The ICB Chronological Charts

Badgerholt inkpotThe ICB is divided up into a series of chronological charts. The originals have one line (at a minimum) for every year from ICB 0000 (-A3990 A.C.) to (ICB 490 (100 A.D.)  ICB 0000 is the year before Adam’s life age count begins in the Masoretic Genesis 5 genealogical table. Each chart lists all events given in Scripture related to the time span it covers (except for Genesis One).  Beginning with the Babylonian Captivity, the charts include other nation events.

However, since Scripture frequently leaves long time gaps between events when nothing is recorded, the charts posted here are a condensing of the original charts that contain a lot of blank lines. The charts will be posted on the ICB Menu as they are finished.

There are two versions for each chart up until the Babylonian Captivity.  The Life Years Chart lists all events mentioned in Scripture related to the chart’s time span using only the life years of those involved.  The Calendar Chart adds a column for the Western calendar dates based on the accepted synchronized dates between the Bible and the Western calendar.

Starting with the earliest synchronized event, the fifth year of Rechoboam, the chart assigns one Western calendar year to each ICB year in both time directions and lets the years fall where they may within the life/reign year dates of Biblical events.

However, the charts use the Astronomical Calendar (A.C.) with a year zero instead of the original Gregorian calendar, which did not have a year zero.  Therefore, 925 B.C. (the earliest synchronized date) is the equivalent of -V924 A.C. in the chart.

The Calendar Chart helps to relate the events to a time scale understandable to most readers.  After all, Abram leaving for Canaan in T075 Abr or ICB 2114 doesn’t mean anything in the Western chronology; Abram leaving for Canaan in  -V1875 A.C. (Astronomical Calendar) gives the reader an idea of when Abram lived.

This link ICB Menu  will take you to the charts and essays related to the Internal Chronology of the Bible.

Grace & peace to you,

Dori

 

Filling the Gap:  Jochebed and Amram

Badgerholt inkpotThe paternity of Jochebed (the mother of Aaron and Moses) and her blood relation to Amram her husband was another question needing research, as well as when she might fit into the timeline.

According to the Septuagint, Jochebed was the daughter of Amram’s father’s brother and not the sister of his father. Jochebed was not Amram’s aunt but rather his first cousin.  This blood relationship is consistant with YHWH’s later expressed law.

Jochebed and Amram had a parallel cousin marriage, the most desireable type of marriage in the Ancient Near East. This is the same kind of marriage that Abram and Sarai and Nahor and Milcah had.

This link Filling the Gap: Jochebed and Amram will take you to an essay discussing this issue.  Once again, the tables, even with the plug-in, do not post well on the blog.

Grace and peace to you,

Dori

Filling the Gap:  The Four Generations

Badgerholt inkpotThe  conclusion that the 430 years refers to the time between Abram entering Canaan and the Exodus, and that the 400 years counts from the birth of Isaac to the Exodus, still leaves the Chronology at 307 years. Extending the chart to 430 years leaves a 123 year gap between the year Levi died and the Exodus. The next step is filling the gap, starting with plugging Moses’ and Aaron’s life dates into the Chronology.

There is also the question of YHWH telling Abram that his descendents would return to Canaan in the fourth generation (Genesis 15.16).  Four generations spread over a couple of hundred years.  How did that work?

This link Filling the Gap: The Four Generations will take you to an essay discussing that question. Once again, the tables, even with the plug-in, do not post well on the blog.

Grace and peace to you,

Dori

 

ICB: 400 Years – From Isaac’s birth?

Does the 400 year count start from Isaac’s birth?

Badgerholt inkpotThe essay “430 Years: Canaan and Egypt?” looked at the evidence for reading the 430 years in Exodus 12.40-41 as referring to the time period between Abram entering the land of Canaan and the Exodus. It left off with raising the question of the 400 years mentioned in Genesis 15.13.

 

And He said to Abram, “Know for certain that your seed will be a sojourner in a land not theirs and they will serve them, and [by them] they will be oppressed ~ 400 years” # (Gen 15.13 – dmd)

Does this verse mean that Abraham’s seed would be enslaved for 400 years?  That’s a common interpretation today, but does that interpretation hold up under examination?

