This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
It is unclear which of the "non-biblical" dates are related to extra-biblical historiography. It's just stated that "Dates assigned to such events should not be relied upon as historical fact". It would be beneficial to add remarks that state which of the dates are supported by extra-biblical sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.118.27.253 ( talk) 13:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The last paragaph on the opening section ends with "While some of the events during the monarchic period (10th to 7th centuries BCE) are historical and can be related to extra-biblical historiography, attempts to date Moses and the Exodus, or yet earlier events such as the birth of Abraham, Noah's Flood, or the date of Creation have met with no success. These events and the dates assigned to such events should be relied upon as historical fact". Um, since when? I see by an earlier post that this originally read "These events and the dates assigned to such events should not be relied upon as historical fact", so I am going to change it back unless someone can give some decent information. The source used even says, QUOTE: "Nevertheless, as with the Ussher Chronology, the dates associated with the Seder Olam Rabba Chronology should not be relied upon as fact". SO, I'm going to reinsert the "not" so as to comply with common sense AND the source itself. Vyselink ( talk) 21:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
In the New Testament it is stated that Abraham left Haran after the death of his father. In Christian traditions based on the Masoretic Text Haran is generally taken as firstborn of Terah with Abram born 60 years later and 60 years are added to all dates derived from the birth and age of Abram/Abraham. This is the case for example with Archbishop Usshers' chronology. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 11:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Telpardec I am supported in this by the dates in the margins of an edition of the King James Bible dated 1880. These are to my knowledge derived from Ussher. This has Terah dying in 1921 BC and Abram leaving Haran in the same year. This chronology was widely circulated. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 20:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Birth of Abraham Genesis 21:5 is actually the birth of Isaac.
I don't know what you mean. Genesis 21:5 "And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.". Therefore Isaac was born in 2048AM, as it is listed at the moment. (User talk:Bonobo4) ( talk)
Can someone please add in the rest of the Bible verses that give the dates of the kings after Solomon? Only the first is given, and this is the verse for when Israel was divided, the rest are missing. Bonobo4 ( talk) 02:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay I've added in and fixed/updated the information in 1 Kings 15 and 16, up to the death of King Ahab I of Israel. The dates are wrong though, he reigned 22 not 20 years. Also, if you read 1 Kings 16 there was a sort of Civil war in Israel, and the people of Israel were divided, as half wanted Tibni for King, annd half wanted Omri. It says Omri was declared King but this wasn't official, he officially became King after the death of Tibni 4 years later. I think I got it right but can someone please check this?
Bonobo4 (
talk)
There are many wives and children of Esau mentioned in Genesis and 1 Chronicles, I was wondering if someone knew the genealogy (family tree) or even the dates of births, besides of course Esau which is the same as his twin Jacob/Israel, since I don't think they're given in the Bible. Bonobo4 ( talk) 02:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
In the Masoretic Text the Flood began on day 17 month 2 of the 600th year of Noah's life. Taking the Masoretic text at face value Methuselah may have died, or did die, after the Flood began. A subsequent tradition says that he died a week before the Flood. I have corrected chronology accordingly but have not adjusted for the Septuagint, maybe someone would do this. It's not our job to smooth out any contradictions in the text. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 11:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Telpardec. The link to Ussher's Chronology [1] shows the Flood beginning 1655 years from the creations, in the 600th year of Noah's life. Do the arithmetic and the Masoretic text is contradictory at this point. I don't think that Wikipedia is in the business of smoothing out contradictions because editors believe it to be the 'Word of God' Also views which differ from your own aren't necessarily original research. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 18:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
My King James Bible of 1880 (see below) has the Flood beginning in 2349 which is 1655 years from the creation of the world. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 20:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I adjusted the chronology further. By chapter 5 Methuselah died 1656 years after the creation which is the beginning of the 601st year of Noah, the year in which the Earth dried. The Flood began 1655 years and 47 days from the Creation.
Problems arise with the chronology in this article because of the difference between ordinal and cardinal numbers. The Flood does indeed begin in 1656th year but are we reckoning the number of the year or the years elapsed. The chapter 5 chronology suggests years elapsed.
I've given a dual date for Methuselah, the later derived from the chapter 5 chronology, the earlier on the assumption he died either just before or at the beginning of the Flood. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 19:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Sceptic1954 ( talk) 19:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I have it as Methuselah is born in 687AM (assuming Creation is 0AM and not 1AM), and therefore dying in 1656AM, before the Flood. I've heard God delayed the flood by 7 days to mourn for Methuselah, so the flood happened in 1656AM, and ends in 1657AM. Noah is 600 when the Flood ends. Shem, Ham and Japheth were all born in 1557AM when Noah was nearly 501. So they were 99 when the Flood happened. Arphaxad, son of Shem is born 2 years after the flood (1658AM), when Shem is 100, nearly 101. Noah dies in 2006AM when he is 950. Shem dies in 2157AM when he is 600 years old, so he lives for 500 years after the Flood and 499 (though ages 500) after Arphaxad. It sounds like the dates don't add up, but if you factor in months it does work. Basically: 1656AM – Methuselah (687-1656) dies. (Genesis 5) 1656AM – The Great Flood begins 7 days after Methuselah dies. (Genesis 7) 1657AM – The Great Flood ends. Noah and his family leave the Ark. (Genesis 8) 1658AM - Arphaxad is born of Shem. Shem is 100, nearly 101 years old. (Genesis 11) 2006AM – Noah (1056-2006) dies. (Genesis 9) 2157AM – Shem (1557-2157) dies. (Genesis 11) User:Bonobo4 ( talk) 23:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Bonobo4, I see what you mean about the Flood dates and have amended. From chapter 5 you would think that Methuselah died 1656 whole years from the creation in the world, ie at the turn of 1656/7, but from chapter 7 it is much closer to 1655 years but in the 1656th year. I have misread the BC date in the margins of my Bible, so may be misquoting Ussher. Thanks for putting me right.
