Jump to content

Talk:Chronology of the Bible/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Extra-biblical sources

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)

Really?

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)

Alternative Chronology

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)

Overview Table Error

Birth of Abraham Genesis 21:5 is actually the birth of Isaac.

undated ? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

Divided Monarchy Chronology

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)

Edomites

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)

Year of Flood

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)

Apologies if I am unclear. There is a chronology of years in Genesis 5 and 11 and another chronologyof days and months relating to the Flood. I don't really try to marry them up. As I consider the numbers symbolic I just take it that everyone named lived a whole number of years, I don't worry about what time of year they were born. However the day/month Flood chronology can introduce complications and I don't try to resolve these.

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)


Promise to Abraham

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)

Bonobo4, I haven't studied these questions. Please don't wait for me to comment before editing the article. Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:24, 9 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)

I'm afraid I'm not able to check, I tend only to get involved in things which I (think I) already know. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ezekiel 4

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)

I suggest you get hold of a good commentary on Ezekiel, rather than asking questions like this in Wikipedia. (I.e., ask someone who knows). PiCo (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Bible sources

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)

Vandalism

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)

Hi Lisa! I'm the adjustor. I may have gone about it in a ham-fisted manner. Mea culpa. However, as this is a patently Christian article, perhaps this can be discussed. Thoughts? [[Hamiltucky (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)]]
It's patently not a Christian article. It is, if anything, a Jewish article. But it isn't actually either one. It's a Wikipedia article. You can't come in here and push a POV. Perhaps you might benefit from reading WP:NPOV.
Additionally, if you'd taken the time to read the note at the beginning of the article, you would have seen this:
This article deals with the chronology of the Hebrew Bible (or Christian Old Testament). For material on the Christian New Testament, see Chronology of Jesus, Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles, and Timeline of Christianity. For a historical look at the bible see The Bible and history. For the composition of the various books of the Bible, see Dating the Bible.
That doesn't seem all that hard to understand. This is an article on the Hebrew Bible. The fact that Christians co-opted it after the fact doesn't change that. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:38, 19 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)]]

Agreed, civility and assuming good faith are key tenets of Wikipedia and something for all editors to keep in mind. No biting. Thank you, Hamiltucky, for attempting to hash it out here on the talk page. Is it clearer to you now, however, why it may not be the preferred nomenclature in this case? Also note that re-reverting reverts several times without discussion is a big no-no here (see, e.g. WP:EDITWAR), but you are new and have already admitted to ham-fistedness, so no need to lecture you further on that matter. Again, thank you, cheers! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we should change the name of the article to be more specific, 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)? ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that change. Maybe though the suggestion should be a new thread. PiCo (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Title Change

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)

Survey

  • Support change to Chronology of the Hebrew Bible - sorry to be a pain, but what StevenJ81 (talk · contribs) says below (and Lisa (talk · contribs) said earlier) is true, this isn't the Old Testament, it's the Hebrew bible. What's the difference? It's about the books in it (the canon), and the order they're in. The OT is many, many canons - the Protestants have a stripped-down version, the Catholic and Orthodox have many more books. So there's a potential confusion there (what OT are we talking about?) Next, although the Jewish and Protestant bibles have the same books, they're not in the same order - in fact they're quite different. PiCo (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
You do know that the order of the books is not considered Canon by Protestants right? ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm with Lisa (talk · contribs) above: It was originally the Hebrew Bible, and the fact that Christianity co-opted it doesn't change that fact. By all means put a redirect from Chronology of the Old Testament. (On the other hand, I'm not going to lose sleep over this if it goes the other way.) StevenJ81 (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Did you read WP:Commonname and specifically WP:POVTITLE, which specifically says that at times we must use a POV title if it is overwhelmingly known by that title? Furthermore, Chronology of the Hebrew Bible itself is not WP:NPOV. As of 2008, the words "Old Testament" were used 8 times more often than "Hebrew Bible" in books available on Google books... that's pretty significant. ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm just going to point out the fact that WP:Commonname actually says to use a POV title in instances where the POV title is vastly more common than the non-POV title... just like in this case. Also, Hebrew Bible is POV (What about Christians? Is it not part of their Bible as well? How about Muslims? They recognize the Hebrew Bible as Scripture as well and would be deeply offended at calling it the Hebrew Bible) and Tanak is POV (Same reason as Hebrew Bible) and terribly uncommon. ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Using a POV title is one thing. Using an offensive one is quite another. And you're wrong about the Hebrew Bible. It's commonly used among Christian scholars. It isn't "Jewish Bible". It's the books that were originally in Hebrew (or in small part, Aramaic), as opposed to the Christian books, which were originally Greek. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, using POV titles that some would consider offensive when they are overwhelmingly the common name of the subject is policy on Wikipedia per WP:POVTITLE... just like Old Testament (Unless you are really going to argue that Hebrew Bible is MORE common by a drastic amount than Old Testament). ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
That's fine, because the article name currently uses "Bible", which, happily, is both NPOV and the most common name. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 24 April 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)

