean? Was he saying the precision with within 30
years now rather than 100? Or within 10 years? Here is his
statement. Please clarify what YOU think he is saying...
>
> Page 141 "Until recently it was impossible to use radiocarbon
dating for such relatively modern periods as the Iron Age because of
its wide margin of probability, often extending over a century or
more. But refinements of carbon 14 dating techniques have greatly
reduced the margin of uncertainty. "
>
> So what margins do you think he is talking about.
>

[BL:] Yes, of course 14C dating is (generally) more precise now than
before. Thirty years ago we could see uncalibrated dates ± 100 years
BP or even more. Today the margins are often ± 20 or even less. I
found two examples by Finkelstein:

At https://www. uair.arizona. edu/objectviewer ?o=http%3A% 2F%2Fradiocarbon
.library. arizona.edu% 2FVolume48% 2FNumber3% 2F373-386. pdf ,
Finkelstein and Piasetzky quote (pp. 377-8) from results by Mazar et
al. (2005) for Rehov Str. V giving
<< an uncalibrated date of 2743 ± 9 BP, which translates to a 1 sigma
date of 905-890 (18,6%) and 880-840 BCE (49.6%). Therefore, the full
1 sigma range is 905-840 BCE. >>

The precision of the uncal date is ± 9 years BP (a span of 18 years),
which translates to a span of 65 years (905-840 BC) for the calibrated
1 sigma range.

At http://megiddo. tau.ac.il/ info/Radiocarbon _48_2006. pdf ,
Finkelstein and Piasetzky give (p.378)
<< an uncalibrated date of 2758 ± 16 BP [a span of 32 years] for
Rehov Str. IV, which translates to 925-890 (40.9%) and 875-845 BCE
(27.3%). The full [calibrated] 1 sigma range for this stratum would
be 925-845 BCE. >>
[This is a span of 80 years.]

You didn't indicate where this p. 141 belongs, so I can't comment on
that citation. But I'm convinced he meant something like my examples
from two other Finkelstein papers above. Look into the last paper
( http://megiddo. tau.ac.il/ info/Radiocarbon _48_2006. pdf ) p.379. In
the Figure 1 we have the full 1 sigma ranges for Tel Rehov strata D-3
to IV superimposed on the IntCal04 calibration curve. The IntCal04
curve is drawn with a vertical extension of ca. 30 years BP, i.e.
± 15 years. The combined uncalibrated dates for the resp. strata are
given with their margins. The rectangle for Str. V has a vertical
extension of ca. 18 years BP, i.e. ± 9 years. For Str. IV this is ca.
32 years BP, i.e. ± 16 years.

These are some of the margins Finkelstein is talking about. Now look
at Figure 1 and tell us what *calibrated* ranges these uncalibrated
BP dates correspond to. They are the areas that overlap for the
IntCal curve (range) and the rectangles for resp. stratum. My guess
is then that the probabilities for finding the **true** dates would
be slightly *less* at ca. 880-890 BC.

This discussion is continued below.

> > You are also mixing absolute and relative probabilities. Let's say
> > there is a 99% (*absolute*) probability for a person to be say 60
> > years old. Then he *is* probably 60 years old! Let's now say that
> > he is somewhere between 50 and 59 years old, and the *relative*
> > probability for each of these ages is 1.00, i.e. it's equally
> > probable for him to be 50, or 54, or 55, or 59 years old. The sum
> > of years 50-59 is 10 years. So the total (*absolute*) probability
> > for these 10 years is 1.0 (100%). The *absolute* probability for
> > him to be exactly 54 years old is 100/10=10%, not close to 100%.
> > This is very elementary.
> >
> >
> > I will illustrate this in more detail below. Please go to the
> > article by Bruins et al. at
> > http://www.rehov. org/Rehov/ publications/ Chapter15% 20Bayesian%
20Analysis% 20Tel%20Rehov% 20-%20Bruins% 20et%20al. pdf
> > and scroll down to Figure 15.8 (p. 291). There we find a 68.2%
> > probability of having the destruction samples of Rehov IV at 903-
> > 845 BC, with 13.4% at 903-892 BC and 54.8% at 885-845 BC. <snip>
> >

> HELLO? Bjorn. The chart you have in reference and that I also
reference has a graph with shaded areas. It reveals on one side from
0.0 to 1.0 "relative probability. " The only dates reaching 1.0 or
let's say 0.95 to 1.0 are dates ranging from 874-867 BCE.
>

[BL:] Yes, we agree about all this. I transferred these relative
probabilities year for year to lines (rows) with the corresponding
years below. Then I added all these relative probabilities. But they
are not the *absolute* probabilities. Do we agree that the sum of all
absolute probabilities must be 1.00 (100%)? I.e. one of the years
must in theory be *the* correct year?

> Those are the only dates I'm concerned with, those of the highest
probability between .95-1.0. Who cares about the other dates? The
chart gives you the calibrated highest "relative probability" for
dates between 0.95 to 1.0.
>

[BL:] "Who cares about the other dates?" A statistician, maybe.
Yes, those years give the highest "relative probability" . I agree.
But then I calculated what the *absolute* probability would be that
one of these (say) five 'hottest' years was the correct one. In my
example,
<<
Years 873-870 BC, with .99 rel probability, give together 5.58%, so
there is 94.5% chance of finding the correct date **outside** this
interval, in spite of the fact that these years *are* the most likely
years of them all!! >>

Do you have any objections to my way of calculating? If we instead
choose years 874-867 BC, that would be
98 + 99 + 99 + 99 + 99 + 98 + 96 + 95 = 783 % units out of a total
7100. 783 x 0.0140845% = 11.0 % *absolute* probability, i.e. there is
89% *absolute* probability of finding the correct date *outside*
874-867 BC. I could as well quote you: I don't understand why you
are resisting the evidence.

(Then you explain in length how you choose a few years in the middle
of the 1 sigma range and disregard everything else. My calculations
show why this is incorrect.)

> You said:
> > The "Egyptian history that dated the Exodus to the end of the
> > reign of Amenhotep III" exists only inside your head. The Isaiah
> > quote does no such thing.
> >
> This is where you misunderstood. The EGYPTIAN HISTORY (vs Biblical
history? Isaiah?) is a reference to Manetho and the "Book of Sothis".
Manetho is the "Egyptian historian" I'm referring to, not Isaiah.
>
> But as far as Isaiah is concerned, it does mention an altar being
built in the middle of Egypt, a blow to Egypt and "healing" and a
great "savior" out of Egypt and Egypt worshipping YHWH. So my
assessment is that this is a reference to Akhenaten and the ten
plagues. That's my opinion. I certainly accept it if you don't
agree.

[BL:] And I explained at the end of my post #3191 why the Isaiah text
most likely refers to the late 8th century BC.


> Finally, just for the record. Do you have an official comment on
Manetho and the "Book of Sothis" claiming Amenhotep III was the
pharaoh of the Exodus? Isn't that a secular "historical" source
>

[BL:] At http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Manetho we see that The Book of
Sothis is considered a *fourth* generation of Manetho. According to
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Book_of_Sothis

<< The Book of Sothis is a document known mainly through transmission
by George Syncellus, purporting to have been written by the historian
Manetho. Modern scholars are nearly unanimous that the book was in
fact written by someone other than Manetho, making it a forgery. Its
contents are consequently regarded as being of little value to
Egyptology. >>

Excuse me for not putting much faith in such a source. I confess not
having read the lines in question. But OK. If you can give us some
quote from the book that you consider important, then I could comment
on it. Even if it *was* written by THE Manetho, this was ca. 1000
years or more after the actual events. Otherwise I think a direct
piece of evidence, e.g. a contemporary text, would be needed to link
Achenaten to any Exodus of Asiatics/Israelites .

But honestly, I have great difficulties in seeing the old and senile
Amenhotep III (or the probably handicapped Achenaten) a-gallopin'
after the fleeing Israelites. Forgive my lacking imagination. :-)

Best wishes, Björn















May I give you a little of the words of Isaac Newton, who wrote the following in
his not authorized book, entitled "The History of Ancient Kingdoms, Amended", in
the section entitled "Of the Empire of Egypt", Page 204;  The following was
copied by my fingers directly from the book.  Ron

"The Shepards therefore did not Reign ofver Egypt while Israel was there, but
either were driven out of Egypt before Israel went down thither, or did not
enter into Egypt 'til after Moses had brought Israel from thence: and the latter
must be true, if they were driven out of Egypt a little before the building of
the temple of Solomon, as Manetho affirms.