I don't know how you justify Noah being 'nearly 501' when Shem is born. The Bible is contradictory. It states that Shem is older than his two brothers and he couldn't be born 1556 after creation and was aged 100 1658 years after creation. As I don't read any of this literally the contradiction doesn't bother me in the least and I think it quite intentional. However I can see that it creates problems for those who do read this literally and believe the Bible inerrant. In fact if the Flood ended in 1657 and Arphaxad was born two years after the Flood that could mean Arphaxad was born in 1659 Sceptic1954 ( talk) 09:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe in the bible literally either. But it does work. Let me explain. Noah is born in 1056AM and Methuselah dies in 1656AM, as described in Genesis 5. This was near the end of 1656AM. Shem was born in 1557AM, along with Ham and Japheth, when Noah is nearly 501 years old but still 500. So when the Flood starts in 1656AM Shem is 99 years old and is 100 when it finishes near the end of 1657AM. Nearly a year later, in 1658AM, when Shem is still 100 but nearly 101, Arphaxad is born, 2 years after the Flood. I assume "after the Flood" is after it started, not ends. It's all to do with the months, and that people are "nearly X old but still Y old". Sorry if I've been unclear. It does work, but it requires some study and thought to make it work. My way works and allows a literal interpretation of Genesis. ~~[[User:Bonobo4|Bonobo4]] ([[User talk:Bonobo4|talk]]) ( talk) 20:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Sounds a bit like that great Wiki sin of 'original research':-) I don't think I'd quibble about you offering your dates as an alternative, but it's surely not the only one. I just take the years in chapters 5 and 11 as years and don't try to work out when within the years. The Flood chronology is different. If you can find a neat way of offering your interpretation in the chronology whilst making clear it isn't the only one please go ahead. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 00:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't really know what you mean Sceptic. I'm aware that there are many ways of interpreting it, I'm just offering my alternative which works best for me. Also, the dates of Moses' and Aaron's births and the Exodus, and all subsequent dates need changing by 30 years, since in Exodus it says the Israelites were in Egypt 430 years, so presumably it was rounded down in Genesis when God spoke to Abraham. (Bonobo4)
I am sure there are discrepancies in Exodus but haven't studied these so wouldn't try to revert any edits you might make there. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 16:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Well I'm an Atheist myself (just guessing but your username of Sceptic implies something similar) and so I don't believe any of this. But I'm interested in the subject and felt I could help so here I am. I won't apply the Exodus discrepancy just yet, since I can't be sure if that's accurate. (Bonobo4)
My username doesn't isn't meant to imply 'atheism' but rather scepticism regarding another matter. I wouldn't mind changing it actually. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 22:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
If Abraham was 75 years old when he left Harran, this means he left in 2023AM (Genesis 12), and he later rescues Lot. In Genesis 16, he is 86 when Ishmael is born (2034AM), but in Genesis 15, after Lot is rescued in Genesis 14, Abraham is told of the 400 years of the Israelites in Egypt. So presumably this happens when Abraham is 75, not 70, in 2023AM. Also, there is some discrepancy over when the Exodus is. If it's 400 or 430 years after this promise. The page currently has it as 400 years after Isaac and 430 after the promise, but since there's 25 years between the promise and Isaac this can't be right. This is confusing. Bonobo4 ( talk) 22:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I haven't done any editing. I only edit if I'm absolutely sure of something. Otherwise I just post it here on the discussion section so others can clarify anything I'm unsure of. Bonobo4 ( talk)
If you read this chapter, it details a future siege of Jerusalem. Assuming this is the final siege of Jerusalem in 587BCE, then since Ezekiel "bared Israel's suffering" for 430 days, the original sin of Israel happened 430 years before, or 1017BCE, during the reign of David. This makes little sense to me, it'd make more sense to have the sin at 961BCE, when the United Monarchy fell, but this'd put the Siege at 531BCE, and no such siege exists on historical record, plus this is after the end of the Babylonian Exile. in short, can someone explain this to me, or at least add a relevant date? I know Ezekiel was born in 622BCE, putting this First Vision in 592BCE, during Jehoiachin's Exile, when Ezekiel was 30, so the Siege was after 592BCE. Bonobo4 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
There are mutliple versions of the bible available on Wikisource that can be accessed with internal links s:Bible as needed for reference sources. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Alternatively, biblegateway.com has many translations of the Bible in many languages. Bonobo4 (talk)
Can we ban the IP that's changed all the dates from BCE to BC 4 times in the past day or two? - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 21:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Fine and well and I regard the comments you made. Bear in mind that I'm new with Wikipedia processes. Also, I admitted my mistake and opted for dialogue. So let's not get mean-spirited, k? Thanks. [[ Hamiltucky ( talk) 04:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)]]
Since "The Bible" universally applies to both the Old and New Testaments, and there is no chronology of the New Testament listed here. Anyone Opposed to "Chronology of the Old Testament" with a redirect from "Chronology of the Hebrew Bible" (I don't think I have to prove to anyone that it is more widely known as the Old Testament than as the Hebrew Bible)?
See above discussion for details. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 16:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. Hebrew Scriptures or Hebrew Bible are relatively NPOV terms, and this article doesn't appear to deal with the New Testament at all. If the more recent dates were added, I would support Chronology of the Bible as the title, but as it is now, the article title seems to fall afoul of WP:PRECISE. A redirect from Chronology of the Bible would be a good idea, though, given that it's a more likely search term. Chri$topher 14:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I understand why people want to call it the Hebrew Bible, but we name things according to WP:Commonname. In this case sepecifically I think WP:POVTITLE applies, which states "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria)" even when that name represents a slight POV issues. A Google Ngram clearly shows that the term Old Testament is FAR more prevalent than Hebrew Bible. On top of that, even the term "Hebrew Bible" is NPOV because it implies that there is another Bible. If you are going to argue in this way, the only logical conclusion is to title the article using the English transliteration of what they call their Scriptures in Hebrew( which as PiCo pointed out above, would only add confusion). ReformedArsenal ( talk) 10:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The former Biblical literalist chronology section in this article has been copied to
User:Encyclopedic researcher/Biblical literalist chronology as a
User draft for further work. See further comments on that draft's
talk page.
Cheers. —
Telpardec (
talk)
12:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
See User talk:Encyclopedic researcher/Biblical literalist chronology#answers to objections.
As I write, the first citation is supposed to support the statement that Thompson believes we can piece together a chronology from the bible; that's not what the book says at pages 2-3, where Thompson writes the bible must be read as literature, not as history. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
This statement strikes me as wildly inaccurate.
This paragraph has the definite feel of having been sneaked in by a creationist hoping to imply without saying.
Twin Bird ( talk) 02:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Where do the Masoretic Date (BCE) equivalents come from?? Traditionally, Judaism believes that the world is 5775 years old (as of September 2014). Subtracting this from 2014, would leave you with 3,762 BCE (bearing in mind there was no Year 0). Can someone explain why this list starts with 4124 BCE? Is there a source for it? Benjy613 ( talk) 14:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
User:PiCo, I will desist from making edits in this current article, since I feel my input might be misconstrued or disruptive, and that, of course, would not be my intent. However, please be apprised that there is a vast disparity between the traditional Jewish method of calibrating years based on a carefully guarded oral tradition, as opposed to modern methods used primarily by Christians who rely heavily upon the modern academic methods applied in dating chronology. The two are still reconcilable, but it will take a vast amount of effort and a person of "long wind" (patience) and extreme diligence to even begin to explain where the discrepancies have "crept-in" to ancient chronologies. The Jews insist that there were only 210 years of slavery in Egypt, although the 430 years mentioned in the Hebrew Bible are merely counted from the time of Isaac's birth, until the departure of Israel from Egypt. You see, "strangers in a land not theirs," really begins with Abraham's seed in the land of Canaan. Anyway, my view is not to interrupt your work, but to let it proceed on course. I would, however, have preferred to see you mention more about the "other method" practiced by mainstream Judaism, whether it is accepted or not by Christian or academic circles. This would have given more balance to the current article. I have an inkling that someone will eventually start another article dealing only with the Jewish tradition of biblical chronology.
If I might say, for us, the Scroll of Antiochus is considered a reliable source.
CERTAIN FLAWS WITH MODERN SCHOLARSHIP:
I wish to point out something about modern scholarship that I think we should be aware of. Research has been carried out in France by a certain Christian Robin and André Lemaire on the subject of the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon.
André Lemaire wrote: “The hypothesis of a Sheba in Northern Arabia at the beginning of the 1st millennium BCE (Noth 1968: 223-224; Würthwein 1977: 121; Eph‘al 21984: 88-89, 227-229; Garbini 1984; Sarkiö 1994:190; Mulder 1998: 509-510) has no basis and is generally abandoned (Robin 1992: col. 1109-1110, 1118; Avanzini 1996: 13; Kitchen 1997b: 128.”
