For PERSPECTIVES Vol. 7 No. 1 [January-March 2004]   

Please feel free to submit short questions or your comments. We reserve the right to answer and publish those we believe to be in the public interest. We reserve the right to use or not use submitted material (in whole or in part), to include your name, and to edit or condense your questions for clarity and space. Click here to submit a question or comment to the editor.

Chronology and the Old Testament

I have recently read a book written by a guy called Peter Cohen on Daniel 9 and other works that prove, simply, that secular chronologies are inconsistent with time spans within the Old Testament. Secular chronologies of the Persian Kings are based to a large extent on the work of Ptolemy, who lived 2nd century AD. Ptolemy wasn't assured of the accuracy of all his work, and it has been shown to be inaccurate in certain places. This was first thoroughly and exhaustively dealt with by Martin Anstey in "The Romance of Bible Chronology". Basically, the gist of it is that we try to fit Ptolemy's chronology and whatever else we have with an eclipse that was mentioned to occur at a certain time during a certain reign, but even that opens up a 60 year-wide possible discrepancy, and actually possibly more, and besides, the secular chronologies we are given give us a different length for the total span of the kings than the Bible does, so its a black and white either/or situation - either the Bible is wrong or our contemporary assumptions of when these kings lived and reigned is wrong. We just can't rely on these secular dates.

It is only from Alexander the Great onwards that we have reliable data with which to construct chronologies.

Now to Daniel 9 and how this is relevant. If one reads Isaiah 44:28 it leaves no room for us using anyone else but Cyrus as the one who gave the command "to say to Jerusalem, You are built; and to the temple, You are founded." Attempts to say he only referred to the rebuilding of the temple, whereas Artaxerxes spoke of the rebuilding of the city, are not appropriate, since God himself said Cyrus would give the whole command.

Now I have to say the most straight-forward and coherent exposition I have read on Daniel 9 comes from this book written by Peter Cohen. Its possible that Philip Mauro has the same explanation, I'm not sure, I downloaded his book 3 days ago but I haven't read it all yet. You can find it online in various places. I'll try to be quick - he asserts that the first 7 weeks were ended after the last prophet, Malachi, ended his job, and thus prophecy and vision were "sealed up". Then 62 weeks later, or 69 weeks in total since the command, Jesus started his ministry. "After" these 69 weeks, in the midst of the 70th week, he established his covenant and nullified, or put an end to, "sacrifice and offering". The Hebrew doesn't actually say "for one week" it just says "one week" which could very well mean in that week. It must have been a total of 490 years or else the Angel telling him 70 weeks are determined becomes meaningless. We don't have to try to explain this in any complicated way, its meaning is plain. The other popular error people make is assuming the "He" in verse 27 refers to the anti-Christ when it refers to the same person who establishes the covenant, the phrase �people of the prince� is a parenthesis and a literal translation keeps the Messiah as the �He�, the �people of the prince� is not the �He�. This is not preterism, but incidentally, Titus ordered his soldiers not to destroy the temple in 70 AD, but they did anyway out of frustration with the Jews, hence " the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city" and not the prince himself. Titus's father Vespasian established himself as a monarch, hence Titus was a prince and not just a general. There are many more details with regards to why this fits; explanations in the Peter Cohen's, and from what I see, Philip Mauro's book are quite exhaustive and in my mind leave that as the only explanation that doesn't' have a gap somewhere. This does not mean that they believe revelation foretold Jerusalem AD 70, incidentally, so one mustn�t disregard them on the notion that they might be preterists who believe revelation was completely fulfilled in AD 70.

I believe the main reason why there is such a simple explanation for this and yet such a huge amount of disagreement is the fact that we assume the dates secular history gives us is correct, when it blatantly is out of harmony with chronologies within the OT. So its an either/or! If we believe the Bible we have to discard what secular history tells us about those dates.

�Gareth Hoffe

You have correctly pointed out that Isaiah 44:28 is the critical key in understanding the prophecy (see Part II of The Seventy Weeks Prophecy: Does It Lead to Jesus?). Where we differ is that we see it as Yahweh not Cyrus who declared it so. The evidence suggests that during the reign of Manasseh (Archer 1985:107), Isaiah learned that Yahweh intended a Cyrus, a yet unborn gentile Persian king, to release the Jewish exiles to Jerusalem who would embark on rebuilding the Temple and Jerusalem. Note that this Cyrus would have no freedom of choice in this matter for Yahweh said that it would be so. This prophecy does not record a prediction but rather a declaration. It was the prophetic command of Yahweh, in 654 BCE, that was "the issuance of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (Daniel 9:25 Tanakh) not the later release of Jewish exiles by Cyrus II (538-529) and their 535 BCE return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple.

