The Sabbath and Jubilee Cycle FRONT COVERThis page intentionally left blank . Ancient World Chronology A Series by Qadesh La Yahweh PressThis page intentionally left blank .Preface to the Series C orrect history cannot stand without an accurate chronology. As Edwin Thiele so poignantly expressed it, “Without exact chronology there can be no exact history.” 1 Albert T. Olmstead, likewise, argued, “For the historian the framework is chronology.” He then adds: Without chronology, there can be no history, since history itself is merely a record of human events in time relation. Sad to admit, chronology is the most tricky subject with which the historian must deal, and special attention is always devoted to its intrica- cies in the historical seminar. 2 Yet if chronology is the skeletal framework upon which the meat of history clings, Israelite chronology is surely the backbone upon which all of ancient world history is fastened. It stands in this important position for two reasons: • First, unlike the histories of other ancient nations, the chronology found in ancient Israelite sources forms the only complete official and contin- uous chronology of a people spanning the entirety of their early civiliza- tion. Furthermore, this history extends down to more well-known historical times. A comparison of our present MT (Masoretic Text), which is a truncated version of the original with the LXX and various ancient fragments and documents of Scriptures recently found at both Qumran and other places in Israel has only served to verify its accuracy. Secular records from this earlier bygone era for other nations, on the other hand, are disjointed and incomplete. They contain many unex- plained discrepancies, with ill-defined, overlapping reigns and dynas- ties, leaving a great deal to guesswork. • Second, various historical events, the names of ancient contemporary foreign kings, and important empires are discussed and dated by the Israelite records. Kings, events, and empires, accordingly, can be “clocked in” to Israelite history, thereby providing a solid foundation upon which we can place their historical settings. At the same time, within the secular records produced by these other civilizations we find the names of still other contemporary kings and events. This cross-refer- encing then branches out to construct the chronological framework for the ancient world. iii 1 MNHK, p. 33. 2 JNES, 2.1, p. 6. Israelite chronology, as a result, becomes the backbone upon which all the remaining supporting skeletal structure of ancient world chronologies rest— and, subsequently, any proper understanding of ancient history. Indeed, with few exceptions, it fills the void left by secular history for the periods prior to the collapse of the Assyrian Empire in 610 B.C.E. The popular chronologies advanced today for this early period are not only disputed by scholars them- selves (various long and short arrangements being advocated) but they have been largely based upon unsound assumptions and unproven theories. It is remarkable that in the post-Assyrian world—beginning with the Neo- Babylonian Empire, for which we have relatively abundant information— Scriptures provide us with no more than a sketchy outline. In fact, what information we do possess from the Israelite sources relies heavily upon sec- ular history to be correctly dated and understood. Yet when we reach back into the Assyrian period and those times preceding it, the roles played by bib- lical and secular sources are reversed. It is the scriptural record that proves to be the light guiding us through the darkness of this more remote past. Flaws in Previous Attempts There have been numerous attempts to master Israelite chronology, ranging from the interpretations of the ancient 3rd century B.C.E. chronologist named Demetrius and the 2nd century B.C.E. book of Jubilees down to the numerous works produced from our own time, including the important studies by Edwin Thiele and William Foxwell Albright. 3 Yet these efforts have all suffered from overinterpretation, laced with the subtle art of superimposing personal preju- dice upon scriptural data. These distortions have resulted in a nightmare of conflicting opinions and contradictory chronologies. A NCIENT A TTEMPTS Various Jewish and Christian chronologists from the 3rd century B.C.E. for- ward have distorted Israelite history by stacking the reigns of the Israelite kings found in Scriptures, shortening some periods, and falsely lengthening others. In the Septuagint, for example, the scribes supplied an additional 100 years to the lives of many early patriarchs, 4 thereby claiming hundreds of years more for historical periods beyond those found in the MT. It is not known whether these longer dates existed in the earliest copies of the LXX, which was a translation commissioned by an Egyptian king during the 3rd century B.C.E. Yet by the 1st century C.E. these figures do appear and are in ivAncient World Chronology 3 For the fragments of Demetrius the Chronographer, see OTP, 2, pp. 843–854. For examples of Thiele’s work, see JNES, 3.3, pp. 137–186; JBL, 93.2, pp. 174–200; MNHK; CHK; and SFPOT. For examples of Albright’s work, see BASOR, 58, pp. 10–18, 100, pp. 16–22, 130, pp. 4–11; JBL, 51.2, pp. 77–106; BA, 5.4, pp. 49–55; JPOS, 1.1, pp. 49–79. 