Greetings,

In the 2012 movie, they cited Charles Hapgood's book in the 1950's where he
postulated that the earth's poles have changed a few times.

So, my quiz question to you all, is:

Where in scripture does it say that the earth was knocked out of place?


P.S. I'm posting this question to several groups.

I believe this question, or part of it anyways, is pertinent to this group, but
if I discuss 'why' this is so, then it could give away the answer.

Toby

Hello, Toby

(( Panin has 27 years from the division of the land to the first
oppression. What do you have? ))

I do not know. There is some uncertainty about the unnumbered
periods referred to in the Book of Judges. That is the value of 1 Kings
6:1, which tells us there were 479 elapsed years between the Exodus
and the foundation of the Temple. Which means that from the
Division of the land, until the first year of Saul as King of Israel, there
would have been 349 years. If we subtract from that the 301 years
from Cushan's oppression through the 22 years of Jair, it leaves 48
years remaining.

Apparently the 40 years of Philistine oppression follows this, which
was terminated by the leadership of Samuel in 1 Samuel chapter
seven. That means that of the 349 years, but 8 years remain. That
seems too brief to include the years of Joshua after the division of the
land, and the elders that outlived him, and on the other end, the time
when Samuel judged after the 40 years of Philistine oppression, until
Saul the king was anointed. It is theoretically possible, but it seems
too brief.

Which then suggests that among the numbered years (the oppression
by Cushan, through the Judgeship of Jair), there may have been some
overlapping. -- David Rice
</HTML>

Hi David,

- I like your explanation.

- You are correct, I meant 319 years, not 219 years... It was a typo.

Panin has 27 years from the division of the land to the first oppression.

What do you have?

Toby

--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, DavRice@... wrote:
>
> (( Does anybody have any idea where the missing 52 years are? ))
>
> Hello, Toby. This question is based on the Panin material you cited.
> But that material includes some numbers which are his conclusion,
> rather than numbers stated in the Hebrew record. Here is his extract
> that you supplied, with comments.
>
> (( The sum of these 12 data is 219 years. ))  ----  I think you mean 319,
> which runs from the beginning of the eight year oppression of Cushan-
> rishathaim until the end of the eighteen year oppression by the
> Ammonites.
>
> (( 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 ... ))  ----  yes
>
> (( (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. ))  ----  These 27 years are
> not a scriptural number. They are apparently Panin's conclusion, but it
> is not clear that this is the proper number.
>
> (( This makes the time from Heshbon to the end of the Ammon
> oppression as 352 years. Jephthah says only 300. ))  ----  Jephthah would
> know better than Panin. But what Panin is doing is adding the following.
>
> 6    Jordan to Division of the land
> 27   to the first oppression (but how Panin gets 27 is unclear)
> 319  to the end of the 18 years of Ammon's oppression
> ----
> 352
>
> This is the period Jephthah says is 300 years. It is possible that the 18
> years of the Ammonite oppression should not be included in Jephthah's
> number. It is possible that Jephthah's comments to the king of Ammon
> intend to mark the time up until Ammon began to oppress Israel. That
> would reduce the 352 to 334.
>
> The six years are a computation we make from some statements by
> Caleb. It is not a period expressed in the record directly. Perhaps
> Jephthah passed by that number in his summary statement of years
> because it was not stated in the record directly. That would reduce the
> number to 328.
>
> The 27 years are Panin's computation apparently. It may be about right,
> we cannot be sure. It also is not a period expressed in the record directly.
> Perhaps Jephthah passed by that period also, because there was no
> number of years in the record. That would reduce the number to 301.
> Which would readily be reported as a round 300 years, as appears in
> Judges 11:26. -- David Rice
> </HTML>
>

(( I see no point to this discussion ))

Hello, Gene. Perhaps there is a value to observing the basis for the
number of years Jephthah mentioned to the king of Ammon. The
record of years in the book of Judges may have been the same record
of years that Jephthah had -- thus the records then existing were
incorporated into the book when Samuel composed it formally. Which
gives us an insight into the method by which Jephthah estimated the time --
namely the sum of the pieces then available. The sum was 301, and
his report was naturally a rounded number.

