|
Chapter 2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Page 71 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the book Adam When? as well as in this volume, we have very carefully studied the Biblical evidence
that gives us the timetable of the history of the world. Because the Bible speaks very precisely and because we
can trust it implicitly by virtue of the fact that it is God's Word, we have been enabled to develop the Biblical
calendar from the beginning of time all the way to the end of the nation of the ten tribes of Israel, which were
destroyed in 709 B.C. by the Assyrian king. If we were to extend the calendar into our time, we must have a trustworthy means of relating our secular calendar to the Biblical calendar. When we use the language of our calendar in dating creation or any other Biblical event, how do we know we have made a correct and accurate tie between the Biblical calendar and the secular calendar? It isn't that we need further corroboration. The Biblical information is so extensive and so consistent in tying the timing of significant Biblical events to the first coming and the second coming of Christ that we really do not need more proofs. But because the focus of the time line of history as developed from the Bible and presented in the book Adam When? and in this volume is so awesome, so incredibly important, we desire to seek out and weigh every shred of evidence that bears on this tremendously important subject. Therefore, we still want to know: How do we begin to tie the Biblical calendar to the secular calendar? Apart from the corroborating evidence of the Biblical time paths, has this procedure been done accurately as the Biblical calendar is interrelated with the secular calendar, which we call the Julian or Gregorian calendar? The Measurement of Time Is Controlled by God As we study the question of the calendar, the first principle that should be declared is that the measurement of time is not in the hands of men. The length of a day and the length of a year are carefully controlled
by God. It is not mankind who has decided on the length of a day or that there are 365.2422 days in a year. God has done that. On the fourth day of creation, God placed the timekeepers in the sky, including the sun, the moon and the stars. We read in Genesis 1:14-18:
With this information in hand, we know that regardless of how man marks off the passage of time, he can never change the fact that there are 365.2422 days in the year. Using sophisticated equipment, astronomers can measure the movements of the celestial timekeepers, but they cannot change the results.
The fact that the movements of the heavenly bodies as well as that of the earth are entirely under the control
of God and are designed by God to give mankind absolute timekeepers, provides the means by which the Biblical calendar
can be harmonized with and tied into the secular calendar.
similar future events with great accuracy, but he can also reconstruct with identical accuracy what has been the case at any time in the past. All of this becomes relevant when we realize that God has enabled man to keep records. Of course, no human record can approach the perfect accuracy of the Biblical record; nevertheless, the movement of the heavenly bodies has greater increased the accuracy of the record keeping of the secular writers. Thus, if an ancient historian, in writing about the pharaohs of ancient Egypt, recorded that on such and such a day, in the third year of the reign of a particular pharaoh, there was a solar eclipse, we can immediately know what the possible years are for the third year of this pharaoh. This is so because astronomically during that period of history, there were only certain very precise days when a solar eclipse did occur. Thus, even though the ancient secular record cannot be nearly as accurate as the Biblical record, these astronomical citations enable us to harmonize the two records. It might be noted that secular records, as seen in the ancient stelae and even entire libraries uncovered by archaeologists, give evidence of the extreme interest that ancient nations have had in astronomical events. The Bible Gives Information Concerning Heathen Kings The second fact that greatly helps us to accurately tie the Biblical calendar to the secular calendar is that of the Biblical notices concerning heathen kings. As we carefully search the Bible, we sometimes discover bits of information that concern heathen kings and sometimes it is precise information. For example, the Bible is very clear that the pharaoh who resisted God's plan for the people of Israel to leave Egypt, died the same day that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea. Another example is that the Bible declares in II Kings 24:12 that it was in the eighth year of the king of Babylon that King Jehoiachin was taken from the throne of Judah. In Nehemiah 2:1, God ties another Biblical event to the twentieth year of the reign of Artaxerxes, king of the Medes and Persians. Citations of this king, coupled with astronomical data that has been found in the ancient secular writings, assure us that we can accurately mesh
the Biblical record with the secular calendar. We can continue our study, we will examine a number of tie-in points.
