Dating The Deluge PDF

Dating the Deluge
Abstract. Historians consider the biblical account of the Deluge as a myth. However, this famous
event occurred at the earliest times of recorded history (Sumerian King List). Today scientists believe in the
last ice age called Pleistocene ending to 10,000 BCE, but there is no witness (prehistory) of this planetary
cataclysmic event and its existence is based solely on the (controversial) interpretation of its consequences and
their dating. The existence of erratic blocks and the disappearance of mammoths are presented as evidence of
the last glaciation, but contrary to what one might think 14C dating provides conflicting results. Moreover,
the sudden extinction of mammoths (some were found with food undigested in their stomachs or still
unchewed in their teeth) would be spread over thousands of years! Likewise, during the last glaciation the
sea level would have decreased by at least 140 m (which is currently explained by melting of glaciers) but
such variations of the sea level did not occur during previous glaciations.
Dating obtained by calibrated 14C is considered absolute by most experts but confrontation with the
Egyptian chronology, which some dates are fixed by astronomy, reverses this belief. This comparison shows
that dates obtained by 14C calibrated by dendrochronology match to those from astronomy until -2200 but
before this date increase exponentially. Thus the rate of 14C tends gradually to 0 around -3500, which
implies an important consequence: before that 14C dating is no longer possible.
The biblical and Sumerian accounts of the Deluge are very similar (which occured in year 600 of
Noah or Ziusudra) and suppose a dating around -3000 (3170 BCE according to the Septuagint). The
period 3170-2800 is very poorly documented, the only remarkable event is the construction of the Tower of
Babel then its abandonment and the emergence of languages. According to Mesopotamian literature the
ziggurat of Babylon called "temple of the foundation of heaven and earth" in Sumerian was dedicated to
Marduk. Many scholars estimate that these mythological texts have no historical value, but several
Sumerian and Babylonian inscriptions have confirmed the antiquity of this ancient ziggurat and the name
of its builder. Sumerian stories confirm the biblical version about four key points: 1) a universal deluge, 2)
only one language at the origin, 3) construction of the Tower of Babel and 4) a sudden and simultaneous
onset of languages (like Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, etc.).
Human longevity seems to have remained constant over the entire period from 3100 BCE up to now,
which contradicts the biblical data concerning the relatives of Abraham who would have lived, prior 1600
BCE, much more than 130 years. However, contrary to the popular common sense suggests, human limits
are difficult to set by science. Studies on human longevity provide amazing data in accordance with the
Bible. Thus, for unexplained reasons, the maximum age at death (longevity) is not constant but increases
regularly and since 1960 there is an unexplained acceleration of the increase.
The transmission of many historical and chronological data (reigns, lifetimes, long periods, etc.) as well
as many proper names, is necessarily flawed, unless one believing in an (unlikely) scribes infallibility. Thus,
ancient texts, that are preserved in more than one copy, have been compared to determine how much
variation occurs between manuscripts. This kind of study showed that the most stable texts surveyed are
those containing ritual instructions, which have led, for example, to the exact transmission of the Torah in
the late Second Temple period. The accuracy of the transmission of the text can be checked owing to the
accuracy of its chronology and through the comparison between the sum of the intermediate values and the
total value indicated in the text. Textual criticism now favors an anteriority of the Septuagint text Vorlage
(H*) on the proto-Masoretic which comes from an overhaul of this Vorlage, including chronological data
from the text of Genesis. According to the reconstruction of chronological data, Jewish corrections of the
Hebrew text (preserved in the Septuagint) were performed in two steps: after the onset of the Book of
Jubilees (c. -160) durations in Genesis 5:3-31 were reduced by 100 years and were adopted by a part of the
Jews, as Eupolemus and by the Samaritans, and afterward, at the Synod of Yabneh (c. 90 CE), durations
in Genesis 11:10-26 were also reduced by 100 years and were canonized by the rabbis (Pharisees). There
was no dispute since the priests (Sadducees) no longer existed, as well as scrolls of the temple (except some of
them which has been retrieved by Josephus thanks to emperor Titus in 70 CE).
2 CONTROVERSIAL DATING OF IMPORTANT EVENTS
Is it earnest to want dating the Flood? James Barr, editor of the Journal of Semitic
Studies and author of ‘Escaping From Fundamentalism’ also wrote about this topic1: I fear
that the reading of this paper may lead to my expulsion from this Society: for the Society since its foundation
has been expressly devoted to “useful knowledge,” and it is doubtful whether either Benjamin Franklin or
Thomas Jefferson would have considered biblical chronology to be useful knowledge, or indeed to be
knowledge at all. The only person I can appeal to for assistance is, perhaps, Sir Isaac Newton, whom they
would both have respected. Newton devoted much time and effort to biblical chronology, and indeed at one
stage, actually in his early thirties, made it his “dominant concern” and allowed it to crowd out his work on
mechanics, optics, and such things. Moreover, I am encouraged by a happy recent event: namely, that the
well-known scientist Stephen Jay Gould in a recent book has also gone back to the subject of biblical
chronology and indeed has done me the honor of quoting my earlier writings on this matter. So perhaps I
shall not be expelled after all. Anyway, what I want to say is that, though biblical chronology may in
modern times seem to be an area for cranks and crackpots, in older times it occupied some of the greatest
minds. Alongside Newton we may mention Martin Luther, who wrote a Supputatio annorum mundi
or Reckoning of the Years of the World, and the great classical scholar Joseph Justus Scaliger (...) The
striking thing about the biblical figures is the extreme longevity of the early humans according to the data
used for biblical chronology. Adam was 130 years old when he had his son Seth and he lived 800 more
after that. Methuselah was the record-breaker, living to 969 years of age. This sounds like a long time. But
it was as nothing when compared with figures known from Mesopotamia. By the Sumerian King List, the
first king ruled for 28,800 years and the second for 36,000. A total of eight kings took up 241,000
years, and then the Flood swept over the earth. This is known from modern discovery, but similar facts had
been known from the writings (in Greek) of the Mesopotamian priest Berosus (believed to have had his
floruit about 290 B.C.). This seems to indicate a common myth, with immensely long times culminating in
a disastrous flood. The Hebrew figures for the first period are very much lower but still roughly proportional
and belong to a similar legendary world. That is not to say that all the biblical figures are mythical, or
“symbolic” as people often say. Many of the biblical figures, for example in the reigns of individual kings,
may well be historical and accurate (...) This is significant for the question of modern “creationism,” which
will certainly be in the minds of some of you. Modern creationists commonly want a world with a shorter
duration than evolutionary theory requires, a world perhaps twelve thousand or fifteen thousand years old.
Such a figure would be more like the biblical world but would not agree with it exactly or literally (...) In
my opinion it was a big mistake for many of the mainline religious organizations when they opposed the
creationists by saying that the Bible should not be taken literally. This is not what the creationists do. It is,
on the contrary, what the churches and other organizations should do: that is, to argue that, in this respect,
the Bible’s figures should be taken literally, because it is when they are taken literally that it becomes clear
that they are not historically or scientifically true.
Dating the deluge is in fact, at the present time, the touchstone of chronology and
as chronology is the backbone of history, dating the Flood is therefore the touchstone of
history in order to decide between myths and truth. Some would argue that the biblical
flood must be a myth because scientists found no evidence. Once again we have to define
what is a proof. Thus what proves the existence of the last ice age called Pleistocene ending
to 10,000 BCE because as there is no witness (prehistory) of this planetary cataclysmic
event, its existence is based solely on the (controversial) interpretation of its consequences
and their dating. The existence of erratic blocks and the disappearance of mammoths are
presented as evidence of the last glaciation, but is it true?
1 J. BARR – Pre-scientific Chronology: The Bible and the Origin of the World
in: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 143:3 (1999) pp. 379-387.
DATING THE DELUGE 3
Erratics were once considered evidence of a vast flood approximately 10,000 years
ago (according radiocarbon measures), similar to the legendary floods described in the texts
of ancient civilizations throughout the world. Ancient legends of an epic flood come from
many cultures including Mesoamerican, Sumerian (Epic of Gilgamesh), Hebrew (Old
Testament) and Indian culture. In the 19th century, many scientists came to favor erratics as
evidence for the end of the last glacial maximum (ice age) 10,000 years ago, rather than a
flood. Geologists have suggested that landslides or rockfalls initially dropped the rocks on
top of glacial ice (some of them are traced for more than 3,000 km!)2. The glaciers
continued to move, carrying the rocks with them. When the ice melted, the erratics were
left in their present locations. In fact erratics only prove that a large part of the earth was
under water about 10,000 years ago. If the existence of this fact is not disputed its dating is
still very problematic and even contradictory. For example, the erratic block called Le Gros
Caillou in Croix-Rousse (Lyon, France) shows that the dating of glaciers is based on
speculation and varies according to the authors3. In his 'Geology of Lyon', Roman (1926)
attributes the Gros Caillou to the Mindel glacial period. David (1967) estimated that in the
Lyon region, würmian glaciers (70,000-20,000) spread more than those of Mindel (480,000-
430,000) or Riss (180,000-100,000). The regional geological guide of G. Demarcq (1973)
attributes this glacier to Würm III period around -35,000. As such closest outcrops of this
type of land are located in Haute Maurienne and Tarentaise in at more than 175 km from
Lyon this erratic block would have been moved by glaciers during Riss toward -140,000.
That (provisional) conclusion is doubly hypothetical because 1) the reconstruction of
ancient glaciers is mainly based on the movement of moraines and erratic blocks (which
could also be explained by a worldwide flood) and 2) even if one accepts this hypothesis
there is no evidence that glaciers are reached Lyon less than 20 km4 (with the exception of
Gros Caillou!). As the dating of rocks derived from the original interpretation it relies on
measures of the 14C/12C ratio in carbon (or oxygen 18O/16O) of elements contained in the
strata in which are housed moraines and erratic blocks. Contrary to what one might think
14
C dating provides results even more surprising and often contradictory.
The extinction of mammoths, woolly rhinoceros, steppe bison, giant deer, the caves
lion, caves bear, caves hyena, to speak only of the larger species, is linked to the end of the
last glaciation toward -10,000. That mass extinction of many species is difficult to explain5
and even paradoxical because the global warming from -10,000 should promote the growth
of vegetation needed for feeding these prehistoric animals. Furthermore, such climate
changes were nothing new; numerous very similar warming episodes had occurred
previously within the ice age of the last several million years without producing comparable
megafaunal extinctions, so why the last climate change could have played a decisive role? In
addition, the time and duration of that extinction cannot be dated. Most paleontologists
located it about -10,0006 but some mammoths were still alive about -17007! The extinction
of mammoths would be spread over thousands of years. This new hypothesis has two
problems: 1) the cause of the extinction becomes incomprehensible and 2) graveyards of
mammoths show that these animals likely died suddenly. For example, a “cemetery” of
2 G. BOND & ALS – Evidence for massive discharges of icebergs into the North Atlantic ocean during the last glacial period
in: Nature 360 (19 November 1992) pp. 245-249.
3 http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/dossiers/Origine/methodologie/sch_glace2.swf http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/yves-francois.le-lay/?p=170
4 S. COUTTERAND, P. SCHOENEICH, G. NICOUD – Le lobe glaciaire lyonnais au maximum Würmien glacier du rhône ou/et glaciers
savoyards ? in: Collection EDYTEM Cahiers de Géographie n° 8 (2009) pp. 11-22.