Researching the question of the 400 years required a closer look at the grammar of of the original Hebrew. However, since a grammar analysis of the original Hebrew is highly technical and probably not of great interest to the majority of people, this essay will not include that analysis but rather move straight into the translation discussion. The translation discussion is also technical, but hopefully it is of some interest to readers.

My translations of Genesis 15.13:

From the Hebrew Masoretic:

‘And He said to @Avräm, “Know for certain that your seed will become a sojourner in a land not theirs and they will serve them and they will afflict them: 400 years.”’

From the Greek Septuagint:

"And it was said to Habram, ‘You will surely know that your seed will be a sojourner in a land not his own and they shall enslave them, and they will mistreat them, and they will humble them, 400 years."

From Stephan’s quote in Acts 7.6:

"But God spoke this, that his seed would be a sojourner in a land belonging to another and they will enslave them and they will mistreat 400 years"

Looking at the Hebrew Masoretic

‘And He said to @Avräm, “Know for certain that your seed will become a sojourner in a land not theirs and they will serve them and they will afflict them: 400 years.”’

The first part of the verse is a straightforward translation. “And He said to Abram, “Know for certain that your seed will become a sojourner in a land not theirs.”  Abram’s descendents would live in a land not belonging to them, just as Abram was already living in a land not belonging to him (Canaan was the Promised Land, and not the Owned Land). However, YHWH does not name the land in which they would be living. Identifying the land as Egypt came in hindsight.

The second part of the verse “and they shall serve them and they shall afflict them” is a bit more complicated. A literal English translation of the Hebrew is confusing because a straight translation of the pronouns makes it sound as though Abram’s seed will both serve and afflict those living in a foreign land.  Substituting the nouns for the pronouns makes the meaning clearer in English.

And He said to Abram, Know for certain that your seed will be a sojourner in a land not theirs and Abram’s seed will serve the inhabitants of the foreign land and the inhabitants of the foreign land will afflict Abram’s seed  ~ 400 years #

This is what is called a chiastic construction (a-b, b-a). In this case, it does not translate well straightforwardly into English. Translators have made the choice to translate the second verb in the passive voice (it’s in the active voice in Hebrew) in order to convey the meaning accurately.  My translation adds ‘by them’ to retain the chiastic construction.

And He said to Abram, Know for certain that your seed will become a sojourner in a land not theirs and they will serve them, and [by them] they will be afflicted ~ 400 years  #

The verb ‘serve‘ translates the verb ‘øavädh‘ in Hebrew, which here means ‘to work or to serve.’  This is the same verb used in Genesis 2 to describe Adam’s serving the ground. In this grammar usage, it does not mean ‘to enslave,’ although in a different grammar usage, it can mean ‘to enslave.’  Young’s and Green’s literal translations do not translate the verb with ‘enslave,’ and neither do the Geneva Bible, the English Standard Version, or the King James Version.

The verb ‘afflict‘ translates the verb ‘øänäh‘ in Hebrew. It means ‘to afflict, oppress, subdue, or humble.’  This grammar usage intensifies the verb ‘afflict‘ but it does not connote slavery. Again, with a different grammar usage, it would mean slavery, but it does not mean ‘slavery‘ in this verse.  Young, Green, and the English Standard Version follow the King James Version in translating it as ‘afflict’ while the Geneva Bible goes with ‘entreat them evil.’  TWOT #1652[1] discusses how God uses this affliction to humble the recipient into absolute dependence on Him.

So, this verse does not refer to slavery, but rather to service and affliction, which YHWH permits in order to humble Abram’s seed so that they will depend on Him.  The idea that YHWH @Élöhîm was telling Abram that his seed would be enslaved is an interpretation made after the fact, years after the children of Israel were, in fact, enslaved by the inhabitants of a land not belonging to them.  What YHWH @Élöhîm says to Abram does not require an understanding that his seed would be enslaved.  It’s questionable whether Abram understood YHWH to be saying so.

So how does the 400 years work in this verse? A Hebrew accent called the ‘athnak‘ separates the 400 years from the rest of the sentence. Logically, the 400 years applies to part of the verse before the athnak. For 400 years, Abram’s seed will be a sojourner in a land not theirs and Abram’s seed will serve the inhabitants of the land and the inhabitants of the land will afflict Abram’s seed. But, again, in the Masoretic, Genesis 15:13 mentions neither time in Egypt nor slavery specifically as occurring during the 400 years. To reiterate, that interpretation comes from hindsight.

