Wow, I'm glad you expressed what you are getting out of this! You are mistaken.
Jcannon,
And so i understand you clearly, you reject the theory put forth in the 'The bible unearthed' and side solely with a biblical version of history correct?
regards
Steve
No. that is not correct. The "Bible Unearthed" puts forth a theory of why Solomon is dated too early based upon revisionism of Jewish history during a later period, rather than revision of Greek history. That's the only difference. We BOTH agree or don't contradict the RC14 dating say that would date the level IV at Rehov associated with Shishak's invasion to where it points to, the highest probability being to 871BCE. So both of us are claiming revisionism in the historical record. Finkelstein thus basically asserts that the Babylonian and Assyrian chronology are accurate and thus the bases his Bible timeline on that based upon the Battle of Karkar occurring in 853BCE. It's a simple matter then of counting back about 72 years to the 5th of Rehoboam. That's where they get 925BCE. But it is my opinion that misrepresents the Bible's own chronology, which contradicts relative and absolute history for the NB and Persian Periods. So I do not reject at all the archaeological dating, in fact, I'm thankful to Finkelstein for putting it all together, linking the various sites and levels. But his theory is based on the conventional timeline out of Babylon which was revised with the help of the Greeks so his dating comparison is subject to that, regardless.
after thought:
after reading your post, isn't the point of evidence to follow it where it leads you rather than trying to shoe horn into a whatever holy book you need to validate?
I totally agree. But do you think Finkelstein is going to do that? Forget it! For instance, I quoted him from his book where he clearly mentions Rehov's RC14 dating and says that it falls clearly in the "mid-ninth century." He thus uses the scientific information to bash the Bible under the presumption of Shishak's invasion per the Bible falling in 925BCE. But, does he will follow through with his own chronology? The 925BCE dating is based on the fixed dating of the Assyrian Period based upon a single eclipse occurring in 763BCE. The link event from the Assyrian chronology into Biblical chronology is the Battle of Karkar in the 6th of Shalmaneser 90 years after the eclipse which falls in 853BCE. Guess what? 853BCE is just about as close to "mid-ninth century" as you can get! Normally there is about a 72-year gap from the Battle of Karkar to the 5th of Rehoboam, right? (925 - 853 = 72). So how is it now that all the evidence is pointing to (1) that this level was destroyed by Shishak, and (2) that this level was destroyed per RC14 dating around 871, though Finkelsteins extends that to mid-ninth century, and it not contradict the Persian timeline? There is no way to harmonize this. That is, the RC14 dating not only contradicts the 925BCE dating for Shishak but the Battle of Karkar in 853BCE upon which it is based. But do you think Finkelstein will "follow here it leads" and start challenging the fixed Assyrian timeline? Of course not! He cops out totally and in his later book wants to associate the Level IV destruction which he now is clearly showing is consistent with Shishak's invasion, with saying Shishak didn't do this attack, it must have been Hazeal later on, and then basically ignores the primary dating found from RC14 pointint to 876-867 BCE and tries to push this destructive level far enough past the Battle of Karkar in 853BCE so that it doesn't conflict with that very specifix and fixed dating. So he totally abandons Shishak for this level later on. So is he really following the evidence. No! That's why he's a JOKE. He wants it both ways but can't have.
He's a joke because all of this is resolved if you simply downdate everything by 54 years and use the 709BCE eclipse instead. The 763BCE eclipse is already in question even by casual reference on the net by Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/760s_BC
"June 15, 763 BC - A solar eclipse at this date (in month Sivan) is used to fix the chronology of the Ancient Near East. However, it should be noted that it requires Nisan 1 to fall on March 20, 763 BC, which was 8 to 9 days before the vernal equinox (March 28/29 at that time) and Babylonians never started their calendar year before the spring equinox. Main article: Assyrian eclipse"
So there is plenty of evidence that the Assyrian timeline itself is too early, but Finkelstein prefers to have us believe the Bible writers for some reason wanted to move the glorious time of Omri to the make-believe person of Solomon.
I, on the other hand, can completely escape your challenge of bias by retrodating from the primary date. That is, per the chart, the highest probability date for Shishak's invasion is 876-867BCE with the absolute center of the range provided being 870.5 BCE. I can presume this is the most accurate dating and see what kind of chronology I get if I date Shishak's invasion to 871BCE specifically, year 39 of Solomon as the Bible indicates. That would date the 4th of Solomon to 906BCE and the Exodus in 1386BCE. That in turns dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE. That in turn harmonizes with the VAT4956 dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in 511BCE, dating that would downdate the entire NB Period by 57 years. The closes matched eclipse during the Assyrian Period for that adjustment is the 709BCE eclipse which is 54 years after 763BCE, but it is the conventional third month, with the first month occurring after the equinox, not before as in the case of 763 BCE. So in this case, I can follow the evidence precisely without a blink. Finkelstein cannot. The fact is, he's painted himself into a corner here. He'll have to go with the conventional chronology and ignore the RC14 dating, or go with the RC14 dating and change the Assyrian dating to make things match. In the meantime, since serious Bible students don't use that timeline anyway, it's really not our problem. The archaeology agrees with the Bible's timeline this time, and strongly so.
His view is that the evidence fit a particular view of history that has come from this evidence, however their is no emotional vested interest, if he was completely proven wrong tomorrow, one man ego 'may' be hurt.