Diodorus saith in his 40th book, that in Egypt there were formerly multitudes of
strangers of several nations, who used foreign rites and ceremonies in
worshipping the Gods, for which they were expelled Egypt; and under Danus,
Cadmus, and other skilled commanders, after great hardships, came into Greece,
and other places; but the greatest part of them came into Judaea, not far from
Egypt, a country then un-inhabited and desert, being conducted thither by one
Moses, a wife and valiant men, who after he had possest himslef of the country,
among other things built Jerusalem, and the Temple.  Diodorus here mistakes the
original of the Israelites, as Manetho had done before, confounding their flight
into the wilderness under the conduct of Moses, with the flight of the Shepards
from Misphragmuthosis, and his son Amois, into Phoenincia and Afric;  and not
knowing that Judaea was inhabited by Canaanites, before the Israelits under
Moses came thither: but however, he lets us know that the Shepards were expelled
Egypt by Amosis, a little before the building of Jerusalem and the Temple, and
that after several hardships several of them came into Greece, and other places,
under the conduct of Cadmus, and other Captains, but the most of them settled in
Phoenicia next Egypt.  We may recon therefore that the explusion of the Shepards
by the Kings of Thebias, was the occasion that the Philistims were so numerous
in the days of Saul; ..."

Can any of you describe Sir Isaac Newton as a reliable source?  He was certainly
learned, and it appears had access to most any library material, and he was, of
course, a recognized genius!
Regards,
Ron


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Onvlee <sambacats@yahoo. com>
To: ancient_chronology@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Mon, Nov 2, 2009 10:29 pm
Subject: Re: [ancient_chronology ] Re: Low Chronology (the final countdown)








Hi Bjorn, Lars,

The passage Lars is referring to as of great importance is to be found in
Manetho's 'Book of Sothis' (Loeb Classical Library, 'Manetho', Appendix IV, p.
239) under king number 29, Aphophis, in which it is asserted that Joseph became
a slave in the 4th year of this kings reign, and was appointed 'Lord of Egypt'
in the 17th year of this king's reign. Now this king is supposed to be the
fourth king of the 17th Dynasty (Hyksos) since Silites in this Book of Sothis.
However this dynasty and the previous 16th Dynasty are strangly mentioned after
a Rammeside 'Dynasty'from kings 18 through 24, which suggests that they are
misplaced into or confused with what looks like the 21st and 22nd Dynasty.
Anyhow, Apophis is generally known as the Hyksos king Apepi of the 15th Dynasty,
prior to the 18th Dynasty. Provided that we can date Year 17 of this king, and
with the assertion that this was Joseph's 30th year of life, and provided that
we know how long the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt took (430 years? 215
years? 300 years? ??), Lars suggests that this leads us exactly to his Exodus
date in the time of Akhenaton.

So he takes his suggested Exodus date and retrocalculates from there the 30th
year of Joseph which is here said to be 17 Aphophis, which therefore proves his
Exodus date correct. So IF you believe that 1386 BC is the Exodus date, and IF
you believe that the sojourn lasted 215 years, then you will have to believe
that year 17 of Aphophis is 1610 BC, which is fairly close to the current
conventional chronological conception. So IF Year 17 of Aphophis is 1610 BC and
IF the sojourn lasted 215 years then you MUST believe in an Exodus date 1386 BC.

However, Josephus (in 'Contra Apionem', i. 26-31, par. 227-287; Loeb Classical,
'Manetho', Aegyptica, fragment 54, p. 119), Josephus fiercely opposes to this
Exodus date, because according to him Manetho has associated this Exodus with
the exile of the leprosy in the days of Amenemhotep III and Akhenaten, while
Manetho had 'doubtless forgotten that according to his own chronicle the exodus
of the Shepherds to Jerusalem took place 518 years earlier, for Tethmosis was
king when they set out'; this was '393 years before the brothers Sethos and
Hermaeus, the former of whom, he says, took the new name of Aegyptus, the latter
that of Danaus', et cetera. In effect Josephus accuses Manetho to have given two
different Exodus accounts of the Jews, 518 years apart, the former being the
true Exodus, namely that of the Hyksos, 393 years before the brothers Sethos and
Hermaeus the latter the false Exodus, namely that of the Leprosy during
Akhenaten. However, Josephus also accuses Manetho to have provided a third, even
earlier Exodus date, namely 'at a date so remote that it preceded the Trojan war
by wellnigh a thousand years' ('Contra Apionem', i. 15, 16, par. 93-105; Loeb
Classical, 'Manetho', Aegyptica (epitome), fragment 50, p. 101). If you believe
that the Trojan war occurred around 1250 BC, then this Exodus for which Manetho
supposedly had provided proof according to Josephus took place around 2250 BC.
So we have Manetho giving us three different Exodus dates according to Josephus.
Therefore, we can be certain that Manetho himself had nothing to do with this,
but his commentators and forgers did.

Regards,
Ian Onvlee


From: bjorn07se <bjorn07se@gmail. com>
To: ancient_chronology@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 2:47:31 AM
Subject: [ancient_chronology ] Re: Low Chronology (the final countdown)





--- In ancient_chronology@ yahoogroups. com, "Larry" <larsinger58@ ...> wrote:

> I am not concerned with these details, but only with Finkelstein' s
statement that 14C dating was more precise now than before. That is,
that the old dating methods and applications were much improved now.
So what did he mean? Was he saying the precision with within 30
years now rather than 100? Or within 10 years? Here is his
statement. Please clarify what YOU think he is saying...
>
> Page 141 "Until recently it was impossible to use radiocarbon
dating for such relatively modern periods as the Iron Age because of
its wide margin of probability, often extending over a century or
more. But refinements of carbon 14 dating techniques have greatly
reduced the margin of uncertainty. "
>
> So what margins do you think he is talking about.
>

[BL:] Yes, of course 14C dating is (generally) more precise now than
before. Thirty years ago we could see uncalibrated dates ± 100 years
BP or even more. Today the margins are often ± 20 or even less. I
found two examples by Finkelstein:

At https://www. uair.arizona. edu/objectviewer ?o=http%3A% 2F%2Fradiocarbon
.library. arizona.edu% 2FVolume48% 2FNumber3% 2F373-386. pdf ,
Finkelstein and Piasetzky quote (pp. 377-8) from results by Mazar et
al. (2005) for Rehov Str. V giving
<< an uncalibrated date of 2743 ± 9 BP, which translates to a 1 sigma
date of 905-890 (18,6%) and 880-840 BCE (49.6%). Therefore, the full
1 sigma range is 905-840 BCE. >>

The precision of the uncal date is ± 9 years BP (a span of 18 years),
which translates to a span of 65 years (905-840 BC) for the calibrated
1 sigma range.

At http://megiddo. tau.ac.il/ info/Radiocarbon _48_2006. pdf ,
Finkelstein and Piasetzky give (p.378)
<< an uncalibrated date of 2758 ± 16 BP [a span of 32 years] for
Rehov Str. IV, which translates to 925-890 (40.9%) and 875-845 BCE
(27.3%). The full [calibrated] 1 sigma range for this stratum would
be 925-845 BCE. >>
[This is a span of 80 years.]

You didn't indicate where this p. 141 belongs, so I can't comment on
that citation. But I'm convinced he meant something like my examples
from two other Finkelstein papers above. Look into the last paper
( http://megiddo. tau.ac.il/ info/Radiocarbon _48_2006. pdf ) p.379. In
the Figure 1 we have the full 1 sigma ranges for Tel Rehov strata D-3
to IV superimposed on the IntCal04 calibration curve. The IntCal04
curve is drawn with a vertical extension of ca. 30 years BP, i.e.
± 15 years. The combined uncalibrated dates for the resp. strata are
given with their margins. The rectangle for Str. V has a vertical
extension of ca. 18 years BP, i.e. ± 9 years. For Str. IV this is ca.
32 years BP, i.e. ± 16 years.

These are some of the margins Finkelstein is talking about. Now look
at Figure 1 and tell us what *calibrated* ranges these uncalibrated
BP dates correspond to. They are the areas that overlap for the
IntCal curve (range) and the rectangles for resp. stratum. My guess
is then that the probabilities for finding the **true** dates would
be slightly *less* at ca. 880-890 BC.

This discussion is continued below.