This is interesting to me in light of the claim by some that summing
available numbers to represent an overall span of years -- even if the
pieces do not exhaustively cover the period -- was an accepted
procedure by Jews much later as well. So that in Acts 13:20, the
number of 450 reported by Paul was in fact simply the sum of the 19
periods reflected in Judges and 1 Samuel.

Which in turn resolves the conflict between that and the testimony of
1 Kings 6:1 -- that text giving us an accurate number of years
precisely, easily established from the number of Jubilee cycles which
passed since entering the land of promise, until the founding of the
temple. Whereas the various pieces mentioned in Judges and 1
Samuel, which sum to 450, include overlapping periods. -- David Rice
</HTML>

(( Does anybody have any idea where the missing 52 years are? ))

Hello, Toby. This question is based on the Panin material you cited.
But that material includes some numbers which are his conclusion,
rather than numbers stated in the Hebrew record. Here is his extract
that you supplied, with comments.

(( The sum of these 12 data is 219 years. ))  ----  I think you mean 319,
which runs from the beginning of the eight year oppression of Cushan-
rishathaim until the end of the eighteen year oppression by the
Ammonites.

(( 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 ... ))  ----  yes

(( (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. ))  ----  These 27 years are
not a scriptural number. They are apparently Panin's conclusion, but it
is not clear that this is the proper number.

(( This makes the time from Heshbon to the end of the Ammon
oppression as 352 years. Jephthah says only 300. ))  ----  Jephthah would
know better than Panin. But what Panin is doing is adding the following.

6    Jordan to Division of the land
27   to the first oppression (but how Panin gets 27 is unclear)
319  to the end of the 18 years of Ammon's oppression
----
352

This is the period Jephthah says is 300 years. It is possible that the 18
years of the Ammonite oppression should not be included in Jephthah's
number. It is possible that Jephthah's comments to the king of Ammon
intend to mark the time up until Ammon began to oppress Israel. That
would reduce the 352 to 334.

The six years are a computation we make from some statements by
Caleb. It is not a period expressed in the record directly. Perhaps
Jephthah passed by that number in his summary statement of years
because it was not stated in the record directly. That would reduce the
number to 328.

The 27 years are Panin's computation apparently. It may be about right,
we cannot be sure. It also is not a period expressed in the record directly.
Perhaps Jephthah passed by that period also, because there was no
number of years in the record. That would reduce the number to 301.
Which would readily be reported as a round 300 years, as appears in
Judges 11:26. -- David Rice
</HTML>

Vern,

There are a number of interesting scriptural references and allusions to
pieces of precious metal standard by weight, commencing with Exodus in the
Wilderness... and although some assume these are ingots the Israelites if one
makes inquiries, indicate these were what we would call types of coins.

A reference most interesting to me is, I Chronicles 29 : 7, usually referring,
depending on the translation, to 'drams' or 'darics'. But the text actually
specifies Struck-pieces in precious metal... coins of fixed standard weight.
Perhaps the weight resembled, somewhat, that of an Athenian drachma.
But the word there is definitely Hebrew, not Greek or Persian.

There is a nice section outlining scripture sources, pre-Exilic, in several of
the usual Bible dictionaries such as: 'New Standard Bible Dictionary', edited
by M.W. Jacobus, E.C. Lane, E.C. Zenos etc., Garden City Books, NY, 1936,
pp. 588-592, section on 'Money'; and there are many others to consult,
more recent of course.