Since YHWH is talking about what would happen to Abraham’s descendents, it seems logical that He’s starting the count from the birth of Abraham’s son Isaac, his first descendent in the Line of the Promise. In the Chronology, counting 405 years backwards from the Exodus gets to the birth of Isaac. The 400 years is a likely a rounding, but the count does start with Isaac.  The Geneva Bible commentary by the English Reform scholars confirms this conclusion.

Just as the Geneva Bible had a note for Exodus 12.16 explaining that the 430 years counted from Abram to the Exodus, so too the Geneva Bible has a note for Genesis 15:13 explaining that the 400 years counted from the birth of Isaac to the Exodus.

Counting from the birth of Isaac to their departure out of Egypt: Which declareth that God will suffer His to be afflicted in this world.

The Geneva Bible also has a marginal note for Acts 7.6 (Stephan’s defense before the Sanhedrin) that speaks to both the 400 years in Genesis 15.13 and the 430 years in Exodus 12.40-41 and Galatians 3.17:

There are reckoned four hundred years, from the beginning of Abraham’s progeny, which was at the birth of Isaac and four hundred and thirty years which are spoken of by Paul, Gal 3.17, from the time that Abraham and his father departed together out of Ur of the Chaldeans.

     Masoretic Conclusion

Abram’s descendents did spend 400 years in a land not theirs. Neither Canaan nor Egypt belonged to Isaac, Jacob, or the children of Israel while they sojourned in those lands. Abraham’s son Isaac did not ‘serve’ or ‘work for’ the inhabitants of the land, but he was not welcomed by them either (although some of that was his own fault; passing his wife off as his sister was not appreciated). In fact, the king ordered Isaac to leave their country. There was some minor affliction by the Philistine shepherds in the matter of who owned the wells, which forced Isaac to keep moving until the shepherds stopped complaining.

Even Abraham’s grandson Jacob going to Paddan Aram to find a wife fulfills the prophecy. He lived there for 20 years in a land not his own. He served his father-in-law Laban (an inhabitant of the land) for those 20 years, working for his wives and then his flocks. He certainly saw himself as afflicted by Laban. Not only was there the surprise wedding night and having to serve an extra seven years for Rachel but there was also the matter of the constantly changing wages.

I understand that the common interpretation is that this verse prophesies that Abraham’s descendents would be enslaved for 400 years, but I don’t think that the Hebrew text supports that interpretation unless one brings that interpretation to it in hindsight.

Looking at the Greek Septuagint

"And it was said to Habram, ‘You will surely know that your seed will be a sojourner in a land not his own and they shall enslave them, and they will mistreat them, and they will humble them, 400 years."

The Septuagint translators used three verbs to translate the two Hebrew words in the Hebrew text: doulówsousin, kakówsousin, and tapeinówsousin. The translators chose ‘doulóow’ (which means nothing but ‘to enslave’ or ‘to bring into bondage’) to translate ‘øávädh.’  But again, the grammar usage of ‘øávädh’ in Genesis 15.13 in the Hebrew Masoretic does not mean ‘to enslave’: it means simply ‘to work or to serve.’

While it is seriously questionable whether Abram in his time understood YHWH to be telling him that his descendents would be enslaved, apparently, 1,200 years later, the Septuagint translators did think YHWH was telling him that. They interpreted the Hebrew word in light of the never-to-be-forgotten episode of the enslavement of the children of Israel by the Egyptians and translated it as ‘to enslave.’

Still, since the Septuagint translators preserved the fragment in Exodous 12.40-41 clarifying that the 430 years included the time spent in Canaan, when the children of Israel were semi-nomadic herdsmen, it seems probable that they understood that the children of Israel were not enslaved for 400 years.  According to the Chronology, Jacob went down to Egypt in the 215th year since Abram entered Canaan. According to Exodus, the Egyptians did not begin to enslave the Hebrews until the generation of Jacob’s sons had died, with Levi dying in the 307th year after Abram entered Canaan. It is likely that the Hebrews were enslaved for only around 100 years.

The translators chose two Greek words (kakóow, tapeinów) to translate the two concepts found in the Hebrew word ‘øinnû:’  ‘to harm, mistreat, oppress’ and ‘to humble, bring low.’ Again, the idea is that YHWH uses affliction and oppression to humble His people so that they depend completely on Him.