Information from Assyria and Babylon
recorded and "Ahab; the Israelite," is named as one of these kings. This battle is placed in the sixth year of the Assyrian king, which would be 853 B.C.2. Therefore, Ahab must have been alive and reigning in that year. Additionally, on the Black Obelisk of Shamaneser III, the Assyrian records the taking of tribute from the Israelite king, Jehu. This is dated in this ancient record as having taken place in the Assyrian king's eighteenth year of 841 B.C.3 Thus, Jehu must have been reigning in the year 841 B.C. When we went through the Biblical record, we found that the last year of Ahab was 853 B.C. We also found that the first year of Jehu was 841 B.C. This indicates an exact synchronization between the Biblical calendar and the Julian calendar. This is so because if the two calendars were shifted even one year in either direction from each other, either Ahab or Jehu would no longer identify with both the Biblical and the secular calendars. We thus have one very exact "fix" between the secular and the Biblical calendars. A Second "Fix" A second exact "fix" between the two calendars will be found in connection with the destruction of Samaria in 709 B.C. The Biblical record based on 931 B.C. being the first year of Jeroboam's reign over Israel indicates that Israel's last king, Hoshea, was conquered in 709 B.C. by the Assyrian king. The Biblical record of the end of Israel is found in II Kings 17:1-6 and II Kings 18:9-10. II Kings 17:1-6:
II Kings 18:9-10:
Significantly, in this citation, Shalmaneser, king of Assyria (he is Shalmanezer V of the archaeological record), began the assault on Samaria. However, when the city was taken, Shalmaneser is not named. Rather, the Bible declares that the king of Assyria took Samaria. There is a very important reason why Shalmaneser is not named as the Assyrian king who took Samaria, but that reason is known because of information given in the secular record. As indicated earlier in this study, because of the lists of kings that have been discovered on ancient tablets and because of the astronomical fix of 763 B.C., the Assyrian kings who reigned form 891 B.C. to 727 B.C. are given quite accurately. Actually, archaeologists have found an accurate list of kings all the way to 648 B.C.,4 but they have one error and that is in connection with the reign of Shalmaneser V. Apparently, few records from his reigns have been found. However, a Babylonian tablet written during the reign of King Darius (500-499 B.C.), which covers Assyrian and Babylonian of his reign and his immediate successor was Sargon II.5 Based on this record, which was recorded more than two hundred years after Shalmaneser reigned, archaeologist place his reign from 727 to 722 B.C., and Sargon's reign from 721 or 722 to 705 B.C. Because the Bible clearly states that Shalmaneser came against Hoshea, and because archaeologists place more credence in the archaeological record than in the Biblical record, they try hard to prove that Samaria
was taken by Shalmaneser in the year 722 B.C. To accomplish this, they ascribe errors to the Bible, and try to show that Hoshea reigned twelve years earlier than the Bible says he did.6
But when we start with the correct premise, that the Bible only is absolutely dependable, then we find beautiful
corroboration between the Biblical and the secular record. Indeed, we discover another "fix" that ties
the Biblical calendar to the secular or Julian calendar. Let us develop this information.