5 P.S. MARTIN – Twilight of the Mammoths: Ice Age Extinctions and the Rewilding of America
California 2005 Ed. University of California Press.

6 G. HAYNES – The catastrophic extinction of North American mammoths and mastodonts
in: World Archaeology Vol. 33:3 (2002) pp. 391–416.

7 S.L. VARTANYAN – Radiocarbon Dating Evidence for Mammoths on Wrangel Island, Arctic Ocean, until 2000 BC
in: Radiocarbon Vol. 37:1 (1995) pp. 1-6.

about 156 mammoths was discovered (between 1970 and 1980) on the banks of the river
Berelekh (Siberia). Despite the fact that many mammoths died in the same place gives the
impression of a simultaneous death due to catastrophe such as a flash flood, a tusk from
the base of the bone layer gave a date of 14,000 years ago, while scraps of skin and
ligament from another spot were dated to 16,300 years ago 8. Some mammoths were found
with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth, indicating that they
died suddenly. It is estimated, from the trade in ivory tusks, that bones of tens of
thousands of such mammoths have been found. The fossil remains of many other animals,
such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, have been found in common strata, which may indicate
that all of these were destroyed simultaneously, not over a long period of time9. As we can
see all these data are contradictory. Is the biblical explanation better?
Biblical explanations are usually rejected by the scientific community for the
following reasons10: Positions and claims of creationists are incompatible with the advances of modern
science, which proves that the Bible is not a book of science. Affix the label of scientist to creationism label
is a real intellectual imposture and scientists need to inform the general public (...) The rejection of
creationism from the scientific community is therefore a movement of liberation to archaic ideas and unsuited
to the modern world, ideas are also a literal interpretation of Scripture rejected by the majority of believers
(...) What to malicious attacks against science? Further research, whatever happens. To disseminate the
results of numerous scholarly articles and popular mass market, accompanying documentary films and
lectures. Using new communication technologies such as the Internet, among others. Maintain and develop
education often compromised data science and its specific methods. This must be especially true mechanisms
of evolution. Indeed, ignorance is an ally of literalists and revisionist (...) If such a flood had existed,
geological evidence would be multiple. However, there is nothing (...) Firstly, geologists showed that marine
transgression (rising of the sea level) in Lower Mesopotamia, a few hundred kilometers of the city flooded
Ur, the capital of the Sumerians, about 5000 BCE (...) The floods mentioned in other mythologies could
transmit the memory of the devastating effects of the rapidly melting ice of the last glaciation. Indeed, the
latter has caused around the world, giant floods of streams, rivers and lakes, recorded by the geological record
near the glacier, whose thickness can exceed 2000 meters. But it was not a universal flood. It is ironic
that despite the enormous disproportion of media these scientists present themselves as
victims of some “fundamentalists”. The so-called flood deception is explained through a
surprising reasoning: since the geological record proves the existence of generalized giant
floods is that there was no universal flood (where is the logic?)! Similarly, thousands of
entirely frozen mammoths found in Siberia are explained as follows: The death of mammoths
can often be related to surface melting, in summer, permafrost, frozen ground in surface over thirty meters in
Siberia. Their bodies then sink into the mud, where they cannot escape because of their weight (page 360).
How to imagine some herds of thousand mammoths advancing calmly on the Siberian
permafrost, disappearing gradually by getting bogged down in the mud? Such a scenario
does not seem credible unless supposing a mammoth congenital stupidity.
The sudden disappearance of many animal species as well as moving erratic blocks
would fit better with the biblical explanation of the Flood. The flood story is presented as
an authentic history in the Gospels (Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 17:26-27). According to the
biblical text there was at the origin some waters upon the earth (sea and ocean) and waters
above the earth in the form of a vault of water (Genesis 1:7). At the time of the Flood, in
the year 600 of Noah, the vault of water fell to earth as rain for 40 days and all the
mountains were covered and all living creatures disappeared with the exception of Noah
8 A. LISTER, P.G. BAHN – Mammoths: Giants of the Ice Age
London 1994 Ed. Frances Lincoln Ltd p. 62.
9 Same problems with a “cemetery” of 3 mammoths, 30 mastodons, 10 giant bisons, etc., in Snowmass Village (Colorado, 2010).
10 J. CHALINE, C. GRIMOULT – Les sciences de l'évolution et les religions
Paris 2011 Éd. Ellipses pp. 148, 348, 389, 402.

