VAT456 down dates SOLOMON 60 years..

Among other suggestions the Pesians revised their chronology, expanding the
Persian Period artificially by 82 years is the discovery of double-dating in
the astronomical text VAT4956 for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in 568BCE and
511BCE. This confirms manipulation of the astrnomical dating for the
Neo-Babylonian Period as well with the 511BCE dating confirming the original
37th year of Nebuchadnezzar that year. The result of this corrected
dating has a favorable impact upon the history of Solomon at Jerusalem since
it allows us to down date Solomon 57-60 years to 910-570BCE. Solomon is
currently challenged as a myth since archaeologists claim the architecture
of Jerusalem was not so developed at the time Solomon is currently being
dated but attribute this level of building to the time of Omri whose reign
is currently dated ending in 870BCE. Now that Solomon's reign is dated
ending in 870BCE, there would appear to be no archaeological discrepancy for
Solomon when the timeline is corrected.

Of note, this period is critically dated by a single solar eclipse event
mentioned in the Assyrian eponym list. However, this eclipse now popularly
dated to 763BCE was part of a series of predictable eclipses occurring in
the exeligmos cycle (54 years 1 month). The 763BCE dating begins the year
before the equinox, which was not the practice among the pagans in later
times. That means the 763BCE eclipse could be dated to the 2nd month
instead of the third, and as well the subsequent ecilpse in the series in
709BCE is also dated in the third month. Further, the 709BCE eclipse
likely was included in the eponym because it was a significant social event
which would be explained if the Babylonians and Assyrians were able to
predict this eclipse based upon this very rare series, which they could
have. This is a second reason for dating that eclipse to 709BCE. The
54-year difference (763 vs 709 BCE) in this eclipse compared to the 57-year
difference found in the VAT4956 (568 vs 511 BCE) affords a rather seamless
correction for the Assyrian Period.

Solomon's rule is reduced by 60 years because of a little recognized 6-year
co-rulership between Solomon and Rehoboam, thus Shishak's invasion (now
dated down from 925 to 871BCE) occurs during the 39th year of Solomon and
thus the cities in the northern kingdom that he attacked were still "Judean"
fortresses at the time.

Of course, since this is strictly a "historical" issue, the Bible and its
interpreters determining the Biblical timeline, archaeologists have no
purchase beyond their own independent dating. Archaeologists have to apply
the timeline provided by the Biblical experts and not rely upon their own
casual reading, which has proven to be often biased or inadequate. By not
correcting the revisions from the Persian Period, Solomon got dated far
earlier than the Biblical timeline requires and thus inaccurate presumptions
and conclusions have been drawn regarding the Biblical historical record.
The revisions actually explain why there seemed to be a discrepancy between
the archaeological dating the Biblical historical reference for Solomon.
But when the correction is made and Solomon restored to 910-870BCE, there is
great harmony between archaeology and Biblical historicity.

It is quite interesting how revisions in one period affect the entire
timeline preceding it, but that's how it works. The timeline is like a
chain and no chain is stronger than its weakest link. That weak link is the
Persian Period which under scrutiny collapses quite quickly allowing us to
remove the faked 82 years and restore 26 years to the original
Neo-Babylonian kings.

Archaeological General Reference: As a general reference until more
confirmation of the original timeline is estrablished with appropriate peer
review, presumptions about dating should include a degree of "flexibility"
that expans the Neo-Babylonian Period by 26 years and reduces the
Greco-Persian Period by 82 years. On the Greek side of the debate,
Socrates dies at the time Aristotle becomes 18 and thus the references to
Socrates' young lover protigee "Phaedo" are actually cryptic references to
Aristotle who was Socrates' young lover. References by Aristotle about
Socrates would confirm he was in love with him should there be questions in
this regard.

Larry Wilson
Biblical Historian