4 E.g., cf. the king lists from the MT at Gen., 5:1–32, and 11:10–26, with the LXX version. That the pre-Flood patriarchs were kings, e.g., see Jos., Antiq., 1:3:3, who refers to Noah’s kingship. In addition, the pre-Flood patriarchs from Adam to Noah—identified in the Chaldaean King List as the period from Aloros (the first man) to Xisouthros (the king who survived the Flood)—are all referred to as kings, and their years of reign are provided (Syncellus, 18, 30; Eusebius, Chron., p. 9). conflict with the dates found in the MT, reflecting the different interpretations prevalent during that time. On the other hand, as mentioned earlier, the MT is a truncated version of earlier texts. Kainan, for example, is left out of the chronological list of the descendants of Shem,5 the story of the circumcision of the sons of Moses is incomplete,6 and many other details are absent through- out the text. Patrick W. Skehan, during his discussion of the book of Samuel, for example, reports: For with all due respect to the scholars who would have it otherwise, it has long been held by serious students of Samuel that in their case the Masoretic text presents us with a truncated text with notable omissions, both deliberate and accidental; it is a text that is much below the standard of excellence observable in the received text of other Old Testament books.7 Julian Morgenstern in his discussions on these works comments: The additional variant readings of LXX and Sam. are less likely the result of textual corruption than of individual revision and glossation of various manu- scripts from which these versions were made. For a time the text of Gen. 1, AS WELL AS OF THE ENTIRE TORAH, must have varied somewhat in minor details in different manuscripts, until eventu- ally an official, approved, and accepted text was fixed by the authorities of the time, presumably the Soferim or the Great Synod. In this way the creation story in Gen. 1–2:4 came into being in practically its present form in the Masoretic Text.8 Frank Moore Cross, Jr., while comparing the books in the MT with other various ancient versions, likewise points out: The agreement between the text of Chronicles and 4Q Sam a is most significant. It makes clear now that the text of the Deuteronomic history used by the Chronicler toward 400 B.C. was by no means identi- cal with the received text. Yet it is equally clear that the Chronicler used the Old Palestinian text current in Jerusalem in his day. 9 Most of these efforts to extend or shorten the biblical chronology were born out of a desire to satisfy the writer’s personal need to compete with other vPreface to the Series 5 Cf. MT at Gen., 10:24, 11:10–14, with LXX Gen., 10:24, 11:10–14; Luke, 3:35f; Jub., 8:1–6; etc. 6 Cf. MT at Exod., 4:18–27, cf. Yashar, 78:7–79:14, which gives the more complete account. 7 BA, 28.3, p. 97. 8 AJSLL, 36.3, p. 212. 9 HTR, 57.4, p. 294. contemporary national and religious histories or to justify certain desired interpretations. Dying civilizations (especially those of the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians), ever since the fall of the Assyrian Empire, had begun to offer exaggerated and stacked chronologies to fortify their respective claims to antiquity, fame, and authority. To demonstrate, in the 3rd century B.C.E., the Chaldaean priest Berosus (Berossus, Berosos, etc.) wrote a book on Chaldaean history and its chronology. Shortly thereafter, an Egyptian priest from Sebennytos by the name of Manetho composed his own book on Egyptian history and its chronology. Each text clearly touted the antiquity of their respective homelands. In doing so, they demonstrate the competition between the two regions for the glory of being the oldest civilization. In this regard, the Byzantine historian George Syncellus referred to these two com- petitive writers as liars due to their exaggerations. He states: . . . what Manetho of Sebennytos wrote to Ptolemy Philadelphus about the Egyptian dynasties is full of lies, written both in imitation of Berossos and at about the same time as Berossos or a little later. . . . If one carefully examines the underlying chronological lists of events, one will have full confidence that the design of both is false, as both Berossos and Manetho, as I have said before, want to glorify each his own nation: Berossos the Chaldaean, Manetho the Egyptian. 