DATING THE DELUGE 5
and his ark (Genesis 17-23). The disappearance of the vault of water (2 Peter 3:5-6)
resulted in a new climate (Genesis 8:22) and its collapsing on the earth's crust have led to
the emergence of big mountains (Psalms 104:6-8), which is consistent with the model of
Pangaea in the plate tectonics. In the past the oceans were smaller and the continents were
larger than they are now, as is evidenced by river channels extending far out under the
oceans. It should also be noted that scientists have stated that mountains were much lower
than at present, and some mountains have even been pushed up from under the seas. As to
the present situation, it is said that: there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is
land above sea level. Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, one and
one-half miles [2,400 m.] deep (National Geographic, January 1945, p. 105). With the sudden
opening of the ‘springs of the watery deep’ and "the floodgates of the heavens," untold
billions of tons of water deluged the earth (Genesis 7:11). This may have caused
tremendous changes in earth's surface. The earth's crust is relatively thin (estimated at
between 30 km and 160 km thick), stretched over a rather plastic mass thousands of
kilometers in diameter. Hence, under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great
shifting in the crust. In time new mountains evidently were thrust upward, old mountains
rose to new heights, shallow sea basins were deepened, and new shorelines were
established, with the result that now about 70 percent of the surface is covered with water.
This shifting in the earth's crust may account for many geologic phenomena, such as the
raising of old coastlines to new heights. It has been estimated by some that water pressures
alone were equal to "2 tons per square inch", sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora
quickly11. Not only a universal flood would better explain the sudden and simultaneous
disappearance of many animal species, but it would solve the following two enigmas:
! During the last glaciation the sea
level would have decreased by at
least 140 m12 (up to 170 m)13. The
rise is currently explained by the
melting of glaciers14, but it does not
seem that these variations of the
sea level (so important) occurred
during the previous glaciations.
! The concentration of 14C during the
last glaciation was much lower than
at present15, this fact has been
highlighted by dendrochronology
(measure of age by the rings of a tree). Scientists suppose that the long-term variation
correlates with fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field strength (the geomagnetic
moment). The geomagnetic moment affects 14C production because cosmic rays are
charged particles and are therefore deflected by a magnetic field. If the magnetic
moment is high, more cosmic rays are deflected away from the earth and production of
14
C will fall; if low, the production rises. This explanation is contradicted by
11 D.W. P ATTEN – The Biblical flood and the ice epoch: a study in scientific history
Seattle 1966 Ed.Pacific Meridian Publ. Co. p. 62.
12 K. LAMBECK, M. NAKADA – Late Pleistocene and Holocene sea-level change along the Australian coast
in: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology (Global and Planetary Change Section) 89 (1990) pp. 143-176.
13 During the 1999 expedition, Robert Ballard’s team discovered (in the Black Sea) a submerged ancient shoreline with a flat beach area
beneath about 170 meters of water. Radiocarbon dating and paleontological evidence from a sample of shells (coming from a former
freshwater Lake) and sediment collected from the site suggested that a massive flood occured about 7,500 years ago.
14 P.U. CLARK, J.X. MITROVICA, G.A. MILNE, M.E. TAMISIEA – Sea-Level Fingerprinting as a Direct Test for the Source of
Global Meltwater Pulse IA in: Science Vol 295 (29 March 2002) pp. 2438-2441.
15 S. B OWMAN – Interpreting the Past. Radiocarbon Dating
London 1990 Ed.British Museum Publications. pp. 16-19.

measurements of changes in geomagnetic field. Earth's magnetic field is the magnetic

field that extends from the Earth's inner core to where it meets the solar wind, a stream
of energetic particles emanating from the Sun. Its magnitude at the Earth's surface
ranges from 25 to 65 !T. It is approximately the field of a magnetic dipole tilted at an
angle of 11 degrees with respect to the rotational axis — as if there were a bar magnet
placed at that angle at the center of the Earth. However, unlike the field of a bar
magnet, Earth's field changes over time because it is generated by the motion of molten
iron alloys in the Earth's outer core (the geodynamo) and it is influenced by the Sun's
magnetic field. Variations of the geomagnetic field are very complex because they
involve its intensity, its inclination (latitude and longitude) and its declination (height).
The results of the magnetic field measured at Paris16 have shown that, from -1000 to
2000, its average intensity has varied from 45 to 85 !T17, its inclination varied from 55°
to 75° and its declination from -30° to +30° (see below). Measures in different parts of
the world18 have shown that variations in the magnetic field intensity between -5000 and
2000 are similar, with the same fluctuations, to those measured in Paris.
16 J. EVIN, C. OBERLIN – La méthode de datation par le radiocarbone

Paris 2005 Ed. Errances pp. 125-162.
17 Y. GALLETA, A. GENEVEY, F. F LUTEAU – Does Earth's magnetic field secular variation control centennial climate change?
in: Earth and Planetary Science Letters Vol. 236:1-2 (2005) pp. 339-347.
18 I.G. USOSKIN – A History of Solar Activity over Millennia (Revised on 22 April 2010)
in: Living Reviews in Solar Physics Vol. 5 (2008) pp. 3-88.

Y. GALLETA, A. GENEVEY, M. LE GOFFA, F. FLUTEAUA, S.A. ESHRAGHI – Possible impact of the Earth's magnetic field on the history
of ancient civilizations in: Earth and Planetary Science Letters Vol. 246:1-2 (2006) pp. 17-26.
DATING THE DELUGE 7
If we compare these curves with the results of measurements of calibrated 14C ages
we see that (figures on the right) the variations of the geomagnetic field between -1000 and
2000 have no significant effect on the average level of 14C (deduced from the gap between
the calibrated and uncalibrated curves)19. According to the curve of carbon-14 calibrated by
dendrochronology the age of the samples increases gradually from -1000 to -5000 (1000
years too old in -5000) thus the level of carbon-14 gradually decreased from -1000 to -5000,
which would imply a gradual increase in the Earth's magnetic field during this period, when
in fact it decreased slightly (average value K08). In conclusion, magnetic field variations do
not allow explaining the gradual decrease in the rate of carbon-14 from -1000 to -5000.
According to the biblical account, the earth was surrounded by a vault of water
before the Deluge (perhaps in the stratopause where the temperature is at present around
0°C), or water has the remarkable property of stopping neutrons very effectively since a
screen of 23 mm thick stops 90% of neutrons (and a screen of 46 mm thick stops 99%), as
demonstrated by nuclear pools. If there was water, 14C production could not take place,
that would explain the decrease in 14C before -1000 (decreasing up to 0). Dating pharaohs'
reigns both by carbon-14 and astronomy shows (by extrapolation) that the rate of carbon-
14 falls to 0 around -3500 +/- 500. The orientation of the pyramids aligned with the stars
(Dynasties IV and V) provides an astronomical dating and wooden sarcophagi (and other
objects with carbon) allows a radiocarbon dating.
DATING THE DELUGE BY CARBON 14

