This gallery contains 2 photos.
The Shaking Ground of Traditional Chronology
Series I Post 2
In the mid-1800 after the digs of Assyrian treasures began: the rush to translate them and fit them into Biblical history began. The fact, that Shoshenq I as Shishak was codified in 1828 for these later transcribers it made certain any mention of Israel by Assyrians, had to be after Shoshenq’s I reign 943-922BCE. In 1851Rev. Edward Hincks, a 2nd generation clergyman and early expert on the Assyrian language made the famous identification of King Jehu, the son of Omri on the Assyrian Black Obelisk (Chavalas, Younger Jr. 2002: 72, ff 15-16).
Now here is where real biblical record slicing, chopping, and dicing takes place. The Jehu in the Bible is the son was Jehoshaphat, the son of Ninshi- 2nd Kings 9:2. Not of King Omri, whose son was Ahab, in fact this Jehu caused the death of the sons of Ahab. Didn’t the Assyrian king know whom he was actually depicting on his obelisk? I believe he did, it was Hincks that didn’t know- a clergyman! Since Hincks translation of Jehu son of Omri, others have noticed the difference between the biblical identification of Jehu and this Assyrian identification.
Has this resulted in a reconsideration of Hincks translation? No, it hasn’t. What has happened is modern scholarship asserts Hinck’s identification is correct. The Black Obelisk is held to this very day as depicting Jehu, son of Omri. One interesting explanation, of this impossible translation of Hinck’s is the Assyrian king so admired the foreign Israelite King Omri he changed the name of Israel to Omri-land (Stiebing, Jr. 2003: 249). Most in scholarship today, simply ignore any objection. For them Hinck’s translation is correct, the Bible or the Assyrians were wrong.
What isn’t considered by scholarship is that Jehu overthrew the actual royal house of Omri and instituted his own house, as the royal house of Israel. Other registers of the Black Obelisk clearly shows the disgust and punishment of usurpers like Jehu, by the Assyrian king. Nor is the history of Omri recorded in the Bible considered. The royal house of Jeroboam died out resulting in the first of several civil wars for the kingship title of Israel. General Omri ruled for 12 years, four of them during that civil war before becoming king.
One last problem exists and that is with the Black Obelisk itself. It does not fit with the history of obelisks in the ancient world. While much smaller than the more known obelisk’s of Egypt. The era of obelisks dies out in the ancient world from the end of the 19th dynasty ca. 1292-1109BCE until Egypt’s 26th dynasty ca. 664-525BCE. Sticking the Black Obelisk in the 9th century of Assyria, as is currently done makes the obelisk stick out in history like a sore thumb. Since the only Assyrian Obelisks appear during Shalmaneser reign.
Based upon the dependence of Shoshenq I, origin of the identification of Jehu, the sore thumb that is the Black Obelisk, the total lack of respect to the Bible record, and the disrespect to the Assyrian King Shalmaneser, the third by that name. I can’t accept Rev. Hinck’s translation. Something is wrong with it.
Addendum I have since learned of another translation from a later dated Assyrian monument also using the term Omri-land. It is not the same Assyrian wording but results in the same translation Omri-land. The evolution of word construction and meaning moves slowly even today, yet in ancient Assyria with respect to Israel it moves quickly. I dismissed it as simply more desire by Western scholars to force scripture with real history improving neither.
Chavalas, Mark W., and K. Lawson Younger Jr. Ed. Mesopotamia and the Bible; Comparative Explorations. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic—Baker, 2002. 72 ffs 15—16. Print.
Stiebing, William H. Jr. Ancient Near Eastern History and Culture. N.p.: Longman, 2003. 249. Print.
© Abram Back in Time 2000-2107. All Rights Reserved.
Series 1 Post 1
Where to start?
Ancient Egypt’s 18th dynasty is the most logical place for me to begin. It is where I started decades ago with a book on the young Pharaoh Tutankhamun. According to traditional Iron Age biblical chronology, it is the 18th dynasty that holds the key to the biblical Exodus. Despite the inability of archaeology to place Exodus to an exact time, or even a Pharaoh in the 18th dynasty, this tradition holds. While the vast new knowledge of the entire 18th dynasty, shows it was the period of Egypt’s great empire building from a reunited local kingdom to an international power. In the minds of traditional biblical chronologists, it is the time when the Exodus leaves a repenting Egypt caught in the woes of God’s judgment on it.
Dating of the 18th dynasty as the period of Exodus began with Flavius Josephus and early Christian Fathers (Adler, 1989: 15—73). Later chronologists have accepted for the most part this dating until modern times. After all the 17th century English scholars took the reign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I ca. 943 and added 480 years arriving in the 18 dynasty 1425 BCE. To them, not knowing as much about the 18th dynasty as is known today. It was simple take the time of Shoshenq I add that famous 1King 6:1 480 years and you have the date of the Exodus.
It is not possible to merge this ancient opinion with the new knowledge from the 20thcentury into a comprehensive flowing history. One or the other is mistaken. I chose as mistaken, the men from the past whose opinion is based upon informed knowledge, not scientific technique from the 20th century.If, Exodus is not to be found in the 18th dynasty as the physical, evidence indicates; where is it then, if based upon a real event? Egypt’s ancient history is very long. I faced one of my first decisions to go with archaeological history versus theological, doctrinal truths. I would not be disappointed in choosing the history that archaeology brings forth.
I remind the faithful. Faith is to be in God alone, not the in the knowledge of faithful human beings. Claiming faith provides acceptance of untruths over reality is simply wrong.
Adler, William. Time Immemorial; Archaic History and Its Sources in Christian Chronology from Julius Africanus to George Syncellus. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1989. 15—73 Print.
© Abram Back in Time 2000-2107. All Rights Reserved.
What is ABiT bible chronology?
It is Abram (Abraham) Back in Time © 2000-2008, a Bronze Age chronology based on the Bible and modern discoveries of archaeology holding true to orthodox Egyptian and Middle East chronology . Traditional chronology attempts to fit history into an assumed Iron Age frame it has no problem cutting, slicing, or even dicing Bible verses to achieve its purpose. Conversely, fitting the Bible into Bronze Age history works and when compiled together produces a coherent traceable biblical history without the fancy knives. Since, it is based on scripture and archaeological-historical fact not modern scholarship academic opinions, theological or doctrinal truths. ABiT delivers a chronology that is remarkable in its scope.
Here are some suggestions for your first post.
- You can find new ideas for what to blog about by reading the Daily Post.
- Add PressThis to your browser. It creates a new blog post for you about any interesting page you read on the web.
- Make some changes to this page, and then hit preview on the right. You can always preview any post or edit it before you share it to the world.