> > You are also mixing absolute and relative probabilities. Let's say
> > there is a 99% (*absolute*) probability for a person to be say 60
> > years old. Then he *is* probably 60 years old! Let's now say that
> > he is somewhere between 50 and 59 years old, and the *relative*
> > probability for each of these ages is 1.00, i.e. it's equally
> > probable for him to be 50, or 54, or 55, or 59 years old. The sum
> > of years 50-59 is 10 years. So the total (*absolute*) probability
> > for these 10 years is 1.0 (100%). The *absolute* probability for
> > him to be exactly 54 years old is 100/10=10%, not close to 100%.
> > This is very elementary.
> >
> >
> > I will illustrate this in more detail below. Please go to the
> > article by Bruins et al. at
> > http://www.rehov. org/Rehov/ publications/ Chapter15% 20Bayesian%
20Analysis% 20Tel%20Rehov% 20-%20Bruins% 20et%20al. pdf
> > and scroll down to Figure 15.8 (p. 291). There we find a 68.2%
> > probability of having the destruction samples of Rehov IV at 903-
> > 845 BC, with 13.4% at 903-892 BC and 54.8% at 885-845 BC. <snip>
> >

> HELLO? Bjorn. The chart you have in reference and that I also
reference has a graph with shaded areas. It reveals on one side from
0.0 to 1.0 "relative probability. " The only dates reaching 1.0 or
let's say 0.95 to 1.0 are dates ranging from 874-867 BCE.
>

[BL:] Yes, we agree about all this. I transferred these relative
probabilities year for year to lines (rows) with the corresponding
years below. Then I added all these relative probabilities. But they
are not the *absolute* probabilities. Do we agree that the sum of all
absolute probabilities must be 1.00 (100%)? I.e. one of the years
must in theory be *the* correct year?

> Those are the only dates I'm concerned with, those of the highest
probability between .95-1.0. Who cares about the other dates? The
chart gives you the calibrated highest "relative probability" for
dates between 0.95 to 1.0.
>

[BL:] "Who cares about the other dates?" A statistician, maybe.
Yes, those years give the highest "relative probability" . I agree.
But then I calculated what the *absolute* probability would be that
one of these (say) five 'hottest' years was the correct one. In my
example,
<<
Years 873-870 BC, with .99 rel probability, give together 5.58%, so
there is 94.5% chance of finding the correct date **outside** this
interval, in spite of the fact that these years *are* the most likely
years of them all!! >>

Do you have any objections to my way of calculating? If we instead
choose years 874-867 BC, that would be
98 + 99 + 99 + 99 + 99 + 98 + 96 + 95 = 783 % units out of a total
7100. 783 x 0.0140845% = 11.0 % *absolute* probability, i.e. there is
89% *absolute* probability of finding the correct date *outside*
874-867 BC. I could as well quote you: I don't understand why you
are resisting the evidence.

(Then you explain in length how you choose a few years in the middle
of the 1 sigma range and disregard everything else. My calculations
show why this is incorrect.)

> You said:
> > The "Egyptian history that dated the Exodus to the end of the
> > reign of Amenhotep III" exists only inside your head. The Isaiah
> > quote does no such thing.
> >
> This is where you misunderstood. The EGYPTIAN HISTORY (vs Biblical
history? Isaiah?) is a reference to Manetho and the "Book of Sothis".
Manetho is the "Egyptian historian" I'm referring to, not Isaiah.
>
> But as far as Isaiah is concerned, it does mention an altar being
built in the middle of Egypt, a blow to Egypt and "healing" and a
great "savior" out of Egypt and Egypt worshipping YHWH. So my
assessment is that this is a reference to Akhenaten and the ten
plagues. That's my opinion. I certainly accept it if you don't
agree.

[BL:] And I explained at the end of my post #3191 why the Isaiah text
most likely refers to the late 8th century BC.


> Finally, just for the record. Do you have an official comment on
Manetho and the "Book of Sothis" claiming Amenhotep III was the
pharaoh of the Exodus? Isn't that a secular "historical" source
>

[BL:] At http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Manetho we see that The Book of
Sothis is considered a *fourth* generation of Manetho. According to
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Book_of_Sothis

<< The Book of Sothis is a document known mainly through transmission
by George Syncellus, purporting to have been written by the historian
Manetho. Modern scholars are nearly unanimous that the book was in
fact written by someone other than Manetho, making it a forgery. Its
contents are consequently regarded as being of little value to
Egyptology. >>

Excuse me for not putting much faith in such a source. I confess not
having read the lines in question. But OK. If you can give us some
quote from the book that you consider important, then I could comment
on it. Even if it *was* written by THE Manetho, this was ca. 1000
years or more after the actual events. Otherwise I think a direct
piece of evidence, e.g. a contemporary text, would be needed to link
Achenaten to any Exodus of Asiatics/Israelites .

But honestly, I have great difficulties in seeing the old and senile
Amenhotep III (or the probably handicapped Achenaten) a-gallopin'
after the fleeing Israelites. Forgive my lacking imagination. :-)

Best wishes, Björn

Hello Ron and all,

Considerable attention should be directed to Certain Things that Newton
wanted to emphasize in his 1728 Chronology book, bearing in mind at the
same time that the book is Posthumous... that the author had not opportunity
to see his own work through the press. And therefore on looking through these
words, we are at the mercy of his editors and publisher. Oh yes, and not to
forget, the publisher was ultimately under the watchful eye of the Bishop of
London, for you see some of Newton's observations are heretical as viewed by
the Anglican Church of that era (and this one also).

To wit, you will find on page 204 of the Book, that Newton contradicts certain
well known words of Diodorus the Sicilian, just as he refutes Manethon's many
supporters. However Newton was not speculating and he identified a key source,
one of the greatest classical scholars of the Eastern Orthodox Church at
Byzantium who happened to be a Patriarch there ( much like a Pope at Rome).

And here is the essence of Newton's observations, nota bene :

1) The Hyksos invaded Egypt...  After the Hebrew Exodus.

2) Amosis the Liberator, founder of Dynasty 18, (New Kingdom)  was
     exactly contemporary with King Saul in Israel, and young David also.

3) The Hyksos were banished from Egypt not more than 20 years before
      the beginning of King David's reign.

Many things may be deduced from such concepts and these are perhaps
the essential elements of Newton's  book, in addition to his calculations
about the real dates of the Trojan War, which he brings forward by more
than 200 years.

Finally, at the beginning of his work, Newton casually comments that
some of the Greeks are writers of pure fantasy, yet posing as historians.
He is cautious in not identifying their names and avoids mentioning the
sensitive matter of Censorship on the continent of Europe since printing
was invented.

Bergen



****************************

Opuslola wrote:
> Hi, Ian!
There seems to be no problem with me, since I tend to side with Newton on many
issues, but (still to this day) are connected with modern "Chronolgy!"  It seems
that the "muddle headed" or "insane" words of Sir Isaac Newton, who revised many
parts of "ancient history" by hundreds or even one thousand years, from the
Scaligarian chronology, and the chronology of his ancestors also!
Thus, I ask you, as well as your co-hearts on this list, "Just what relevance
does anyone really place upon the words of Newton?  As well as "Have any of you
ever read his books(s)?
>
> Very simply, do you admire him for his "scientific" views, and then "vilify"
him for his "historical" views?

> Regards, Ron
>

This sounds like Velikovsky's take on things, I guess he got it from
Newton. Who was the patriarch he cited, and what of that person's
writings do we have to see just what he said and why he said it,
and where is the heresy in any of this? None of it contradicts
anything in the Creed or major church dogma.

By the way, a Patriarch is not like a pope, there is a certain
difference. It is a bishop over many other bishops for a given
large region. The Pope was originally the Bishop or Patriarch
of Rome and hived off on a supremacy trip that ignored (a)
that there were canons that limited each patriarch, him included,
to their own zones, and (b) that the petrine claim could also be
made by Antioch and all the five Patriarchates were of Petrine
provenance, direct (Rome and Antioch) and indirect (Byzantium
to Andrew, Peter's brother and Alexandria to Mark, Peter's
literal or spiritual son, and the Jerusalem church was founded
due to preaching by Peter).

Mary Christine

Added by moderator:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church

Moderator Note: discussion of church organization is off topic, so any response
would have to be with regard to clarification.  Also, remember that conspiracy
theories are off topic as well.


In a message dated 11/6/2009 6:28:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
bergendelperon@... writes:




Hello Ron and all,

Considerable attention should be directed to  Certain Things that Newton
wanted to emphasize in his 1728 Chronology book,  bearing in mind at the
same time that the book is Posthumous..same time that the book is
Posthumous..<W
to see his own work through the press. And  therefore on looking through
these
words, we are at the mercy of his  editors and publisher. Oh yes, and not to
forget, the publisher was  ultimately under the watchful eye of the Bishop
of
London, for you see some  of Newton's observations are heretical as viewed
by
the Anglican Church of  that era (and this one also).

To wit, you will find on page 204 of the  Book, that Newton contradicts
certain
well known words of Diodorus the  Sicilian, just as he refutes Manethon's
many
supporters. However Newton was  not speculating and he identified a key
source,
one of the greatest  classical scholars of the Eastern Orthodox Church at
Byzantium who happened  to be a Patriarch there ( much like a Pope at Rome).

And here is the  essence of Newton's observations, nota bene :

1) The Hyksos invaded  Egypt... After the Hebrew Exodus.

2) Amosis the Liberator, founder of  Dynasty 18, (New Kingdom) was
exactly contemporary with King Saul in  Israel, and young David also.