Threaded Discussion

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 appropriate name is Chronology of the Hebrew Bible. The reason for using common names is to make it easily findable by readers. A redirect from Chronology of the Old Testament can achieve this and avoid offending Jewish readers. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Can of worms!
Yes, the present title is wrong. Furthermore, we need a "Chronology of the New Testament", its non-existence is a gap which is not filled by the linked articles I have found. Now for the difficult bit. Chronologies of the OT seem to fall into three classes. 1) The 'literalist' that attempt to use the biblical data to construct a historical timeline which goes back to the creation round about 4000 BC; 2) The 'archaeological' which treats Genesis 1-11 as a-historical, may place the patriarchs in history between 2000 and 1700, accepts some sort of historicity behind the Exodus which took place in either the 15th or the 13th centuries BC, and begins to accept the biblical data as more or less coherent from the time of Solomon; and 3) a small group of the 'ideological' for which the figures given in the OT are often of symbolic significance rather than anything else.
I consider that a Wikipedia article entitled "Chronology of the Old Testament" should be type 2 because that is what most readers would expect, an attempt to establish as far as possible when certain events happened. This article seems to be mixture of types which lack sufficient indication as to the intention of the various sections: The initial overview hints at type 3; Creation to Flood & Flood to Abraham feel like type 1 while the presentation slides towards type 2 once we get to the divided monarchy. Behind the problem of the title lies the question as to the nature of its contents. I have no clear answers as present but incline towards making this article type 2 which would reflect the majority of academic opinions. In this case some of the current material would best be placed be placed elsewhere - Jpacobb (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
If Type 2 only applies for the period from Solomon on, then wht do you do about the earlier period? For that Solomon-on period it might be useful to do a section on the major modern authors who have dealt with the problem (they all diagree, but not by much). PiCo (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
So far as the material in Genesis 1-11 is concerned, academic opinion is that it does not provide any basis for a type 2 chronology and the article would have to say this. From Abraham to the Conquest, opinions are divided: the Albright-Bright school held that, although no positive identifications can be made which relate the patriarchs to external sources, the narrative fits the early second milenium setting and the Conquest fits into the background of the later part of the same milenium and a tentative chronology can be constructed while recognising that neither the internal biblical nor the external archaeological data fit into an obviously consistent pattern. The opposing school of thought admits that it is impossible to disprove this, but seems to feel that there are so many loose ends that the result is not justified. Moberly and Johnstone cover this ground in some detail in their contributions to "Genesis and Exodus" by John W. Rogerson, R.W.L Moberly and William Johnstone (Sheffield Academic Press: 2001) For our purposes here, I'd pick up the Bright type chronology and include it with appropriate cautionary notes. Jpacobb (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The generic title "Chronology of the Bible" initially implies inclusion of all 3 types discussed above as the scope of the nature of its contents. It would not be inappropriate to include all 3 types under this title, similar in scope to the comprehensive multiple-page encyclopedic articles (some of them 10 to 25 pages in length) in Britannica, Judaica, and others. If, against these as pattern, article comprehensive conciseness and brevity is paramount, then this is suggestive of an alternative creation/revision into 3 distinct articles, or 4, with modifying parenthetical specifications attached to each separate title:
1."Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament, literalist)"—type 1
—from the Creation through to the letter to the Jews in Egypt (2 Maccabees 1:1-9), tabulated arithmetically
2."Chronology of the Bible (Hebrew Tanakh)"
—reflecting Jewish tradition and scholarship
3."Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament, Christian)"—type 2, type 3
—Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant liberal scholarship and academic opinion sourced and combined/collated, inclusive of the "deuterocanonical/Apocrypha" portions and texts
4."Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament, archaeological dating)"—type 2
I have attempted to include a precisely detailed Biblical literalist section ("type 1", above) of all the dates expressly stated in the Old Testament "tabulated arithmetically", which ipso facto presents difficulties for a literal letterist reading of the chronology of the Bible, but it has been twice reverted by one editor as not within the scope of the article and as too long and too detailed to correspond to Wikipedia standards. With respect, I disagree. I have prepared to revise and simplify it, and it may qualify as a separate article, but it could conceivably be incorporated into the current article if all the types discussed above are included within the scope of the nature of its contents. (see User talk:Encyclopedic researcher#Second notice).
--Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Section copied elsewhere

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)

answers to objections

See User talk:Encyclopedic researcher/Biblical literalist chronology#answers to objections.

--Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This process is problematic under WP:MULTI. Be advised, I plan to follow WP:BRD right here in the article space, and I am ignoring anything you have posted to user space that should be posted here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thompson reference says the opposite

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)

Suddenly, Darwin

Until the late nineteenth century Bible Chronology was the most prevalent method for calculating the age of the earth, but was replaced by radiometric calculation methods developed contiguously with the rise of Darwin's theory of evolution.

This statement strikes me as wildly inaccurate.

  1. Surely people were moving away from Biblical chronology well before the late nineteenth century.
  2. There are principles older than radiometric dating that suggest an old Earth.
  3. Most eyebrow-raising, what does geology have to do with Darwin?