In principle the method of radiocarbon dating is very simple since it is based on the
following reaction:
neutron (coming from a cosmic proton of galactic origin)
Nitrogen 14 (atmosphere)
proton Carbon 14
(half-life 5730 years)
Nitrogen 14 electron (+ neutrino)
This reaction takes place in the upper atmosphere but over time an equilibrium is
established in the layer of ambient air (98.89% of 12C; 1.11% of 13C; 1.18 10-12 of 14C). As
carbon is present in the molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbed by all living beings,
the rate of 14C is the same for all organisms that breathe carbon dioxide. When an organism
dies the equilibrium with the atmosphere stops and the number of 14C atoms in its body
decreases because of its natural disintegration (13.65 desintegrations/min/1g). It suffices to
measure the rate of residual 14C and compare it to the current average rate knowing that the
number of 14C atoms decreases by half every 5730 years20 following an exponential
decrease. For example, if a residue has only 50% of the average rate in 14C its age can be
19 A.R. MILLARD – Comment on article by Blackwell and Buck
in: Bayesian Analysis 3, Number 2 (2008), pp. 255–262.
J.VAN DER PLICHT – Radiocarbon, the Calibration Curve and Scythian Chronology
in: Impact of the Environment on Human Migration in Eurasia (2004), pp. 45-61.
20 Laboratories continue to use the conventional value of 5568 years (measured in 1950).
estimated around 5700 years, if residual rate is 25% then its age is 11,400 years, etc. If the
initial average rate in 14C was 20% lower (80% instead of 100%) that induced an artificial
aging of the sample of about 2000 years (13,400 years instead of 11,400). And a variation of
+/- 1% of the initial 14C modifies the age of the residue +/- 100 years (the effects of this
change are not linear but exponential).
To correct these variations in 14C versus time the actual age obtained thanks to
dendrochronology is used to establish calibrated 14C curves. The method is based on the
assumption that neutron production (average value) is substantially constant, but studies21
have shown that the rate of 14C was modified by long-term factors such as:
! Isotopic fractioning: the lightest carbon atoms have chemical reactivity a little larger than
the heavier, so that at the end of the chain of reactions there may be an enrichment (or
depletion) of some isotopes compared to natural environment. This can lead to a
correction of 400 years.
! Reservoir effect: the surface of the ocean absorbs a large part of atmospheric carbon
dioxide which when dissolved travels along the depths of the great ocean circulation
loop. Injected in depth in the North Atlantic, it returns to the surface after more than a
thousand years (thus 14C ocean is delayed 400 years versus that of atmosphere, which
aging all the dates of 400 years). This effect is significant because the reservoir of
Oceanographic carbon is 40 to 60 times greater than that of the atmosphere22.
! Earth's magnetic field: it deflects charged particles from cosmic radiation, such as protons,
which are at the origin of carbon 14 (14C production is five times greater at the poles
than at the equator). This field has varied by about a factor 2 in the past, which may
aging some dates of 50%.
! Magnetic field from the solar wind: the primary cosmic flux is largely modulated by the
magnetic field from the interplanetary solar wind which fluctuates during the solar cycle
of 11 years, leading to a correction of +/- 5% of dates.
! Burning of fossil materials: the massive release of carbon dioxide from (industrial)
combustion of fossil fuel poor in 14C may aging environment artificially. A shrub that
grows along highway, for example, can be "conventionally dated" from -10000 or older.
Similarly, on the flanks of volcanoes, fumaroles emission can locally enrich the
atmosphere in ancient carbon.
21 S. CHALLEMEL – La datation au carbone 14
Thèse soutenue au CNAM Paris, le 19 janvier 2000.
22 C. L AJ, A. M AZAUD, J.C. DUPLESSY - La datation par le carbone 14
in: Dossier pour la Science n°42 janvier/ mars 2004 pp. 50-53.
DATING THE DELUGE 9
! Reuse of materials: construction timber being a precious material, it was often reused.
Thus the date of construction differs from that of the original wood.
! Atomic explosions: those of 1963 increased the level in 14C of 10%.
! Cosmic proton production of galactic origin: most of the galactic particles are accelerated in the
shocks of supernova remnants during only a few thousand years23.
Measurements of 14C rate are unusable in its raw state to provide a dating, they
must be calibrated by dendrochronology. Correspondence between the uncalibrated years
BP and calibrated years BCE is complex, in addition, some parts of the curve are unusable
as the period 800-400 BCE called 'plateau of Hallstatt24' (because the value remains
constant in years BP). Consequently reading the curve is difficult. The city of Rehob, for
example, was burned in 2775 BP (stratum VI of the destruction), according to 14C dating25,
corresponding to 970-960 BCE, during the (only) campaign of Shoshenq I in Palestine (as
attested by the biblical text of 1Kings 14:25). Finkelstein and Piasetzky26 have reinterpreted
these data to lower the date in 925-915 BCE (figure below on the right) to conform it to
the "classic" chronology of Thiele (with many supposed and wrong co-regencies)27.
However, this solution is unlikely, because differences in duration between the layers VI-V
and V-IV would pass without reason from 45 and 50 years (ratio of 1) to 12 and 43 years
(amazing ratio of 3.5). Such asymmetry in duration between the strata is not realistic28.
This example of calibrated 14C dating shows that the accuracy is about +/- 10 years
over the period 1000-900 BCE but overlapping areas can induce an uncertainty of at least
50 years for unfavorable locations. Also be aware that these measures are generally a cloud
of points (statistically equated to a Gaussian curve). Furthermore, aberrant measurements
are systematically ignored29 and rarely published to avoid reinforcing the skeptics30. In
addition, interpretation of 14C measurements is complicated by the frequent presence of
unknown contamination. The proportion in carbon 14 (in time) is reconstructed from
measurements calibrated by dendrochronology. The result is not a linear correlation, but a
sinuous curve31 with an increasing gap for dates before 1500 BCE:
23 G. FERRAND – Étude de l’accélération des rayons cosmiques par les ondes de choc des restes de supernovae
Toulouse (December 18, 2007) PhD Thesis at the Université Toulouse III, p. 142.
24 M. FONTUGUE – Progrès de la datation par le carbone 14
in: Archéologia N°323 (mai 1996) pp. 26-33).

25 H.J. BRUINS, J. VAN DER PLICHT, A. MAZAR – 14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings
in: Science Vol 300 (11 April 2003) pp. 315-318.

26 I. FINKELSTEIN, E. PIASETZKY – Wrong and Right; High and Low 14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age Chronology
in: Tel Aviv 30:2 (2003) Ed. Tel Aviv University pp. 283-294.
27 R. THIELE – The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew King
Grand Rapids 1983 Ed. Kregel Publications pp. 98-136.

28 H.J. BRUINS, J. VAN DER PLICHT – Reponse to Comment on “ 14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and
Hebrew Kings” in: Science Vol 302 (24 October 2003) p. 568c.
29 VALESTRO - Radiocarbon 17:1
Austin 1975 University of Texas pp. 52-98.

30 M.C. VAN OOSTERWYCK-GASTUCHE - Le radiocarbone face au Linceul de Turin
Paris 1999 Éd. François-Xavier de Guilbert pp. 15-118.

31 G. N. LAMBERT - Dendrochronologie, la calibration avec le radiocarbone
in: Dossiers de l'archéologie n°39 novembre/décembre 1979 pp. 66-67.

G.W. PEARSON ET AL. – High Precision 14C Measurement of Irish Oaks to Show the Natural 14C Variation
in: Radiocarbon n°328:2B (1986) pp. 911-934.
Carbon-14 dates are noted BP (Before Present) and BC (Before Christ) with the
equivalence: age BC = age BP - 1950. Differences in dates come from variations in 14C rate,
according to the following two curves32 ("14C = difference in 14C ‰):
We note that the short-term
variations in carbon-14 seem chaotic
(similar to a background noise) and in
the long term there is a growing deficit
from -1400 (eg !14C # 8% in -3600,
which corresponds to a gap of about
800 years). Datings before -10,000 by
carbon-14 are contradictory and their
interpretation is controversial33
(Thermoluminescence measurements
give the same surprising results)34. As
these calibration curves date back well
before -5000, this induces a question:
how is it possible to measure the rings
32 I.G. USOSKIN – A History of Solar Activity over Millennia (Revised on 22 April 2010)
in: Living Reviews in Solar Physics Vol. 5 (2008) pp. 27.
33 N.A. SPOONER - Human occupation at Jinmium, northern Australia: 116,000 years ago or much less?
in: Antiquity 72 (1998) pp. 173-178.

R.G. ROBERTS, R. JONES, M.A. SMITH - Beyond the radiocarbon barrier in Australian prehistory.
in: Antiquity 68 (1994) pp. 611-6.
J. ALLEN, S. HOLDAWAY - The contamination of Pleistocene radiocarbon determinations in Australia
in: Antiquity 69 (1995) pp. 101-12
J.A.C. CHAPPELL, J. HEAD, J. M AGEE - Beyond the radiocarbon limit in Australian archaeology and Quaternary research
in: Antiquity 70 (1996) pp. 543-52.
34 R.L.K. FULLAGAR, D.M. PRICE, L.M HEAD - Early human occupation of northern Australia: archaeology and thermoluminescence
dating of Jinmium rockshelter, Northern Territory, in: Antiquity 70 (1996) pp. 751-773.
R.G. ROBERTS, M. BIRD, J. OLLEY, R. GALBRAITH, E. LAWSON, G. LASLETT, H. YOSHIDA, R.
JONES, R.L.K. FULLAGAR, G. JACOBSEN, Q. HUA - Optical and radiocarbon dating at Jinmium rock shelter in northern Australia
in: Nature 393 (May 28, 1998): pp. 358-362.
DATING THE DELUGE 11
of a tree 7000 years old? In reality there is no such tree as old, the current record is a
Bristlecone Pine in Nevada, called Prometheus, dated -2898 (to +/- 18 years) by counting
the rings, an artifice is used. The thickness of the rings depends on the climate of the year
in which they are formed (the reality is much more complex because of frequent changes
of climate in the past)35, giving a series of rings resembling a kind of bar code. It then
suffices to put end to end the series obtained from different strains of ancient trees, as is
done with a set of dominoes (figures below).
It is obvious that a
particular sequence originating
from a strain can be inserted in
several places among the series,
because of its short length from
100 to 300 years. In this case
(very common), how does one
choose the right position among
the various possibilities? The
answer is simple: depending on
its probable position according
to the carbon-14 chronology36,
as recognized a specialist37: It is
not uncommon that the various
calculations involved do not absolutely
agree. One must then decide. In almost
all cases, the date finally chosen is
always chosen in the best calculated
proposals (...) it is very difficult to date
an isolated wood less than 100 rings.
With the support of radiocarbon,
which sets a chronological range from 150 to 300 years, one can go down to 80 rings. Below this "length"
the risk is great of falling into a well known trap type which is: the "beautiful" relationship in a "wrong"
position. This means that if a set of rings is misplaced in the chain (see the figures above), all
the calibration is distorted. The loop is closed and thus carbon-14 in fact serves to calibrate
carbon-1438. There is clearly a failure in method.
Dating obtained by calibrated carbon-14 is considered absolute by most experts but
confrontation with the Egyptian chronology, which some dates are fixed by astronomy,
reverses this belief39. This comparison40 shows that: 1) dates obtained by carbon-14
calibrated (by dendrochronology) match to those from astronomy until -2200 (errors of
measurement are not significant), 2) before -2200 carbon-14 dating ages historical dates
exponentially about 100 years around -2200 and 500 years around -2600. Radiocarbonists
obviously offer to Egyptologists to adjust their dates on their own.
35 D. HOUBRECHTS, G.N. LAMBERT - Les arbres, témoins du temps qui passe

