Rodger Young's Papers on Chronology

The Cyropaedia gives prominence to a Median king, Cyaxares II, who reigned over both Medes and Persians until about one year after the fall of Babylon. The present article shows why 1800 years of scholarship, from Josephus in the first century AD until the great conservative Bible commentators of the nineteenth century AD, saw that the similarities between Xenophon’s Cyaxares and Daniel’s "Darius the Mede" made it clear that the two were the same individual. The choice: continue to follow the deceptions of Persian propaganda that eliminated both Belshazzar and Cyaxares/Darius from the narrative, or accept the archaeological and inscriptional evidence that gives credence to both Xenophon’s Cyaxares and Daniel’s Darius. Many will continue to choose the first option. (As an intermediate ground, some have advocated that Cyrus = Darius.) It will be easier for presupposition-based critical scholars to believe a deliberate deception than to admit that the Book of Daniel is an accurate historical document from the sixth century BC.

The present article relates why Belshazzar's name was deleted from non-Biblical historical works. It discloses who was responsible for this early example of censored news, and what that person's motive was for producing a false narrative about events related to Belshazzar. It will be followed by an article dealing with the same treatment given to Daniel's "Darius the Mede," who skeptical scholarship still maintains is just as fictitious a person as their predecessors confidently stated was the case for Belshazzar.

The first half of the presentation deals with questions such as: Is there any Egyptian reference to the Exodus? When did it occur? Is there any extra-Biblical indication of the size of the Israelite host who fled Egypt? Do the several strange Egyptian records related to Amenhotep II have any relevance to the Exodus?

The second half of the presentation (slides 17 and after) discusses the curse tablet found on Mount Ebal by the Associates for Biblical Research, and also the two altars found there, along with Adam Zertal's puzzling description of the older altar as "primogenal" rather than being willing to recognize it as Joshua's altar.

This emphasis on the Medes over the Persians in the Bible is consistent with the Harran Stela, commissioned by Babylon’s king Nabonidus just three years or less before the fall of Babylon in 539 BC. The Stela names the Medes as a principal enemy, without mentioning the Persians because Nabonidus considered them as under the suzerainty of the Medes at the time.

The present article examines these issues, focusing on how they relate to the existence or non-existence of the Median king at the time, Cyaxares II. This Cyaxares is presented as a major actor in the history of the time in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, but the consensus of modern historians is that he is entirely fictitious, the invention of Xenophon. The reasoning behind the consensus view is explained, and the reasons favoring the alternative view—that Cyaxares was a real person—are given, along with the insights that the alternative view offers in interpreting some difficult passages in the Book of Daniel.

Part 1 (click here to listen) discusses the importance of having the correct Biblical chronology in determining whether the Bible can be trusted to give accurate historical data. An innacurate chronology, one that produces conflict with well-established historical dates, will lead to questions about the reliability and authority of the Bible. On the other hand, if chronological data derived from the Bible can be shown to be systematically accurate with regard to the timing of historical events, the demonstration of such accuracy will support a high view of the inspiration of Scripture. Advocates of the "higher critical" approach to the Bible start with the presupposition that most Biblical texts, particularly those dealing with historical matters, were written after--and frequently long after--the events they describe, with the intent of promoting the theological ideas of the writers. With such a presupposition, it could not be expected that there would be accuracy in the fine details of chronology for events that happened long before they were described by those inventing, or at least loosely interpreting, these events in order to fit their theological agenda.

In contrast to this approach, the Adventist scholar Edwin Thiele started with the chronological data as found in the relevant books of the Hebrew Bible and sought to determine the dating methods that were used by the ancient court recorders during the Hebrew kingdom period. He used the Scriptural data, along with information from the methods of other Ancient Near Eastern societies, in order to determine these methods. Only after this was done did Thiele construct a chronology for approximately 400 years of the kingdom period. The chronology that resulted was based, therefore, not on his presuppositions, but on the data as given in the historical parts of Scripture. This "inductive" method--one that starts with the data instead of a scholar's presuppositions--is at the core of the scientific method. The success of the inductive approach followed by Thiele and those who built on his work is discussed in the podcast, so that a geologist that Rodger cites (Steven Austin) commented that the accomplishment of Thiele's approach in determining the proper understanding the chronology of this time should be considered as one of the greatest breakthroughs of the Twentieth Century in supporting the authority of the Bible, second in importance only to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The success of the method followed by Thiele in producing a complex and coherent chronology for the kingdom period has allowed Assyriologists and Egyptologists to refine their own chronologies based on the Bible's data and chronology.

     Most of this understanding has come from scholars with a high view of the inspiration of Scripture, or at least from those who followed the inductive method of starting with the biblical texts and giving the ancient authors the benefit of the doubt, rather than with speculations that assume a priori that the historical parts of the OT were written, or redacted, at a time much later than the events described.

     I am not alone in believing that this book is a highly significant achievement. As quoted in the endorsements, Eugene Merrill wrote, "Steinmann lays out here a foundation that doubtless will provide the basis for all subsequent discussions of biblical chronology." An advertisement for the book is available at Amazon. For an advertisement with more information, including a view of some of the contents, see the Concordia Publishing House advertisement by clicking on the front-cover image to the right.

The suggestion that Solomon died between Nisan (April) and Elul (August) 931 B.C. was first put forward by Rodger Young, "When Did Solomon Die?" JETS 46 (2003) 589-603. Consequently, the first four Judean kings (from Rehoboam to Jehoshaphat) have been moved back one year. The implication of this minor, but very important, shift does away with Thiele's suggestion that Judah's system was imposed on Israel's for these four kings by the biblical scribes.

To access a text-only version that is somewhat more readable than the version with graphics, click here.

To access a text-only version that is somewhat more readable than the version with graphics, click here.

It is quite unusual to find plaster associated with an altar in the Levant. But see Deut 27:4-6 and Joshua 8:30-32: At the command of Moses, Joshua covered the altar with plaster and wrote on it a copy of the law of Moses. A box of the plaster is currently at the University of Haifa, where Zertal took it in the 1980s.