So, while the Septuagint translation gives a surface impression that Abram’s descendents would be slaves for 400 years, a deeper study of the relevant verses in the Septuagint finds that, if Scripture is consistant with itself, the 400 years cannot be the length of time the Hebrews were enslaved. The conclusion reached with the Masoretic text still stands: starting with Isaac, for 400 years, Abram’s descendents lived in lands that were not theirs where they were afflicted by the inhabitants at some time during the 400 years.

Looking at Stephan’s quote in Acts 7.6:

"But God spoke this, that his seed would be a sojourner in a land belonging to another and they will enslave them and they will mistreat 400 years"

Next we come to Stephen’s quotation of this verse in his defense before the Sanhedrin, as recorded in Acts 7.6. Stephen is quoting from the Septuagint, but it’s a paraphrase because he leaves out the third verb, ‘tapeinóow’ or ‘humble.’  Biblical scholars have long held that when the New Testament writers quote from the Old Testament, they quote from the Septuagint, and not from the Hebrew texts[2].  They also hold that many of the quotations are a paraphrased version, as opposed to a word-for-word quote, which a simple comparison with the verses as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures will illustrate.[3]  Apparently, that is what Stephen did during his defense.

So, I don’t think this verse really adds anything to the discussion because it is a paraphrased quote of the Septuagint verse I already discussed.

However, the Geneva Bible’s comment on Acts 7.6 is instructive.

There are reckoned four hundred years, from the beginning of Abraham’s progeny, which was at the birth of Isaac and four hundred and thirty years which are spoken of by Paul, Gal 3:17, from the time that Abraham and his father departed together out of Ur of the Chaldeans.

The 16th century English Reform scholars understood that the 400 years counted from the birth of Isaac to the Exodus,[4] just as they understood that the 430 years counted from Abraham to the Exodus. According to an article by Dr. Michael S. Heiser,[5] the Renaissance and Reformation eras saw a greatly renewed interest in the Septuagint.  It is reasonable to surmise that the Geneva Bible translators were well aware that, in Galatians 3.15, Paul was referencing Exodus 12.40-41 as found in the Septuagint, and not as found in the Masoretic text. They did not change their translation to reflect the Septuagint Greek over the Masoretic Hebrew texts, but they did note that the 430 years stretched from Abraham to the Exodus and the 400 years from the birth of Isaac to the Exodus.

Conclusion

The common perception that the children of Israel were enslaved for 400 years in Egypt is incorrect. The logical understanding of Genesis 15.13, especially in light of Galatians 3.15 and Exodus 12.40-41 (Septuagint), is that Abram’s seed would be strangers and afflicted in whatever land they would be residing during the 400 years. Only in hindsight was it clear that sometime during that 400 years, they would be enslaved.

Moving On

The  conclusion of this side trip that the 430 years refers to the time between Abram entering Canaan and the Exodus, and that the 400 years counting from the birth of Isaac to the Exodus, still leaves the Chronology at 307 years. Extending the chart to 430 years leaves a 123 year gap between the year Levi died and the Exodus. The next step is filling the gap, starting with plugging Moses’ and Aaron’s life dates into the Chronology.

Grace and peace to you,

Dori

Link to essay in ICB Menu

[G]   Great [are] the deeds of YHWH  ~ <>
[D]   [They are] the ones sought with care by all delighting in them  #  <>
[H]   Majestic and splendid [are] His acts in history  ~ <>
[W]  And His righteousness (tsëdëq) enduring to the continuing future # <>
[Z]   A remembrance (zëkher) He has made His marvels  ~ <>

                                  Psalm 111.3-7 (dmd translation)

[1] Harris, R. Laird, Archer, Jr., Gleason L., Waltke, Bruce K.  Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (2 vols).  Chicago:  Moody Bible Institute.  1980, 1124p

[2] “The quotations from the Old Testament found in the New Testament are in the main taken from the Septuagint; and even where the citation is indirect, the influence of this version is clearly seen.”  “Bible Translations-Septuagint,” The Jewish Encyclopedia.

