Larsguy47

ORIGINAL DATES:

906 BCE 1st temple 4th of Solomon

529 BCE Fall of Jerusalem, end of 1st temple
525 BCE Beginning of 70-year exile for last deportees, 23rd of Neb2

534 BCE 2nd temple completed, 6th of Darius, year of Battle of Marathon





For those who want to know how the Jewish rabbinical temple dates are converted to the original chrology, here's the short and sweet.

Basically the Jews chronologists have always said the Persian Period was too long and there were too many kings. This was taken as a general reference to their knowledge of the expansion of the Persian Period by 82 years and that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king, a concept apparent in the Bible.

But it may be that revealing the original timeline was problematic and so one version of the timeline was published that was not the actual dates but cryptic dates that lead link to the orginal chronology by some basic formula. This is done in history all the time, the "hide in plain sight" concept where a clear contradiction is stated but it is linked to the truth. Just one example being Josephus noting the correct rulership years for Evil-Merodach as 18 followed by a reference to a forty-year rule by Niglasser. Niglasser only ruled for 4 years and it is clear he didn't rule 40 years. Yet forty is still linked to four by implication. Of course, the 40 years noted here distracts from the 18-year reference for Evil-Merodach since both are presumed to be unreliable, etc.

At any rate all we will do here now is just compare the rabbinical temple dates with the original dating and the revised dating to note the consistent pattern of intervals used in the rabbinical dates in offset of the the origninal dates.


The four rabbinial temple-related dates are:



RABBINICAL DATES:

832 BCE for beginning of first temple.

426 BCE for end of the first temple.
422 BCE for beginning of 70 years of exile for last deportees

352 BCE for end of second temple, 6th year of Darius.


We begin with the 352 BCE date for year 6 of Darius, which is completely ridiculous historically. 352BCE in the normal timeline is the 6th year of Artaxerxes III with only about 29 years until the end of the Persian Empire in 333 BCE! Darius was said to rule for 36 years by secular chronology and 6 years by the Bible. But even so, you still have the rule of Xerxes/Artaxerxes, Darius II and the entire rule of Artaxerxes II to fit into the time from 352 until the end of the Persian Period in 333BCE. Not possible! And not likely taken seriously by an Jews either. Instead, we presume this might have been a cryptic reference for these dates since the original dates would not be publishible because of the politics involved with the revisionism.

The result of the comparison is that the rabbinical dates can be converted to the original dates by one or more of the intervals related to the temple events, as follows.


First the revised date for the beginning of the first temple in the 1st of Cyrus is now at 537BCE. The true date is 455BCE, which is an 82-year difference. The temple was completed after 21 years and thus in 516BCE in the revised date and 434BCE in the orginal dating. This, as has been noted, is the corrected date also for the Battle of Marathon, the event associated with the death of Darius. It is at this point we then compare the rabbinical date of 352BCE to realize it's the same 82-year difference. 352+82=434BCE.

Question is, is this a pattern for formula for the rabbinical dates or not? Well we need only test this.

Using 82 years to try to convert the 4-year interval dates between the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the 1st temple and the year the 70-year exile begins for the last deportees in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar doesn't work. 426 and 422 BCE adjusted by 82 years gives us:

426 + 82 = 508 BCE
422 + 82 = 504 BCE

So that didn't work. But when we use the interval of 21 years from when the 2nd temple began to when it was completed, and add that to 82 years to get 103 years, then it converts 426 and 422 to the original dates:

82 + 21 = 103

426 + 103 = 529 BCE
422 + 103 = 525 BCE

Of course, again, if 455BCE is the original dating, then 70 years earlier marks year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar in 525BCE, and 4 years earlier would be his 19th year and the year of the fall of Jerusalem in 529 BCE.

But of course, we're still wondering if this is some coincidence of if there is truly a pattern here. That will be answered or not if a comparison of the 832BCE dating for the beginning of the 1st temple in the 4th of Solomon ends up being an temple-related interval.

First we calculate the correct 4th of Solomon based upon 455BCE or 1947 AD via the 70th week jubilee method, where the 1st jubilee is the Exodus, the 20th jubilee the return from Babylon and the 69th the final return of the Jews to their homeland in 1947.