in: Dossier pour la Science n°42 janvier/ mars 2004 pp. 70-75
36 J. EVIN, C. OBERLIN – La méthode de datation par le radiocarbone
in: La datation en laboratoire. Paris 2005 Ed. Errances pp. 96-101.

37 G. N. LAMBERT – La dendrochronologie, mémoire de l'arbre
in: La datation en laboratoire. Paris 2005 Ed. Errances pp. 45, 58.
38 C. BLÖSS , H.U. NIEMITZ - The Self-Deception of the C14 Method and Dendrochronology
in: Zeitensprünge 8 (1996) 3 pp. 361-389.

39 S.W. MANNING – Radiocarbon Dating and Egyptian Chronology
in: Ancien Egyptian Chronology (Brill 2006) pp. 327-355.

40 H. HAAS , ET AL – Radiocarbon Chronology and the Historical Calendar in Egypt
in: Chronologies in the Near East (1987) Ed. O. Aurenche et al pp. 585-606.
There is clearly a discrepancy between the astronomical dates from Egyptian

chronology and those provided by the calibrated carbon-14. 14C measurements (more
accurate) over the entire Egyptian chronology41 have been confronted with the
astronomical dates from the precise orientation of the pyramids42 of Dynasties IV and V
(with the exception of that of Khephren, which is interpreted differently43). Similarly some
ducts inside the pyramids were directed towards particular stars as Thuban (" Draco) the
pole star at that time44 (4000-1800). The accuracy of astronomical dates +/- 5 years based
on a calculated difference of 19" per year (due to the precession of the equinoxes) may be
optimistic because the Egyptian observations also depended on visual acuity and eye has
only a resolution of 1' (60") which is three times the value of the difference.
41 C.B. RAMSEY, M.W. DEE, J.M. ROWLAND, T.F. G. HIGHAM, S.A. HARRIS, F. BROCK, A. QUILES, E.M. WILD, E.S. MARCUS , A.J.
SHORTLAND - Radiocarbon - Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt in: Science Vol 328 (10 june 2010) pp. 1554-1557.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/328/5985/1554/DC1/1
42 K. SPENCE – Ancient Egyptian Chronology and Astronomical Orientation of the Pyramids
in: Nature Vol. 408 (November 2000) pp. 320-324.

43 G. MAGLI – On the Astronomical Orientation of the IV Dynasty Egyptian Pyramids and the Dating of the Second Giza Pyramid
in: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0307100
44 Y. NAZÉ – L'astronomie des anciens
Paris 2009 Éd. Belin pp. 76-81.

King of Egypt Accession according to: Gap Error

Dynasty IV Astronomy (1) C14 calib. (2) (2) – (1) (3)
Snefru 2526 +/-7 2612 +/-34 86 41
Kheops 2480 +/-5 2594 +/-36 114 41
Djedefre (2457) 2573 +/-37 (116?) (42?)
Khephren 2448 +/-5 2566 +/-37 118 42
Mykerinos 2415 +/-10 2543 +/-39 128 49
Shepseskaf (2388) 2516 +/-40 (128?) (50?)
Thamphthis - - -
Dynasty V
Userkaf (2380) 2508 +/-40 (128?) (65?)
Sahure 2372 +/-25 2501 +/-41 129 66
Neferirkare (Kakaï) 2359 +/-25 2443 +/-43 84 67
This table shows a fundamental point: the calibrated carbon-14 dating is in error
before -2000 since the difference between dating by astronomy and the one by calibrated
carbon-14 is significantly higher than the total of measurement errors. The accuracy of
astronomical dates derives from the accuracy of the alignment of the pyramids and also
historical chronology based on the values of reigns from the Turin Canon corrected (TC*)
and anchored on the reign of Pepi I, a contemporary of Sargon I (2243-2187).
The reconstruction45 of the early years of the reign of Djedkare Isesi shows that
cattle censuses were not biannual46, but on a ratio of 1.6 (= 30/19). The ratio of "years
after" compared to normal years, for the first 8 years of the reign is to 0.37 (= 11/30) the
same ratio of 0.36 (= 9/25) of intercalar years of the 25 years lunar cycle. The date of the
first sed festival (= 30 years of reign) of Pepi I coincided with his 18th livestock census47,
which confirms the theoretical ratio of 1.6 (= 25/16) between census years and regnal years
(= 30/18). Years "after" (intercalar) are consistent with reign durations48 according to the
equation: minimum duration of reign = number of census years x 1.6. The comparison is
excellent between the durations calculated by astronomy and those from the Turin Royal
Canon, which confirms the reliability of this document on chronology (but values from
Manetho are often too high). Several values of Turin Royal Canon have been completed or
corrected49. For example, the value of 9[4] years Pepi II appearing in the Turin papyrus
seems excessive for the following reasons: 1) as the number of censuses gives a minimum
reign of 51 years, it lacks the last 43 years of his reign (for Unas, for example, it just lacks
the last 17 years of his reign of 30 years), 2) as the father of Pepi II died at the age of 74 it
seems likely that Pepi II was also a septuagenarian which would imply a reign of about 68
years (= 74 - 6) since he began reigning at the age of 6, 3) as the Egyptian numbers 64 and
94 are similar, confusion seems likely.
45 M. VERNER – Archaeological Remarks on the 4th and 5th Dynasty Chronology
in: Archiv Orientalni 69:3 (2001) Ed. Brill pp. 363-418.
46 J.S. NOLAN – Lunar intercalations and "cattle counts" during the Old Kingdom: the Hebsed in context
in: Chronology and Archaeology in Ancient Egypt. Ed. Czech Institute of Egyptology, Prague 2008, pp. 44-60.
47 M. B AUD – The Relative Chronology of Dynasties 6 and 8
in: Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Leiden 2006) Ed. Brill pp. 144-157.
48 G. GREENBERG – Manetho. A Study in Egyptian Chronology.
Pennsylvania 2004 Ed. MPM8 pp. 147,171,184.