�Editor

Archaeology Careers

Hello, I am VERY interested in specializing in Biblical Archeology. I am currently an undergraduate in Reno Nevada and I am looking for advice on how to proceed. I also have an interest in medicinal botany, and I know from reading books like the Bible and the Iliad that those types of things were very important and widely used. Please assist me in understanding the approach I should take in achieving my goals. I appreciate your time.

�Alexia Sober

My name is Tom, and I am a 23 year old South African. I have recently completed a degree in Computer Science. I am very interested in Bible archaeology and am looking for information on how I would go about getting involved in Bible archaeology full time. Please could you give me some info or advice.

�Tom Mc Seveney

Do you know of any good college programs in biblical archaeology? I'm looking mostly in the Massachusetts area.

�Dominique

Could I be meet an archaeologist and have him/her walk me through a tomb and teach me about it so I can start a career as one? Do you know anyone?

�Katy Rushford

The archaeology of the Levant as a field of study is usually found in anthropology departments of major universities and in the New testament Studies departments of theology schools. Some bible colleges also offer such programs. We suggest you speak with a college or high school counselor who can help you use the internet and other resources to find a suitable program for you. In anthropology one usually majors in the field at the undergraduate level and then would pursue an area of specialty at the graduate level. To meet an archaeologist we suggest you contact the anthropology department of a university near you and explain your interest.

--Editor

Adam and Eve 

I need to find information about the location of the Garden of Eden and physiologically speaking, what is the differences in Adam and Eve and their offspring.

�Christine Hotelling

We sense that the location of the garden in Eden was someplace in the Promised Land. That is one of the points in Genesis Unbound by John H. Sailhamer. We have no reason to doubt it as it appears to be the best explanation so far. In regard to the physiology of Adam and Eve their offspring had belly buttons while they did not. Adam also had a rib surgically removed. The DNA had to be Homo sapiens sapiens.

�Editor

Biblical Baptism

Did the Eastern Church also preserve the Baptism into the Name of Jesus as it was until the Nicene council of 300 AD or did they change with the Trinitarian formula. Could you discuss the change and the Eusebian letters.

−Tony Morgan

This question is beyond our range of knowledge. We know that the eastern Church has continued the practice of baptism by immersion and the laying on of hands. The litany involved is a matter you will probably have to research. We suggest you ask a Greek Orthodox priest.

�Editor

Spinning the New Testament

I read the article Spinning The New Testament by M. P. Germano (see Spinning the New Testament: A True and Tested Formula for Its Misunderstanding) which was very interesting. In the same spirit I would like to ask whether New testament teaches about reincarnation or previous birth. My question is based on the verses in John 9:2-3,where disciples ask Jesus about the reason of the person being born blind. Verse 2 (KJV) reads "And his disciple asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" This question implies that even before being born this man committed sin that is before his birth. How is it possible? Jesus while answering did not correct them but merely said that neither he sinned nor his parents. Please comment.

−B. R. Ivan

The disciples [read students], obviously equated the blindness of this poor man as the result of sin.  Social diseases, the result of sin, such as syphilis and gonorrhea have their consequences. In this particular case Jesus simply said the man was blind but not because of sin. It was probably a genetic defect beyond the purview of the Torah.

�Editor

I was on your site reading about the spin doctors and was wondering where do you retrieve your information and if the bible has been tampered with then what bible should one read to receive the Word, and lastly wasn't the Bible written in Aramaic?

�Mae Smith

The Bible has so many copies surviving from ancient times we have a fairly good grasp of what it records. We suggest you get three different translations of the Bible and then compare them to help you get the sense of verses in your own study. The salvific information in the New Testament is there in a clear and concise manner. Biblical interpretation is a wholly different matter and there you would need to look at various commentaries to understand the context of scriptures and their meaning in their time of writing and their implication for people today. The Hebrew Scriptures have come down to us in Hebrew and Aramaic and the New Testament has come to us in Greek.

�Editor

Wednesday Crucifixion Theory in Error? 

I commend you for attempting to shed light on the important issue of when the crucifixion occurred. Naturally, any of us can, and do, make mistakes. I will proceed to show, with courtesy, how your argument is without merit in asserting Wednesday as the day of crucifixion. The Greek is explicit and excludes either Wednesday or the year 31 A.D. as the day of crucifixion for reasons I will enumerate.

All four Gospels are in agreement, and pinning the day of crucifixion on "the day of preparation" is required.

Transliterated "paraskeue," it is translated as the "day of preparation or preparation day." Preparation day was the day before the Jewish Sabbath or any feast day. As you are surely aware, the Pharisaic tradition predominant in early First Century Jerusalem prohibited work on the sabbath (or feast days) (see Josephus, Antiquities, Book XVI, Chapter 6). And as cooking was considered work, preparation of meals was prohibited. Thus, meals to be consumed on the sabbath (or feast day) were prepared on Friday prior to dusk in the case of the sabbath observance, (and on the day prior to a feast day for feast days, also before dusk).