3) The Hyksos were banished from Egypt  not more than 20 years before
the beginning of King David's  reign.

Many things may be deduced from such concepts and these are  perhaps
the essential elements of Newton's book, in addition to his  calculations
about the real dates of the Trojan War, which he brings  forward by more
than 200 years.

Finally, at the beginning of his  work, Newton casually comments that
some of the Greeks are writers of pure  fantasy, yet posing as historians.
He is cautious in not identifying their  names and avoids mentioning the
sensitive matter of Censorship on the  continent of Europe since printing
was  invented.

Bergen

****************************

Opuslola  wrote:
> Hi, Ian!
There seems to be no problem with me, since I tend  to side with Newton on
many issues, but (still to this day) are connected with  modern "Chronolgy!"
It seems that the "muddle headed" or "insane" words of Sir  Isaac Newton,
who revised many parts of "ancient history" by hundreds or even  one thousand
years, from the Scaligarian chronology, and the chronology of his  ancesto
rs also!
Thus, I ask you, as well as your co-hearts on this list,  "Just what
relevance does anyone really place upon the words of Newton? As  well as "Have
any
of you ever read his books(s)?
>
> Very simply,  do you admire him for his "scientific" views, and then
"vilify" him for his  "historical" views?

> Regards, Ron
>

Here's a rather well done article covering a lot of the bases on the current
debae of David and Solomon I thought was worthwhile.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/cline35709.shtml

The article doesn't address the timeline issues when the Exodus is dated to
Akhenaten/Amenhotep III, however.

Larry

Here is just the LIST of the astronomical events that can be linked to Low
Chronology.  Low Chronology is defined fundamentally as:

1.  The end of the Philistine pottery period well within the 10th century BCE
per Finkelstein, previously quoted.  This would date David a theoretical
low-chronology reign say from 950-910 BCE.

2.  The monumental Solomonic structures and palaces found at Megiddo VA-IV
linked to Rehov IV dated to the "early 9th Century" per Finkelstein.

3.  Shishak's [Shoshenq 1's] invasion between 874-867 BCE per 14C dating results
as noted in the chart on page 291 here:

http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/Chapter15%20Bayesian%20Analysis%20Tel%20\
Rehov%20-%20Bruins%20et%20al.pdf

[Added by moderator:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shishaq ]

Here is Finkelstein's general statement:

Page 142 "Bible Unearthed":  "The finds dated to the time just before David in
the late eleventh century belonged in the mid-tenth century and those dated to
the time of Solomon belonged to the early ninth century BCE.  The new dates
place the appearance of monumental structures, fortifications, and other signs
of full statehood precisely at the time of their first appearance in the rest of
the Levant."

Thus in general reference, if we date David's rule based on archaeology and 14C
from 950-910 and Solomon from 910-870 and Shishak's invasion in the 39th of
Solomon in 871 BCE per our best 14C dating, then the following astronomical
texts can be used or are being used to align with the Low Chronology.

1.  The KTU 1.78 which is used to date year 12 of Akhenaten to 1375 BCE and this
1st year to 1386 BCE, dates Shishak's invasion in 871 BCE.  See previous posts
regarding this.

2.  The 709 BCE eclipse used to date the Assyrian Period date Shishak down from
925 BCE per the 763 BCE eclipse down to 871 BCE, which is consistent with the
14C dating.  See previous posts on "709 BCE eclipse" for further information.

3 & 4:  The SK400 and the VAT4956 contain alternative dating for "year 7" in 541
BCE of Nebuchadnezzar and "year 37" of Nebuchadnezzar in 511 BCE.  These lower
dates would agree with Low Chronology.  For further information, the "VAT4956"
is discussed extensively in previous posts.

Here is a quote regarding the significance of these two texts in
astrochronology.  This is a reference from Olof Jonsson who writes extensively
about this:

From:

     "Because he had made a very thorough study of some of the ancient Babylonian
astronomical records that were independent of "Ptolemy's Canon", including VAT
4956 and Strm. Kambys. 400. From his examination of these two records, he had
established that the first text referred to the year 568/67 BC and the second
one to 523 BC. He concluded: "Thus we have quite strong confirmation that
Ptolemy's list is correct for Nebuchadrezzar, and reasonable confirmation for
Kambyses." (The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, 1977, p. 375) These findings were
further emphasized in his next work, The Moon's Acceleration and Its Physical
Origins, vol. 1 (1979), where he concludes on page 49: "Nebuchadrezzar's first
year therefore began in –603 [= 604 BC], and this agrees with Ptolemy's list."

     "Therefore, to quote some statements by R.R. Newton in an attempt to
undermine the chronology established for the Neo-Babylonian era would be to
quote him out of context. It would be to misrepresent his views and conceal his
conclusions. It would be fraudulent. Yet, this has been repeatedly done by the
Watch Tower Society..."

In other words, while Ptolemy is dismissed as reliable by Prof. Newton, he
agrees with the NB timeline based upon two independent texts, the SK400 and the
VAT4956, so these two texts are key to the dating of the NB Period moreso than
Ptolemy.  Having said that, they can alternatively be used for early or late
dating because of double dating found in the texts. The low dating from the
SK400 dating year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar to 541 BCE, coordinated by the VAT4956
dating year 37 to 511 BCE fit in with the Low Chronology since both require use
of the 709 BCE eclipse to date the Assyrian Period.

5.  The THALES ECLIPSE.  This eclipse is dated to 585 BCE right now.  But
Josephus claims it occurred during the reign of Nabonidus and it was the eclipse
Thales predicted.  585 BCE is not a predictable eclipse.  But there is a
predictable eclipse pattern of 54 years and 1 month that would allow the
prediction of an eclipse over Ionia seen in Egypt in 532 BCE.  Thales spent 7
years in an astronomy apprenticeship in Egypt.  Herodotus says Thales simply
"warned" Ionia about the eclipse, not necessarily predicting it.  This is
consistent with the Egyptians giving him the location and date of the predicted
eclipse in early 478 BCE over Ionia.  Based on the VAT4956 and the SK400 for the
rule of Nebuchadnezzar, the 1st of Cyrus would fall in 455 BCE and thus the
beginning of the reign of Nabonidus in 480 BCE.  He only ruled two active years
on the throne before setting Belshazzar on the throne, so the eclipse would have
to occur during that 2-year period, ideally, to match the historical reference. 
It must occur over Ionia and it must be predictable.  The predictable eclipse
based on the 532 BCE eclipse in Egypt falls in early 478 BCE, which fits into
that two-year rulership.  So the Thales eclipse, redated from 585 BCE (which
doesn't work in the first place, 585 BCE is not the rule of Nabonidus, nor was
that eclipse over Ionia, nor was it predictable!) to 478 BCE works great for Low
Chronology.

6. Eclipse, March 21, 424 BCE.  Herodotus mentions an eclipse the year Xerxes
invaded Greece seen in Persia at the very beginning of spring.  "..the army then
and there prepared to winter and, when spring came, was ready and set forth to
Abydos from Sardis. When they had started to set forth, the sun eclipsed
itself..." (Herodus, Histories 7.37).  Of course, there is no eclipse in the
spring in 480 BCE, the popular date for Xerxes' invasion.  This eclipse links to
the redating of the final eclipse which must occur in the first year of the PPW
in 403-402 BCE if this eclipse dates the true year of Xerxes' invasion, which is
supported by all the other eclipses.

7.  The Peloponnesian solar eclipse, January 12, 402 BCE.  This eclipse must be
a total eclipse, causing darkness, close enough to Athens to enter the final
stage of darkness before totality but not acquiring totality.  The currently
dated eclipse in 431 BCE is totally rejected because it is not only an "annular"
eclipse but is partial in Greece.  The challenge is to find a total eclipse that
is close enough to Athens to meet these requirements and align with the 424 BCE
eclipse for Xerxes invasion.  Why?  Because Xerxes' invasion is exactly 30 years
prior to the 10th year of the PPW.  A 30-year peace agreement expires in the
10th year of the PPW, thus in 394 BCE.  That means the 1st year of the PPW,
which must also begin in the 4th year of the Olympic cycle must sport a Total
eclipse occurring near Athens.  Of course, it does!  Thus the re-dated PPW
eclipse that dates the war from 431 BCE to 403 BCE is an eclipse event that
agrees with Low Chronology as well.  Of note, if you look up "The Delian
Problem" you'll see that Plato was already an adult when the war began.  He
would have not been born until 3 years after the war began in 428 BCE per the
current chronology.  When the PPW starts in 403 BCE Plato is 25 years of age. 
So there is an ACADEMIC basis for redating here and as you can see, the impact
on Greek history improves it rather than distorts it.
>
SUMMARY:  Again, it is not archaeology versus the Bible but **** archaeologists
who pick and choose their own timelines and then claim the Bible does not agree
with it.  Base in point ignoring the historical reference of Manetho that
Amenhotep III was the pharaoh of the Exodus.  Ignoring Kathleen Kenyon's dating
for the fall of Jericho by the Israelites between 1350-1325 which also would
date the Exodus during the time of Akhenaten.  This is unexcuseable in a field
where various theories are discussed openly and revisions of the Bible are
tossed around as foregone conclusions.