Bergen


******************
vernc risler wrote:
I'm not aware of any coins found in Jezreel.  The late Orna Zimhoni did not
mention any in her work at Tel Jezreel, only jugs, storage jars, bowls, cooking
pots, kraters, a flask, and a chalice.  (L. Singer-Avitz & D. Ussishkin, eds.,
*Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel, 1997, pp. 13ff.)
>
> I have not been able to confirm that coins existed prior to the 7th century
BC, a little late for Jezreel probably.  See:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin
>
> Could you provide the scriptural reference to coins in the time of David? 
From what I can tell, the closest things they had to coin prior to the 7th
century BC were stamped ingots.
>
> Vern
>

--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "bergendelperon" <bergendelperon@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello Vern,
>
> In the reports to date on the site 'Jezreel', have there been any early coins
> discovered in these strata, and if so, exactly what types of coin ?
>
> Although conventional thinking has a misconception there are no coins
> prior to the reign of Croesus, king of Lydia, that applies only to Asia Minor
> (which is now part of Turkey).
>
> Scripture already reports coins in the reign of David and I do not think the
> Israelites ever yet claimed to have invented this in West Asia (though they
> may have!).
>
> Bergen



I'm not aware of any coins found in Jezreel.  The late Orna Zimhoni did not
mention any in her work at Tel Jezreel, only jugs, storage jars, bowls, cooking
pots, kraters, a flask, and a chalice.  (L. Singer-Avitz & D. Ussishkin, eds.,
*Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel, 1997, pp. 13ff.)

I have not been able to confirm that coins existed prior to the 7th century BC,
a little late for Jezreel probably.  See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin

Could you provide the scriptural reference to coins in the time of David?  From
what I can tell, the closest things they had to coin prior to the 7th century BC
were stamped ingots.

Vern

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

> Well, lots of luck in getting Egyptologists to go along with the
new 14C dating.  The pages of Radiocarbon magazine contain many
complaints that Egyptologists ignore the supposedly scientific 14C
dates -- unless, of course, they already agree with conventional
Egyptian chronology.  In chronology, 14C dating is a dependent
variable.
>

These new *up*-datings of Geometric and esp. Proto-Geometric periods
are generally independent of Egypt. The main results of the new 14C
dates are that large parts of the Greek and Anatolian 'Dark Ages'
have been illuminated, so the need to eliminate them has largely
disappeared. However, the new higher dates have brought finds of
Egyptian artifacts, e.g. Dyn. 22-23 scarabs at the Almuñécar
cemetery, Spain, closer to their conventional dates.

I don't quite understand your last sentence. In what way is 14C
dating – i.e., measurements of the decay of radioactive nuclei -
(more) dependent than other methods?


> Radiocarbon determinations on the same type of archaeological
material that give dates in the 10th century and dates in the 9th
century are certainly contradictory.  This is admitted by the
archaeologists discussing the issue.  (In fact it is WHY they are
discussing the issue.)
>

Most of the disputes seem to arise from different *interpretations*
of the primary results (uncalibrated 14C dates). This is clearly seen
in the Mazar - Finkelstein debate on Str. VI-V-IV at Rehov.

Otherwise, the main deviating *primary* 14C results are the ultra-low
dates found at Tel Dor by Boaretto/Gilboa.


> New Courville agrees with Finkelstein's Low Chronology, not because
of 14C dating, but because an Iron 2a/Omride dynasty is a better
correlation with biblical data than an Iron 2a/Solomon match.  I only
bring up the contradictory 14C dating to show that radiocarbon dating
is NOT as scientifically dispositive on this issue as radiocarbon
absolutists would have it.
>

The wiggles in the calibration curve are unfortunate complications,
obviously. One uncal BP date could be interpreted as 10th *or* 9th
century BC. This ought to be recognised by all of us. The MCC tries
to give shares of Iron IIA stratigraphy to 'Solomonic' 10th *and*
'Omride' 9th centuries.

We must never lose the ability to use common sense, but rather try to
resist our preformed opinions to be able to choose the most logical
and unbiased explanations. Dogmatic thinking ("absolutism") has no
place in serious scientific discussions, I agree.

These new higher 14C results are often in conflict with the
conventional concepts, so radiocarbon must not be seen primarily as
a means of defending or preserving the 'old order' of things.


> > 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.
>
>
> You should try to obtain a library copy.  It is a crucial essay.
Moreover, Finkelstein has already given his opinion of the van der
Plicht, et al. essay.  See:
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/3525
>

Thanks for the ref. to Grabbe. I will try to look for it. There is
a risk that the chronological debate gets too myopically centred to
Egypt and the Levant. In this respect, I believe the new output of
dates from the central and western parts of the Mediterranean and
also from central Europe will bring fresh insights to Iron Age
chronology. The fact that conferences are now devoted to 'Dark Age'
chronology may indicate the direction of recent developments.