Matthew, Chapter 27: 62 "Now on the next day, the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, " NASB

Mark, Chapter 15: 42 "When evening had already come, because it was the preparation day, that is, the day before the Sabbath, " NASB

Luke, Chapter 23: 54 "It was the preparation day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. NASB

John, Chapter 19: 14 "Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, "Behold, your King!" NASB

It can be seen, Matthew, Mark and Luke all state it was the "day of preparation" prior to the sabbath (Saturday) while John gives us even more specific information, in this particular year the sabbath and Passover fall on the same day!

As Passover is fixed to the lunar cycle, and Passover always begins on Nisan 14 at dusk as the Jewish calendar changes to Nissan 15, it is possible to look at lunar cycles at this time and know exactly which years had Passover and the sabbath occurring on the same day. During this era this occurs in years 30 and 33 A.D. when Nisan 14 fell on a Friday, preparation day on April 7 of 30 A.D. and April 3 of 33 A.D. Therefore, 31 A.D. is necessarily precluded as an option for the crucifixion year.

A well reasoned argument as to why the crucifixion was most certainly in 33 A.D. can be found at www.bethlehemstar.net  using computer generated modeling of lunar eclipses (seen the night of the crucifixion) that occurred during the reign of Pontius Pilate. I believe you will find Rick Larson's scholarship compelling and irrefutable. Please inform me of his error(s) as I can find none.

Despite all the rhetoric surrounding the debate, arriving at the year of crucifixion is actually fairly simple when one understands events in Josephus' chronology. First, it must be pointed out that most theologians are using a flawed dating chronology as derived from Josephus' work, due to a printing error in impressions of his Bellum during the 16th Century. Once the correct dating is used, the options narrow quickly (see Ernest L. Martin, The Star That Astonished the World (Second Edition; Portland, Oregon: ASK Publications, 1996).

Gentlemen, I hope this has been enlightening, albeit, deflating of your postulations.

�Reynolds Cushman

You state that a "Preparation day was the day before the Jewish Sabbath or any feast day." Then you assume that Matthew, Mark and Luke all record it was the "day of preparation" prior to the sabbath (Saturday). They do not. They can also refer to the day of preparation before an Annual Sabbath. Note John says it "was the day of preparation for the Passover" (John 19:14) and that "it was the day of preparation...for that Sabbath was a high day" (John 19:31 cf. 19:42). A high day was an Annual Sabbath, in this case the Passover Sabbath, which was the first holy day during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. In the New Testament an annual Sabbath or the weekly Sabbath is often simply called Sabbath. So you have assumed a fact not in evidence and Larson did as well. The basis of his research is the invalid premise that the day of preparation precedes weekly Sabbaths only. When one begins with a false premise the whole argument is invalid. The day of preparation before the Nisan 15 Passover Sabbath not only has to do with the practice of deleavening the home but also preparing the Passover meal.

Josephus, Antiquities, Book XVI, Chapter 6 says nothing of Pharisaic tradition. Since you hold to Josephus so rigorously, how can you possibly claim that an obscure sect, which according to Josephus numbered somewhat above 6,000 in Herodian times (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, bk. XIII, ch. x, sect. 6 and bk. XVII, ch. ii, sect. 4), was predominant in early First Century Jerusalem and prohibited work on the sabbath (or feast days)." Millions of Jews lived in the region. Even the Torah itself did not forbid food preparation on annual Sabbaths except for Atonement. Your  ignorance of the nature of the Judaisms of the Herodian period is telling.

You refer to Ernest Martin's work but you must not be too familiar with his research and teachings for he argued for a 30 CE Crucifixion on a Thursday, not a 33 CE Crucifixion (see his Case for a Thursday Crucifixion). He also relies heavily on computer programs and astronomy rather than the internal evidence of the New Testament. Dr. Martin believed he had the "correct dating" from Josephus but arrived at wholly different conclusions than you do.

�Editor

Historical Information

I am working with middle school children. Every year at this time the children write their own version of the first Christmas. As they get older, they want and need to add more and more realistic details as to setting, clothing, normal behavior, customs. We have gleaned a good deal of information from The Bronze Bow, but I know there exist sites for them to go to that would help. Can you help out?

�Lisl Bambas

The internet bounds with much misinformation. Our suggestion is that you use the resources of a good theology library to ferret out customs and costumes to the degree they are known. One common mistake is to assume that contemporary Middle Eastern Muslim or Jewish dress somewhat reflects the clothing of the first century--it doesn't.

--Editor

---

Page last edited: 01/02/06 05:20 PM

Thank you for visiting BIBARCH�
Please Visit Our Site Often