He also writes: “The first mention of Sheba in Neo-Assyrian texts is to be dated mid-8th c. BCE with the story of a caravan of 200 camels coming from Tayma and Sheba to Hindanu (Middle-Euphrates) (Cavigneaux – Ismaïl 1990: 339-357; Frame 1995: 300; Younger 2003: 279-282; Holladay 2006: 319-321).”
Contrary to modern scholarship, it should be noted here that, in Jewish tradition, king Solomon did not begin his reign in circa 1,000 BCE, as purported by modern scholarship, but rather in circa 843 BCE, as we find in Jewish tradition. Likewise, in Jewish tradition, the first Temple was destroyed in 422 BCE, rather than in the erroneous date used by scholars of the western world to fix its destruction, i.e. in 586 BCE. Modern scholars totally ignore Jewish tradition and wrongly put historical events at least 200 years earlier, which accounts for the discrepancies in calibrating these important events and not finding historical records to substantiate these events.
The one major flaw in their critical view of Jewish texts is the belief that if they cannot find an archaeological document affirming a certain event mentioned in the Bible, for them it is as though the event never happened. This can also, at times, present difficulties and should also be marked as a fallacy in logic.
To begin to tackle this tremendous difficulty with modern scholarship and Jewish tradition, we must first lay down a premise that will follow us all throughout this discussion, and that is the fact that historical records have been kept by Jews since ancient times, and they have often preserved these written accounts of events by marking their dates in the Seleucid Era counting. This is vital, as without which information, it will be virtually impossible to determine the sequence of events and to correctly compare them with dates in the Julian / Gregorian calendars.
The Aramaic "Scroll of Antiochus," known in Hebrew as "Megillath Benei Hašmonai" (The Scroll of the Sons of Asamoneus), is a curious document, alleged by Rabbi Saadia Gaon in his Introduction to "Ha-Eggron" to have been written by the elders of the schools of Hillel and Shammai in the Chaldaic language, meaning, a document that dates back earlier than the book Seder Olam, composed by Rabbi Yose b. Halpetha in the 2nd century CE. In that book, the "Scroll of Antiochus," we find this remarkable remark, viz., that "from the Second Temple's rebuilding till the 23rd year of the reign of Antiochus Eupator, son of Antiochus Epiphanes, who invaded Judaea, there had transpired 213 years in total."
בִּשׁנַת עַסרִין וּתלָת שְׁנִין לְמִמלְכֵיהּ, בִּשׁנַת מָאתַן וּתלָת עֲסַר שְׁנִין לְבִניַין בֵּית אֱלָהָא דֵיך, שַׁוִּי אַנפּוֹהִי לְמִיסַּק לִירוּשְׁלֵם
Now Antiochus Eupator's father, Antiochus Epiphanes, had died in anno 149 of the Seleucid Era (162 BCE), in which year his son obtained the kingdom, just as we learn in Josephus' "Antiquities" (xii.ix.2). Twenty-three years later, that is, in the year 172 of the Seleucid Era, or what was then 139 BCE, which happened to be the 23rd year of the reign of Antiochus Eupator, the Second Temple had already stood some 213 years, meaning, it was built in 352 BCE! If these figures are correct, and we have no reason to doubt them, this puts Darius' 6th year of reign as 353/2 BCE. Jewish tradition holds that the Second Temple stood for only 420 years. Counting 420 years from 352 BCE brings us to 68 CE, the year of the Second Temple's destruction! To this very day, Jews reckon this date as the destruction of the Second Temple. These are but a few examples of the historical records attesting to Jewish tradition, and which have shown Jewish tradition to be reliable and based solidly on written sources dating back earlier than the Christian era. They should not have been ignored in the current article. Davidbena ( talk) 18:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
While we continue to discuss the framing of this article (see above), let's list the scholarly arguments for different Israelite theological chronologies. This will help us identify (maybe categorize) the different chronological schemes attributed to the Hebrew Bible and link each to reliable sources. (I'm relying mostly on Northcote here.)
Note: Book of Jubilees, MT, LXX and SP each have different chronologies for their takes on the Hebrew Bible. These are chronologies that reflect ancient Israelite/Jewish theology -- not to be confused with the Christian theologies of Luther and Ussher, etc., who fit the Bible into 4,000 yr schemes. There are dozens of Christian POVs about the Israelite chronology. I suppose we could start listing those next. ProfGray ( talk) 04:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, let me suggest we discuss some recent edits here (rather than thru comments on reverts, etc), and I guess I should have broached this before my own edits. At the outset, let me acknowledge that this a great article that demonstrates a tremendous amount of care and work. @ PiCo: @ Melcous: Let's identify the questions which we are answering differently, here's what I'm seeing:
To me, #1 is more complicated than #2. The Bible does not itself state or assert that it has a single, cohesive chronology, in the meaning of this article. (Well, the Bible does arguably assert a chronology through the Book of Chronicles, but that's not even mentioned in the article.) Instead, the Bible's chronology (or chronologies) is something that observed or read into the Bible, by both religious believers and academic scholars. It is my sense that there are quite a few POVs about Biblical chronology. It does seem that the final redactors of the Bible -- who themselves may or may not have been a cohesive group -- are seen by some historians as imposing or refining an overall chronology. But other historians don't see it this way, afaik, nor necessarily do they take the redactor's view as the ultimate or only way of seeing the Bible. So, I think we should be cautious about writing as if there's a single POV and a single chronology.
To me, #2 is a narrower question. Since I don't think enough reliable sources claim that biblical chronology is an implied prophecy toward an end point, then we should err on the side of caution and attribute that notion to Thompson.
Thanks! ProfGray ( talk) 15:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Let me amend your phrasing of the nub of our disagreement, which was helpful of you to clarify, PiCo. It's not whether I (Prof. Gray) agree that there's a single unified chronology. It might be True or not, for me that's irrelevant. My point is that it is not a matter of true/false, it is a Point of View that needs to be attributed to a source and not presented as "The" true interpretation of the Bible. We also disagree about whether or how to reframe the POVs in terms of which Bible (e.g. MT or LXX). So, we seem to disagree (though sometimes you seem quite flexible on this, in principle) about an adjective to narrow the term Biblical chronology and whether to attribute it to a POV or not.
You helpfully mention Barr's encyclopedic article. Yes, it's fine with me if you want to use that! However, let's read it precisely. First, he calls this the Theological chronology of the Bible (or theoretical or literary). That scope is fine with me (within the article we can discuss different POVs of a theological chronology). Second, he says about 4000 yr version, "as has been suggested." This means that (#1) somebody suggested it, and so it can be attached to a name, and (#2) it is only one of various suggestions. As I noted above, Patrides lists 108 suggested theological schematics to fit the Hebrew Bible. Barr isn't a thorough source, since he's leaving out details (like #1's attribution) in this short tertiary piece. Still, it is a Reliable Source that you accept, so let's go with it. To sum up: let me propose that we rename this article Theological chronology of the Hebrew Bible and, in the opening, explain that it's a literary construction of an ancient theoretical or schematic mindset for each version of the canon (Masoretic or LXX) and attribute the 4000 year example (used in the article) to Barr or prior thinkers. Ok? ProfGray ( talk) 11:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This article appears completely ignorant of the work of Floyd Nolan Jones, Chronology of the Old Testament, first published in 1992. Available online here: [1]
Jones solved the Divided Kingdom Chronology by recognizing that the Kingdom of Judah used accession year dating, while the Northern Kingdom of Israel did not. This resulted in additional years in the Northern Kingdom's chronology, as the same year was in many cases counted twice - once for the old king and once for the new king. The method developed by Jones, that he called "triangulation", places his chronology on very solid ground. He holds a duration to be confirmed when it is supported by two other durations that sum up to it.