Lars Wilson

Hi Ian,

The article you presented stated:
"However, we are still lacking any contemporary or nearly-contemporary
inscriptions which mention Solomon; at the moment we do not have a single one,
although this situation could change tomorrow, or next week, or next year (or
never)."

I am in the camp that disagrees with the above statement. Two columns were
recently found on each side of the Gulf of Aquaba. Evidence indicates that
Solomon placed these columns there to commemorate the Israelite crossing of the
Red Sea during the Exodus. You can read about it here.

http://www.squidoo.com/redseacrossing?utm_campaign=lensmaster-discovery&utm_medi\
um=sidebar&utm_source=ideadesigns

On one of these columns are the words in the form of inscriptions:
Pharoah, Mizraim (Egypt), Moses, death, water, Yahweh, Solomon, Edom

I realize that there are some who oppose this as evidence, but I would like to
address one of them at the following website:

http://www.andrews.edu/archaeology/archive/merling/newpage5.htm

The author of this website didn't sign his name, nevertheless, he/she wrote:

"The column Mr. Wyatt is standing by is not from the time of Solomon but crafted
in the time of Jesus or later. Columns constructed in the time of Solomon were
built from square stone blocks and were rectangular columns, not round ones."

And as supposed evidence, the author submitted a DRAWING (not an actual
picture). I don't really consider such a drawing as really being evidence. I
have no doubt that some columns in some places were both square and made of
stone blocks. But this does in no way mean every column everywhere was made in
such a manner. I would welcome any real input on the author's claim that 'round
columns' did not exist during the time of Solomon. And now I will present some
evidence against this bogus claim of square columns made of stone were the only
type of column which existed during the time of solomon.

It is commonly known, that the Egyptian Oblelisks existed centuries before
Solomon and were made out of one piece of solid granite. Solomon's ancestral
predecessor, Moses, was trained up in the way of these Egyptian Archetechs. One
of the first verses having to do with Solomon building the temple says:

1Ki 3:1  And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took
Pharaoh's daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had made an
end of building his own house, and the house of the LORD, and the wall of
Jerusalem round about.

Solomon, knowing of the archetectural superiority of the Egyptians, and wanting
to gain such knowledge, i.e. affinity,  married Pharoah's daughter. That they
had a good relationship was attested to by this verse:

1Ki 9:16 For Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it
with fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it [for] a
present unto his daughter, Solomon's wife.

Solomon had access to the Egyptian archetechs!!!!

I submit, then, that the round one-piece columns found on opposite shores of the
gulf of Aquaba could indeed, by their very architecture have been built by
Solomon, and that his name, enscribed thereon, is evidence of such!

The two most famous columns in Solomon's temple and Solomon's house actually had
names called Jachin and Boaz, and were made by Hiram of Tyre who was actually an
Israelite through his mother of the tribe of Naphtali (See I Kings 7). These
columns are represented in drawings of the famous head of freemason 'Hiram
mabiff' (spelling?) wherein a J and a B are on each respective column. These are
round columns.

These particular columns were not made out of stone blocks, but rather were
casted out of BRASS:

1Ki 7:14 He [was] a widow's son of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father [was] a
man of Tyre, a worker in brass: and he was filled with wisdom, and
understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass. And he came to king
Solomon, and wrought all his work.
1Ki 7:15 For he cast two pillars of brass, of eighteen cubits high apiece: and a
line of twelve cubits did compass either of them about.

The word 'pillars' here is translated from a Hebrew word which is related to an
aramaic word and is specified by Strong's 5982, and Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon
says that it is a 'a column, a pillar'.

Toby

--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, Ian Onvlee <sambacats@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> Nice article, very easy readable!
>
> Regards,
> Ian Onvlee
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Larry <larsinger58@...>
> To: ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, November 12, 2009 6:21:08 AM
> Subject: [ancient_chronology] Did David and Solomon Exist?
>
>  
> Here's a rather well done article covering a lot of the bases on the current
debae of David and Solomon I thought was worthwhile.
>
> http://www.bibleint erp.com/articles /cline35709. shtml
>
> The article doesn't address the timeline issues when the Exodus is dated to
Akhenaten/Amenhotep III, however.
>
> Larry
>

Regardung artifacts of Solomon, I would just like to interject that most
documentation of Israelite kings are part of conflict records, from the stele of
Mereneptah, to Shishak, to the Moabite Stone, to the Tel Dan stele, and all the
records of Assyria and Babylon.  Seeing as Solomon's rule represented a time of
great peace, we would expect basically zero documentation in other nations for
Solomon.

I think we expect a lot of documentation since he was such a great and famous
king.  But what type of documentation.  Certainly any artifacts from his rule
would be considered highly valuable, wouldn't they?  It would be like finding
gold in the desert as an artifact.  Not likely.  So what might have been around
might have been buried as heirlooms or something.  But there's another snag. 
Solomon was a deposed king in the end, an apostate.  So maybe he wasn't such a
great king at the end of his rule that anybody made a big deal out of him since
he turned against his God.

The other factor is that the Israelites used papyrus and skins to write on. They
were not clay tablet oriented though they used pottery shards.  So you have a
culture that does not leave much behind as far as artifacts.  Solomon was not a
glorious king at the very end, so why would the populace do a lot of
commemorative works for him?

Solomon became legendary later.  In the meantime, his building works and state
of wealth and full statehood are clearly confirmed archaeologically at Megiddo,
Gezer and Hazor in particular.  So nothing with his name on it but the building
works themselves are confirmatory of this wealthy king.  So it is not as though
we can deny him or his works.  Sometimes his works are attributed to someone
else but the works are definitely there.  Maybe a lot of his inscriptions were
blotted out after he became apostate?

Larry



--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "zoe_lithoi" <zoe_lithoi@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> The article you presented stated:
> "However, we are still lacking any contemporary or nearly-contemporary
inscriptions which mention Solomon; at the moment we do not have a single one,
although this situation could change tomorrow, or next week, or next year (or
never)."
>
> I am in the camp that disagrees with the above statement. Two columns were
recently found on each side of the Gulf of Aquaba. Evidence indicates that
Solomon placed these columns there to commemorate the Israelite crossing of the
Red Sea during the Exodus. You can read about it here.
>
>
http://www.squidoo.com/redseacrossing?utm_campaign=lensmaster-discovery&utm_medi\
um=sidebar&utm_source=ideadesigns
>
> On one of these columns are the words in the form of inscriptions:
> Pharoah, Mizraim (Egypt), Moses, death, water, Yahweh, Solomon, Edom
>
> I realize that there are some who oppose this as evidence, but I would like to
address one of them at the following website:
>
> http://www.andrews.edu/archaeology/archive/merling/newpage5.htm
>
> The author of this website didn't sign his name, nevertheless, he/she wrote:
>
> "The column Mr. Wyatt is standing by is not from the time of Solomon but
crafted in the time of Jesus or later. Columns constructed in the time of
Solomon were built from square stone blocks and were rectangular columns, not
round ones."
>
> And as supposed evidence, the author submitted a DRAWING (not an actual
picture). I don't really consider such a drawing as really being evidence. I
have no doubt that some columns in some places were both square and made of
stone blocks. But this does in no way mean every column everywhere was made in
such a manner. I would welcome any real input on the author's claim that 'round
columns' did not exist during the time of Solomon. And now I will present some
evidence against this bogus claim of square columns made of stone were the only
type of column which existed during the time of solomon.
>
> It is commonly known, that the Egyptian Oblelisks existed centuries before
Solomon and were made out of one piece of solid granite. Solomon's ancestral
predecessor, Moses, was trained up in the way of these Egyptian Archetechs. One
of the first verses having to do with Solomon building the temple says:
>
> 1Ki 3:1  And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took
Pharaoh's daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had made an
end of building his own house, and the house of the LORD, and the wall of
Jerusalem round about.
>
> Solomon, knowing of the archetectural superiority of the Egyptians, and
wanting to gain such knowledge, i.e. affinity,  married Pharoah's daughter. That
they had a good relationship was attested to by this verse:
>
> 1Ki 9:16 For Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it
with fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it [for] a
present unto his daughter, Solomon's wife.
>
> Solomon had access to the Egyptian archetechs!!!!
>
> I submit, then, that the round one-piece columns found on opposite shores of
the gulf of Aquaba could indeed, by their very architecture have been built by
Solomon, and that his name, enscribed thereon, is evidence of such!
>
> The two most famous columns in Solomon's temple and Solomon's house actually
had names called Jachin and Boaz, and were made by Hiram of Tyre who was
actually an Israelite through his mother of the tribe of Naphtali (See I Kings
7). These columns are represented in drawings of the famous head of freemason
'Hiram mabiff' (spelling?) wherein a J and a B are on each respective column.
These are round columns.
>
> These particular columns were not made out of stone blocks, but rather were
casted out of BRASS:
>
> 1Ki 7:14 He [was] a widow's son of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father [was]
a man of Tyre, a worker in brass: and he was filled with wisdom, and
understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass. And he came to king
Solomon, and wrought all his work.
> 1Ki 7:15 For he cast two pillars of brass, of eighteen cubits high apiece: and
a line of twelve cubits did compass either of them about.
>
> The word 'pillars' here is translated from a Hebrew word which is related to
an aramaic word and is specified by Strong's 5982, and Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon
says that it is a 'a column, a pillar'.
>
> Toby
>
> --- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, Ian Onvlee <sambacats@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Larry,
> >
> > Nice article, very easy readable!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ian Onvlee
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Larry <larsinger58@>
> > To: ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thu, November 12, 2009 6:21:08 AM
> > Subject: [ancient_chronology] Did David and Solomon Exist?
> >
> >  
> > Here's a rather well done article covering a lot of the bases on the current
debae of David and Solomon I thought was worthwhile.
> >
> > http://www.bibleint erp.com/articles /cline35709. shtml
> >
> > The article doesn't address the timeline issues when the Exodus is dated to
Akhenaten/Amenhotep III, however.
> >
> > Larry
> >
>

