Why the probs with Old Testament dating?

[Cyberseeker]

I get the impression that liberal scholars have a problem with biblical chronology as put forward by conservative scholars. Can someone tell me where the problem lies? Im referring to the Old Testament from Abraham onward. (Can we avoid the pre-flood era please because that topic tends to get thrashed on Internet forums.)

As I understand it, Bible historians use the destruction of the first temple in 586 BC as their point of reference. No one argues about that by more than a couple of years do they? The key touchpoint reference is Jeremiah 25.

The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah (that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon) (Jer. 25:1-2)

This reference sounds straight forward enough and allows both secular as well as Bible students an agreed point in time - 604/5 BC to work from. Then, using Hebrew records we can extrapolate the reigns of kings and other major events backwards to Abraham and/or forward to Christ.

So, what’s the problem?

[markedward]

The era of the Kingdoms is not a problem because:

(a) the different Biblical texts gives us enough information to build a recognizable history of events

(b) those events, more or less, correspond to archaeological evidence and contemporary texts from non-Biblical texts, with little to no major issues of contradiction (which should be expected anyway, given the highly subjective nature of record-keeping in those ancient cultures)

It is events prior to the era of the Kingdoms (i.e. the history before roughly 1000 BC and the reign of David) that secular scholars start having a difficult time reconciling with the archaeology and non-Biblical texts. The Exodus, for example: not a whole lot of corroborating evidence that ten major disasters befell Egypt within the brief time frame that the Bible depicts them as happening, let alone that so many thousands (or was it millions?) of people left Egypt all at once to head for Sinai and then Canaan.

In addition, for many of the Biblical texts that do place themselves within the era of the Kingdoms, secular critics will generally place them after that period if they happen to contain predictions that apparently came true. (Secular historians require of themselves to reject prophetic prediction as being a reality.) So, if a part of the book of Isaiah, which places itself in the mid-8th century, predicts an event in the 6th-century (the coming of Cyrus to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple in 538 BC), the book, or at least that part of the book, will be placed as having been written after the event it 'predicted' (the prophesy that names Cyrus is dated to 538 BC at the earliest, probably a decade or two after, by critics).

[Fenris]

In addition, for many of the Biblical texts that do place themselves within the era of the Kingdoms, secular critics will generally place them after that period if they happen to contain predictions that apparently came true. (Secular historians require of themselves to reject prophetic prediction as being a reality.) So, if a part of the book of Isaiah, which places itself in the mid-8th century, predicts an event in the 6th-century (the coming of Cyrus to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple in 538 BC), the book, or at least that part of the book, will be placed as having been written after the event it 'predicted' (the prophesy that names Cyrus is dated to 538 BC at the earliest, probably a decade or two after, by critics).

Hi I love your posts

The possible existence of a second Isaiah is not necessarily a secular vs religious debate. There exist religious Jewish scholars who believe there was a second Isaiah who lived a couple of hundred years later, who wrote chapters 40 through 66. I find the possibility intriguing but I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other.

[markedward]

If I remember correctly, 'Isaiah' isn't even mentioned by name in those chapters.

[Fenris]

Nope, he isn't.

[jeffweeder]

reading John 12:38 and verse 41 are quotes from Isiah 6 and chap 53.
John has one Isiah the prophet in mind yes?

[markedward]

He at least has the prophetic book titled 'Isaiah' in mind.
This isn't a subject I have looked into very much; I recall reading / hearing somewhere that disciples of particular prophets sometimes wrote works in their master's name and it was openly accepted as such; e.g. if Isaiah had a group of individuals who specifically followed his example and teachings as a prophet of God, one or more of them may have received prophetic revelation from God and simply appended it to the scroll that contained prophecies from the actual Isaiah.

I'm not so sure about that explanation, but it is at least internally consistent on how something not written by Isaiah could be considered of Isaiah.

[jeffweeder]

I recall one of the Gospel writers quoting Jeremiah with a fulfillment, but it wasnt found in Jeremiah,it was found in one of the other prophets book.Not sure what happened there.
Cant recall the scripture.

[markedward]

The gospel of Matthew, when Judas throws the silver back at the high priests. He says 'Jeremiah', but he meant 'Zechariah'.

Many Christians theologians throughout history (including 'heavyweights' like Augustine and Calvin) have seen that and concluded Matthew simply made a mistake. I agree. (And I realize I'm in the minority of American evangelical Christians for thinking so.)

[jeffweeder]

Ive heard it said that the whole prophetic library was sometimes called by Jeremiahs name
But then Matt would have said Jeremiah with every OT ref he made hey.
Mark 1 :2-3 seems to be quoting Mal 3, but its attributed to Is 40:3.

Somebody got it right and spoke the word of God

[Cyberseeker]

It is events prior to the era of the Kingdoms (i.e. the history before roughly 1000 BC and the reign of David) that secular scholars start having a difficult time reconciling with the archaeology and non-Biblical texts.

Yes, most seem to be comfortable with Solomon's reign beginning approx 970BC and the various reigns of Hebrew kings from then onwards. The verse that starts all the objections seems to be 1 Kings 6:1.

In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD.

This places the Exodus at 1446 BC but archaeologists tell us that Jericho was not in existence 40 or so years after then. So Joshua had nothing to attack? I think that the Jericho archaeology excavations might be the crux of the date problems. Perhaps there are other niggles too. 'not sure.

[Cyberseeker]

Ive been googling around and Dr.Kenneth Kitchen is recognized as the leading authority on ancient Egyptian chronology. From his study of the Hebrew Kings he starts Solomon’s reign at 971 BC but I cannot find what date he places the Exodus. Does anyone know?

I assume he takes Solomons 4th year and deducts 480 years to arrive at 1446 BC as per the information we have in 1 Kings 6:1

And it came to pass in the 480th year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt, in the 4th year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.

However, I find it strange how so many experts (liberal as well as conservative) treat the book of Kings and Chronicles as highly precise historical records then come to a dead-stop at 1 Kings 6:1. It’s very odd. Can we slice the Old Testament at 1 Kings 6:2 and say, “Every verse from here on is dated right, but every verse before it is unreliable?” This is quite incongruous to me. Has anyone else noticed?

[markedward]

It's not just the text of Kings and Chronicles they're using though. They're trying to create an accurate account of history using the Biblical sources alongside other sources (archaeology, Egyptian records, Babylonian records, Assyrian records, etc.).

From 1 Kings 6.2 onward, other sources mostly corroborate what the text says about the Kingdom era.

But from 1 Kings 6.1 backward, other sources seem to heavily conflict with what the text says about the pre-Kingdom era.

[ChristianCoffee]

The gospel of Matthew, when Judas throws the silver back at the high priests. He says 'Jeremiah', but he meant 'Zechariah'.

Many Christians theologians throughout history (including 'heavyweights' like Augustine and Calvin) have seen that and concluded Matthew simply made a mistake. I agree. (And I realize I'm in the minority of American evangelical Christians for thinking so.)

Well, then we BOTH are in the minority, for I believe that as well.

[Colin]

Biblical texts that do place on their own from the time on the Kingdoms, luxurious critics can usually place all of them and then period as long as they occur to include prophecies that unsurprisingly got legitimate. Therefore, in the event that part of the actual publication connected with Isaiah, which often locations alone within the mid-8th one hundred year, conjectures a celebration within the 6th-century (the coming connected with Cyrus for you to repair Jerusalem and the brow within 538 BC), the actual publication, or maybe at the very least that perhaps the publication, will be inserted because getting been composed following celebration that 'predict.