[3] McLay, R. Timothy. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research.  Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 2003,  221p

[4] These scholars start the 430 year count when Abram left Ur of the Chaldees with his father instead of when he arrived in Canaan after his father had died. I checked out how that count would work in the Internal Chronology of the Bible and concluded that it did not work. Based on the time clues in Scripture, the 430 years must start when Abraham got to Canaan.

[5] Heiser, Michael S.  “The Role of the Septuagint in the Transmission of Scriptures,” www.biblearchaeology.org  (2012/02/17); retrieved in April 2014

ICB: Another Step: 430 years — Canaan and Egypt?

Does the 430 years in Exodus 12 encompass the time spent in both Canaan and Egypt?

The Chronology now runs for 307 years from Abram entering the land of Canaan in 01 Can to the death of Levi in 307 Can. Unfortunately, neither the life years of Kohath nor Amram were useful in extending the Chronology because Scripture gives no birth year information for either of them. However, extending the Chronology is still possible because Scripture gives a summary total of years of 430 years. The question is does the 430 years refer to the time the children of Israel spent in Egypt OR to the time between Abram entering Canaan and the Exodus.

This link 430 Years will take you to the essay discussing this question. Again, the table doesn’t work well in the blog post.

Grace and peace to you,

Dori

To God be the glory!

ICB: Next Step: Charting Levi’s life years

Badgerholt inkpotWhere to plug Levi into the ICB chart?

Combining all the charts from “A Question in Genesis” created the beginnings of a chronology internal to the Story in the Bible (ICB) based on life dates, stretching 285 years from Year 00/075 Abram when Abram left Harran at 75 years old to Year 285/110 Jos when Joseph died at 110 years old.  The next life date that could push the ICB forward is Levi’s death age at 137 years old given in Exodus 6.16. The key to plugging Levi’s death date into the ICB chart is figuring out when he was born.

What is the birth order of Jacob’s sons according to their father?

This link Levi’s Birth will take you to the essay discussing the charting of Levi’s life years. Again, the extensive tables don’t work well in a blog post.

Grace and peace to you,

Dori

To God be the glory!

 

ICB: A Question in Genesis

Badgerholt inkpotHow old was Jacob when he first met Rachel?

The story of Jacob and Rachel in Genesis is one of the great love stories in Scripture.  Jacob apparently fell in love with Rachel at first sight. But Scripture doesn’t state an age for Jacob when he first met Rachel. Although Esau was 40 years old when he married, Jacob was not. So, how old was Jacob when he first met Rachel?

Through finding the answer to this question, Rûãch @Élöhîm led me to compile the Internal Chronology of the Bible and everything else that followed in my pursuit of the truth of His Story and my appreciation of His artistry as an expression of who He is.

This link to A Question in Genesis will take you to the essay discussing this question.  Because of the extensive tables, it is not practical to post the essay directly in the blog.

Grace and peace to you,

Dori

 

Side Trip: YHWH ‘s Promise to David

Badgerholt inkpotHow YHWH @Élöhîm (LORD God) Kept His Promise to David

 

The Promise (2 Sam 7:12-17)

12When your days are fulfilled, and you lie with your fathers, then I shall raise up your seed after you, who shall come out from your bowels, and I shall establish his kingdom.  13He shall build a house for My Name, and I shall establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14I shall be a father to him, and he shall be a son to Me. When he sins, then I will chasten him with a rod of men, and with strokes of the sons of men.  15But My mercy shall not be taken from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you.  16And your house shall be established, and your kingdom before you forever. Your throne shall be established forever.  17According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so Näthän spoke to David.

The Obstacle (Jeremiah) 22:28-30)

28Is this man Coniah a despised, broken jar, or a vessel in which is no pleasure? Why are they hurled, he and his seed, and are cast into the land which they do not know?  29O earth, earth, earth! Hear the Word of YHWH!  30So says YHWH, Write this man childless, a man who will not prosper in his days. For not one from his seed will succeed, a man sitting on the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah.

YHWH promised David that a son of his loins would sit on the throne of the kingdom forever.  The legal claim to the throne ran through Solomon’s line, and that line ran through Jeconiah son of Jehoikim, the last living king of Judah. This is the same Coniah whose line YHWH debarred from the throne, as He decreed through Jeremiah.  So, how could a son of David legally sit on the throne without being descended from Coniah?