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)

BC equivalent dates

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)

Good question, User:Benjy613. I'm all for amending the date and making it conform with Jewish tradition, according to the author of Seder Olam. I am not sure who is responsible for putting up the date 4124 BCE as the year of creation, but it seems to have been based on Josephus' exaggerated figures in the English edition of his Wars - De Bello Judaico (end of book vi, chapter x). That is the only thing I can come-up with, along with perhaps a conflation of other erroneous dates mentioned in the English edition of Josephus.Davidbena (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Where the BCE equivalents come from is a good question, and highly relevant - if it's not sourced, it's OR and shouldn't be there. Even the Masoretic dates are a bit dicey, as there are gaps - most notably the conflicting data on the length of time spent in Egypt. On the Seder Olam, it should certainly be discussed, but not used in the main sections of the article, as SO's chronology is faulty. 180.200.136.161 (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I will see what I can find to rectify the problem. Everything ought to be backed-up by a reliable source.Davidbena (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I've made some substantial revisions, as you'll see. I've removed what I see as a too-heavy reliance on Christian literalist sources and pov, and tried to break the article into two parts, the first simply descriptive, the second dealing with attempts to relate the chronology in the bible to dates BCE. I think the section on Seder Olam is far too long - there's already a whole article on that. There's not enough on Christian religious interpretations (I have a great admiration for Ussher, by the way - he was not an idiot, just a man of his time), and not enough on the work of Finegan and other scholars, who take an essentially serious and secular historical approach. I hope you can see where I'm going with this. As a traditional Jewish scholar, you have much to contribute. PiCo (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Disparity between Traditional Jewish Dates and Academic Dates

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)

Davidbena, I honestly feel bad about causing you pain, because I respect you, but I don't see how I can avoid it. I had two problems with your material. One is quite basic: I found it unreadable. Partly that comes from the fact that English isn't your native tongue, but I think that even more fatally it comes from a certasin background you have as a Jewish scholars - traditional Jewish scholarship operates in a certain way and has a certain language, and it's no doubt fine for other Jewish scholars, but not for general readers, and especially not for the goyim who are the readers of Wikipedia. They just can't follow your line of argument. Even I can't - my eyes glaze over long before I reach the end.
Only second do we we come to the actual content. It's far too detailed. This is a general introduction to a specific subject within Biblical studies, not a detailed analysis and compare-and-contrast. What you've written is more suited to the Seder Olam Rabbah article - in fact I think there's something very similar already there. Our article here does deal with the SO, but only in a single paragraph - but that's quite enough for a general introduction to the subject, at least in my opinion.
Please don't be hurt and angry, it's the last thing I want. PiCo (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure the detail is a sufficient concern; at most, it would be a reason to condense rather the remove the text. But there's another concern, the material is learned but is it original research, hence not within the encyclopedic policies of WP? Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
User:PiCo, Shalom. I can assure you that I am not angry. I would rather say "frustrated," because of what I see as a lack of true understanding and/or acceptance of Jewish tradition. Yes, I agree with you that what I wrote is quite detailed, but it hits the matter on the nail. Jewish tradition is based on ancient chronological records and has solid footing. The Seleucid Era dating has been used by Jews as late as the 2nd half of the 20th century, especially in Yemen. Perhaps my style was a bit "awkward," as I am clearly influenced by our daily use of Hebrew. You are not the first person to tell me that sometimes I write in English as I would in Hebrew, which, I suppose, does not always come across as "academic" ... something that I'll have to work on (lol). In short, it is my view that it will probably be best for all concerned to have a separate article treating on the Jewish tradition of biblical chronology. Be assured that you also have my esteem and I have no hard feelings.Davidbena (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources that estimate the Israelite theological chronology

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.)

  1. 4,000 years from creation to Maccabees 164 BCE in the MT Bible. This POV is first argued (per Hughes p.234 fn,1, Northcote 2004, p.5) by Murtonen, A. "On the chronology of the old testament." Studia Theologica 8.1 (1954): 133-137. This theological chronology only applies to the MT. Scholars themselves concede problems with this POV: "It should be noted, however, that the synchronisation of the MT’s date of AM 4000 with the date of the 2nd temple rededication in 164/5 BCE is not an exact match, because the year AM 4000 actually falls on 161 BCE (if AM 3575 is calculated as Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year) or 162 BCE (if AM 3575 is calculated as Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year)." (Northcote p.5) Barr also refers to this POV in the Oxford Companion ("as has been suggested") without attribution. As Barr says, this and all chronologies are not derived only from the Bible but require extra-biblical evidence. Northcote shows this as well. (See Northcote 20-22, which also shows a 2 year variant that he prefers to harmonize).
  2. 3500 years from creation to Nehemiah mission, i.e., the Nehemiah chronology of the LXX (I think). Northcote says that this chronology was "probably composed by Levites in Jerusalem not long after Nehemiah’s mission, perhaps sometime late in the fifth century BCE (i.e. nearing 400 BCE)." (8) Bousset (1900) apparently sees this schematization, too, but calls it Proto-MT (see Northcote p.8).
  3. 3480 years from creation to the 2nd Temple finished, per B.W. Bousset (1900) (Northcote p.8). 1st Temple at 3000. This is the Proto-MT Jubilees bible.
  4. 4080 years from creation to the 2nd Temple finished, 3600 for 1st Temple. Northcote p.12 says that this ("Saros Chronology") is "the basis for the later LXX chronology and pre-SP chronologies."
  5. 4777 years from creation to the 2nd Temple finished, in a specific LXXA Codex Alexandrus manuscript. (See Northcote 14f) Yet this only works by supplementing LXX with the MT chronology of kings. (The LXX kings would add 45 years…) Even this mss has two other variations! Eusebius uses one variation, favored by Hughes and others. Northcote says the LXX schemes were meant to bring 5,000 years to around 300 BCE Ptolemaic Egypt.
  6. 3000 years from creation to Israelite settlement in the Samaritan Pentateuch. Northcote (p.17) reports this as "Proto-SP chronology" of John Skinner (1910). This is extended to 3900 years to the 2nd Temple finished, which Northcote (18) says shows 1300 rather than 1200 year segments.
  7. Jubilees version of the Hebrew Bible chronology. This differs from proto-MT, MT, SP, and LXXX. But it's "rather unschematic in nature" per Northcote (p.25)
  8. There is a chronology of the Hebrew Bible done by priestly school(s), which presumably incorporated P-source but went beyond Pentatuech. See Hughes, 233 and elsewhere