10 More recently, William Gillian Waddell similarly writes: The works of Manetho and Bêrôssos may be inter- preted as an expression of the rivalry of the two kings, Ptolemy and Antiochus, each seeking to pro- claim the great antiquity of his land. 11 Neither were these two civilizations the only competitors. For example, the ancient writer Justin reports: The nation of the Skuth (Scythians) was always regarded as very ancient; although there was a long standing dispute between them and the Egyptians concerning the antiquity of their respective peoples. 12 In response to such exaggerated pagan histories, various Jewish and Christian writers during the Greek and Roman periods, using sundry tech- niques of their own, were able to push the biblical dates back much further than the original text would allow. Some of these ancient chronographers reorganized and exaggerated Israelite chronology in order to make Jewish history competitive with that of other nations. W. G. Waddell, as a case in viAncient World Chronology 10 FGrH, 609 T 11c, cf. 11b. 11 Waddell, Manetho, p. x. 12 Justin, 2:1. point, observed that the list of Egyptian dynasties created by Manetho in his Egyptian History, which stacked the reigns of kings on top of each other and ignored contemporary kings and dynasties, was “used by the Jews when they engaged in polemic against Egyptians in order to prove their extreme antiqui- ty.” 13 The “lengthened” dates created in the LXX, as another example, were very probably motivated by their desire to create a Jewish history that could compete with the claim made by these other nations. Some chronologies appear to have been built upon the long-established view that the messiah would appear in the 5th millennial day and again at the beginning of the 7th millennial day. Indeed, there was a firm belief among many Christians and Jews alike that the seven days of creation were, in fact, a prophecy of the Age of Man and the coming Age of the Messiah. One day in Scriptures was prophetically counted “as a thousand years.” 14 The first 6 days (6 thousand years), therefore, belonged to the reign of man and Satan, while the 7th millennial day (the great millennial Sabbath) would be ruled by the messiah. 15 The 8th millennial day that follows will be the Judgment Day, at which time the great general resurrection of all mankind will take place. 16 Yet to bring the 6th millennial day closer to their own time, more years were required than existed in the official Biblical record. The “lying pen” of some of “the scribes” 17 appears to have accommodated their desired outcomes. Of course there were various other views as well, especially regarding the messiah’s arrival at the beginning of the 5th millennial day. 18 In either case, this messianic expectation was present everywhere during 1st century C.E. Judaea. Suetonius, writing in the early part of the 2nd century C.E. and while discussing events occurring in the reign of Vespasian (69–79 C.E.), comments: There had spread over all the East an old and estab- lished belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judaea to rule the world. This predic- tion, referring to the emperor of Rome, as afterwards appeared from the event, the people of Judaea took to themselves; accordingly they revolted and after killing their governor, they routed the consular ruler of Syria as well, when he came to the rescue, and took one of his eagles. 19 viiPreface to the Series 13 Waddell, Manetho, p. ix. 14 Ps., 84:10, 90:4; 2 Pet., 3:7–10. Cf. Justin Martyr, Trypho, 80:5, 81:3f; Jub., 4:30; Gen. Rab., 8:2, 19:8, 22:1; Eusebius, H.E., 3:39; Hippolytus, On Dan., 2:4; Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 4:16:1, 5:28:3; Commodianus, 35; and so forth. 15 Heb., 3:7–4:11; Rev., 20:4–8. Cf. Papias, frag. 6 (Eusebius, H.E., 3:39); Justin Martyr, Trypho, 81:3f.; Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 5:2–3; Hippolytus, On Gen., 49:27, §3, On Dan., 2:4. 16 See APPC. 17 Jer., 8:8. 18 E.g., see B. Sanh., 97a–b; cf. B. A.Zar., 9a. Hos., 6:2, speaks of two millennial days passing from the death of the messiah until the First Resurrection at the beginning of the Sabbath millen- nial day (i.e., the 7th millennial day), see SBT, Sanh., 97a, n. 33; cf. Rev., 20:1–5. 19 Suetonius, 8:4:5. Next >