Theil's work is outdated and has been made obsolete by the work of Jones. It is incomprehensible that the author of this article appears completely ignorant of the existence of Jones' work. It is widely available. Cadwallader ( talk) 05:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Greeting. Perhaps the different chronologies may be reconciled if it were taken into account that timekeeping had been evolving along with the evolution of time itself, e.g. the number zero had not been invented for the first c. two millennia (from a biblically literal perspective); hence a person in the first year of life could only be reckoned as being one year old, a conclusion positively confirmed in the Flood narrative, i.e. comparing “Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came on the earth” (Gen. 7:6 NRSV) with “In the six-hundredth year of Noah’s life [not ‘six hundred first’], in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened” (Gen. 7:11). Evidence of this remains in the way months and days are numbered beginning from one and not zero. Other passages point to the fact that time was counted in terms of the ceiling function, e.g. Joseph imprisoned his brothers three days and let them go the same third day (Gen. 42:17-18), not, as in our present penal system, after seventy-two hours. Another point to consider, though an obvious one, is that two persons born in the same calendar year would not necessarily be the same age all through the year, drawn from the fact that birthdays had been celebrated since at least the time of Pharaoh’s (Gen. 40:20). Grace and peace, Hebraeo ( talk) 20:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Because my suggestion partially retreads ground already discussed by User:ProfGray and User:PiCo, I don’t want to make any rash edits. So I’ll leave this here for discussion. I'll add little bolded bits to make it easier to skim through this monster comment. I apologize in advance for the length of this comment, and I hope I'm not bludgeoning the talk page by doing this.
The opening sentence currently reads:
"The chronology of the Bible is the elaborate system of life-spans, 'generations,' and other means by which the passage of events is measured over the 4,000 years between the Creation of the world and the re-dedication of the Temple in 164 BCE.[1]”
I will argue that (1) the source cited doesn’t quite make the claims the Wikipedia article derives from it. (2) that the 4000-year chronology should be treated as a common scholarly opinion rather than presented as fact. (3) that we can do a very slight rewrite to make the article better without needing any sort of major overhaul.
If we look to the source cited for the first sentence (Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of the Times, p. 234) we get a much more tentative claim that the Wikipedia article makes. For one, Hughes uses “MT’s chronology” instead of “The chronology of the Bible.” That is, he’s not quite willing to speak of a single unified chronology.
As to the 4,000-year period, he presents this with a series of “If” statements. I’ve bolded them here:
Long quotation bit. Feel free to skip to the summary below if you prefer.
“It has often been pointed out that if we ignore the 2-year period between the flood and the birth of Arpachshad, MT’s date for the exodus is two-thirds of the way through a 4000-year era. If this is a deliberate feature of the chronology, then one of the effects of this revision of MT’s chronology is to give greater prominence to the exodus and the events at Sinai, and this agrees with the importance of these events in later Judaism.
“. . . If this was devised to place the exodus two-thirds of the way through a 4000-year era, then it is striking to note that the 3999th year of this era is also the year of the Maccabean rededication of the temple in 164 BC. If we apply the postdating system used in the original version of Priestly chronology, the first year of the rededicated temple is exactly 4000 years from the creation of the world.”
Footnote (234-235): “This association between the year 4000 AM and the rededication of the temple was pointed out by Murtonen (1954:137) and Johnson (1969:32) and has been discussed by Thompson (1974:15) and Hayes (1979:25). Johnson calculated 3756 years for the exile, and 374 years from the edict of Cyrus (538 BC) to 164 BC to arrive at a total of 4000 years instead of 3999 years; but the interval between 587 BC and 538 BC is 49 years rather than 50 years.”
Then, on page 235, “The obvious inference to be drawn from this is that MT’s chronology was created in the Maccabean period and was devised to portray the Maccabean rededication of the temple as the start of a new era of history. But there is a problem that must be considered. This interpretation presupposes that the authors of MT’s chronology had access to accurate chronological information for the period from 587 to 164, whereas evidence from other ancient sources suggests that Jewish writers of the Greco-Roman period had a rather inaccurate notion of postexilic chronology” [Hughes goes on to give various examples of screw-ups by Jewish writers of the period.]
Summary of the quotes: Hughes doesn’t call the 4000 year sequence “the chronology of the Bible”, and Hughes does not express confidence that there actually is an implied 4000 year sequence in the chronology of the Bible. Instead, he views it as a possibility raised “often” (that is, by many scholars). Although he uses the word “often,” he doesn’t go so far as to claim that it’s a non-controversial fact.
Suggestion: Let’s replace the first sentence with the following text:
“The chronology of the Bible is an elaborate system of lifespans, ‘generations,’ and other means by which the passage of events is measured. Many scholars see in the standard Hebrew text ( Masoretic Text) of the Bible an implied span of 4,000 years between the Creation of the world and the rededication of the Temple in 164.” And we’ll use the same citation to Hughes at the end of this bit.
I welcome feedback on this, and out of deference to PiCo’s greater experience as an editor, I won’t make any edit to this page if he objects. Alephb ( talk) 04:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! ProfGray ( talk) 11:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Could we get a less biased summary of the chronology of the Divided Empire than the book cited which criticizes Thiele for being "complicated" and "unique" but goes to revise Assyrian and Egyptian chronology (places Sheshonq I's ascension in 995!)? Tetley's book is essentially revisionism, it shouldn't be cited on wikipedia at all as a mainstream opinion.
Quite a few "non-harmonist" scholars accept Thiele's work, and if the Israelite kings had a bearing on anything outside the Old Testament, many more would. It seems written by a one-sided pov. Thiele's work does not use unwarranted coregencies, implied by the Kings text where mere verses later talks about an overlap any author with basic math skills would've seen. The calendar system is not at all a "complex system of calendars" - there's only two! And these are well-attested. They're used in determining the Fall of Jerusalem was in 587 BC, and not the older date of 586 BC (at least it's independent confirmation if there's a different reason). Siegfried H. Horn uses Babylonian cuneiform evidence to show the Fall reckoning of Judah [7], and the spring reckoning was well-known (Nisan being the first month of the year) from Persian, Babylonian, etc sources. In Nehemiah, the author clearly uses a fall to fall reckoning.
Thiele's work nicely matched Jehu's reign with Assyrian (extrabiblical) chronology such as the Black Obelisk, which Tetley has to reassign to Joram (revisionism again). The only place where there is anything that breaks the simplicity is a switch in Judah's calendar to Spring reckoning during Athaliah's reign (makes sense since she was from the north), and the issue with Pekah's "third" Israelite kingdom, which in no way should cast a shadow on the rest of the work, as it's only one reign date compared to the dozen others (could be a copyist error, as there is one with Jotham's years around there).
Sincerely requesting someone make it a little more nuanced and balanced, because if I made any changes the bias would full swing the opposite way, making the section equally unappealing as the anti-biblicist who originally wrote it. Cornelius ( talk) 09:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 May 2020 and 23 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nmonserrat.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
With Methualeh being a 900 year old human, standard biblical chronology has been disputed for several thousand years.
There are thousands of papers of people trying to correct for these differences, like dividing Methusalehs 900 years by 12 to get 75 years old.
