Dubious Sothic Dating

....


SOTHIC DATING



But what about the "proof" that comes from Sothic dating? As we saw above, testimony from 12th and 18th dynasty establish dates of about 1870 and 1540 BC respectively. How reliable is this?



James explains the Sothic dating by citing from I. E. S. Edwards:



"The 12 months were divided into 3 seasons bearing names which are generally rendered Inundation, Winter, and Summer, each season consisting of four months. The year began in the season of Inundation, and in the ideal year the first day of the first month of the season of Inundation coincided with the first day on which the dog-star Sirius [Sothis] should be seen on the eastern horizon just before the rising of the sun (i.e., roughly about 19 or 20 July in the Julian calendar). Since the dynastic Egyptians never introduced a leap year into their civil calendar, New Year's Day advanced by one whole day in relation to the nature year in every period of four years. As a result of this displacement New Year's Day and the day on which Sirius role heliacally actually coincided for no more than four [consecutive] years in every period of approximately 1460 years (i.e., 365 x 4), the so-called Sothic cycle.



"Thus," continues James, "according to the theory, the heliacal rising of Sirius (Sothis), together with the seasons, gradually revolved around the civil calendar. After 730 years they would have completely reversed with respect to the solar year, returning to their original position only after a period of some 1460 years:



"Dates in Egyptian records were generally set out according to a fixed formula: ... If in addition to this formula, a document tells us that Sirius rose heliacally on that day it is only necessary to count the number of days which had elapsed since the first day of the year given in the formula and multiply the total by four to obtain the number of years since the beginning of the particular Sothic cycle."



Now the fact is that we only have two such Sothic dates, and one of them is no good. The first is provided by papyrus fragments "found at el-Lahun, dated to year 7 of an unnamed pharaoh, but reasonably attributed to Senusret III on paleographic grounds. This document does not give the beginning of a Sothic cycle, but a calendar date for the rising of Sirius, which can be retrocalculated as 1872 BC if the sighting of Sirius was made in the Memphis-Lahun region. If, however, the sighting was made at the lower latitude of Elephantine, as Rolf Krauss has recently advocated, the date would be reduced to 1830 BC."



The only other Sothic date comes from the Ebers Papyrus for year 9 of Amenhotep I. There is a problem with this one, though, since while the "emergence of Sothis" is referred to in the text, no calendar day is specified. Thus, no calculation of a New Year's Day starting point can be made, and this Sothic date is of no use.



So we have one date: year 7 of (probably) Senusret III, from which we can calculate back to either 1872 or 1830 BC, and then forward again to the BC date of Senusret III year 7. But how reliable is even this?



James points out that "there are good reasons for rejecting the whole concept of Sothic dating as it was applied by the earlier Egyptologists, simply on the grounds that it did not make allowance for any calendrical adjustments. It is assumed that the Egyptians allowed the civil calendar and the seasonal cycle, to which the lunar-religious calendar was tied, to progress further and further out of alignment." There is no evidence to support this. In fact, we know from "the much better documented (calendrically speaking) Hellenistic and Roman periods [of Egyptian history] that several major reforms were put into effect within the space of only three centuries." If the Egyptians were willing to revise the calendar during this period, who is to say that they did not revise it at other periods as well?



James puts the conclusion in italics: "If a single calendrical adjustment was made in the period before the Ptolemies, it would completely invalidate the Sothic calculations for any prior period."



....



Taken from: http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/bc/bc.98.10.htm




Tobit a High Official of King Hoshea of Israel

by

Damien F. Mackey

King Hoshea of Israel was politically active during the reign of king Shalmaneser [V] of Assyria, whose kingdom the latter eventually destroyed. It would be fitting, then, that Tobit, the father of Tobias (= Job), who was taken into captivity by this same Shalmaneser, and who was from the northern kingdom of Israel (tribe of Naphtali), would once have served as a high official also for Hoshea.

Why?

Because Tobit himself tells us that he had been given a ‘roving commission’ by king “Shalmaneser” of Assyria, who “gave him leave to go whithersoever he would, with liberty to do whatever he had in mind” (Tobit 1:14, Douay version). In other words, Tobit was a great man of that time.

Now, given my argument that the name ‘Tobit’ is just a variant of the name, ‘Obadiah,

see post for Nov 2, 2009 at:

http://bookofjob-amaic.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/possible-hebrew-origin-of-names-tobit.html

then Tobit becomes the standout candidate, I think, for the official of king Hoshea, ‘Abdi, who owned the king’s seal (see BAR 21:06, Nov/Dec 1995):

“The minister’s name inscribed on the seal is Abdi (‘BDY), or, to use his full name in English, Obadiah (again, the name of a prophet, but a different person)”.