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)

Framing the notion of chronology and views about it

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:

  1. Does the Hebrew Bible have a single, cohesive chronology? If so, then we can refer to it as "the" chronology (i.e., the internal narrative view of the Bible). This would work if there's a basic consensus among reliable sources on a single chronology. If not, then we might refer to various understandings, POVs, or interpretations of the Bible as a having a single chronology, or even understandings that the Bible contains multiple chronologies.
  2. Does Biblical chronology (whether one or all of them) function as a prophecy to an end point? If all reliable sources see it this way, then our opening is fine. However, if this function is posited by some scholars but not others, then it might be best to qualify it. For instance, it might be a majority view or, if we're not sure, it might be attributed to specific scholar(s).

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)

Thanks for opening this discussion ProfGray - you've raised some crucial questions.
First, with regard to the subject of the article, it's about a certain chronology which scholars refer to as "the" biblical chronology. It runs from Genesis to Kings with addenda in Jeremiah and it draws on Daniel's interpretation of Ezekiel, and it's unified. For this see the books by Tetley and Hughes.
You mentioned in an earlier edit that this is an argument from Thompson, but it's not - Thompson is merely mentioning it. It was first noted by Wellhausen, and is now pretty universally accepted, as the books in the bibliography demonstrate. It's true that there still exist some ultra-conservative evangelicals who insist that the Exodus really happened and that the Flod was real and these could be dated BC if only they could get the details, but they're outside mainstream scholarship.
It is indeed an implied prophecy, as out source says, and this is the standard interpretation. By way of background (this is not covered in the article), there was an original Deuteronomistic chronology, which can be found in Judges for example, and the final redacted chronology is called the Priestly chronology. We're dealing with the Priestly chronology - but at this point the subject gets far to complex for a simple article like ours.
So there's the opening position from me: we're dealing in this article with a specific chronology extending across the Torah and Former Prophets, with some additional touches in the Later Prophets, and we reflect the standard academic position as illustrated by the books in the bibliography.PiCo (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, PiCo, I appreciate the spirit in which you're discussing this. You mentioned Tetley and Hughes. But Tetley seems largely irrelevant to the framing question, since she's concerned with only a subset (Divided Kingdom) and (from what I can tell) doesn't acknowledge the overall Priestly schematic. Hughes seems incredibly helpful to the article (if I understand it correctly). He seems to take a critical perspective (I'm not 100% sure), sees Biblical chronologies as mythic schematics, and examines whether Kings has utility as historical evidence (Hughes is skeptical). However, correct me if I've missed something, Hughes is not claiming that the Bible itself has a single, coherent chronology. Instead he is differentiating:
  • the Priestly chronology (of the world)
  • the Deuteronomistic chronology
  • the "original" chronology of the Book of Kings
  • different Biblical canon chronologies, e.g., LXX and MT (e.g., 240f)
  • later Jewish and Christian efforts at Biblical chronology
Equally important, Hughes not only differentiates these, he does not see these chronologies as harmonized (e.g., 55f., noting where DTR is inconsistent with the P-chronology). The Priestly chronology does not simply and smoothly absorb the others (e.g., he says it is revised by LXX). Indeed, the Priestly does not even cover the whole Bible (see 42, if I grok his point about Ezra-Neh). (FYI. Moreover, he and another scholar (Cross) disagree about the key point of the Priestly schematic (49ff.), so this shows disagreement over whether P-chronology is an implied prophecy.)
Btw, I found a 1963 article by Patrides that listed 108 different chronologies (i.e., estimates of the year of creation). Moreover, Wacholder (HTR 61:3, 1968) shows that there were Hellenistic chronology interpretations that were neither Christian nor Jewish.
So, I'm still wondering about the framing or scope of the article. Certainly the Bible texts shows great interest in chronology. But, if we accept Hughes, there is no single, specific chronology. (If you believe there's a scholarly consensus on single scheme, then please explain your sources.) If the article is only about the Priestly, then we need different articles on the Dtr, LXX, MT, etc., chronologies. If it is about the Christian view of Biblical chronology, then we can focus on Ussher and the like, but it needs to be titled as Christian, right?
It's my sense that the article should open by explaining that the Bible contains a few chronological schemes (or chronologies), which have enabled Jewish and Christian thinkers to propose various reconstructions of an overarching Biblical chronology. Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I understand, your concerned about the scope of the article. The background is that it was originally a whole set of attempts to give dates BC to Biblical events - the Creation, Abraham's birthday, and so on. It was mind-numbingly dull, and way out of kilter with modern scholarship, which sees the vast majority of those events as either fictionalised or outright fable - I guess the modern standard is that the bible only becomes reliable as history in Kings, and not 100% even then.
So, the re-written version narrows the scope down to something manageable and also academically respectable - the way a chronology has been written into the Torah and Former Prophets to underline a theological message through significant numbers. That chronology certainly exists, although not many scholars bother to study or write about it. Usually they write about smaller components, like the Patriarchal lifespans or the Flood chronology or (most popular) the chronology of the kings. But I think they'd all agree, if asked, that these are indeed only segments of a larger whole.