Here is an 1 example of a proposed corrected Biblical Timeline: https://www.academia.edu/20426570/Hebrew_chronology_from_Noah_to_Moses RichMcQuillen ( talk) 21:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
It is unclear which of the "non-biblical" dates are related to extra-biblical historiography. It's just stated that "Dates assigned to such events should not be relied upon as historical fact". It would be beneficial to add remarks that state which of the dates are supported by extra-biblical sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.118.27.253 ( talk) 13:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The last paragaph on the opening section ends with "While some of the events during the monarchic period (10th to 7th centuries BCE) are historical and can be related to extra-biblical historiography, attempts to date Moses and the Exodus, or yet earlier events such as the birth of Abraham, Noah's Flood, or the date of Creation have met with no success. These events and the dates assigned to such events should be relied upon as historical fact". Um, since when? I see by an earlier post that this originally read "These events and the dates assigned to such events should not be relied upon as historical fact", so I am going to change it back unless someone can give some decent information. The source used even says, QUOTE: "Nevertheless, as with the Ussher Chronology, the dates associated with the Seder Olam Rabba Chronology should not be relied upon as fact". SO, I'm going to reinsert the "not" so as to comply with common sense AND the source itself. Vyselink ( talk) 21:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
In the New Testament it is stated that Abraham left Haran after the death of his father. In Christian traditions based on the Masoretic Text Haran is generally taken as firstborn of Terah with Abram born 60 years later and 60 years are added to all dates derived from the birth and age of Abram/Abraham. This is the case for example with Archbishop Usshers' chronology. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 11:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Telpardec I am supported in this by the dates in the margins of an edition of the King James Bible dated 1880. These are to my knowledge derived from Ussher. This has Terah dying in 1921 BC and Abram leaving Haran in the same year. This chronology was widely circulated. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 20:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Birth of Abraham Genesis 21:5 is actually the birth of Isaac.
I don't know what you mean. Genesis 21:5 "And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.". Therefore Isaac was born in 2048AM, as it is listed at the moment. (User talk:Bonobo4) ( talk)
Can someone please add in the rest of the Bible verses that give the dates of the kings after Solomon? Only the first is given, and this is the verse for when Israel was divided, the rest are missing. Bonobo4 ( talk) 02:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay I've added in and fixed/updated the information in 1 Kings 15 and 16, up to the death of King Ahab I of Israel. The dates are wrong though, he reigned 22 not 20 years. Also, if you read 1 Kings 16 there was a sort of Civil war in Israel, and the people of Israel were divided, as half wanted Tibni for King, annd half wanted Omri. It says Omri was declared King but this wasn't official, he officially became King after the death of Tibni 4 years later. I think I got it right but can someone please check this?
Bonobo4 (
talk)
There are many wives and children of Esau mentioned in Genesis and 1 Chronicles, I was wondering if someone knew the genealogy (family tree) or even the dates of births, besides of course Esau which is the same as his twin Jacob/Israel, since I don't think they're given in the Bible. Bonobo4 ( talk) 02:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
In the Masoretic Text the Flood began on day 17 month 2 of the 600th year of Noah's life. Taking the Masoretic text at face value Methuselah may have died, or did die, after the Flood began. A subsequent tradition says that he died a week before the Flood. I have corrected chronology accordingly but have not adjusted for the Septuagint, maybe someone would do this. It's not our job to smooth out any contradictions in the text. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 11:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Telpardec. The link to Ussher's Chronology [1] shows the Flood beginning 1655 years from the creations, in the 600th year of Noah's life. Do the arithmetic and the Masoretic text is contradictory at this point. I don't think that Wikipedia is in the business of smoothing out contradictions because editors believe it to be the 'Word of God' Also views which differ from your own aren't necessarily original research. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 18:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
My King James Bible of 1880 (see below) has the Flood beginning in 2349 which is 1655 years from the creation of the world. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 20:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I adjusted the chronology further. By chapter 5 Methuselah died 1656 years after the creation which is the beginning of the 601st year of Noah, the year in which the Earth dried. The Flood began 1655 years and 47 days from the Creation.
Problems arise with the chronology in this article because of the difference between ordinal and cardinal numbers. The Flood does indeed begin in 1656th year but are we reckoning the number of the year or the years elapsed. The chapter 5 chronology suggests years elapsed.
I've given a dual date for Methuselah, the later derived from the chapter 5 chronology, the earlier on the assumption he died either just before or at the beginning of the Flood. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 19:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Sceptic1954 ( talk) 19:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I have it as Methuselah is born in 687AM (assuming Creation is 0AM and not 1AM), and therefore dying in 1656AM, before the Flood. I've heard God delayed the flood by 7 days to mourn for Methuselah, so the flood happened in 1656AM, and ends in 1657AM. Noah is 600 when the Flood ends. Shem, Ham and Japheth were all born in 1557AM when Noah was nearly 501. So they were 99 when the Flood happened. Arphaxad, son of Shem is born 2 years after the flood (1658AM), when Shem is 100, nearly 101. Noah dies in 2006AM when he is 950. Shem dies in 2157AM when he is 600 years old, so he lives for 500 years after the Flood and 499 (though ages 500) after Arphaxad. It sounds like the dates don't add up, but if you factor in months it does work. Basically: 1656AM – Methuselah (687-1656) dies. (Genesis 5) 1656AM – The Great Flood begins 7 days after Methuselah dies. (Genesis 7) 1657AM – The Great Flood ends. Noah and his family leave the Ark. (Genesis 8) 1658AM - Arphaxad is born of Shem. Shem is 100, nearly 101 years old. (Genesis 11) 2006AM – Noah (1056-2006) dies. (Genesis 9) 2157AM – Shem (1557-2157) dies. (Genesis 11) User:Bonobo4 ( talk) 23:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Bonobo4, I see what you mean about the Flood dates and have amended. From chapter 5 you would think that Methuselah died 1656 whole years from the creation in the world, ie at the turn of 1656/7, but from chapter 7 it is much closer to 1655 years but in the 1656th year. I have misread the BC date in the margins of my Bible, so may be misquoting Ussher. Thanks for putting me right.