For the 455BCE calculation, we merely date the Exodus 19 jubilees earlier, which is 931 years (19 x 49=931) which gives us 1386BCE.

Using the 1947 reference, which is the jubilee that begins the 70th jubilee period in a period of 70 jubilee periods of 49 years each, or 3430 years (70 x 49), the 70th jubilee period of 49 years would begin in 1947 and end in 1996. That means the 70-jubilee period would begin in 1435 BCE, 3430 years earlier. The Exodus as the first jubilee of this period would begin 49 years later which is 1386BCE (1435 - 49 = 1386BCE), obviously the same date. We need this date to calculate the 4th year of Solmon.

Using 1386BCE as the date for the Exodus we calculate the true date for the 4th year of Solomon, the year the 1st temple began to be built to 906BCE. We then compare 906BCE with the rabbinical timeline date of 832BCE, noting the difference to be a period of 74 years. So the question is, is 74 years a relative interval in relation to the two temples? The answer is, obviously, YES! There is a 74-year interval from the end of the first temple in 529BCE to the beginning of the 2nd in 455 BCE (529 - 74 = 455BCE).

SUMMARY: Of course many will claim these are just coincidences. Of course they would. It's not meant to be easily observed. So what this reference does is demonstrate that

1) We can't presume the Jews actually take the rabbinical dates for the temple seriously, including 352 BCE for year 6 of Darius.

2) We can't presume that at least some rabbinical circles had reference to the original dating for the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE and the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE. We can't prove that they did, but neither can we presume that they didn't.

3) The rabbinical temple dates can now be used alternatively to support the original 455BCE chronology if used cryptically and converted, or contradict it if presumed as a face-value reference. Of course, the ridiculous date of 352BCE for the 6th of Darius argues strongly against these numbers being published as face-value numbers.

Therefore, in the revised chronology dating of the NB Period and Persian Period where 455BCE is the Biblically correct date for the 1st of Cyrus, the rabbinical temple dates are converted as above to agree with the original dates and are not considered a true contradiction to the true Biblical timeline. The cryptic dates allow for publishing of the dates which can then be converted; again, the best way to hide something is to "hide it in plain sight."

LG47

spin

Yet another Larsguy47 ramble through stuff he never cites clearly, so the refernces are unavailable and we only have the machinations of Larsguy47's head try to force more reality to bend to his will.

One of the reasons historians tend to prefer texts from the period the texts deal with is that they are less likely to get things wrong than writers from several centuries later who don't have access to good sources.

Larsguy47

If you have questions, let me know. Some people want the easy way out, so they get nothing resolved.

LG47

spin

You have the responsibility to cite your sources. That way you'll be in a better position to know why each of your ball gets nailed to the floor.

Larsguy47

This is for chronologists who are aware of these references. But I ran out of time so didn't have time to post the usual references. But in general it is known the Jews have a decreased Persian Period, ridiculously short obviously but it's just one of the chronology "loose ends" for the chronology. What specifically did you need a reference for?

I have two in mind:

1. General reference to the rabbinical chronology.

2. The actual reference for the dates, which is rare, actually. But I'll try to find it.

IN the meantime, you can do a Google search for "rabbinical timeline" and see what they have.

LG47

spin

You're giving me the impression that you aren't using serious sources, just stuff you've fished off the net. When you've got specific sources come back to us.

Larsguy47

My only "reference" is that:

1) There is a rabbinical timeline that is shorter than the popular timeline and thus the Jews join the Bible in contradicting the current timeline. The quote below simply confirms the general reference of the rabbinical timeline being "170 years" (according to this source) shorter than the conventional timeline. I'll hunt down another reference for you.



Here's a quick one of the net.

spin

A lot of net stuff isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

One problem one has to settle when a source is established is when the source was written. We have to separate facts from traditions. The value of traditions is notorious to evaluate. If something is written circa 600CE and there is no earlier sources to explain why it is in the form it is in 600CE, then the source has little value. It's like depending on Theon to give you tenable information about the life of Plato.


spin

Larsguy47

Hello Spin. In this case it would not matter. This may be an isolated rabbinical reference which merely indicates that the original chronology was known and maintained at some who understood or believed the original chronology.