YHWH Elohim follows His own rules, and His pronouncement against Coniah presented a genuine legal obstacle to keeping His promise to David. So, how did He fulfill His legal requirements while keeping His promise to David that one of His blood would sit on the throne forever?

The Claimant

I believe Jesus of Nazareth is who He claims to be – the uniquely generated Son of God, the Messiah, the Son of David who will sit on the throne forever, a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.  I believe the Gospels truly record His life and the genealogy of His mother Mary and His supposed father Joseph. It is in the genealogies of Jesus as recorded by Matthew and Luke that one finds the answer to this conundrum.

The Solution, Part 1:  The Blood Claim

Now Jesus, making His appearance at about age thirty – being, as was supposed, a son of Joseph – was Himself descended of Heli, of Matthat . . . of Nathan, of David . . .  of Judah . . . (Luke 3:23,31,33) [JM Cheney, The Life of Christ in Stereo], pp.18[1]

In his Gospel, Luke records the genealogy of Jesus, showing his descent from Heli of the tribe of Judah.  So, who was Heli?  Heli was the father of Mary, Jesus’ mother.  Thus Jesus was descended from him.

Heli was descended from the collateral line of Nathan, a son of David who was a full brother of Solomon’s (their mother was Bathsheba [1 Chronicles 3.5]).  Not being descended from Solomon, Heli had no legal claim to the throne, but he did have a blood claim. He passed this blood claim on to his children, including his daughter Mary, who, in turn, passed it on to her sons, including her firstborn, Jesus.

So, Jesus had a blood claim to the throne of David through His mother Mary. Through her, He was descended from the seed of David, from the bloodline of David. However, He was hardly unique in that. After a thousand years, probably many families would have had a blood claim to the throne of David, but only one line had the legal claim—the line of Solomon.

The Solution, Part 2:  The Legal Claim

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham. . . And Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom (Greek pronoun ‘es’, clearly refers to Mary) was born Jesus, the One called Christ.  (Matt 1:1,16)

Matthew records the genealogy of Jesus as the Son of David, the Messiah, the One with a legal claim to the throne of David. However, the last line of the genealogy clearly lists Joseph, the husband of Mary who bore Jesus, but not Jesus directly as his son.  It does not list Joseph as fathering Jesus because, of course, he didn’t.  So, how then is this the genealogy of Jesus if Joseph was not His birth father?

It’s the genealogy of Jesus because He was the eldest acknowledged son of Joseph, even though He was not fathered by Joseph. Therefore, Jesus legally inherited the claims of the eldest son, which in this case included Joseph’s legal claim to the throne. But then again, after a thousand years, others probably also had a legal claim to the throne.

But here is where Jesus might differ from all the other legal claimants: did Joseph have a unique claim to the throne, in that he was the legal heir to the throne of David, descended from father to son down through the generations?

In Joseph’s dream (Matthew 1), the angel addresses him as ‘Joseph, son of David.’  There doesn’t seem to be discussion in mainstream scholarship of ‘son of David’ as a commonly used title for any man descended from David.  By the first century, ‘son of David’ had become a Messianic title.[2]  Did the angel refer to Joseph as ‘son of David’ just to remind him of his heritage? Or, might Joseph have had a unique claim to the title?  Not a Messianic claim, but rather a claim as the legal heir to the throne of Solomon, descended father to son from Jeconiah.

However, even if  Joseph was the legal heir to the throne of David, he could not sit on the throne because he was descended from Jeconiah and thus debarred from that position.  If this is the case, then Joseph passed on to Jesus not merely a legal claim, but THE legal heirship to the throne of David through the line of Solomon.

None of the sons that Joseph and Mary had together could have sat on the throne because they were descended from Jeconiah through Joseph.  Only Jesus, not being physically descended from Joseph, was not debarred from legally claiming the position held by His legal father—a position to which He also had a blood claim through His mother Mary.  Thus He was declared King of the Jews from His birth.

It’s also possible that all Joseph had was a simple legal claim to the throne because he was descended from the line of Solomon through Jeconiah (the same as possibly several others).  However, all of the descendants of Jeconiah were debarred from the throne and none of their blood descendants could ever claim the throne of David.  So, either way, when Joseph passed on his legal claim to Jesus as his eldest acknowledged son but not his blood son, and Jesus had a blood claim through his mother Mary, Jesus became the King of the Jews from His birth.