True, there are older chronologies underlying that one - Judges has one that's out of kilter with the overall one, the kings presumably had real chronologies once, and so on. And yes, the LXX and Samaritan chronologies are different. But I think that's getting into too much detail. People tend to come to this article wanting to know in what year the Flood occurred, they don't want to read about Deuteronomists. It will be quite enough if they learn that their question is not one that scholarship engages in, but that the chronology does have a reason for existing, and a message - but a message for 2nd century Jews, not us.
That reads as if it's just my own opinion, but it's not, it's the general opinion of scholars.
Anyway, thanks for reading Hughes so closely. I disagree very slightly with your interpretation of his aims. His aim is to recover an accurate chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah, which is why he sifts down through the Dtr and layers of P chronologies, and compares the LXX and Samaritan Torah - these do exist, but as I said above, it's too much detail for our article. And our article does touch on later Jewish and Christian interpretations of the chronology.
Not sure what I could ask you now ... but I hope this explains why the article is the way it is. PiCo (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad the article has improved and your work on it, PiCo, is really appreciated. If the article scope is "a chronology <> written into the Torah and Former Prophets to underline a theological message," then the article framing (and perhaps name) should reflect that chronology. This is the Priestly Chronology, right? So, this should be stated up front. Then, the article can present a single, exemplary version of the P-chrono, but IMO it should recognize that other understandings of P-chrono exist in scholarship.
(Also, I disagree that the other Biblical chronologies (eg DTR) are "only segments of a larger whole." It might be details and nuance, but that's not what Hughes says and, besides, it's an ahistorical POV. That is, the other chronologies existed on independently and there are reliable sources about them. See what I mean?)
Let me be clear -- you personally do not have to put in details about the other chronologies (eg DTR or LXX). Nor is the article weak without those details. But "too much detail" is not much of a guideline for Wikipedia editing. There are enough scholars (i.e., reliable sources) who do write about those details and who give those details sufficient weight for potential inclusion. We are not required ourselves to write up the details, but let me ask that we frame the article in a way that acknowledges the existence of other chronologies and makes room for other editors to add the details if they wish.
So, I'm not requesting a big rewrite. Only that we choose between (1) an article titled and focused on the P chronology, as a potential subpiece of a main article, or <my preference> (2) an article on Biblical chronology schemes, which explicitly presents a focus on the P-chronology and a specific exemplary version of it. Thanks. I hope this is respectful of your work and a reasonable suggestion. ProfGray (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm late to the discussion and also not sure I can add much expertise as the detail of this discussion is beyond my knowledge of the subject. However, my initial concern was with the way the opening paragraph of the article reads, so let me a offer a "lay" perspective on that. The article currently opens with "The chronology of the Bible is the elaborate system ..." which reads like the article is about one specific chronology, whether because there is only one, or this is the only one in the scope of this article. However, the opening line under the History of Interpretation section talks about the first attempt to turn "the biblical chronology" (different phrasing to lead) into "a chronology of the Bible." (same phrasing as lead) This to me is unclear. Is "the biblical chronology" (which I would understand to mean the chronological data contained within the biblical text) what the article as a whole means by "the chronology of the Bible" in the opening of the lead? Or is "a chronology of the Bible", here, that of the Book of Jubilees (which I would understand to mean an interpretation of the chronological data contained within the Bible extrapolated into a comprehensive chronology) what this article is about? And if it is the latter, which one, or is it about a number of different possible extrapolations?
I hope that makes sense. I would also say I don't think the article needs a major rewrite, I think the opening line (and perhaps as ProfGray has suggested the title) needs to be clarified so that someone who is not an expert on this subject can clearly understand (a) what the main topic of this article is; and (b) how the different chronologies mentioned under the interpretation section (Rabbinic, Christian, Kings) relate to that - the current structure of the article with the headings seems to indicate that they are different examples of what the article is about, but if my reading of your comments here is correct, that is not the case? Melcous (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Melcous: I've re-written the first paragraph to refocus and refine the definition of the topic: the chronology is not a set of chronological data but an "implied prophecy" (Thompson's phrase).
I suggest changing the title to "Biblical chronology". This will help make sense of that first line in the Interpretations section, "The first attempt to turn the Biblical chronology into a chronology of the Bible...". What that means is that the authors who wrote the chronology into the Bible had their own agenda, the inauguration of the Temple in 164, but that for later generations this made no sense and they wanted to use the chronology in their own ways. And yes, the "interpretations" section is about later extrapolations, from the author of Jubilees down to Luther and Ussher, all of them theological in character.
The Biblical chronology is the one written into the books of Genesis through Kings by someone soon after the year 164 BCE; the "chronology/ies of the Bible" are the various uses/interpretations made of that Biblical chronology by later authors, from Jubilees to th Seder Olam to Eusebius to Luther and Ussher. But maybe that choice of phrases is too confusing?
