Problems with Dating 1st Millenium BC events?

[christopher]

Josh, feel free to move this where it best fits. I have no idea where else to put it.

Regarding our discussion on chronology from Davids' era forward. When I was saying that I didn't think that scholars are unanimous on the dates of events (including the Babylonian invasion), the main work I was trying to remember was that of Philip Mauro (google him for more information). In his book "The Seventy Weeks"*, while making his argument for the Cyrus decree being the one we should use rather than either of the Artexerxes decrees, he points out that much of second century astronomer Ptolomy's reckoning (which he says all chronology systems of that period are based ) is based on sketchy guesswork regarding the timeframe of the Persian empire. Mauro believes Ptolomy incorrectly adds about 80 years to the Persian period. If he's right, than the Bablyonian invasion wouldn't be 586 BC, but more like 506 BC and that Cyrus' and Darius' 1st year reigning would have been more in the mid 400's rather than the traditional 536 BC date.

All this to say, there may not be the scholarly consensus about dating that you're thinking there is. Feel free to poke holes in that theory with any facts that may have been revealed since Mauro's time, I'm not claiming to be expert on this subject.

*The book is public domain and available on-line (although, I no longer have the link). I'll send you the copy I have to look over. I think you'd be fascinated by it.

[Josh]

Thanks Chris. I'll look into it. I'm putting it here for now at least.

[Josh]

I've read the first 20 pages so far.

He makes a good case that the most natural decree we would like to the "decree to restore and rebuild" Jerusalem would be the one given by Cyrus, not Artaxerxes. If this was the case, then, of course there is a problem with the commonly accepted chronology.

A perusal of the internet to discover whether modern scholars either a) still base their chronologies primarily on Ptolemy or b) whether there is any current doubt on the commonly accepted chronology yielded nothing, which is frustrating. I'm going to have to find a better place to look.

However, I still find it very difficult to believe that if there is a viable alternative chronology or serious doubts with the commonly accepted one, that it would be so hard to find modern advocate.

Anyway, it's great reading and I'm looking forward to continuing on. This of course is a fascinating subject to me and I have gleaned some new information already.

[Josh]

I'm hoping I'm going to lure people into this thread accidentally because on the home page the title is just, "Problems with Dating..."
;D

[Josh]

I'm starting chapter 8 now.

I'm loving this btw, even though I'm still waiting for more info on why we shouldn't trust the traditional timeline.

An interesting point he made was that it isn't necessarily needful to account for the last 3 1/2 years of the 70th 7 because the time periods are not deliniated by years but by heptads and we are only told that the Messiah will be cut off in the midst of the last heptad.

I still kind of like the idea that the final 3 1/2 years ended with Paul's conversion, but this is a helpful alternative explanation.

I really look forward to the next section which gets into the later chapters of Daniel. Thanks so much for the recommendation!

[christopher]

I'm loving this btw, even though I'm still waiting for more info on why we shouldn't trust the traditional timeline.

So calling into question the Ptolomy assumption wasn't enough then? I'd say he made a pretty good case about it with the Cyrus argument alone myself.

Why should we trust a non-Christian astronomer over the bible? I still haven't seen a good positive case for Ptolomy's timeline to refute Mauro's arguments. Have you? All you've said so far was:

However, I still find it very difficult to believe that if there is a viable alternative chronology or serious doubts with the commonly accepted one, that it would be so hard to find modern advocate.

Wouldn't that be the good ole' "appeal to common belief" fallacy? If there is a solid one, I'll accept it and we can go with one of the Artexerxes start dates. But I haven't seen it as of yet.

[Josh]

Wouldn't that be the good ole' "appeal to common belief" fallacy? If there is a solid one, I'll accept it and we can go with one of the Artexerxes start dates. But I haven't seen it as of yet.

Actually, it's an "appeal to authority" which isn't a fallacy, though it is usually considered a relatively weak form of support for an argument.

If one is trying to ascertain whether the Bible can be trusted or whether the prophecy of Daniel 9 is one of the best evidences for the supernatural quality of Scripture, then it doesn't help to use the circular logic that Daniel must be reffering to the Cyrus decree because the Bible is infallible.

If one has to choose between history and the Bible on this point, then it may be fine to choose the Bible, but it would be forfeiting a very big external evidence of our faith.

However, that being said, I've just begun researching this, so the jury is still out in my mind regarding how certain and for what reasons the commonly accepted chronology is held to this day.

[christopher]

If one is trying to ascertain whether the Bible can be trusted or whether the prophecy of Daniel 9 is one of the best evidences for the supernatural quality of Scripture, then it doesn't help to use the circular logic that Daniel must be reffering to the Cyrus decree because the Bible is infallible.

Well, nobody said that. But Cyrus does have the strongest biblical case IMO when you consider Isaiahs' prophesy about him (ch 44 and 45) and the mention of the fulfillment of Jeremiahs' prophesy (ch 25) in Ezra 1. So if we discount all that just because we buy the common dating of that period, I think we may be selling the bible short.

If one has to choose between history and the Bible on this point, then it may be fine to choose the Bible, but it would be forfeiting a very big external evidence of our faith.

How so?

[Josh]

How so?

Well, if one uses the 444 date then you can point out to a skeptic how the prophecy matches known, independent history which asks as a external validator.

If you call the history into question in preference of the earlier date, then it removes the external validation leaving you only with the Biblical claims.