I don't know how you justify Noah being 'nearly 501' when Shem is born. The Bible is contradictory. It states that Shem is older than his two brothers and he couldn't be born 1556 after creation and was aged 100 1658 years after creation. As I don't read any of this literally the contradiction doesn't bother me in the least and I think it quite intentional. However I can see that it creates problems for those who do read this literally and believe the Bible inerrant. In fact if the Flood ended in 1657 and Arphaxad was born two years after the Flood that could mean Arphaxad was born in 1659 Sceptic1954 ( talk) 09:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe in the bible literally either. But it does work. Let me explain. Noah is born in 1056AM and Methuselah dies in 1656AM, as described in Genesis 5. This was near the end of 1656AM. Shem was born in 1557AM, along with Ham and Japheth, when Noah is nearly 501 years old but still 500. So when the Flood starts in 1656AM Shem is 99 years old and is 100 when it finishes near the end of 1657AM. Nearly a year later, in 1658AM, when Shem is still 100 but nearly 101, Arphaxad is born, 2 years after the Flood. I assume "after the Flood" is after it started, not ends. It's all to do with the months, and that people are "nearly X old but still Y old". Sorry if I've been unclear. It does work, but it requires some study and thought to make it work. My way works and allows a literal interpretation of Genesis. ~~[[User:Bonobo4|Bonobo4]] ([[User talk:Bonobo4|talk]]) ( talk) 20:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Sounds a bit like that great Wiki sin of 'original research':-) I don't think I'd quibble about you offering your dates as an alternative, but it's surely not the only one. I just take the years in chapters 5 and 11 as years and don't try to work out when within the years. The Flood chronology is different. If you can find a neat way of offering your interpretation in the chronology whilst making clear it isn't the only one please go ahead. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 00:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't really know what you mean Sceptic. I'm aware that there are many ways of interpreting it, I'm just offering my alternative which works best for me. Also, the dates of Moses' and Aaron's births and the Exodus, and all subsequent dates need changing by 30 years, since in Exodus it says the Israelites were in Egypt 430 years, so presumably it was rounded down in Genesis when God spoke to Abraham. (Bonobo4)
I am sure there are discrepancies in Exodus but haven't studied these so wouldn't try to revert any edits you might make there. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 16:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Well I'm an Atheist myself (just guessing but your username of Sceptic implies something similar) and so I don't believe any of this. But I'm interested in the subject and felt I could help so here I am. I won't apply the Exodus discrepancy just yet, since I can't be sure if that's accurate. (Bonobo4)
My username doesn't isn't meant to imply 'atheism' but rather scepticism regarding another matter. I wouldn't mind changing it actually. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 22:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
If Abraham was 75 years old when he left Harran, this means he left in 2023AM (Genesis 12), and he later rescues Lot. In Genesis 16, he is 86 when Ishmael is born (2034AM), but in Genesis 15, after Lot is rescued in Genesis 14, Abraham is told of the 400 years of the Israelites in Egypt. So presumably this happens when Abraham is 75, not 70, in 2023AM. Also, there is some discrepancy over when the Exodus is. If it's 400 or 430 years after this promise. The page currently has it as 400 years after Isaac and 430 after the promise, but since there's 25 years between the promise and Isaac this can't be right. This is confusing. Bonobo4 ( talk) 22:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I haven't done any editing. I only edit if I'm absolutely sure of something. Otherwise I just post it here on the discussion section so others can clarify anything I'm unsure of. Bonobo4 ( talk)
If you read this chapter, it details a future siege of Jerusalem. Assuming this is the final siege of Jerusalem in 587BCE, then since Ezekiel "bared Israel's suffering" for 430 days, the original sin of Israel happened 430 years before, or 1017BCE, during the reign of David. This makes little sense to me, it'd make more sense to have the sin at 961BCE, when the United Monarchy fell, but this'd put the Siege at 531BCE, and no such siege exists on historical record, plus this is after the end of the Babylonian Exile. in short, can someone explain this to me, or at least add a relevant date? I know Ezekiel was born in 622BCE, putting this First Vision in 592BCE, during Jehoiachin's Exile, when Ezekiel was 30, so the Siege was after 592BCE. Bonobo4 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
There are mutliple versions of the bible available on Wikisource that can be accessed with internal links s:Bible as needed for reference sources. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Alternatively, biblegateway.com has many translations of the Bible in many languages. Bonobo4 (talk)
Can we ban the IP that's changed all the dates from BCE to BC 4 times in the past day or two? - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 21:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Fine and well and I regard the comments you made. Bear in mind that I'm new with Wikipedia processes. Also, I admitted my mistake and opted for dialogue. So let's not get mean-spirited, k? Thanks. [[ Hamiltucky ( talk) 04:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)]]
Since "The Bible" universally applies to both the Old and New Testaments, and there is no chronology of the New Testament listed here. Anyone Opposed to "Chronology of the Old Testament" with a redirect from "Chronology of the Hebrew Bible" (I don't think I have to prove to anyone that it is more widely known as the Old Testament than as the Hebrew Bible)?
See above discussion for details. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 16:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. Hebrew Scriptures or Hebrew Bible are relatively NPOV terms, and this article doesn't appear to deal with the New Testament at all. If the more recent dates were added, I would support Chronology of the Bible as the title, but as it is now, the article title seems to fall afoul of WP:PRECISE. A redirect from Chronology of the Bible would be a good idea, though, given that it's a more likely search term. Chri$topher 14:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I understand why people want to call it the Hebrew Bible, but we name things according to WP:Commonname. In this case sepecifically I think WP:POVTITLE applies, which states "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria)" even when that name represents a slight POV issues. A Google Ngram clearly shows that the term Old Testament is FAR more prevalent than Hebrew Bible. On top of that, even the term "Hebrew Bible" is NPOV because it implies that there is another Bible. If you are going to argue in this way, the only logical conclusion is to title the article using the English transliteration of what they call their Scriptures in Hebrew( which as PiCo pointed out above, would only add confusion). ReformedArsenal ( talk) 10:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The former Biblical literalist chronology section in this article has been copied to
User:Encyclopedic researcher/Biblical literalist chronology as a
User draft for further work. See further comments on that draft's
talk page.
Cheers. —
Telpardec (
talk)
12:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
See User talk:Encyclopedic researcher/Biblical literalist chronology#answers to objections.
As I write, the first citation is supposed to support the statement that Thompson believes we can piece together a chronology from the bible; that's not what the book says at pages 2-3, where Thompson writes the bible must be read as literature, not as history. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
This statement strikes me as wildly inaccurate.
This paragraph has the definite feel of having been sneaked in by a creationist hoping to imply without saying.
Twin Bird ( talk) 02:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Where do the Masoretic Date (BCE) equivalents come from?? Traditionally, Judaism believes that the world is 5775 years old (as of September 2014). Subtracting this from 2014, would leave you with 3,762 BCE (bearing in mind there was no Year 0). Can someone explain why this list starts with 4124 BCE? Is there a source for it? Benjy613 ( talk) 14:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
User:PiCo, I will desist from making edits in this current article, since I feel my input might be misconstrued or disruptive, and that, of course, would not be my intent. However, please be apprised that there is a vast disparity between the traditional Jewish method of calibrating years based on a carefully guarded oral tradition, as opposed to modern methods used primarily by Christians who rely heavily upon the modern academic methods applied in dating chronology. The two are still reconcilable, but it will take a vast amount of effort and a person of "long wind" (patience) and extreme diligence to even begin to explain where the discrepancies have "crept-in" to ancient chronologies. The Jews insist that there were only 210 years of slavery in Egypt, although the 430 years mentioned in the Hebrew Bible are merely counted from the time of Isaac's birth, until the departure of Israel from Egypt. You see, "strangers in a land not theirs," really begins with Abraham's seed in the land of Canaan. Anyway, my view is not to interrupt your work, but to let it proceed on course. I would, however, have preferred to see you mention more about the "other method" practiced by mainstream Judaism, whether it is accepted or not by Christian or academic circles. This would have given more balance to the current article. I have an inkling that someone will eventually start another article dealing only with the Jewish tradition of biblical chronology.
If I might say, for us, the Scroll of Antiochus is considered a reliable source.
CERTAIN FLAWS WITH MODERN SCHOLARSHIP:
I wish to point out something about modern scholarship that I think we should be aware of. Research has been carried out in France by a certain Christian Robin and André Lemaire on the subject of the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon.
André Lemaire wrote: “The hypothesis of a Sheba in Northern Arabia at the beginning of the 1st millennium BCE (Noth 1968: 223-224; Würthwein 1977: 121; Eph‘al 21984: 88-89, 227-229; Garbini 1984; Sarkiö 1994:190; Mulder 1998: 509-510) has no basis and is generally abandoned (Robin 1992: col. 1109-1110, 1118; Avanzini 1996: 13; Kitchen 1997b: 128.”