One of the records from the city of Khorsabad declares: 8
Curiously, archaeologists have not been able to harmonize this information with the Biblical record, which shows that Samaria was taken in 709 B.C. And 709 B.C., according to the archaeologist record, was the year Sargon became ruler of Babylon. Even though he had ruled Assyria to some degree for the previous twelve years, in his thirteenth year, there was a substantial change in his rulership. First of all, it was the year he became ruler over Babylon. What else could have changed in that year? We know from the secular record that Sargon reigned over Assyria from 722 to 705 B.C. There appears to be sufficient information available from the archaeological record to demonstrate this. But we know from the Biblical record that Shalmaneser also reigned over Assyria at least during the first seven of the years of the reign of Hoshea, and Hoshea's reign was in the year 718-709 B.C. Therefore, it is obvious that there was some kind of co.-regency between Shalmaneser and Sargon, beginning in the year 722 B.C. In fact, there is some evidence that Sargon may have been the brother of Shalmaneser. 9 Because Sargon speaks of 709 B.C. as his first
year, it may be that in the previous year, 710 B.C., Shalmaneser died. Thus, in the year 709 B.C., for the first time, Sargon was the sole ruler. It is possible that he died in his conflict with Samaria. In any case, it was Sargon who was the Assyria-Babylonian king who conquered Samaria in 709 B.C. Possibly, little is found from the reign of Shalmaneser because Sargon could have destroyed much of the historical evidence of Shalmaneser reign. The records of his exploits found in the city of Khorsabad strongly suggest that he was a very vain man. Therefore, it surely would be in character for him to remove evidence that Shalmaneser, who had been co-regent with him for twelve years, would get any credit for this notable victory over Samaria. It's interesting that God turned the record around and named Shalmaneser and speaks of Sargon only as the king of Assyria.
In the secular record, reference to this event has been found, which also dates it at 701 B.C. Dr. Finegan reports: 10
Dr. Finegan uses the phrase "may be the same" because, as we learned earlier, archaeologists have dared to say that errors have come into the Bible, particularly in connection with the end of the nation of Israel. Since the Bible teaches so clearly that Hezekiah began to reign in the third year of Hoshea (II Kings 18:1), any reconstruction of the place of Hoshea in the chronological timetable is bound to weaken the trust of these archaeologists as to the place of Hezekiah in the chronological timetable.
We know that the Bible is absolutely true. We see this again when the archaeological record places the campaign
of Sennacherib against Jerusalem in 701 B.C., even as does the Biblical record. Remember that the secular record
ties into the Julian calendar because of astronomical evidence. When the Biblical record and secular record agree,
we have evidence that the archaeological and the astronomers have done their work accurately.
There is additional Biblical evidence that the year 701 B.C. is the fourteenth year of Hezekiah. It is found in II Kings 19:29 in connection with the Bible's account of the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib. There we read:
We have learned that the Jubilee years of the Old Testament are always those years that end in 57 or 07.* Thus, we are certain that the year 707 B.C. was a Jubilee year. The next six years, 706, 705, 704, 703, 702, and 701, were normal years, and the seventh year, 700 B.C., was a Sabbath year. It was in the year 701 B.C. that Sennacherib laid siege to Jerusalem. Therefore, because of the siege, there would have been no planting or harvesting during the year 701 B.C. Because the next year, 700 B.C., was a Sabbath year, there was not to be any planting or harvesting that year. This was to be so even though the siege of Jerusalem was no longer taking place in 700 B.C. Thus, the prophet Isaiah told Hezekiah that in this year (701 B.C.), since, in view of the siege, there could have been no planting, they were to eat what grew of itself. Since the second year was a Sabbath year, they could not plant, but god gave them permission to eat what grew of itself. The third year was a normal non-Sabbath year, so they could again plant and harvest. By this citation, God has given additional evidence by which we are able to check the accuracy of the chronology, from the period starting with the entrance of Israel into Canaan in 1407 B.C., all the way to 701 B.C. If an error of one or more years had crept in, the statement of II Kings 19:19 would not fit.
* See "Appendix 1. The Year of the Jubilee."
So we have found three excellent "fixes" that relate the Biblical calendar to the Julian calendar.
When we add those that identify with the pharaohs of Egypt and which we will presently examine, we can believe
with the utmost confidence that we can project our Julian calendar all the way back to creation in 11,013 B.C.
The Bible records that the son of Josiah, Jehoahaz, then became king, but after three months, the king of Judah took Jehoahaz captive and placed his brother Jehoiakim on the throne. In Jeremiah 46:2, we find the record of the defeat of the Egyptians by Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim.