A Question

Did YHWH @Élöhîm keep His promise to David by arranging for the legal heir to the throne of David, Joseph, to marry Mary, the daughter of a collateral bloodline of David (and one descended from a full brother of Solomon’s)?  Given how YHWH works in His Story, that is a distinct probability.

How wonderful is the plan of YHWH in setting up the circumstances leading to Mary’s firstborn Son Jesus being declared ‘King of the Jews’ from the moment of His birth, the only son of David who fulfilled both the legal claim (but bypassing the debarment) and the blood claim to the throne of David.

Grace and peace to you,

Dori

Essay under Side Trips menu

[1]  Cheney, Johnston M. The Life of Christ in Stereo. Portland, OR: Western Conservative Baptist Seminary. 1969, 275pp.

Note 16a: This rendering departs from the traditional but inconsistent “Joseph, the son of Heli.” Though never before proposed to our knowledge, this rendering is grammatically sound and clarifies the true intent of the passage. It only involves the addition of two commas in the Greek, (which had no punctuation in the original) and a proper recognition of the significance of the initial pronoun, which stands in the place of emphasis. Using English punctuation for modern clarity, the literal rendering would be: “Now Himself was Jesus, beginning at about age thirty–being a son, as was supposed, of Joseph–descended from Heli, son of Matthat, . . . “ His point is that Jesus descended, not from Joseph but from Heli through Mary. That Luke intended this meaning is suggested by the arrangement in the two oldest extant authorities, where Heli, not Joseph, heads the single-column listing of Jesus’ human forbears back to Adam. [This rendering was presented to and well received by the Evangelical Theological Society, as well as by other competent Greek scholars–Ed.]

[2] Bromiley, Geoffrey W., et.al.  The International Standard Bible Encylopedia, vol. 1 (A-D), revised 1956.  Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.  “Messiah.”

To God be the glory!

 

Musings on Scholarship

Badgerholt inkpotYHWH @Élöhîm did not call me as a mainstream scholar but rather as a non-mainstream scholar. I doubt anything I write will be published in a peer-reviewed journal because I did not go through the prescribed track to obtain the credentials of a doctorate or master’s degree in any specialty field.

My Master’s is in Library Science, which honed my research and organizational skills but did not include a concentration on any given academic subject. My primary interests have always been history and drama, but that includes the history of just about anything and the drama of storytelling in any format. I am more of a generalist than a specialist, more of a researcher than a professor.

Rûãch @Élöhîm did not lead me to mainstream scholarship (outside of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica, and translation materials) until a couple of years ago. Before that, He led me to non-mainstream scholars and other researchers not even claiming to be scholars, such as Dr. E.L. Martin, Dr. A.C. Custance, and—dare I say it?—Ron Wyatt.  The one mainstream scholar Rûãch @Élöhîm led me to was Dr. David R. Rohl, but I do not get the impression that mainstream Egyptologists accept much of his work.

Rûãch @Élöhîm did lead me to the Second Temple Period writers and writings, such as Josephus, Eusebius, Maccabees, The Book of Jubilees, etc. However, after reading The Book of Jasher (the one floating around on the Internet), I concluded it was NOT The Book of Jasher cited in Scripture. I think it is a work of historical fiction written no earlier than the Renaissance and probably later; it did not show up until the 1600s. The Book of Enoch did not have much bearing on my particular studies.

open BibleBut mostly Rûãch @Élöhîm had me study the details of the Biblical text in depth to see what was there, regardless of the traditions, records, and doctrines of men. Now, 20 plus years into it, He’s leading me to see what the cultural context was of His written Word and more of what mainstream scholarship has to say. It’s all very interesting.

May the grace and peace of the God and Father of my Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

Dori

Side Trips

Badgerholt inkpotI ran into a lot of interesting information and questions in doing research for the Internal Chronology of the Bible, as well as in just plain Bible study.  Sometimes I would read something or hear a podcast, and, in thinking about it, come to my own conclusions. This led to what I call ‘Side Trips.’

This link Side Trips will take you to the menu page for these additional essays on questions and information that I found interesting.

To God be the glory for the intricacy of His Story and His marvellous methods for bringing about His purpose.

Grace and peace to you,

Dori