http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/projects/proj_past_jezreel.html

"Significantly, Iron Age IIA pottery found in the constructional fills of the
Omride enclosure indicates that a settlement existed here before the
construction of the latter. Nothing is known about the size or character of the
settlement in these periods."


Currently, conventional chronology dates Iron 2a to the mid-11th century through
most of the 10th century.

For New Courville, Iron 2a marks the beginning of the Omride settlement, so
there is no mystery as to why it's found in the Omride construction phase.

Vern

--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "verncrisler" <vcrisler3@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/projects/proj_past_jezreel.html
>
> "Significantly, Iron Age IIA pottery found in the constructional
fills of the Omride enclosure indicates that a settlement existed
here before the construction of the latter. Nothing is known about
the size or character of the settlement in these periods."
>
>
> Currently, conventional chronology dates Iron 2a to the mid-11th
century through most of the 10th century.
>
> For New Courville, Iron 2a marks the beginning of the Omride
settlement, so there is no mystery as to why it's found in the Omride
construction phase.
>
> Vern
>

Hi Vern (and All),

I suppose you mean "the mid-**10th** century through most of the
**9th** century" for Iron IIA in (Modified) Conventional Chronology
(ca. 980-840/830 BC acc. to A. Mazar).

Note that your quote says that pottery found in the constructional
fills of the Omride enclosure is already Iron Age IIA. Unless they
used only contemporary, 'fresh' pottery for these fills, then Iron
Age IIA must have begun some time (probably many years) *before* the
Omrides.

At http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/index2.htm
Coldstream and Mazar write:

<< The longevity of the pottery assemblage from the Iron IIA sites
mentioned above is demonstrated at Jezreel, where pottery found in
the construction fills below the floors of the royal citadel proved
to be similar to that found in the destruction layer (Zimhoni 1997:
29-56). At Tel Rehov, rich restorable assemblages containing
identical types were found in both Strata V and IV. The assemblage
of the yet earlier Stratum VI is also similar, although it differs
somewhat. All three Strata VI-IV produced red-slipped and hand-
burnished vessels. In my view, all the above-mentioned Iron IIA
strata are characteristic of the Iron Age IIA in northern Israel. >>


Best wishes, Björn

This is a great link.  Here's what Israel Finkelstein comments on this
excavation:

From "The Bible Unearthed" page 186, to underscore how central this is to dating
for Finkelstein:

"The clinching clue to a redating of the "Solomonic" gates and palaces came from
the biblical site of Jezreel, located less than ten miles to the east of Megiddo
in the heart of the Jezreel valley. The site is located in a beautiful elevated
spot, enjoying a mild climate in the winter and a cool breeze in the summer and
commanding a sweeping panorama of the entire Jezreel valley and the hills
surrounding it, from Megiddo in the west through Galillee in the north, to
Beth-shean and the Gilead in the east.  Jezreel is famous largely due to the
biblical story of Naboth's vineyard, and Ahab and Jezebel's plans for palace
expansion, and as the scene of the bloody, final liquididation of the Omride
dynasty.  In the 1990s the site was excavated by David Ussishkin of Tel Aviv
University and John Woodhead of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. 
They uncovered a large royal enclosure, very similar to that of Samaria.  This
impressive compound was occupied for only a brief period in the ninth century
BCE--presumably only during the reign of the Omride Dynasty--and was destroyed
shotly after its construction, perhaps in connection with the fall of the
Omrides or the subsequent invasions of northern Israel by the armies of
Aram-Damascus."

"Because Jezreel was chronologically restricted to a brief occupation in the
ninth century BCE, it offered a unique case where the distinctive styles of
pottery found within it could be used as a clear dating indicator for the Omride
period at other sites.  Significantly, the pottery styles uncovered in the
Jezreel enclosure were almost identical to those found in the level of the
"Solomonic" palaces of Megiddo.  It was thus becoming quite evident, from both
architectural and cereamic standpoints, that the Omrides--not Solomon--had
constructed the ashlar buildings at Megiddo, in addition to the Jezreel and
Samaria compounds."


Thanks for the post Vern!!

LS


--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "verncrisler" <vcrisler3@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/projects/proj_past_jezreel.html
>
> "Significantly, Iron Age IIA pottery found in the constructional fills of the
Omride enclosure indicates that a settlement existed here before the
construction of the latter. Nothing is known about the size or character of the
settlement in these periods."
>
>
> Currently, conventional chronology dates Iron 2a to the mid-11th century
through most of the 10th century.
>
> For New Courville, Iron 2a marks the beginning of the Omride settlement, so
there is no mystery as to why it's found in the Omride construction phase.
>
> Vern
>

--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "bjorn07se" <bjorn07se@...> wrote:
> Hi Vern (and All),
>
> I suppose you mean "the mid-**10th** century through most of the
> **9th** century" for Iron IIA in (Modified) Conventional Chronology
> (ca. 980-840/830 BC acc. to A. Mazar).


I was going by his statement made in *Studies in the archaeology of the Iron Age
in Israel and Jordan*, 2001, p. 26, wherein he says Iron 2a goes from mid 11th
century to 10th century.  He places Iron 2b in the 9th century (p. 28).


> Note that your quote says that pottery found in the constructional
> fills of the Omride enclosure is already Iron Age IIA. Unless they
> used only contemporary, 'fresh' pottery for these fills, then Iron
> Age IIA must have begun some time (probably many years) *before* the
> Omrides.

Does not follow.  This is the problem that Kenyon found at Samaria, supposedly
"Solomonic" pottery in the fill of the Omride building phase.  (See the essay on
Samaria:
http://vernerable.wordpress.com/archaeology/samaria/

Vern

--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "verncrisler" <vcrisler3@...> wrote:
>
> --- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "bjorn07se" <bjorn07se@> wrote:
> > Hi Vern (and All),
> >
> > I suppose you mean "the mid-**10th** century through most of the
> > **9th** century" for Iron IIA in (Modified) Conventional
> > Chronology (ca. 980-840/830 BC acc. to A. Mazar).
>
>
> I was going by his statement made in *Studies in the archaeology of
the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan*, 2001, p. 26, wherein he says Iron
2a goes from mid 11th century to 10th century. He places Iron 2b in
the 9th century (p. 28).
>

The chronology expressed in Mazar et al. (pp. 26-28) at
http://books.google.se/books?id=Osu5qWg8GkEC&dq=%22Studies+in+the+archaeology+of\
+the+Iron+Age%22+Mazar&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=7LboA3Qc8c&sig=NkFBwaA2\
cGNxBB0xoR2VeovoNK0&hl=sv&ei=N7ELS42GN4Ps-Abep8njBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=resul\
t&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
or http://tiny.cc/StudArchMazar seems a little weird. It could be
described as a *very* High Chronology. This chapter was not written
by Mazar but taken from the dissertation (1993) by Avi Ofer "which
was carried out under the supervision of Professors Moshe Kochavi
and Nadav Na'aman".