The more primary reference here, though, would be the apocryphal Esdras II and the comparison with the original "Esdras" (Ezra/Nehemiah) which was one book originally.

In this case 1 Esdars 5:40 is compared with Ezra 2:63 and Nehemiah 7:65, 7:10 , 8:9 and 10:1:


1 ESDRAS 5:40
[40] For unto them said Nehemias and Atharias, that they should not be partakers of the holy things, till there arose up an high priest clothed with doctrine and truth.

EZRA 2:63
63 Consequently the Tir·sha´tha said to them that they could not eat from the most holy things until a priest stood up with U´rim and Thum´mim.

NEHEMIAH 7:65
65 Consequently the Tir·sha´tha said to them that they should not eat from the most holy things until the priest with U´rim and Thum´mim stood up.

NEHEMIAH 7:70
70 And there was a part of the heads of the paternal houses that gave to the work. The Tir·sha´tha himself gave to the treasure a thousand gold drachmas, fifty bowls, five hundred and thirty priests’ robes.

NEHEMIAH 8:9
9 And Ne·he·mi´ah, that is, the Tir·sha´tha, and Ez´ra the priest, the copyist, and the Levites who were instructing the people proceeded to say to all the people: “This very day is holy to Jehovah YOUR God. Do not mourn or weep.” For all the people were weeping as they were hearing the words of the law.

NEHEMIAH 10:1
1 Now attesting it by seal there were:
Ne·he·mi´ah the Tir·sha´tha, the son of Hac·a·li´ah,

When the revisions were made to hide the identity of Xerxes the entire country was involved in suppressing records, which means the book of Ezra/Nehemiah which was then "Esdras" had to be suppressed because it revealed that Nehemiah not only returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel but also lived down to the reign of Darius II. If he were around 30 when he first arrived, based upon current chronology for the 1st of Cyrus in 537BCE and the 1st of Darius II c. 424BCE, he would have to live over a period of 113 years, let's say 118 years if he just lived into the first five years of the reign of Darius II. 118 + 30 would make him 148 years old. Now while some apologists might claim he could have lived that long, most choose not to go there and simply claim that the Nehemiah mentioned as returning from Jerusalem with Zerubbabel was simply a different Nehemiah than the one who is associated with the reign of Artaxerxes. That in spite of the fact that Nehemiah identifies himself as the "Tirshatha" elsewhere in the text.

After the canonical Esdras was suppressed, a substitute version of "Esdras" was written, known as "the apocryphal Esdras." But what apocryphal Esdras did, to deal with the added years is simply leave off the history of Nehemiah relating to the rebuilding of the walls and his association with Xerxes and simply to place his history during the initial years following the return from Babylon.

But as you can see, the Jews clearly understood that the "Tirshatha" that was assisting those who their missing genealogies was always understood to be Nehemiah.

All was fine and good as long as the canonical "Esdras" (Ezra/Nehemiah) was suppressed. But eventually it came back into public domain after the Persian Period was over. Once that happen, we can compare the two and notice where the changes are.


Based upon the above, if the Jews understood that the Nehemiah who returned from Babylon was the same Nehemiah who was with Artaxerxes, they would have at least suspected that the Persian Period was artificially too long. But since they themselves had participated in the coverup during the time of a cold war with Greece while they were under Persian rule, there were potential conflicts with which chronology to officially recognize. I suspect, therefore, that it remained unofficially recognized and the issue not openly discussed but the timeline published in a cryptic form. That is, the Jews did indicate the Persian Period was too short, touted their own chronology and timeline but it wasn't believed because the numbers were just not possible in contrast to well established late history from the time of Alexander the Great. But once you suspect or see that the chronology was likely a cryptic chronology, not meant to be read as face value by those who understood what was going on, then we see how easy it is to convert back to the original chronology and we have to at least "presume" that this is not only a confirmation of the original chronology but a confirmation that the original chronology was never lost in certain secretive Jewish rabbinical circles.