At http://www.archaeopress.com/searchBar.asp?QuickSearch=chronologie
(Archaeopress, Oxford) we read:

BAR S1871 2008: Proceedings of the XV World Congress UISPP (Lisbon,
4-9 September 2006) 9 A New Dawn for the Dark Age? Shifting
Paradigms in Mediterranean Iron Age Chronology; Proceedings of the
XV UISPP World Congress (Lisbon, 4-9 September 2006) Vol. 9, Session
C53 edited by Dirk Brandherm and Martin Trachsel.

Highly recommended reading!


Best wishes, Björn

Hello Vern,

In the reports to date on the site 'Jezreel', have there been any early coins
discovered in these strata, and if so, exactly what types of coin ?

Although conventional thinking has a misconception there are no coins
prior to the reign of Croesus, king of Lydia, that applies only to Asia Minor
(which is now part of Turkey).

Scripture already reports coins in the reign of David and I do not think the
Israelites ever yet claimed to have invented this in West Asia (though they
may have!).

Bergen


*********************
verncrisler wrote:
> Yes, that is a problem with the views of Finkelstein and other advocates of
the Low Chronology.  They bring the Iron Age 2a down to the time of the Omride
dynasty, but leave Iron 1 in place (and the LBA in place).  This would place the
golden age of Solomon in an archaeologically impoverished stratum (Iron 1).  New
Courville shrinks Iron 1 and brings LB2b down to the 10th century.  Thus, unlike
Finkelstein, our view of the Low Chronology does not rob Solomon of his empire.
>
>
>
> > 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.)
>
>
> Well, lots of luck in getting Egyptologists to go along with the new 14C
dating.  The pages of Radiocarbon magazine contain many complaints that
Egyptologists ignore the supposedly scientific 14C dates -- unless, of course,
they already agree with conventional Egyptian chronology.  In chronology, 14C
dating is a dependent variable.
>
>
>
> > 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.

--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "bjorn07se" <bjorn07se@...> wrote:
> 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.


Yes, that is a problem with the views of Finkelstein and other advocates of the
Low Chronology.  They bring the Iron Age 2a down to the time of the Omride
dynasty, but leave Iron 1 in place (and the LBA in place).  This would place the
golden age of Solomon in an archaeologically impoverished stratum (Iron 1).  New
Courville shrinks Iron 1 and brings LB2b down to the 10th century.  Thus, unlike
Finkelstein, our view of the Low Chronology does not rob Solomon of his empire.



> 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.)


Well, lots of luck in getting Egyptologists to go along with the new 14C dating.
The pages of Radiocarbon magazine contain many complaints that Egyptologists
ignore the supposedly scientific 14C dates -- unless, of course, they already
agree with conventional Egyptian chronology.  In chronology, 14C dating is a
dependent variable.



> 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.


Radiocarbon determinations on the same type of archaeological material that give
dates in the 10th century and dates in the 9th century are certainly
contradictory.  This is admitted by the archaeologists discussing the issue. 
(In fact it is WHY they are discussing the issue.)  New Courville agrees with
Finkelstein's Low Chronology, not because of 14C dating, but because an Iron
2a/Omride dynasty is a better correlation with biblical data than an Iron
2a/Solomon match.  I only bring up the contradictory 14C dating to show that
radiocarbon dating is NOT as scientifically dispositive on this issue as
radiocarbon absolutists would have it.



> > 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.


Results that are contradictory do have a tendency to bring out rather surprising
reactions.



> 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.


You should try to obtain a library copy.  It is a crucial essay.  Moreover,
Finkelstein has already given his opinion of the van der Plicht, et al. essay. 
See:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/3525


Vern

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
>

--- 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

--- 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:
> > 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:
> 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

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, "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

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

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
> >
>

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
>

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

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