He also writes: “The first mention of Sheba in Neo-Assyrian texts is to be dated mid-8th c. BCE with the story of a caravan of 200 camels coming from Tayma and Sheba to Hindanu (Middle-Euphrates) (Cavigneaux – Ismaïl 1990: 339-357; Frame 1995: 300; Younger 2003: 279-282; Holladay 2006: 319-321).”
Contrary to modern scholarship, it should be noted here that, in Jewish tradition, king Solomon did not begin his reign in circa 1,000 BCE, as purported by modern scholarship, but rather in circa 843 BCE, as we find in Jewish tradition. Likewise, in Jewish tradition, the first Temple was destroyed in 422 BCE, rather than in the erroneous date used by scholars of the western world to fix its destruction, i.e. in 586 BCE. Modern scholars totally ignore Jewish tradition and wrongly put historical events at least 200 years earlier, which accounts for the discrepancies in calibrating these important events and not finding historical records to substantiate these events.
The one major flaw in their critical view of Jewish texts is the belief that if they cannot find an archaeological document affirming a certain event mentioned in the Bible, for them it is as though the event never happened. This can also, at times, present difficulties and should also be marked as a fallacy in logic.
To begin to tackle this tremendous difficulty with modern scholarship and Jewish tradition, we must first lay down a premise that will follow us all throughout this discussion, and that is the fact that historical records have been kept by Jews since ancient times, and they have often preserved these written accounts of events by marking their dates in the Seleucid Era counting. This is vital, as without which information, it will be virtually impossible to determine the sequence of events and to correctly compare them with dates in the Julian / Gregorian calendars.
The Aramaic "Scroll of Antiochus," known in Hebrew as "Megillath Benei Hašmonai" (The Scroll of the Sons of Asamoneus), is a curious document, alleged by Rabbi Saadia Gaon in his Introduction to "Ha-Eggron" to have been written by the elders of the schools of Hillel and Shammai in the Chaldaic language, meaning, a document that dates back earlier than the book Seder Olam, composed by Rabbi Yose b. Halpetha in the 2nd century CE. In that book, the "Scroll of Antiochus," we find this remarkable remark, viz., that "from the Second Temple's rebuilding till the 23rd year of the reign of Antiochus Eupator, son of Antiochus Epiphanes, who invaded Judaea, there had transpired 213 years in total."
בִּשׁנַת עַסרִין וּתלָת שְׁנִין לְמִמלְכֵיהּ, בִּשׁנַת מָאתַן וּתלָת עֲסַר שְׁנִין לְבִניַין בֵּית אֱלָהָא דֵיך, שַׁוִּי אַנפּוֹהִי לְמִיסַּק לִירוּשְׁלֵם
Now Antiochus Eupator's father, Antiochus Epiphanes, had died in anno 149 of the Seleucid Era (162 BCE), in which year his son obtained the kingdom, just as we learn in Josephus' "Antiquities" (xii.ix.2). Twenty-three years later, that is, in the year 172 of the Seleucid Era, or what was then 139 BCE, which happened to be the 23rd year of the reign of Antiochus Eupator, the Second Temple had already stood some 213 years, meaning, it was built in 352 BCE! If these figures are correct, and we have no reason to doubt them, this puts Darius' 6th year of reign as 353/2 BCE. Jewish tradition holds that the Second Temple stood for only 420 years. Counting 420 years from 352 BCE brings us to 68 CE, the year of the Second Temple's destruction! To this very day, Jews reckon this date as the destruction of the Second Temple. These are but a few examples of the historical records attesting to Jewish tradition, and which have shown Jewish tradition to be reliable and based solidly on written sources dating back earlier than the Christian era. They should not have been ignored in the current article. Davidbena ( talk) 18:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
While we continue to discuss the framing of this article (see above), let's list the scholarly arguments for different Israelite theological chronologies. This will help us identify (maybe categorize) the different chronological schemes attributed to the Hebrew Bible and link each to reliable sources. (I'm relying mostly on Northcote here.)
Note: Book of Jubilees, MT, LXX and SP each have different chronologies for their takes on the Hebrew Bible. These are chronologies that reflect ancient Israelite/Jewish theology -- not to be confused with the Christian theologies of Luther and Ussher, etc., who fit the Bible into 4,000 yr schemes. There are dozens of Christian POVs about the Israelite chronology. I suppose we could start listing those next. ProfGray ( talk) 04:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, let me suggest we discuss some recent edits here (rather than thru comments on reverts, etc), and I guess I should have broached this before my own edits. At the outset, let me acknowledge that this a great article that demonstrates a tremendous amount of care and work. @ PiCo: @ Melcous: Let's identify the questions which we are answering differently, here's what I'm seeing:
To me, #1 is more complicated than #2. The Bible does not itself state or assert that it has a single, cohesive chronology, in the meaning of this article. (Well, the Bible does arguably assert a chronology through the Book of Chronicles, but that's not even mentioned in the article.) Instead, the Bible's chronology (or chronologies) is something that observed or read into the Bible, by both religious believers and academic scholars. It is my sense that there are quite a few POVs about Biblical chronology. It does seem that the final redactors of the Bible -- who themselves may or may not have been a cohesive group -- are seen by some historians as imposing or refining an overall chronology. But other historians don't see it this way, afaik, nor necessarily do they take the redactor's view as the ultimate or only way of seeing the Bible. So, I think we should be cautious about writing as if there's a single POV and a single chronology.
To me, #2 is a narrower question. Since I don't think enough reliable sources claim that biblical chronology is an implied prophecy toward an end point, then we should err on the side of caution and attribute that notion to Thompson.
Thanks! ProfGray ( talk) 15:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Let me amend your phrasing of the nub of our disagreement, which was helpful of you to clarify, PiCo. It's not whether I (Prof. Gray) agree that there's a single unified chronology. It might be True or not, for me that's irrelevant. My point is that it is not a matter of true/false, it is a Point of View that needs to be attributed to a source and not presented as "The" true interpretation of the Bible. We also disagree about whether or how to reframe the POVs in terms of which Bible (e.g. MT or LXX). So, we seem to disagree (though sometimes you seem quite flexible on this, in principle) about an adjective to narrow the term Biblical chronology and whether to attribute it to a POV or not.
You helpfully mention Barr's encyclopedic article. Yes, it's fine with me if you want to use that! However, let's read it precisely. First, he calls this the Theological chronology of the Bible (or theoretical or literary). That scope is fine with me (within the article we can discuss different POVs of a theological chronology). Second, he says about 4000 yr version, "as has been suggested." This means that (#1) somebody suggested it, and so it can be attached to a name, and (#2) it is only one of various suggestions. As I noted above, Patrides lists 108 suggested theological schematics to fit the Hebrew Bible. Barr isn't a thorough source, since he's leaving out details (like #1's attribution) in this short tertiary piece. Still, it is a Reliable Source that you accept, so let's go with it. To sum up: let me propose that we rename this article Theological chronology of the Hebrew Bible and, in the opening, explain that it's a literary construction of an ancient theoretical or schematic mindset for each version of the canon (Masoretic or LXX) and attribute the 4000 year example (used in the article) to Barr or prior thinkers. Ok? ProfGray ( talk) 11:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This article appears completely ignorant of the work of Floyd Nolan Jones, Chronology of the Old Testament, first published in 1992. Available online here: [1]
Jones solved the Divided Kingdom Chronology by recognizing that the Kingdom of Judah used accession year dating, while the Northern Kingdom of Israel did not. This resulted in additional years in the Northern Kingdom's chronology, as the same year was in many cases counted twice - once for the old king and once for the new king. The method developed by Jones, that he called "triangulation", places his chronology on very solid ground. He holds a duration to be confirmed when it is supported by two other durations that sum up to it.