ProfGray has raised the possibility of having more detail, or separate articles. He has a point of course. The Bible text we're dealing with is one of three - it's the Masoretic text, which is used by Jews and Western Christians. But Eastern Orthodox Christians use a different one, the Septuagint (or LXX). A Greek Christian reading this article would wonder what we're talking about. And the third is the Samaritan text, which deals only with the books from Genesis to Joshua, but is different again. Those three Bible texts, plus a few minor variations, can be called parallel texts - they exist side by side. Beneath them there are buried chronologies - the Deuteronomistic chronology in Judges, which makes a mess of any attempt to follow the 480 years that are supposed to pass between the Exodus and the building of Solomon's Temple, and various layers of the Priestly chronology. The one we're looking at in our bibles is the final version of the Priestly chronology, but clearly there were earlier ones. If ProfGray wants to write a comprehensive article on this ... well,ratherhim than me :) PiCo (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
PiCo, I gather that you are acknowledging that this article is about "the final version of the Priestly chronology." This is consistent with the academic study you highlighted above, Hughes. Neither Chronology of the Bible nor Biblical chronology is a sufficiently specific wording for the Priestly chronology. After all, Kings and DTR and LXX and Ussher et alia also offer Biblical chronologies. And we wouldn't want to snub them, eh? (joke) So, let's either rename this Priestly chronology of the Hebrew Bible or keep the current name for a comprehensive article about all the Biblical chronologies, including all POVs claiming to know "The" Biblical chronology. Which would you prefer? Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC) @Melcous: ProfGray (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe most academic scholars would call the chronology in the modern OT the Biblical chronology, or possibly the Masoretic chronology (far less common). The Priestly chronology is the chronology of the Priestly source, found only in the Torah/Pentateuch - Hughes would dispute that of course - see his page 41. The Deuteronomistic chronology takes over where the Priestly source leaves of, and gets its name from the books it's found in, the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua to Kings), although in practice it's found only in Judges and Samuel, and Kings has a different chronology again although still called Deuteronomistic. The Kings chronology is interesting because it might be based on real history, at least for the last few kings. But the subject of our article is the unified chronology that runs through Genesis-Kings, and that's not Priestly. Or to put that another way, the Biblical chronology is the chronology of the canonical OT, and the Priestly and Deuteronomistic chronologies are older strata.
See Hughes on p.121 where he sets out his thesis that the Deuteronomistic chronology was modified by post-exilic priestly authors - this is quite interesting.
Can you suggest some books? this seems important (gets referenced frequently) though I haven't had time to read it yet. PiCo (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'm glad we're in conversation but I find this frustrating. It feels like we are going in circles because you continue to assert that there is "the unified chronology." As I've tried to explain, this strikes me as an uncritical (possibly religious) view, due to the multiple conflicting claims to such a chronology, and it suggests that the article here has WP:SYNTH as it harmonizes a single chronology without attribution to any given theologian or scholar. Instead, I'd say there are different theories or constructions of a unified chronology, eg Ussher's. Perhaps I'm wrong, but doesn't Hughes think that the priestly school edits more than the Pentateuch, also Ezra and others? As with you point about p.121? Anyway, I'm fine with the title and scope of Masoretic chronology as long as you've got reliable sources using that terminology. Otherwise, it seems that the article should be reframed and any harmonizing of chronologies must be attributed, even if to a religious source such as Ussher. ProfGray (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
PiCo, Just realized you added the link to Northcote's article. Do you like that Northcote? His piece again underscores the problem with talking about a single, unified chronology. He argues for several different, competing chronologies. If you want, you could use him to refocus the article on the Masoretic chronology or you could use him to help frame the multiplicity of overarching chronologies. (Personally, I would think that Hughes' approach also deserves mention.) Of course, the article should openly attribute Northcote's approach to him -- and be prepared to adjust the article if editors bring other scholars dispute or refute him. Ok? ProfGray (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
P.S. This book -- The Levitical Authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah by Kyung-Jin Min (and dissertation pdf is online) -- confirms that scholars have argued for priestly authorship of E-N and Chronicles, and hence (with the Pentateuch) a fair degree of editorial control over nearly an entire Biblical chronology (cp. Hughes). So, a Priestly chronology article remains an option. ProfGray (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This is the nub of the problem: you don't agree with me that there's a single unified chronology, and you feel that "Priestly chronology" would be an acceptable term. How can I convince you otherwise?
Well, there's James Barr in the Oxford Companion to the Bible, which a pretty authoritative source. (This opens to page 117). He says that "the main body of chronological material in the Hebrew bible" falls into three segments - in other words, a single chronology, in three parts. Those three parts are explicit (he says) from Genesis to Kings - which is what our article says. Move then to page 119, where he says "if, as has been suggested, a figure of 4000 was held in mind..." - he's talking about the 4000 year chronology and the 164 end-date. In short, this is not something that T.L. Thompson dreamed up, but an area of serious academic study. As such, it's not a synthesis, and it merits an article.
I haven't read "The Levitical Authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah", so thanks for pointing it out. I haven't read Northcote's article yet either, but it seems to be important, I keep seeing it referenced. What you say about priestly authorship of much of the OT is pretty much correct, except that it's priestly, not Priestly - the Priestly chronology is the chronology in the Priestly source, it's just a conventional way of referring to that source in the Pentateuch, but it's not used for priests who write other works. PiCo (talk) 09:00, 21 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)