Oh, paleeeze! This is an archaeologist. He is supposed to be talking about archaeology. Do you know what he and his co-writer Neil Asher Silberman write about? He has a whole chapter on: "Messianic Visions - David and Solomon, from Judaism to Christianity." Here's a quote: "Yet it is obvious that the great ideological switch that occurred in the postexilic period--namely, the use of David and Solomon as the avatars of later religious belif, rather than dynastic fortune--gave rise to a wide range of interpretations that would be influential among the new religious variations that gradually evolved within Judaism, and later in Christianity." (Page 234, "David and Solomon")
So why is Finkelstein, an archaeologist, suddenly an exegetical interpreter of church doctrine? That's not his field of expertise. But he's entitled like everyone else, sure, but to say he has no "emotional vested interested" is certainly not the case. Problem is, he never gets to square one of making David and Solomon "mythical" if he uses the wrong timeline to do so. The Bible dates Solomon precisely where the archaeology does. Do you realize what that means? It means if the buildings that they found occur during the time Solomon lived per the accurate Bible chronology, then the Bible writers were correct in saying Solomon built these buildings. In which case they were not lying or revising desperately during the postexilic period as Finkelstein is trying to claim! His entire argument is no stronger than the weakest link, the distorted chronology timeline from the Greeks. So where does that argument go now? Since Finkelstein clearly is not going to use the RC14 dating to challenge the fixed Assyrian timeline, even though there is a clear contradiction, we have no choice but to presume he and Silberman's true motive was to get more anti-Biblical and anti-messianic bashing credibility from the discrepancy in the Solomonic dating now contradicted by more and more archaeological evidence. Problem is, all he does is confirm more and more that the Bible's timeline that lowers Solomon's rule to 910-870BCE is precisely correct and thus the 1st of Cyrus should be dated to 455BCE as the Bible indicates. So it's totally a miss here. It only works in the narrow range of how substantiated and stable the Assyrian chronology is, and the VAT4956 alone redates that by 54-57 years automatically by virtue of having both the revised and original dating in the same text. So it's basically over. Finkelstein is just JOKE. His entire theory evaporates into thin air with the very archaeological evidence he presents.
This is what i find so amazing, when seeing anyone ( i am not aiming this at you ) tyring to align evidence to fit their own holy book, and the reason are far more suspect than some one just putting a theory out there, what happens when history proves something in the bible wrong??...
That's just it, the Bible is not wrong. The Bible cross-dates and cross-references lots of chronology, so several prophecies have to line up with actual dated events to be correct. It is such a science now and so absolute it cannot be wrong. Also, there were only a couple of options anyway. It's not like what we have now is going to change completely and then we have to change. It's all ABSOLUTE now.
well huge emotional investments are at stake so we have comments like Richard Hess, saying
"However, it may be noted that the 480 years mentioned in 1 Kings 6:1 may be symbolic and not refer to a specific date" which to me show the how the bible leaks.
You would think is a God was going to get a book penned about himself, it would show and prove in every light without fault and how greatly knowledge the author has, yet it fails time and again. But as a man-made book written for political end, it does pretty well.
The Bible doesn't leak. Those like the WTS and others who find the Bible isn't working out with their timelines then try to ignore or twist things. You might accuse me of the same thing, but I offer you to examine it. In fact, come to think of it, what my chronology does, all my research into all the ancient history, is allows me NOT to have to use the Bible to get the dating I want. For instance, I want Cyrus to begin his rule in 455BCE, right? It's easy for me to get that from the Bible. But I can get that several ways from other sources. For instance, the VAT4956 that dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzer to both 511BCE and 568BCE, dismissing 568BCE as a fake date. That means his 23rd year falls in 525BCE. I then use Josephus to confirm that 70 years expired from the last deportation until the 1st of Cyrus. Year 23 was the year of the last deportation. Thus Cyrus per the VAT4956 and Josephus would date the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE. Did I mention Jesus? No. Did I mention the 70 weeks prophecy? No. See. Easy.
Same with the Peloponnesian War eclipse that doesn't work in 431BCE. I found the original in 402BCE which dates the beginning of that war in 403BCE. That means the 30-year peace agreement ends in 394BCE, the 10th year of the War. Xerxes invasion thus falls in 424BCE. I check that for an Olympic year and it works! The Battle of Marathon occurs in 434BCE, 10 years earlier. Darius dies at Marathon in his sixth year. Thus this should be the same year the temple is completed, which began 21 years earlier. 21 plus 434 is 455BCE. See how that works?
Same with Artaxerxes II dying in the 8th year of the war, 396BCE. He ruled for 41 years and thus began his rule in 437BCE. Artaxerxes II and Xerxes were the same king so they began ruling at age 18, the same year their father began to rule. Of course, Persepolis proves that Xerxes was already an adult in the 4th year of Darius when the city was begun, so that doesn't work. Still if we calculate back to the birth of Xerxes he is born in 455BCE, the same year Cyrus began to reign. Thus we know where that legend came from. Xerxes was the first child of Darius and Atossa who was born after Cyrus took over kingship of the entire empire and thus he was the first royal heir under that new empire and thus became king designate ahead of his older brothers. 455 BCE without the Bible as a primary source. Let me count the ways!
So its really just a matter of BEING INFORMED. I share my research and let people make up their own minds. I even write archaeologists like Finkelstein and Mazar and authors like Furuli and let them go their own way. That's all I can do. Besides trying not to laugh sometimes.
JCanon