49 Nitocris: the unique value of reign (12 years) comes from Manetho who is generally 10 years too high. Merenre I: as for Pepi II the value
of 44 is 30 years too high, since the last census provides a minimum reign of 9 years. It is possible that the reign of Teti and Pepi I in the
royal canon of Turin (TC) have been shifted one line implying 20 years instead of [?] for Teti and 44 years instead of 20 for Pepi I. Pepi I:
the highest date of his reign being year 42 that requires a minimum reign of 41 years. The value of 44 years attributed to Merenre I better
reflects Pepi I. Teti: the number of censuses gives a minimum reign of 18 years. The value of 20 years assigned to Pepi I would better
reflect Teti. Djedkare (Isesi): the number of censuses gives a minimum reign of 35 years. The number 38 seems to have been written 28.
Niuserre (Ini): the 30 years of reign are based solely on the mention of a sed festival. Neferirkare (Kakai): the highest date of his reign being
year 11 that requires a minimum reign of 10 years. Sahure: the highest date of his reign being year 15 that requires a minimum reign of 14
years, confirmed by the Palermo Stone which fixes the death of the king in year 14, month 9 and days 6. Mykerinos: according to
astronomy the duration of his reign was about 27 years which implies the value 28 (instead of 18) in the Turin Canon. Khafre: according
to astronomy the duration of his reign was about 33 years which selects the value 2[9] in the Turin Canon. Snefru: depending on the
number of censuses the duration of his reign was over 38 years which allows to select the value 44 (instead of 24) of the Turin Canon.
King of Egypt Reign TC Man. cens x1.6 date + TC* Reign

(astronomy)
Djoser 19 29 19 2597-2578
Sekhemkhet 6 7 6 2578-2572
Nebka[re]/ Sanakht 19 28 19 2572-2553
Khaba 6 17 6 2553-2547
Huni 24 42 24 2547-2523
Dynasty IV 15
Snefru 2526-2480 46 24 29 24$ !38 44 2523-2479
Kheops 2480-2457 23 23 63 12$ %19 23 2479-2456
Djedefre 2457-2448 9 8 25 11?$ %18? 8 2456-2448
Khephren 2448-2415 33 2[-] 66 13$ !21 29 2448-2419
Baka 2415-2415 - 0 2419-2419
Mykerinos 2415-2388 27 18/28 63 11$ !18 28 2419-2391
Shepseskaf 2388 - 8 4 7 1+$ %3 1 4 2391-2387
Thamphthis -2380 - 2 2 2387-2385
Dynasty V 18
Userkaf 2380-2372 8 7 28 3$ %5 7 7 2385-2378
Sahure 2372-2359 13 12* 13 7+$ %12 15 14 2378-2364
Neferirkar (Kakaï) 2359-23** ? ? 20 5$ !8 11 10 2364-2354
Shepseskare 7 7 7 2354-2347
Neferrefre 1 20 1$ %2 2 2347-2345
Niuserre (Ini) 11+x 44 7$ %12 sed* 14 2345-2331
Menkauhor 8 9 8 2331-2323
Djedkare (Isesi) 28 44 22?$ !35 sed 38 2323-2285
Unas 30 33 8$ %13 sed 30 2285-2255
Dynasty VI 15
Teti ? 30 11$ !18 18 2255-2237
Userkare 0 2237-2237
Pepi I (2243-2200) 43 20 53 25$ %40 42 42 2237-2195
Merenre I 44 7 5+$ %9 14 2195-2181
Pepi II 9[4] 94 31+$ !51 64 2181-2117
Merenre II 1 1 1 2117-2116
Nitocris -2120 ? 12 2 2116-2112
20
Differences in dates between the chronology deduced from astronomical

measurements and historical chronology are less than 5 years, which shows that it is not
necessary to assume a lower precision of +/- 15 years50. Comparison of Egyptian reigns
dated by calibrated C14 (highlighted) and those anchored on astronomical dates (in bold):
Accession error Reign gap
(14C calib.) +/-
Dynasty I (-2800)
1 Menes/ Narmer
2 Aha (Atoti ?) 3100 120
3 Djer (3090) (120) [34 years] (-2774) +316
4 Uadji/ Djet 3080 120 [11 years] 2792-2781 +288
5 Den 3000 120 [32 years] 2781-2749 +219
6 Adjib [10 years] 2749-2739
7 Semerkhet [ 9 years] 2739-2730
8 Ka 2925 110 [33 years] 2730-2697 +195
Dynasty II
1 Hotepsekhemuy [17 years] 2697-2680
2 Nebre/ Raneb [17 years] 2680-2663
50R.G. BAUVAL – A Brief Evaluation of Kate Spence's Article in NATURE Vol. 408, 16 November 2000 pp. 320-324
in: http://www.robertbauval.co.uk/articles/articles/spence.html
3 Nynetjer [24 years] 2663-2639

4 Uneg(nebty) [ 7 years] 2639-2632
5 Sened [ 7 years] 2639-2632
6 Neferkare [ 8 years] 2632-2624
7 Neferkasokar 8 years 2632-2624
8 Khasekhemuy 2679 46 27 years 2624-2597 +55
Dynasty III
1 Djoser 2658 33 19 years 2597-2578 +61
2 Sekhemkhet (Djoser-Teti) 2641 32 6 years 2578-2572 +63
3 Nebka[re]/ Sanakht 19 years 2572-2553
4 Khaba 6 years 2553-2547
5 Huni 24 years 2547-2523
Dynasty IV
1 Snefru -2620 33 44 years 2523-2479 +97
2 Kheops -2594 35 23 years 2479-2456 +115
3 Djedefre -2573 37 8 years 2456-2448 +117
4 Khephren -2566 38 29 years 2448-2419 +118
5 Baka 0 year 2419-2419
6 Mykerinos -2543 38 28 years 2419-2391 +124
7 Shepseskaf -2516 40 4 years 2391-2387 +125
8 Thamphthis 2 years 2387-2385
Dynasty V
1 Userkaf -2508 40 7 years 2385-2378 +123
2 Sahoure -2501 41 14 years 2378-2364 +123
3 Neferirkare (Kakaï) 10 years 2364-2354
4 Shepseskare 7 years 2354-2347
5 Neferefre 2 years 2347-2345
6 Niuserre (Ini) 14 years 2345-2331
7 Menkauhor 8 years 2331-2323
8 Djedkare (Isesi) -2443 43 38 years 2323-2285 +120
9 Unas -2407 44 30 years 2285-2255 +122
Dynasty VI
1 Teti -2379 44 18 years 2255-2237 +124
2 Userkare -2359 45 <1 year 2237-2237 +122
3 Pepi I -2355 45 42 years 2237-2195 +118
4 Merenre I -2323 46 14 years 2195-2181 +128
5 Pepi II 64 years 2181-2117
6 Merenre II 1 year 2117-2116
7 Nitocris <1 year 2116-2116
Dynasty VII-VIII -2224 58 2 years? 2116-2114 +108
Dynasty XI / (IX-X) -2204 59
1 Mentuhotep I 16 years 2118 -
2 Antef I -2102
3 Antef II 49 years 2102-2053
4 Antef III 8 years 2053-2045
5 Mentuhotep II -2042 23 51 years 2045-1994 -3
6 Mentuhotep III -1991 21 12 years 1994-1982 -3
7 Mentuhotep IV -1981 22 7 years 1982-1975 -1
Dynasty XII
1 Amenemhat I -1975 23 29 years 1975-1946 0
2 Sesostris I -1948 24 45 years 1946-1901 +2
3 Amenemhat II -1903 25 38 years 1901-1863 +2
4 Sesostris II -1870 26 8 years 1863-1855 +7
5 Sesostris III -1863 27 19 years 1855-1836 +8
6 Amenemhat III -1825 27 45 years 1836-1791 -11
7 Amenemhat IV -1781 28 9 years 5 m. 1791-1782 -10
8 Neferusebek -1773 29 3 years 11 m. 1782-1778 -9
Dynasty XIII
The table above shows two points: 1) a sudden dropping between astronomical
dating and carbon 14 calibrated toward 2100-2050 and 2) an exponential increase in the
difference between dating toward 2900-2700 (Dynasty I). The oldest astronomical
phenomenon mentioned in ancient documents (Egyptian or Babylonian) which are dated
by astronomy, is the heliacal rising of Sirius.
The Djer's plate (opposite figure) mentions the oldest known
heliacal rising of Sirius51 (around -2800) dated at the beginning of the
flood (I Akhet 1) and the summer solstice. The origin of the Egyptian civil
calendar is difficult to establish because of the lack of documentation. We
can make some probable conjectures. The name of the first 4 months
being those of the season called akhet "flooding" it is logical to conclude
that this calendar had started with the flooding of the Nile, which
coincided itself with the summer solstice (July 17 at this time). The name
of the next two periods of the calendar: peret "germination" and shemu "heat", is also in
agreement with the seasons. From the first dynasties the sign of the year appears on ivory
labels which implies the existence of a calendar and also annals are to be hold from the
beginning of historical times. On the ivory plate of king Djer there is a connection between
the rising of Sirius in Buto, represented as a cow (Hathor-sek associated with Isis), as
Denderah, and the beginning of the flood recorded by the sign akhet. The coincidence
between the beginning of the flooding of the Nile (agricultural year) and the heliacal rising
of Sirius52 (the brightest star in the sky) at Buto and the summer solstice (July 17)53 is
performed only in 2774 BCE54, which also coincides with the heliacal rising of Venus (the
brightest planet in the solar system),
which coincidentally happens every
243 years55. In addition, there was
also the heliacal rising of the new
moon on I Akhet 1 (= July 18). All
these coincidences had impressed
the Egyptians. This double heliacal
rising was often represented by a
heron (associated to Isis) with a star
above the head (Venus) at the same
level as the ankles of Sothis (Sirius).
On the opposite picture (90°x90°)
Sirius is 2° above the horizon (on
the right), Venus and the new moon
are 4° above the horizon (on the
left). The celestial equator is in light
blue and the ecliptic is in dark red.
If Djer's reign is dated in -2774 +/- 17 years56 (present egyptologists waver between
-3100 and -2823)57 the first Egyptian dynasty must have begun around -2800.
51 A.S. VON BOMHARD - Le calendrier Égyptien. Une œuvre d'éternité
London 1999 Ed. Periplus pp. 48-49.
52 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/sothis/index.php (arcus visionis = 9.3).
53 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/temps/saisons.php
54 http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon (with Universal Time: -2773-07-18 2:05:00; Azimuth: 90° (E); Field of view: 90°; for
Buto: Latitude 31°12' North 30°45' East).