Theil's work is outdated and has been made obsolete by the work of Jones. It is incomprehensible that the author of this article appears completely ignorant of the existence of Jones' work. It is widely available. Cadwallader ( talk) 05:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Greeting. Perhaps the different chronologies may be reconciled if it were taken into account that timekeeping had been evolving along with the evolution of time itself, e.g. the number zero had not been invented for the first c. two millennia (from a biblically literal perspective); hence a person in the first year of life could only be reckoned as being one year old, a conclusion positively confirmed in the Flood narrative, i.e. comparing “Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came on the earth” (Gen. 7:6 NRSV) with “In the six-hundredth year of Noah’s life [not ‘six hundred first’], in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened” (Gen. 7:11). Evidence of this remains in the way months and days are numbered beginning from one and not zero. Other passages point to the fact that time was counted in terms of the ceiling function, e.g. Joseph imprisoned his brothers three days and let them go the same third day (Gen. 42:17-18), not, as in our present penal system, after seventy-two hours. Another point to consider, though an obvious one, is that two persons born in the same calendar year would not necessarily be the same age all through the year, drawn from the fact that birthdays had been celebrated since at least the time of Pharaoh’s (Gen. 40:20). Grace and peace, Hebraeo ( talk) 20:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Because my suggestion partially retreads ground already discussed by User:ProfGray and User:PiCo, I don’t want to make any rash edits. So I’ll leave this here for discussion. I'll add little bolded bits to make it easier to skim through this monster comment. I apologize in advance for the length of this comment, and I hope I'm not bludgeoning the talk page by doing this.
The opening sentence currently reads:
"The chronology of the Bible is the elaborate system of life-spans, 'generations,' and other means by which the passage of events is measured over the 4,000 years between the Creation of the world and the re-dedication of the Temple in 164 BCE.[1]”
I will argue that (1) the source cited doesn’t quite make the claims the Wikipedia article derives from it. (2) that the 4000-year chronology should be treated as a common scholarly opinion rather than presented as fact. (3) that we can do a very slight rewrite to make the article better without needing any sort of major overhaul.
If we look to the source cited for the first sentence (Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of the Times, p. 234) we get a much more tentative claim that the Wikipedia article makes. For one, Hughes uses “MT’s chronology” instead of “The chronology of the Bible.” That is, he’s not quite willing to speak of a single unified chronology.
As to the 4,000-year period, he presents this with a series of “If” statements. I’ve bolded them here:
Long quotation bit. Feel free to skip to the summary below if you prefer.
“It has often been pointed out that if we ignore the 2-year period between the flood and the birth of Arpachshad, MT’s date for the exodus is two-thirds of the way through a 4000-year era. If this is a deliberate feature of the chronology, then one of the effects of this revision of MT’s chronology is to give greater prominence to the exodus and the events at Sinai, and this agrees with the importance of these events in later Judaism.
“. . . If this was devised to place the exodus two-thirds of the way through a 4000-year era, then it is striking to note that the 3999th year of this era is also the year of the Maccabean rededication of the temple in 164 BC. If we apply the postdating system used in the original version of Priestly chronology, the first year of the rededicated temple is exactly 4000 years from the creation of the world.”
Footnote (234-235): “This association between the year 4000 AM and the rededication of the temple was pointed out by Murtonen (1954:137) and Johnson (1969:32) and has been discussed by Thompson (1974:15) and Hayes (1979:25). Johnson calculated 3756 years for the exile, and 374 years from the edict of Cyrus (538 BC) to 164 BC to arrive at a total of 4000 years instead of 3999 years; but the interval between 587 BC and 538 BC is 49 years rather than 50 years.”
Then, on page 235, “The obvious inference to be drawn from this is that MT’s chronology was created in the Maccabean period and was devised to portray the Maccabean rededication of the temple as the start of a new era of history. But there is a problem that must be considered. This interpretation presupposes that the authors of MT’s chronology had access to accurate chronological information for the period from 587 to 164, whereas evidence from other ancient sources suggests that Jewish writers of the Greco-Roman period had a rather inaccurate notion of postexilic chronology” [Hughes goes on to give various examples of screw-ups by Jewish writers of the period.]
Summary of the quotes: Hughes doesn’t call the 4000 year sequence “the chronology of the Bible”, and Hughes does not express confidence that there actually is an implied 4000 year sequence in the chronology of the Bible. Instead, he views it as a possibility raised “often” (that is, by many scholars). Although he uses the word “often,” he doesn’t go so far as to claim that it’s a non-controversial fact.
Suggestion: Let’s replace the first sentence with the following text:
“The chronology of the Bible is an elaborate system of lifespans, ‘generations,’ and other means by which the passage of events is measured. Many scholars see in the standard Hebrew text ( Masoretic Text) of the Bible an implied span of 4,000 years between the Creation of the world and the rededication of the Temple in 164.” And we’ll use the same citation to Hughes at the end of this bit.
I welcome feedback on this, and out of deference to PiCo’s greater experience as an editor, I won’t make any edit to this page if he objects. Alephb ( talk) 04:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! ProfGray ( talk) 11:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Could we get a less biased summary of the chronology of the Divided Empire than the book cited which criticizes Thiele for being "complicated" and "unique" but goes to revise Assyrian and Egyptian chronology (places Sheshonq I's ascension in 995!)? Tetley's book is essentially revisionism, it shouldn't be cited on wikipedia at all as a mainstream opinion.
Quite a few "non-harmonist" scholars accept Thiele's work, and if the Israelite kings had a bearing on anything outside the Old Testament, many more would. It seems written by a one-sided pov. Thiele's work does not use unwarranted coregencies, implied by the Kings text where mere verses later talks about an overlap any author with basic math skills would've seen. The calendar system is not at all a "complex system of calendars" - there's only two! And these are well-attested. They're used in determining the Fall of Jerusalem was in 587 BC, and not the older date of 586 BC (at least it's independent confirmation if there's a different reason). Siegfried H. Horn uses Babylonian cuneiform evidence to show the Fall reckoning of Judah [7], and the spring reckoning was well-known (Nisan being the first month of the year) from Persian, Babylonian, etc sources. In Nehemiah, the author clearly uses a fall to fall reckoning.
Thiele's work nicely matched Jehu's reign with Assyrian (extrabiblical) chronology such as the Black Obelisk, which Tetley has to reassign to Joram (revisionism again). The only place where there is anything that breaks the simplicity is a switch in Judah's calendar to Spring reckoning during Athaliah's reign (makes sense since she was from the north), and the issue with Pekah's "third" Israelite kingdom, which in no way should cast a shadow on the rest of the work, as it's only one reign date compared to the dozen others (could be a copyist error, as there is one with Jotham's years around there).
Sincerely requesting someone make it a little more nuanced and balanced, because if I made any changes the bias would full swing the opposite way, making the section equally unappealing as the anti-biblicist who originally wrote it. Cornelius ( talk) 09:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 May 2020 and 23 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nmonserrat.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
With Methualeh being a 900 year old human, standard biblical chronology has been disputed for several thousand years.
There are thousands of papers of people trying to correct for these differences, like dividing Methusalehs 900 years by 12 to get 75 years old.
Here is an 1 example of a proposed corrected Biblical Timeline: https://www.academia.edu/20426570/Hebrew_chronology_from_Noah_to_Moses RichMcQuillen ( talk) 21:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)