An Iron IIA period ca. 980-840/830 BC as a combination of 10th
century "Solomonic" and 9th century "Omride" is the recent, widely
recognised consensus. E.g., look at the Radiocarbon papers mentioned
in my post at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/3528
by Mazar and the Groningen group. Their chronology might be seen as
the 'state of art' as far as Levantine MCC dates are concerned. The
last strata (destruction layers) of Iron IB are 14C dated to ca. 1000
BC and the transition to Iron IIA is under way one or two generations
into the 10th century BC.

See also my post at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/3549
where I mention the fact that this chronology is compatible with
new radiocarbon dates for cultures in the central and western
Mediterranean area.


Best wishes, Björn

--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "bjorn07se" <bjorn07se@...> wrote:
> The chronology expressed in Mazar et al. (pp. 26-28) at <snip>
> seems a little weird. It could be
> described as a *very* High Chronology. This chapter was not written
> by Mazar but taken from the dissertation (1993) by Avi Ofer "which
> was carried out under the supervision of Professors Moshe Kochavi
> and Nadav Na'aman".

One of the standard works on Holy Land archaeology is Amihai Mazar's
*Archaeology of the Land of the Bible*, 1990.  His dates for the Iron Age (p.
372) are:

Iron 1a – c. 1200 BC to c. 1150 BC
Iron 1b – c. 1150 BC to c. 1000 BC
Iron 2a – c. 1000 BC to c. 925 BC
Iron 2b – c. 925 BC to 732/701 BC
Iron 2c – 732/701 BC to 600/586 BC

And yes Ofer's chronology is a little higher, but it still references most of
Iron 2a to the 10th century (Solomonic period), and Iron 2b to the 9th century
(Omride/Ahab period).  Cf., *Studies in the archaeology of the Iron Age in
Israel and Jordan*, 2001, pp. 26-28.

Recall also that these BC dates (as well as those of the Greek & Cypriote
material ) are ultimately dependent upon the link to Egypt.  For instance, Iron
1a is linked to the alleged BC dates for Tewosret and Ramses 3.  Egyptologists
are not in agreement as to the precise dates involved, the range being from 1200
BC to 1185 BC for its beginning.  (Cf., A. Mazar, "The Iron Age 1," in A.
Ben-Tor, ed., *The Archaeology of Ancient Israel*, 1992, p. 260.

For a short history of changes in dating for Iron 2a, see Ernst A Knauf, in
Lester L. Grabbe, *Israel in Transition: From Late Bronze II to Iron IIa: The
Archaeology*, 2008, p. 99.  Briefly, Iron 2a was approximately placed in the
10th century BC, and Iron 2b in the 9th century BC.  Advocates of the Low
Chronology challenged these dates and argued that Iron 2a should begin later,
pointing to 14C dates that place key Iron Age material in the 9th century.

Mazar and other traditionalists, not wanting to accept Finkelstein's Low
Chronology argued for stretching Iron 2a to cover both 10th & 9th century in
what they call a Modified Conventional Chronology.  Of course, the problem is
that radiocarbon dates for these archaeological strata are contradictory, but
rather than admit this, Mazar & colleagues continue to trust in the unfaithful
mistress of radiocarbon dating.


> An Iron IIA period ca. 980-840/830 BC as a combination of 10th
> century "Solomonic" and 9th century "Omride" is the recent, widely
> recognised consensus. E.g., look at the Radiocarbon papers mentioned
> in my post at
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/3528
> by Mazar and the Groningen group. Their chronology might be seen as
> the 'state of art' as far as Levantine MCC dates are concerned. The
> last strata (destruction layers) of Iron IB are 14C dated to ca. 1000
> BC and the transition to Iron IIA is under way one or two generations
> into the 10th century BC.


State of the art if you ignore the other radiocarbon labs.  And as you say,
"Perhaps this is not the right time or forum to debate the High/Modified
Conventional vs. Low Chronology in detail. The dispute between Mazar and
Finkelstein will certainly go on for a long time to come."

Hopefully, both will come to their senses and accept New Courville.
;-)


> See also my post at
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/3549
> where I mention the fact that this chronology is compatible with
> new radiocarbon dates for cultures in the central and western
> Mediterranean area.


For problems in 14C dating for this period, and the fallacy of relying on
Greco-Mediterranean chronology, see the essay by Sharon, Gilboa, and Boaretto in
the same volume, pp. 177ff.

Vern

--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "verncrisler" <vcrisler3@...> wrote:
>
> --- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "bjorn07se" <bjorn07se@> wrote:
> > The chronology expressed in Mazar et al. (pp. 26-28) at <snip>
> > seems a little weird. It could be described as a *very* High
> > Chronology. This chapter was not written by Mazar but taken from
> > the dissertation (1993) by Avi Ofer "which was carried out under
> > the supervision of Professors Moshe Kochavi and Nadav Na'aman".
>
> One of the standard works on Holy Land archaeology is Amihai
Mazar's *Archaeology of the Land of the Bible*, 1990.  His dates
for the Iron Age (p. 372) are:
>
> Iron 1a – c. 1200 BC to c. 1150 BC
> Iron 1b – c. 1150 BC to c. 1000 BC
> Iron 2a – c. 1000 BC to c. 925 BC
> Iron 2b – c. 925 BC to 732/701 BC
> Iron 2c – 732/701 BC to 600/586 BC
>
> And yes Ofer's chronology is a little higher, but it still
references most of Iron 2a to the 10th century (Solomonic period),
and Iron 2b to the 9th century (Omride/Ahab period).  Cf., *Studies
in the archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan*, 2001, pp.
26-28.
>

The excellent Chapter by Amihai Mazar, "The Debate over the
Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant" in "The Bible and
Radiocarbon Dating" (Thomas E. Levy & Thomas Higham, Editors, 2005),
previously found at
http://www.rehov.org/Iron%20Age%20Chronology%20Debate.pdf
has now been hijacked and turned into some commersial site. I was
able to save it in an HTML version from a 'cache memory' at
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:3TNkVJzet8wJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=sv&as_\
sdt=2000
but there are problems with the format and numerous mis-spellings.

According to Mazar himself, his chronology (2005) is here given as
<<  Current Suggestion (A. Mazar)
     Iron IA:    1200-1140/1130 BCE
     Iron IB:    1150/40-ca. 980 BCE
     Iron IIa:   ca. 980-ca. 840/830 BCE
     Iron IIb:   ca. 840/830-732/701 BCE
>>

In the Low Chronology by Finkelstein, Iron Age starts ca. 1150 BC
(e.g. in 'The Bible Unearthed'), so Iron I is extended to ca. 250
years, which seems very long, IMO, in contrast to the compressed
Iron IIA.


> Recall also that these BC dates (as well as those of the Greek &
Cypriote material) are ultimately dependent upon the link to Egypt.
For instance, Iron 1a is linked to the alleged BC dates for Tewosret
and Ramses 3.
>

It's true that e.g. scarabs from early Dyn. 20 are found in Iron IA
strata, and the Greek and Cypriote chronologies were assembled
without the aid of radiocarbon. These chronologies have lately been
challenged by new 14C data, which are totally independent of Egypt.
(I have mentioned some 14C results from the central and western
Mediterranean area which seem to corroborate the standard Egyptian
TIP dates.)


> For a short history of changes in dating for Iron 2a, see Ernst A
Knauf, in Lester L. Grabbe, *Israel in Transition: From Late Bronze
II to Iron IIa: The Archaeology*, 2008, p. 99.  Briefly, Iron 2a was
approximately placed in the 10th century BC, and Iron 2b in the 9th
century BC.  Advocates of the Low Chronology challenged these dates
and argued that Iron 2a should begin later, pointing to 14C dates
that place key Iron Age material in the 9th century.
>

These are the High and Low Chronologies, resp. Agreed.


> Mazar and other traditionalists, not wanting to accept
Finkelstein's Low Chronology argued for stretching Iron 2a to cover
both 10th & 9th century in what they call a Modified Conventional
Chronology.  Of course, the problem is that radiocarbon dates for
these archaeological strata are contradictory, but rather than admit
this, Mazar & colleagues continue to trust in the unfaithful mistress
of radiocarbon dating.
>

I would say that Finkelstein too relies on the found (uncalibrated)
radiocarbon results, although he uses the wiggly parts of the
calibration curve in early Iron Age (at 1200-1120, 1100-1050, and
esp. at 1000-930 and 900-830 BC) to opt for lower *calibrated* dates.
These wiggles make the 14C dates ambiguous, but not necessarily
contradictory. Revisionist chronologies which follow Finkelstein's
(Low) chronology for Iron Age IIA but want to neglect his dates for
the LB/Iron border might, more rightly, be accused of unfaithfulness.
The beauty and (general) usefulness of radiocarbon dating stem from
its non-reliance on any special conviction, creed or policy other
than a verifiable, scientific method of collecting and processing
data.