See also post for May 1, 2012, at:

http://houseofgold-amaic.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/historical-evidence-for-king-hoshea-of.html

The name, ‘Obadiah, is the same as the name of Mohammed’s father, ‘Abdullah. For, according to wikipedia (article “Obadiah”) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obadiah

Obadiah is a Biblical theophorical name, meaning "servant of Yahweh" or "worshipper of Yahweh."[1] It is cognate to the Arabic name ‘Abdullah. The form of his name used in the Septuagint is Obdios; in Latin it is Abdias.

What adds further intrigue to all this is that Mohammed’s mother was Amina, whilst Tobit’s wife was Anna. So the parents of young Tobias were ‘Obadiah (= ‘Abdullah) and Anna, whilst those of Mohammed were ‘Abdullah and Amina.

Tobit is the standout for ‘Abdi, the high minister of king Hoshea of Israel.



Historical Evidence for King Hoshea of Israel

BAR 21:06, Nov/Dec 1995




Royal Signature: Name of Israel’s Last King Surfaces in a Private Collection



By André Lemaire



The name of the northern kingdom of Israel’s last king has turned up on a beautiful seal from the eighth century B.C.E.! Although the seal did not belong to the king himself, it was the property of one of his high-ranking ministers.



The king is Hoshea (HWSû‘ in Hebrew; the same name as that of the prophet Hosea, but referring to a different person).a Hoshea ruled Israel from 732 or 731 B.C.E. to 722 B.C.E., just before it was destroyed by Assyrian conquest. The minister’s name inscribed on the seal is Abdi (‘BDY), or, to use his full name in English, Obadiah (again, the name of a prophet, but a different person).



....



Taken from:

http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=21&Issue=6&ArticleID=3




Tobit a High Official of King Hoshea of Israel

by

Damien F. Mackey

King Hoshea of Israel was politically active during the reign of king Shalmaneser [V] of Assyria, whose kingdom the latter eventually destroyed. It would be fitting, then, that Tobit, the father of Tobias (= Job), who was taken into captivity by this same Shalmaneser, and who was from the northern kingdom of Israel (tribe of Naphtali), would once have served as a high official also for Hoshea.

Why?

Because Tobit himself tells us that he had been given a ‘roving commission’ by king “Shalmaneser” of Assyria, who “gave him leave to go whithersoever he would, with liberty to do whatever he had in mind” (Tobit 1:14, Douay version). In other words, Tobit was a great man of that time.

Now, given my argument that the name ‘Tobit’ is just a variant of the name, ‘Obadiah,

see post for Nov 2, 2009 at:

http://bookofjob-amaic.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/possible-hebrew-origin-of-names-tobit.html

then Tobit becomes the standout candidate, I think, for the official of king Hoshea, ‘Abdi, who owned the king’s seal (see BAR 21:06, Nov/Dec 1995):

“The minister’s name inscribed on the seal is Abdi (‘BDY), or, to use his full name in English, Obadiah (again, the name of a prophet, but a different person)”.

See also post for May 1, 2012, at:

http://houseofgold-amaic.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/historical-evidence-for-king-hoshea-of.html

The name, ‘Obadiah, is the same as the name of Mohammed’s father, ‘Abdullah. For, according to wikipedia (article “Obadiah”) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obadiah

Obadiah is a Biblical theophorical name, meaning "servant of Yahweh" or "worshipper of Yahweh."[1] It is cognate to the Arabic name ‘Abdullah. The form of his name used in the Septuagint is Obdios; in Latin it is Abdias.

What adds further intrigue to all this is that Mohammed’s mother was Amina, whilst Tobit’s wife was Anna. So the parents of young Tobias were ‘Obadiah (= ‘Abdullah) and Anna, whilst those of Mohammed were ‘Abdullah and Amina.

Tobit is the standout for ‘Abdi, the high minister of king Hoshea of Israel.



Historical Evidence for King Hoshea of Israel

BAR 21:06, Nov/Dec 1995

Royal Signature: Name of Israel’s Last King Surfaces in a Private Collection



By André Lemaire



The name of the northern kingdom of Israel’s last king has turned up on a beautiful seal from the eighth century B.C.E.! Although the seal did not belong to the king himself, it was the property of one of his high-ranking ministers.



The king is Hoshea (HWSû‘ in Hebrew; the same name as that of the prophet Hosea, but referring to a different person).a Hoshea ruled Israel from 732 or 731 B.C.E. to 722 B.C.E., just before it was destroyed by Assyrian conquest. The minister’s name inscribed on the seal is Abdi (‘BDY), or, to use his full name in English, Obadiah (again, the name of a prophet, but a different person).