This is an important citation because according to the secular record, Nebuchadnezzar was the son of the Babylonian king, Nabopolassar.
It was while Nebuchadnezzar was engaged in conquering the Egyptian forces, which were in the Euphrates River area, that he received word that his father had died. Thus, the secular record indicates that in September 605 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar became king of Babylon. Jeremiah indicates that this was in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. In Jeremiah 25:1 the Bible speaks of this year as the first year of Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon:
Because Nebuchadrezzar ascended the throne in September of 605 B.C., his first year by the non-accession year system was 605 B.C. On the other hand, his official year by the accession year system was the next year, 604 B.C. Thus, the year 587 B.C., when he conquered Judah was his eighteenth year by the non-accession year system, and it was his eighteenth year by the accession year system. A Problem has Arisen in Calendar Alignment In our effort to be as careful as possible to set forth any and all information that bears on our study, a problem must be introduced. Isn't it true that the secular and sacred calendars cannot be exactly aligned because each calendar has a different beginning month, and doesn't that create serious problems in aligning the two calendar records? Let's examine that question. It is true that there is no precise alignment between the Jewish calendar and the secular calendar. The first month of the Julian calendar is January, but the first month of the Jewish calendar is Nisan, which approximates our March or April. Exodus 12:1-2 states, "And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you." (Esther 3:7) that Israel and the Passover was instituted. Nisan (Abib) was instituted by God to be the first month of the calendar year. But in all probability, another calendar existed in which the seventh month, Tishri, was also looked upon at his first month of the year. Indeed
on the third century after Christ, it was popularized as the beginning of the year even as today Rosh Hashanah, which is Tishri, is regarded as the Jewish New Years. However, the Bible never speaks of any calendar except that Biblical calendar wherein Nisan 1 is beginning of each new year. It is true that two verse (Exodus 16:33, Exodus 34:22), are worded in such a way that they may possibly imply that a calendar beginning with Tishri 1 did exist. A non-Biblical source, the ancient Michnah, makes reference to both calendars by the word:
Which the Michmah, which was an integral part of the Jewish Talmud is not God's Word, nevertheless, it agrees with the Biblical calendar wherein the beginning of a year in connection with the reign of kings was Nisan 1. Remember that the Jewish months are governed by the moon. Each year a new moon, which begins a new month, comes at a different time. Therefore, we must speak of Nisan as coming sometime in March or April. Therefore, any historical event that occurred between March-April and December 31 is always the same year, whether identified with the Jewish calendar or the Julian calendar. On the other hand, an event that occurred between January 1 and March-April would be recorded as being one year earlier by the Jewish calendar than by the Julian calendar. In almost all calendar calculations, this fact becomes of non consequence. All of the important feast days, from the Passover all the way through to the end of the feast of tabernacles, occurred after March-April (Nisan 1) and before December 31. Therefore, they would have been recorded as the same year by both the Jewish calendar and the Julian calendar.
* Handbook of Biblical Chronology, by Jack Finegan, page 89.
Moreover, with rare exceptions, warfare occurred during the period from late spring to the fall of the year. Since it was in battle that kings were frequently killed, changes in rulership are, therefore, recorded as the same year by both calendar systems. Furthermore, since Nisan 1 to December 31 is approximately a nine-month period, whereas January 1 to Nisan 1 is approximately three months, the likelihood of an event happening during the nine-month period, when the years by both calendars are equal, is far greater than an event occurring during the three-month period, when the calendars are one year apart. The Bible Guides Us through the Problem Years In addition, as we carefully study the Bible, we discover that God indicates in more than one instance that we should know that an historical event took place during the three-month period from January 1 of our calendar and Nisan 1 of the Jewish calendar, so that we will remain accurate when meshing the two calendars together. For example, we read the account that God has given us is in connection with the reign of Jehoiachin and the reign of Zedekiah, who followed him. We know from the Biblical record that Jehoiachin's father reigned for eleven years, and the last year of his reign was 598 B.C. We are then instructed by the Bible that Jehoiachin, his son, reigned for three months and ten days. Jehoiachin was followed by his uncle, Zedekiah, who reigned for eleven years. With no further information, we might then conclude that Jehoiakim's last year was 598 B.C. Jeconiah's (Jehoiachin) last month was probably also in 598 B.C., and Zedekiah's initial year was also 598 B.C., with his first official year being 597 B.C., because that was his first full year. However, God gives us a little bit more information and also has supplied through the secular record even more detailed information so that we can more accurately know that Jehoiakim's last year was 598 B.C. But Jeconiah's reign of three months and ten days began in December of 598 B.C. and ended in the early spring of 597 B.C. We can know with certainty that Zedekiah's reign began in the early spring of 597 B.C., so that according to the Julian calendar, both his accession year and his first official year by the accession year system was the year 597 B.C.