Now this is not at all as "sinister" as it seems. When a subject people are subject to a controlling and "nosy" government, then freedom of speech is greatly suppressed. So often, to express what is not "politically correct", they find a way to reference events or dates in a cryptic manner. Likely the most common form for this is in a fable. A make believe story that references real issues.

Historical examples of this are the Negro folkloric tales that were a basis for Disney's "Song of the South." Tales of Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox. Those tales referenced the psychosocial relationship the Negro salves (Brer Rabbit) had with their masters and how they perceived them as Brer Fox.

Same during the time of Persia when several of the Jewish "fables" were written to handle some of the true history that could not be openly expressed. This is where the Book of Esther comes from. It too is a fable but it was meant to make up for the missing history of Nehemiah and his relationship with Artaxerxes as his chief cupbearer. Original folkloric references to "Nehemias" made fun of his being a eunuch and femininity and suggested he had a crush on the king. When he was asking to return to Jerusalem, for instance, he was depicted as sitting on the king's lap and "batting his eyes" at the king when he asked. So it wasn't that much of a leap to split the character of Nehemiah into two, one being the beautiful Esther who was the king's favorite Jewish wife, and Mordecai who becomes prominent in the rule of Artaxerxes. Thus the Book of Esther at one point became "Esdras VI" following the history of Esdras I.

Further, we can see that Josephus clearly understood this, but continued to participate in the coverup. He wrote near the end of the 1st Century and when he came to this part of the history, he placed both Nehemiah and Ezra during the reign of "Xerxes" and Esther and Mordecai during the reign of Artaxerxes. Likewise the original version of the book as found in the Latin version of the LXX (Septuagint) shows Esther married to Artaxerxes. And no this is not a name confusion issue. Josephus very pointedly states this was Artaxerxes the "son of Xerxes."

However, when you consider that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were actually the same king, placing Nehemiah and Ezra during his reign was not historically incorrect. Likewise, understanding that Mordecai and Esther were adapted history of Nehemiah, it was not erroneous to place their story during the reign of Artaxerxes, as Josephus does. In complete contradiction to the inspired writings. So again, we see the influence of "political correctness" and cryptic historical cooperation by Jewish historians to accommodate the popular timeline as long as it remained the "official" timeline for Persia.

Having noted the above, however, one must at least presume that the Jews understood there were revisions during the Persian Period and perhaps maintained some reference to the original chronology. The rabbinical dates for the temple, of course, confirms that indeed the Jews maintained a different chronology, claimed there were less kings involved, suggested there was revisionism during the Persian Period and perhaps at some point published the true chronology but that stepped on too many toes, so in lieu of pretending to agree with the distorted timeline, they openly dismissed it as revised, but then didn't publish their original historical version of the chronology, but instead published a fake timeline that was cryptically linked to the original timeline. This seems to have been done by distorting the intervals with a sense of mockery and disdain. That is, the wrong date was 82 years too early, so they made their cryptic reference for the 6th of Darius 82 years too late, dated to the ridiculously late date of 352 BCE. They would know full well this would be dismissed by the gentiles but that didn't matter since there would be no censorship of publication.


Thus Jews, who found themselves often suppressed and subject people, with the gentiles ever so suspicious and curious of their writings found ways to keep some of their secrets and remain politically cooperative, at least on the surface for the most part. The Jewish scholars and rabbis, of course, caught in the middle, found a great solution through the cryptic references. In fact trying to manage and survive under the oppression of the gentiles likely was a great catalyst toward the Kabbala and Jewish mysticism development, one of those tenants likely being "hide in plain sight."

REFEENCES: Please note a lot of this is speculative and still secretive, so open and clear "references" are not going to be forthcoming. We learn through comparison of various texts and discrepancies, etc. "Evidence" will thus range between a "reasonable assumption" to a high or low probability for many things. Conflicting records have to be sorted out and opinions will vary.

LG47

RED DAVE

From Larsguy47:
Typical irresponsble bullshit.

Did you learn to do research like this in college?

Better yet, did you go to college?

Anyone reading your posts has to assume that your secret sources, including the secret source that Aristotle and Socrates were lovers, do not exist.

Your methodology is paranoid not scholarly. Reference to secret sources is reference to nothing.

RED DAVE