....



Taken from:



http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=21&Issue=6&ArticleID=3




Read All About it: the Real Prophet Job!



The Book of Job is widely regarded as being a masterpiece of literature.



But the prophet Job himself is virtually unknown. Estimates for his era, one of the most hotly contested of biblical issues, have ranged over 1200 years of uncertainty.


Moreover, was Job a foreigner to Israel or an Israelite?


Read now the whole true story: Who Job was, and from whence he came. And in what era he actually lived.


Read his very genealogy. And learn of his notable biblical alter ego.


All of this important biblico-historical information is there waiting for you at:


http://bookofjob-amaic.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/jobs-life-and-times.html


or at:


http://bookofjobamaic.blog.com/2012/03/30/jobs-life-and-times/

Ancient Near Eastern History in Chaos

Dear Johnny (Zwick of CIAS www.specialtyinterests.net/)


My connecting of Hezekiah of Judah with Josiah went down like a lead balloon amongst the few to whom I sent it. (See Pope’s valuable effort at: http://www.domainofman.com/book/chart-37.htm)


So here is the next phase. I would not actually call it a bombshell. More like a Third World War.


Nabonidus is an Assyrian king. He adopts Assyrian titulature and boasts of having the Assyrian kings as his "royal ancestors". There is nothing particularly strange about his supposed long stay in Teima in Arabia. This was a typical campaign region adopted by the neo-Assyrian kings. There is nothing particularly remarkable about his desire to restore the Ehulhul temple of Sin in Harran. Ashurbanipal did that.


Nabonidus is said to have had two major goals, to restore that Sin temple and to establish the empire of Babylon along the lines of the neo-Assyrians. Once again, Ashurbanipal is particularly mentioned as being his inspiration.


Nabonidus was not singular in not taking the hand of Bel in Babylon for many years, due to what he calls the impiety of the Babylonians. Ashurbanipal (and now you will notice that he keeps turning up) could not shake the hand of Bel after his brother Shamash-shum-ukin had revolted against him, barring Babylon, Borsippa, etc. to him. He tells us this explicitly.


Nabonidus is not singular either in not expecting to become king. Ashurbanipal had felt the same.


So, basically Nabonidus is Ashurbanipal during his early reign. They share many Babylonian building works and restorations, too.


Now, if Nabonidus is Ashurbanipal (and I am now pretty much convinced that he must be), then Ashurbanipal of 41-43 years of reign (figures vary) can only be Nebuchednezzar II the Great of an established 43 years of reign. Nebuchednezzar is the Babylonian face, while Ashurbanipal is the Assyrian face. The great Nebuchednezzar has left only 4 known depictions of himself, we are told. Ridiculous! Add to this paltry number all of the depictions of Ashurbanipal.


The last 35 years of Nebuchednezzar are hardly known, they say. Add Ashurbanipal (whose lack also in places is supplemented in turn by Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus).


It is doubted whether Nebuchednezzar conquered Egypt as according to the Bible. Just add Ashurbanipal who certainly did conquer Egypt.


The many queries about whether an inscription belongs to Nebuchednezzar or Nabonidus now dissolves.


It was Nabonidus, not Nebuchednezzar, they say, who built the famous palace in Babylon.


Nabonidus's well known madness (perhaps the Teima phase) is Nebuchednezzar's madness.


Nabonidus calls Sin "the God of gods" (ilani sa ilani), the exact phrase used by Nebuchednezzar in Daniel 2:47 of Daniel's God ("the God of gods").


Looking for a fiery furnace? Well, Ashurbanipal has one. His brother dies in it.

“Saulmagina my rebellious brother, who made war with me, they threw into a burning fiery furnace, and destroyed his life” (Caiger, p. 176).


So, Nabopolassar of 21 years of reign, thought to be the father of Nebuchednezzar II, becomes Nebuchednezzar I of 21 years of reign (whom I have formerly identified with Sennacherib of 21-24 years).


Nabopolassar is actually the grandfather, not father, of Nabonidus. He, not Nebuchednezzar II, is the "Nebuchednezzar" to whom Nabonidus looks back so fondly, just as Ashurbanipal did to Sennacherib.


King Manasseh of Judah must now be one of Josiah's ne'er do well sons. [I have since identified him with Jehoiakim].

Anyway, I'll send you an article in due time.

God bless
Damien Mackey.

Oh, yes, and Belshazzar, they say, was Nabonidus's son, not Nebuchednezzar's son. Contrary to the Bible.

And Belshazzar was not a king, they also say.

Well he wasn't a king while Nabonidus = Nebuchednezzar/Ashurbanipal long reigned.

But he was later. I'll believe Daniel 5 (Writing on the Wall).