The clue to this detail is given in the Bible in II Chronicles 36:9-10, where we read:
The significant phrase is "when the year was expired." By the Jewish calendar, a year is expired just before Nisan 1. Therefore, approximately on Nisan 1, Jehoiachin was deposed and Zedekiah was made king. From the Biblical record alone, we know that it had to be shortly before Nisan 1 when this event occurred. If it had occurred after Nisan 1, there would be no harmony between Zedekiah's eleventh year and Nebuchadrezzar's nineteenth year, when Jerusalem was destroyed. This citation does indicate, however, that Zedekiah was made king in 597 B.C. and 597 B.C., by the Julian calendar, was also his first official year. It also indicates that the bulk, if not all, of Jehoiachin's reign of three months and ten days was in 597 B.C. by the Julian calendar. More Information from Babylon The secular record gives a bit more information so that we know that we have understood the Bible correctly. A tablet from Babylon records: 12
We know that by accession reckoning, the seventh year of Nebuchadrezzar, the king of Akkad, was 598 B.C. (his eighth year by the non-accession-year reckoning). We are advised that the second day of the month Addaru was March 16, 597 B.C. Three months and ten days earlier than March 16 was December 9, 598 B.C., which must have been the day Jehoiachin began to reign alone. Remember that the Bible gives evidence that Jehoiachin had been co-regent the previous ten years. Thus, with this added information, we know that Jehoiakim reigned until December, 598 B.C., this being his eleventh year. Early in December, he was deposed and his son Jehoiachin, who had been reigning with him for ten years as a child co-regent, became king at the age of eighteen. Three months and ten days later, shortly before the beginning of the next Jewish year, he was taken to Babylon and his uncle, Zedekiah, was placed on the throne. Thus, Jehoiachin reigned alone for a few days in 598 B.C. and his first official year was 597 B.C. It surely is significant how God gives this extra detail concerning the end of the reign of Jehoiachin. It assures us that we can accurately relate the Julian calendar to the Biblical calendar. We have discovered a number of "fixes" between the Biblical calendar and the secular calendar. This assures us that we can accurately relate the Biblical events all the way from creation to our modern calendar. This evidence we have presented is not exhaustive. For example, several "fixes" can be found in connection with the ancient Egyptian records (see Adam When?, pp. 106-159). Conclusion In this study, we have patiently examined each and every citation of the Bible that relates to the time and duration of the reigns of the kings who ruled over Judah and Israel. While at times the solution was very complex, we, nevertheless, have been able to harmonize Scripture with Scripture so that each and every verse became understandable. This is as is should be because the Bible is God's Book and, therefore, is inerrant and
infallible. In fact, because any and all of the complex language concerning the reigns of these kings can be completely harmonized with perfect accuracy, we are greatly encouraged by this that everything else written in the Bible is equally trustworthy and dependable. Moreover, by charting each of these reigns, we can more readily understand the interrelationships that existed between the kings. In any case, we praise God that we have been enabled to see in a fresh way the exquisite accuracy of the Bible. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Chapter 1b | Appendix | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||