Three Absolute Dates

[Ged]

We often hear the sentiment that the Bible is not a reliable source when it comes to ancient history. Perhaps those who say such things are referring to the most ancient parts. (Earlier than Moses) However, I would like us to limit our discussion to the Iron Age onwards please. Thanks.

Ive put together a few notes from the Hebrew monarchy era and cross-checked with independent sources. When that is done we may claim them to be ‘absolute dates.’ Is that a reasonable claim? As it happens, there are a number of such absolute dates linked to the Bible’s chronology. Ill start with one and see what you think.

Completion of the Temple: Josephus, quoting the record of the Phoenicians, says,

“Therein it was recorded, that the temple was built by King Solomon at Jerusalem, one hundred forty three years, before the Tyrians built Carthage: and in their annals the building of our temple is related. For Hirom the King of Tyre was the friend of Solomon our King.”
(Against Apion 1:17 Josephus)

Greek historians date the building of Carthage in 814 BC, and subtracting 143 years from then, we locate the completion of Solomon’s temple in his 11th year, 958 BC. The Hebrew king records agree, providing us with an absolute date at the beginning of the monarchy.

Here is the corresponding Hebrew record. (Bible commentaries typically date it between 958 - 960 BC)

The foundation of the temple of the Lord was laid in the fourth year, in the month of Ziv. In the eleventh year (958 BC) in the month of Bul, the eighth month, the temple was finished in all its details according to its specifications. He had spent seven years building it.
(1 Kings 6:37-38)

[semiopen]

This was interesting enough to look up.

The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium edited by Lowell K Handy http://www.amazon.com/Age-Solomon-Schol ... of+solomon

Available for about $200 on Amazon.

http://books.google.com/books?id=gam10T ... le&f=false

Pages 97 and 98 goes through this and concludes -

However, despite once enjoying a period of popularity, Josephus' dating is generally not accepted in modern scholarship for arriving at an accurate date for the beginning of the reign of Solomon.

The footnotes are quite interesting.

These dates are not poster children for Absolute Dates

[Ged]

Pages 97 and 98 goes through this and concludes -

However, despite once enjoying a period of popularity, Josephus' dating is generally not accepted in modern scholarship for arriving at an accurate date for the beginning of the reign of Solomon.

He made his mistakes, true. but is this case Josephus speaks highly of the Phoenician fussiness when it came to the kings lists from Tyre. Unfortunately, his source, Menander the Ephesian, is lost to us now but they were available then apparently.

[semiopen]

Unlike your two posts, I included some references and specially noted the footnotes.

There is a possibility that Josephus is not telling the truth. There is also the certainty that the document he looked at wasn't actually 1000 years old. One way or another it had to be a copy or recent.

Footnote seven on page 98 of my link discusses this.

We can make a big stretch and say that this is possible; but the obvious conclusion is that if there was a document; the source was a composition of the

... Hellenstic Period appears more rational an explanation....

I merely pointed out that the dates here are far from absolute.