55 G.W. VAN OOSTERHOUT – Sirius, Venus and the Egyptian Calendar
in: Discussions in Egyptology 27 (1993) pp. 83-96.

56 Assuming that the reign of Djer lasted about 34 years and that the heliacal rising was observed in the middle of his reign.
57 M. DESSOUDEIX – Chronique de l'Égypte ancienne
Paris 2008 Éd. Actes Sud pp. 32-33.

Despite measurements of the lengths of first dynasty reigns by calibrated carbon-14

are imprecise58 (+/- 120 years) they aging reigns toward -2800 of about 300 years compared
to the Egyptian chronology anchored on the Sothic rise of Djer.
Accession according to: 14C 14C calibrated Astronomy gap1 gap2 "14C*
(1) (2) (3) (1) – (2) (2) – (3) (‰)
Djer -3890 -3090 -2774 800 315 100
Snefru -3140 -2620 -2523 520 95 55
Pepi I -2710 -2355 -2237 350 120 40
Dynasty VII -2540 -2225 -2120 315 105 30
Mentuhotep II -2330 -2045 -2045 285 0 25
Sesostris III -2105 -1865 -1855 240 10 20
From -2100 the difference in carbon-14 (!14C: 115 years <=> 1 ‰) increases
much faster if one takes into account the additional correction calculated from the dates
obtained by astronomy. * Corrected !14C* curve (in red):
The equation of the curve showing 14C rate (in %) versus time (t in years) is of the
form: A = A0(1-e-(t+t0)/b). Calibrating the 14C measures by the dates from the Egyptian
chronology gives the following curve59:
Extrapolated part of the curve shows that the rate of carbon-14 tends gradually to 0
around -3500, which implies an important consequence: before that date calibrated carbon-
14 dating is no longer possible.
58 J. VERCOUTTER - L'Egypte et la vallée du Nil

Paris 1992 Éd. Presses Universitaires de France pp. 200-244.
59 R.H. BROWN – Compatibility of Biblical Chronology with C-14 Age
in: Origins 21:2 (Geoscience Research Institute, 1994) pp. 66-79.

DATING THE DELUGE BY EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY
Egyptian religion has kept the legend of a universal deluge in a simplified form: life
(all first living beings including the gods) would come from the primordial waters of chaos
called the "Noun", the "Abyss" of Greeks60. The chapter 175 of the Book of the Dead
describes thus: You are for millions of millions of years, a lifetime of millions of years. But I [Atum], I'll
destroy everything I created, this country will return to the state of Noun, in the state of floods, as its first
state. I'm what will remain, with Osiris, when I'll be transformed back into a snake, that men may not
know that the gods can not see61. According to Egyptian mythology Atum was generated himself
from Noun, it is the personification of the first order from chaos, the image of the Creator,
the potter and craftsman of the world, the successor of Ptah (a god hypostasis of Noun).
This ancient mythology could explain why some pharaohs of the first dynasty built "naval
tombs" in the desert (at Abydos 12 huge vessels of 26 meters are side by side)62. Kheops
(Dynasty V) was the last pharaoh having built a giant boat next to his pyramid.
The only unusual detail agreeing with the biblical flood in Egyptian mythology,
describing the emergence of a world from primeval waters, is the "ogdoad" describing the
initial reign of eight gods over world formation. This myth is similar to the story of Noah
with his three sons and their wives (Genesis 9:18-19, 1 Peter 3:20). The curious detail of
"eight characters from the water" is also found in the ancient Chinese civilization (the
oldest chinese characters are dated around -1300). In fact, the Chinese character for the
word "boat", appearing in some scripts of the Western Zhou63 (1000-770), is composed of
three characters meaning literally "eight mouths [people of the same family] in a vessel":
vessel eight mouth = boat

Because of the venerable age of this Chinese character one can not invoke an
(unlikely) biblical influence or a mere coincidence, as the boats of antiquity were large
vessels with any number of passengers and the number eight has no symbolic meaning in
ancient Chinese (but it means "make a fortune" in Cantonese where its current importance
in present Chinese mentality).
The Egyptian version of the flood has links with the biblical narrative but also
merges with other legends describing the onset of the world. In contrast to the Sumerians
who owned annals and chronicles dating back well before the flood, the Egyptians were
not interested in their history prior to the 1st dynasty. Information regarding the predynastic
period (Egyptian prehistory), called "Dynasty 0" by Egyptologists and dated very
approximately to 3500-3000 are very conjectural64. The Sumerian version of the flood of
the same time is much more detailed.
The Gilgamesh flood myth is a deluge story in the Epic of Gilgamesh (Tablet XI in
the “standard version” similar to the flood story from the Epic of Atrahasis). A short
reference to the flood myth is also present in the much older Sumerian Gilgamesh poems,
from which the later Babylonian versions drew much of their inspiration and subject
matter. Gilgamesh’s supposed historical reign is believed to have been ca. 2460-2400,
60 R.J. THIBAUD – Dictionnaire de la mythologie égyptienne
Paris 1996 Éd. Dervy pp. 34, 226, 236-237, 291
61 P. BARGUET – Le livre des morts des anciens égyptiens
Paris 1967 Éd. Cerf p. 261.

62 B. MANLEY – Les soixante-dix grands mystères de l'Égypte ancienne
Monaco 2004 Éd. du Rocher pp. 38-41.

63 A. PEYRAUBE – Ancient chinese
in: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languares (Cambridge University Press, 2004) pp. 988-992.
64 P. VERNUS, J. YOYOTTE – Dictionnaire des pharaons
Paris 1998 Éd. Noêsis pp. 198, 206.