> > An Iron IIA period ca. 980-840/830 BC as a combination of 10th
> > century "Solomonic" and 9th century "Omride" is the recent,
> > widely recognised consensus. E.g., look at the Radiocarbon papers
> > mentioned in my post at
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/3528
> > by Mazar and the Groningen group. Their chronology might be seen
> > as []'state of [the] art' as far as Levantine MCC dates are
> > concerned. The last strata (destruction layers) of Iron IB are
> > 14C dated to ca. 1000 BC and the transition to Iron IIA is under
> > way one or two generations into the 10th century BC.
>
>
> State of the art if you ignore the other radiocarbon labs.  And as
you say, "Perhaps this is not the right time or forum to debate the
High/Modified Conventional vs. Low Chronology in detail. The dispute
between Mazar and Finkelstein will certainly go on for a long time to
come."
>
> Hopefully, both will come to their senses and accept New Courville.
> ;-)

Unless they forget the results of radiocarbon dating, this seems
wishful/wistful thinking to me.


> > See also my post at
> >
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/3549
> > where I mention the fact that this chronology is compatible with
> > new radiocarbon dates for cultures in the central and western
> > Mediterranean area.
>
>
> For problems in 14C dating for this period, and the fallacy of
relying on Greco-Mediterranean chronology, see the essay by Sharon,
Gilboa, and Boaretto in the same volume, pp. 177ff.
>

I was able to download Grabbe, "Israel in Transition: . . " but the
crucial pages were missing. This book (2008) is hardly expected to
comment on the paper in Radiocarbon 51(1), pp. 213-242 (2009): "The
Iron Age Around the Mediterranean: A High Chronology Perspective from
the Groningen Radiocarbon Database" by van der Plicht, Bruins and
Nijboer.

The "fallacy of relying on Greco-Mediterranean chronology" was
exemplified in my post #3549 where I noted that
<< Cypriot Black-on-Red pottery starts to appear in Palestine in
the period 1050-950 BC (High chron.; say ca. 1000 BC), but it was
manufactured in Cyprus only from CG III, ca. 850-700 BC in the local
(Low) chronology. >>

Low chronologies try to lower the Levantine dates to conform with
the Cypriote chronology, but the new radiocarbon results (Macedonia,
Italy, Carthage, Spain) seem to support the higher chronology.


Best wishes, Björn

My opinio is that as long as the actual sub-chronology does not exceed 480
years, then it simply is not complete.  That is, somehow 52 years are ambiguous
or doesn't fall into any particular category so that there is 52 years of other
chronology missing or not accounted for in scripture.  Therefore, whatever
complications in chronology there are are overcome by the "interval" of 480
years from the Exodus to the 4th of Solomon.

So there is a missing 52 years, but so what?  Again, the only "problem"
chronologically that would need to be addressed is if the chronologies provided
exceeded the 480 years.  Since they don't, comparing the various texts simply
means 52 years are not accounted for in that interval.  That's all.  There's no
contradiction for the Biblical chronologist here.

But thanks, this is interesting an area I had not really looked into before. 
This is an interesting look but it is not an "issue" chronologically, IMHO.

Thanks.

LS


--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "zoe_lithoi" <zoe_lithoi@...> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> There appears to be 52 missing years between the Israelites entrance
> into the Promised land and the end of the '18 years Oppression of Ammon'
> in  Judges 10:8.
>
> I kings 6:1 contains one of the most important and controversial
> chronological passages in the Bible, marking the period from the Exodus
> to Solomon Yr 4 as 480 years.
>
> I've started reading a book on Chronology by the much despised Ivan
> Panin. Whatever you think of him, you cannot help but admire his
> knowledge of numbers, Hebrew, and Greek.
>
> Part of Panin's approach to these 480 years, was to compare them with
> Jephthah's mention of 300 years in Judges 11:26, to wit:
>
> Jdg 11:26 While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and
> her towns, and in all the cities that [be] along by the coasts of Arnon,
> -----three hundred years?---- why therefore did ye not recover [them]
> within that time?
>
> "These 300 years then began in year 40 from the Exodus and ended with
> year 18 of the Ammon oppression"  page 15, Panin, printing 1950.
>
> See 'appendix A' after my signature for a more complete quote.
>
> Panin then goes into the details for the above period by examining the
> various reigns of the Judges, and in his estimation, it adds up to 352
> years. My conclusion, in my brief study of the period of the JUDGES,
> was that there was some wiggle-room in it. So, I decided to consult
> David Rice's book "Time and Prophecy" where he lists his JUDGES
> chronology in his Appendix K - which I've included below my signature as
> well.
>
> Both Panin and Rice start counting from  '8 years of Servitude to King
> of Mesopotamia Judges 3:8'
>
> Rice's total from:
> 'the 8 years of Servitude to King of Mesopotamia Judges 3:8'
> to
> '18 years Oppression of Ammon Judges 10:8'
> is 319 years.
>
> Panin also came up with this same number, however....
>
> "The sum of these 12 data is 219 years. To these are to be added: (1)
> the 6 years from teh end of the forty in the wilderness to teh division
> of the land; (2) the time from the division of the land to the first
> oppression, which as shown in  Part II at year 2610 is 27 years. This
> makes the time from Heshbon to the end of the Ammon oppression as 352
> years. Jephthah says only 300. The twelve data given above cannot
> therefore mean to cover 52 years more. The difficulty moreover is not
> removed by called 300 a round number. Round numbers, as shown below, are
> ruled out by Canon VI, and are to be admitted only where demonstated as
> such. Here, however, it is not only undemonstrated, it is out of
> question. 352 is nearer 400 thant 300; and Jephthah would have been a
> poor pleader of his cause to name 300 when 400 would have been not only
> nearer th truth, but would have sered his purose better.  If a round
> number were al all to be used here, no reason can be given why 300 or
> even 400 should be used rather than the obvious 350."
> page 16, Panin, printing 1950.
>
> Does anybody have any idea where the missing 52 years are?
>
> Toby
>
> Appendix A
>
> "For its sins the people of God are in Judge 10:6-11:28, delivered into
> the hand of Ammon for 18 years. They repent, and Jephthah is rased up to
> deliver them. He sends to Ammon to inquire why he is fighting his
> people. The answer is, "Becaause when he came up from Egypt Israel took
> away my land from Arnon even unto Jabbok and unto Jordan. Now,
> therefore, restore thse again in peace" (Judg 11:13). Jephthat answers
> that the land had not been taken from Ammon, but from teh Amorites.
> Ammon therefore has no claim upon them ...From the possession,
> therefore, of Heshbon to the end of the Ammon oppression is thus
> according to Jephthat 300 years. When these began i readily made out
> thus:
> (1) Aaron the priest, in Numb 33:38, went up into Mount Hor at the
> Lord's command and "died there in years 40 from teh departure of the
> children of Israel from Egypt land..."
> (2) After mouring for Aaron at Mount Hor (Num 21:4) 30 days *(Numb.
> 20:29) the children of Israel journey from Mount Hor by way to the REd
> Sea to compass Edom land. Shortly after (Num 21:24:25) "Israel smot him
> [Sihon the Amorite king] with the edge of the sword, and possessed his
> land from Arnon unto Jabbok. ...and Israel dwelt in all the cities of
> the Amorites in Heshbon and all its towns."  These 300 years then began
> in year 40 from the Exodus and ended with year 18 of the Ammon
> oppression"  page 15, Panin, printing 1950.
>
> Appendix K
> Taken from Time and Prophecy
> printing 1995
> by David Rice
> Page 114
> Nineteen Periods in Judges and 1 Samuel
> 1)       8 years Servitude to King of Mesopotamia Judges 3:8
> 2)     40 years Rest under Othniel Judges 3:11
> 3)     18 years Servitude to Moab Judges 3:14
> 4)     80 years Rest under Ehud Judges 3:15,30
> 5)     20 years Servitude to Jabin Judges 4:2,3
> 6)     40 years Rest under Deborah Judges 4:4,5:31
> 7)       7 years Bondage under Midian Judges 6:1
> 8)     40 years Rest under Gideon Judges 8:28
> 9)       3 years Reign of Abimelech Judges 9:22
> 10)     23 years Tola judged Judges 10:1,2
> 11)     22 years Jair judged Judges 10:3
> 12)     18 years Oppression of Ammon Judges 10:8
> 13)       6 years Jephthah judged Judges 12:7
> 14)       7 years Ibzan judged Judges 12:8,9
> 15)     10 years Elon judged Judges 12:11
> 16)       8 years Abdon judged Judges 12:13,14
> 17)     40 years Oppression of Philistines Judges 13:1
> 18)     20 years Samson judged Judges 15:20
> 19)     40 years Eli judged 1 Samuel 4:18
> ________
> 450 years
>