Barr says there are two aspects to the Bible chronology, the real chronology of actual events, and the theological. Our article looks at both of those. Section 1 discusses the theological chronology, and section 2 discusses various attempts to find a real chronology of real events. Under "real" chronology Barr discusses the ways in which chronological information is given (we do that in the first sentence), but doesn't try to actually give dates. His entire discussion of that aspect takes up a single column - we have far more detail in section 2. We also say what Barr does not, that attempts to give real dates to events like the Creation and the Flood and the Exodus are doomed to failure, as the multiple theories outlined in our article illustrates. This clears a bit for the events in Kings, for which we refer the reader to a separate article.
In short our article doesn't cover just the theological chronology and exclude the "real" one, it covers both.
Barr does say that the overarching 4000 year chronology has been "suggested", but the suggestion is a strong one with well-nigh universal acceptance, as witnessed by the fact that writers keep mentioning it - Barr, Thompson, Hughes, all used in our article, plus many more outside. It's more a broad consensus. But to settle this, can I suggest asking someone like Jim Davila at St Andrews or Niels-Peter Lemche? They're quite approachable and all we'd be asking would be their opinion on how widely-based is acceptance of this overarching 4000 year chronology. PiCo (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The article is not about both the historical ("real") and theological chronologies. In describing the scope, the opening itself says, "It is theological, not historical in the modern sense." Section 2 barely touches on the historical, it's mostly about interpretations (rabbinic and Christian). The Kings section is very weak. If you really want the article to address both, then it needs a significant rewrite and certainly the first 2 paragraphs would need to be totally redone. It'd be fine to have an article that covers both, but this doesn't look like it right now, sorry. I'm surprised by this turn in the conversation. Are you sure this is what you want? ProfGray (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
When the article says the chronology "is theological, not historical in the modern sense," it's quoting a source (Christensen). Barr says much the same: "Biblical dates in the earlier stages, taken alone, leave us to question whether they rest on accurate memory or on theoretical schematicism" (page 118, top of the second column). More recent authors would be less charitable - it's pretty universally accepted that nothing prior to David is historically reliable, and that even David and Solomon and the earlier history in Kings is problematic (see the third para of the lead and the various books it cites). In real history, Israel (northern kingdom) emerges around 800 BCE and Judah a century or so later and there's no united kingdom. So the article accurately reflects current scholarship in saying that there is no "real" chronology except for the later kings, and even that's problematic. Or do you feel this isn't the case? PiCo (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Is the article about theological and literary constructed chronologies alone? Or are you claiming that this article includes the real chronology of actual events of the Biblical period? If the latter, then it would need to be merged with History of ancient Israel and Judah and deal with all sorts of archaeological evidence, before, during, and after the kings. There is no indication that this article seriously grapples with the evidence of actual events, plus it would be a POV fork if it tried. While I don't mind discussing this aspect further, it is inappropriate to try to stop me from editing the article (as in your comment when you reverted my edit in toto) on this strained basis.
At this stage, we are at an impasse and need to go to dispute resolution. The dispute concerns: (a) the scope of the article, whether it is theological chronology or claims to encompass the real historical events covered in several other WP articles, (b) the name of the article, and (c) the use of a single chronology, without recognition of any others, vs. presentation of different theological chronologies as documented by reliable sources. Meanwhile, I strongly urge you to allow me to edit this article with info based on reliable sources. ProfGray (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
If you're a genuine university professor, I strongly suggest you send an email to Lemche or Davila or someone to find out more about this subject. PiCo (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Floyd Nolan Jones - Chronology of the Old Testament

