Problems with E. W. Faulstich's Biblical Chronology

koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungbook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

25 March 2010

A Seventh Day Adventist is very interested in Chronology. Chronology of the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition is the very Word of God and calculations in that word is not subject to error. For that reason, Adventist scholars spend a lot of time to investigate and consider all possible alternatives in order to explain the dating of an event. If it conflict with this Hebrew Old Testament, there is something wrong with the calculation of the scholar, not with the Bible.

The Dean of Chronology, all will admit, is Edwin Thiele who was a professor of Andrews University. Together with Siegfried Horn and L. Wood, and later also William Shea, they did a great task in streamlining the chronology of the Bible on all aspects. E. Thiele's, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, is a standard work and a must. Another book is the work by L. Wood and S. Horn, The Chronology of Ezra 7.

The work of E. W. Faulstich, History, Harmony & The Hebrew Kings (Spencer, Iowa: Chronology Books, Inc., 1986) is also on my bookshelf.

As a reviewer of this book, I want to say that he claimed to have had the help of a number of scholars, also that of John Brinkman the cuneiformist of Chicago University who did his doctorate on the Kassites. I met Brinkman in Chicago in 1989, and found him to be a very friendly man. Years later, I studied his ideas on the chronology of Sargon and Sennacherib but I had hesitations on his conclusions. When I worked with some aspects of his conclusions of Kassite chronology or discrepancies in the cuneiform texts and how he explained it, I also had to take exception. Those who have access to his work J. Brinkman,  Materials and Studies for Kassite History Vol. I (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1976) needs to be aware that he is working with the cuneiform texts with a modus operandi of hermeneutics of suspicion. By taking this approach, he sidestep the awesome and tiresome task of trying to sort out Chronology of the Ancient Near East. A number of times he is very skeptic (Brinkman 1976: 8 footnote 5; 11 at footnote 13); giving up on Chronology (at 13 footnote 24); pessimistic (on 25 footnote 68); also pessimistic (on 29 footnote 85); vague (on 31 in the footnote); easily ascribe scribal errors as an excuse for further discussion (as on page 101 footnote 8); give up again (105 before E.1); scribal error of "records in garbled fashion" (on page 146 at Ka.1.1); skepticism (on page 150 at Kb.5.4);  pessimistic (on page 189 at O.5.6); give up on chronology attitude (on page 422 in footnote 14); error in the Kinglist (on page 434 at B.3) but Brinkman's conclusion stands under review). Brinkman gave special assistants to Faulstich to help him in his skeptical endeavor against Edwin Thiele and his chronology. And that is what Faulstich also is: skeptical.

Jubilees calculations by Faulstich

Faulstich reported that the Talmud says that "seventeen jubilee [cycles] did Israel count from the time they entered the Land [of Israel] until the left it" The Babylonian Talmud, Mishna Tract, `Arakin 12b, page 69 cited by Faulstich 1989: 187).

Faulstich then suggested that from the time the Israelites entered Canaan until the time they were taken from the land by Nebuchadnezzar were 17 time jubilees (each jubilee consisting of 49 years), thus 17 x 49 = 833 years.

What is the problem here?

Faulstich forgot that the calculation of Israel was with a lunar year counting of 354 days per lunar year and that the 49 years here, are lunar years not solar years.

That is why Faulstich calculated that Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem in 588 BCE, which is this scholar's [under supervision of people from Colorado University, Chicago University, Concordia Lutheran Seminary in St. Louis and a number of other scholars] dating for the fall of Jerusalem. The conventional date is 586 BCE and some have 587 BCE. Then there is the error of Faulstich here that Nebuchadnezzar came three times: 605 BCE; 597 BCE and also 586 BCE.

To solve Faulstich's error, one has to recalculate the Talmud:

833 lunar years from 1410 BCE, which is the strict chronology of the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition for the entry into Canaan, brings us to 577 BCE, if a strict solar calendar of 365.25 days in a year is assumed. Not so. There were only 824 solar years between 1410 BCE and 586 BCE whereas lunar years were 833 until 577 BCE. So 824 x 365.25 = 300 966 days while the lunar years will be 833 x 354 days = 294 882 days. If we now minus 300 966 from 294 882 days we get a difference of 6084 days. If we now convert this  into solar years 6084 days divided by 365.25 days then we get 16 solar years. These solar years need to be added to the lunar year total of 577 BCE to rectify the chronology of the Talmud in real years, thus 577 + 16 = 593 BCE for the date of the exit from the Land, a date very close to the second approach of Nebuchadnezzar during which time Daniel left (597 BCE). There are four years difference between the Talmud and the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition here.

The book of Faulstich are full of errors and more will be said in due course on this book.