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)

In academic terms, Floyd Nolan's work is the sort of work described on the wikipedia policy page wp:fringe, so that's why Wikipedia has ignored him.Alephb (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly reconciling discrepancies between chronologies

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)

We cannot do this kind of research on Wikipedia (WP:OR). If a very notable work of a notable scholar (a reliable secondary source, WP:RS) discusses important new theological chronologies, then we may be able to include information about them, with references. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

A Suggestion for the First Sentence

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)

PS I am perfectly content with the 4000-year chronology dominating the lead, because as far as I can tell it also has a very prominent place in scholarship. It's just that I have some doubts about whether it is considered scholarly consensus. Here's some quotes by scholars who don't go so far as to treat it as a consensus view:
Oxford Companion to the Bible (1993), entry for "Chronology" (James Barr). “If, as is possible, the Exodus took place in 2666 AM, is it perhaps significant that this is almost exactly two-thirds of 4000? . . . If, as has been suggested, a figure of 4000 was held in mind, the present biblical chronology might be predicated upon the rededication of the Temple (about 164 BCE) after its profanation by Antiochus, which would establish a connection with Daniel, as well as with the books of Enoch and Jubilees." This wording is reprinted here: [2].
“Perhaps the most widely accepted hypothesis regarding the chronology of the MT in its present condition is that the year AM 2666 for the exodus represents 26 2/3 generations of 100 year or two-thirds of a world cycle (Great Year) of 4,000 years.” page 32, Marshall D. Johnson The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies. Second edition (2002), first edition (1969) by Cambridge UP. [3]
“Noteworthy, finally, is the hypothesis according to which the overall biblical chronology is based on a 4000-year cycle of Zoroastrian inspiration, a 'Great Year,' inserted into the biblical narrative calculating backwards from the same point in time, namely, the purification of the temple and the restoration of the temple cult in 164 BCE.” Joseph Blenkinsopp, Opening the Sealed Book. (page 87) [4]] Eerdmans (2006).
Blenkinsopp again (104, Sage, Priest, Prophet): “If this is not pure coincidence, it implies that the original chronology, focused on the sanctuary, was updated in the same spirit some time in the second century BCE.” [5]
Philip R. Davies (2015), The History of Ancient Israel: A Guide for the Perplexed. “More significantly, the Exodus occurs at a point (2666) that is two-thirds of 4,000. By adding the remaining 375 years we arrive - in our modern calculations - at 538 - 375 = 163 BCE, the date of the rededication of the temple by Judas Maccabee. Of course, this calculation implies that the framers of the chronology were aware of the accurate figure. So possibly the endpoint is the year of desecration (167), or even a date a little in the future, the date of the expected eschaton . . . If so, the present Masoretic chronology dates from the second century BCE.” [6] Note that while Davies does hold to some sort of 4000-year scheme, he doesn't claim that it is scholarly consensus, and he allows for some wiggle room about its endpoint.
All right. That's enough of my going on and on. I'll leave this up to the community to decide. Alephb (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The Johnson quote you give us looks useful: “Perhaps the most widely accepted hypothesis regarding the chronology of the MT in its present condition is that the year AM 2666 for the exodus represents 26 2/3 generations of 100 year or two-thirds of a world cycle (Great Year) of 4,000 years.” This could be rejigged as "The chronology of the bible marks out a world cycle (Great Year) of 4,000 years, beginning with Creation and ending, presumably, in around 164 BCE, with the year AM 2666 for the exodus representing 26 2/3 generations of 100 year or two-thirds of the total.” We'd need a second source for the 164 date, but there are plenty. Would you like to draft it? I wouldn't be too concerned with mentioning the MT in the lead sentence - most readers simply assume that when we say Bible we mean MT. The nuance could be covered in a note. (No Notes section in the article at the moment; Don't wait toooooo long for additional comment, this isn't the most-watched article on Wikipedia :) ).PiCo (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed that we don't need to mention the MT in the lead -- anyone who wants to go deeper into the article figures out that the 4000-year set-up is based on the MT, and the default Bible for almost all readers is MT anyhow. (Reading Emanuel Tov got me into distinguishing the MT specifically when I write, but it's not needed here.) All right, combining the original wording with my suggestions and your suggestions, how about we replace the first sentence with the quote below? If it sits well with you, I won't wait for any additional comment -- I'll just put it in and if anyone objects we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
"The chronology of the Bible is an elaborate system of lifespans, 'generations,' and other means by which the passage of events is measured, beginning with creation and extending through other significant events. A widespread scholarly understanding is that the Bible marks out a world cycle (Great Year) of 4,000 years, beginning with Creation and ending, presumably, around 164 BCE, with the year AM 2666 for the exodus representing 26 2/3 of 100 years or two-thirds of the total." cite Johnson, cite Davies, cite Blenkinsopp (Opening the Sealed Book, not the other quote), cite Barr. Since Wikipedia's not paper and the quotes add useful detail, add the relevant quotes into the footnotes for Johnson, Davies, Blenkinsopp.
That would be the whole extent of my proposed change. The article handles everything else really well. How's that sound? Alephb (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
That looks fine to me :) PiCo (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Belated reply. The current, revised lead (lede) has improved, in my view, thanks to both Alephb and PiCo. It no longer affirms the 4,000 yrs in the first spread, but considers it a "widespread" view. (I suspect it's not widespread. It gets mentioned by some, as noted above, but it's ignored by many or most scholars. Granted, I don't have a source to show how much it is ignored.) However, since "chronology" cover the various generations, etc., then I think the article is too heavily weighted toward claims about the overall timespan (4,000 and alternatives) and not enough about all the extensive academic scholarship on the separate elements of chronology, such as the Pentateuch genealogies, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, etc. A good model would be the Israelite Kings section. I don't fault PiCo who has done extensive work on this article, but it would be helpful to cover the separate elements can be covered in greater depth and thereby help give the article more balance. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 Christian use and development of biblical chronology

Renamed this section and moved it, because it is not about historical corroboration, but rather about the theological development of a unified chronology. It's quite useful and it'd be great to expand, such as by citing those scholars/theologians between Ussher and Thompson.
Also, is it okay to change 'Christ' to 'Jesus' when not quoting a religious source?

Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Who first mentions the 4000 for the MT?

PiCo, above you mentioned Wellhausen. But now I see that W doesn't actually relate the 4000 to the MT. He only mentions the 2666, as noted by Thompson. So who proposed the hypothesis, before Thompson, that the 4000 ends with the rededication of the Temple (and not Jesus' birth)? Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Israelite Kings section

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Standard Biblical Chronology is highly disputed before David

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)

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology#cite_note-7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronology_of_the_Bible/Archive_4&oldid=1229063299"