shortly before the earliest known written stories. The discovery of artifacts associated with
Agga and En-me-baragesi of Kish, two other kings named in the stories, has lent credibility
to the historical existence of Gilgamesh. In the WB-62 Sumerian king list recension,
Ziusudra of Shuruppak is recorded as having reigned as both king and gudug priest for 10
sars, or periods of 60x60 years. In this version, Ziusudra inherited rulership from his father
&uruppak who ruled for 10 sars. The line following Ziusudra in WB-62 reads: Then the flood
swept over. The next line reads: After the flood swept over, kingship descended from heaven; the kingship
was in Kish. The city of Kish flourished in the Early Dynastic period soon after an
archaeologically attested river flood in Shuruppak (modern Tell Fara, Iraq) and various
other Sumerian cities. The earliest Sumerian Gilgamesh poems date from as early as the
Third dynasty of Ur (ca. -2000)65. One of these poems mentions Gilgamesh’s journey to
meet the flood hero, as well as a short version of the flood story. The earliest version of the
flood myth written in Sumerian cuneiform is preserved fragmentarily in the Eridu Genesis
(ca -1600)66. The “standard” Akkadian version included a long version of the flood story
was edited by Sin-liqe-unninni around -1200. The flood story was included because in it the
flood hero Utnapishtim is granted immortality by the gods and that fits the immortality
theme of the Epic. Ziusudra "life of long days" in Sumerian, Hellenized Xisuthros, is
subsequently recorded as the hero of the Sumerian flood epic. He is also mentioned in
other ancient literature, including The Death of Gilgamesh and The Poem of Early Rulers,
and a late version of The Instructions of Shuruppak. Akkadian Atrahasis "extremely wise"
and Utnapishtim "he found life", as well as biblical Noah "rest" are similar heroes of flood
legends of the ancient Near East. Although each version of the flood myth has distinctive
story elements, there are numerous story elements which are common. Strong parallels are
notable with other Near Eastern flood legends, such as the biblical account of Noah.
The Shatapatha Brahmana (written in Sanskrit) is considered the first great work of
Vedic literature. This anonymous work, dated between the 8th and 6th centuries BCE,
includes a creation myth and deluge story67. The old Sumerian version of the flood
confirms the Egyptian version describing eigth gods (ogdoad) emerging from the chaos of
primeval waters (Noun), but more importantly it allows to date this event because it is
precisely located at the end of the reign of Ziusudra and before the first dynasty of Kish.
DATING THE DELUGE BY BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY
There have been numerous flood stories identified from ancient sources scattered
around the world. The stories that were discovered on cuneiform tablets, which comprise
some of the earliest surviving writing, have obvious similarities. Cuneiform writing was
invented by the Sumerians and carried on by the Akkadians. Babylonian and Assyrian are
two dialects of the Akkadian, and both contain a flood account. While there are differences
between the original Sumerian and later Babylonian and Assyrian flood accounts, many of
the similarities are strikingly close to the Genesis flood account. The Babylonian account is
the most intact, with only 7 of 205 lines missing. It was also the first discovered, making it
the most studied of the early flood accounts. Some of the similarities are very striking,
while others are very general. The command for Utnapishtim to build the boat is
remarkable, lines 23 to 30 read (tablet XI): O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu, tear down the
house, build a ship; abandon wealth, seek after life; scorn possessions, save the living. Bring up the seed of
all kinds of living things into the ship. For the boat that you will build, let its dimensions match among
65 R.J. TOURNAY, A. SHAFFER – L'épopée de Gilgamesh
in: Littératures Anciennes du Proche-Orient 15 (Cerf, 1994) pp. 1-18, 222-247.
66 S.N. KRAMER – The Sumerian Deluge Myth: Reviewed and Revised
in: Anatolian Studies Vol. 33 (1983) pp. 115-121.

67 A fish (Vishnu in his incarnation as Matsya) instructed Manu (mankind's ancestor) by preparing a ship to survive the flood.
them: will be equal the width and length. The cause of the flood as sent in judgment on man's
sins is striking also, line 180 reads: Lay upon the sinner his sin; lay upon the transgressor his
transgression. A study of these parallels to Genesis 6-9 demonstrate the non-coincidental
nature of these similarities. The widespread nature of flood traditions throughout the entire
human race is excellent evidence for the existence of a great flood from a historical point
of view. Dating of the oldest fragments of the Gilgamesh account originally indicated that
it was older than the assumed dating of Genesis but the presence of numerous errors or
inconsistencies in the Sumerian story (highlighted in orange) with respect to the biblical
account68 proves that it is actually older than the Sumerian accounts which were alterated
restatements to the original. Despite superficial similarities, the differences between the two
accounts are quite significant. The table below lists most of the differences:
N° Characteristic GENESIS 6-9 GILGAMESH

1 Reason for flood human wickedness excessive human noisiness
2 Response of deity the Lord was sorry He made man gods could not sleep
because of his wickedness
3 Warned by Jehovah Ea
4 Main character Noah "rest" Utnapishtim "He found life"
5 Why character chosen a righteous man no reason given
6 Intended for All humans except Noah and his all humans
family
7 Decision to send flood Jehovah council of the gods (primarily Enlil)
8 Builders Noah and family Utnapishtim, his family, and many
craftsmen from city
9 Character's response Noah warned his neighbors of Told by Ea to lie to neighbors so that
upcoming judgment as "Preacher they would help him build the boat
of righteousness"
10 Building time ' 70 years 7 days
11 Boat size 450x75x45 feet 200x200x200 feet (unseaworthy cube)
12 Boat roof wood slate (top heavy?)
13 Decks 3 6
14 Humans Noah and family Utnapishtim, his family, and
craftsmen from city
15 Cargo animals and food animals, food, gold jewels, and other
valuables
16 Launching by the floodwaters pushed to the river
17 Door closed by Jehovah Utnapishtim
18 Sign of coming flood none bright light sent by the Annanuki
(collection of Sumerian gods)
19 Waters sent by Jehovah Adad, with help from gods Shamash,
Shullat, Hanish, Erragal, Ninurta
20 Reaction of deity to flood in control of waters gods scrambled to get away from
water like "whipped dogs"
21 Duration of rain 40 days 7 days
22 Duration of flood 370 days 14 days
23 Boat landing Mt. Ararat Mt. Nisir
24 Deity's reaction to human no regret mentioned regretted that they had killed all the
deaths humans
25 Birds sent out raven returns, dove returns second dove returns, swallow returns, raven
time with olive branch, then leaves does not return
26 Offering after flood one of every clean animal and bird wines and a sheep
27 Aftermath God promises not to destroy gods quarrel among themselves, god
humanity by flood again Ea lies to Enlil. Utnapishtim and wife
given immortality like the gods
28 Repopulation Noah and family told to multiply Ea and Mami created 14 human
and repopulate the earth beings to help repopulate the earth
68 Likely preserved either as an oral tradition or in written form handed down from Noah through the patriarchs.
The first striking thing that one notices when reading the Epic of Gilgamesh is how
steeped in polytheism the story is (No. 2, 7, 19, 20, 27, 28). If the text of Genesis was
inspired by the story of Gilgamesh why there is no trace of polytheism? Even with these
major changes not considered, there are many dissimilarities that would not be expected
from a story copied from another story. For example, the timings of the flood accounts are
vastly different. The Gilgamesh flood took only 3x7 days (No. 21,22), whereas the Genesis
flood lasted over a year (370 days). The Gilgamesh flood included several 7 day long events
(Building time No. 10)69. This "perfect" number is found throughout the Bible, so would
be expected to be retained if copied from the epic of Gilgamesh. However, the Bible uses
numbers like 150 and 370 (Genesis 7:24, 8:14) — much longer timeframes and without
symbolic meaning. On the other hand the phrase "for 7 days and 7 nights" is a term
typically Eastern for expressing great duration of trouble (Job 2:13). The boats in the two
accounts are quite different. According to the Sumerian account Ziusudra built a boat
which was an unseaworthy cube of 120 cubits with a slate roof (No. 11). Obviously, such a
design would immediately flip over or roll around in the water. In contrast, the ark had
dimensions (300, 50, and 30 cubits) that were ideal for a seaworthy ship70. This fact might
be surprising, since both cultures were not noted for their nautical skills. It is obvious that
the gods of the Sumerians had no expertise in shipbuilding. Probably the most unique
feature common to both accounts are the release of birds to determine when the waters
had receded (No. 25). However, there are some significant differences between the two
accounts. In Gilgamesh, a dove is sent out first, whereas in Genesis, it is a raven. The
second bird sent is a swallow in Gilgamesh and a dove in Genesis. A third bird, a raven, is
sent out in Gilgamesh, whereas the dove is sent out again in Genesis and returns with an
olive leaf. In Genesis, the dove is sent out a third time and does not return. If the Genesis
account was copied from Gilgamesh, these details were changed significantly for no
apparent reason. One has to notice that, according to naturalists, the crafty raven is a bird
most adaptable and most ingenious. It was therefore advised to start with the raven to test
the state of the country and finish with the dove, an simpleminded bird (Hosea 7:11).
Finally, according to the Sumerian story, Ziusudra was an immortal man (No. 27) living in
a land called Dilmun (now Bahrain Island). However, according to the Bible, even if the
days of Noah were extended to 950 years he eventually died. So despite appearances the
biblical story of the Deluge is likely older than its Sumerian version.
Josephus quoted Babylonian archives and its chronology to confirm the biblical
flood: Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among
whom is Berosus the Chaldean. For when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: "It
is said there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some
people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of
mischiefs (...) Berosus mentions our father Abram without naming him, when he says thus: "In the tenth
generation after the Flood, there was among the Chaldeans a man righteous and great, and skillful in the
celestial science" (Jewish Antiquities I:93, 158).
Current historians do not give much credit to the list of Berosus71 even if the
discovery of several Sumerian royal lists have since confirmed its authenticity72. These lists,
separated by more than two thousand years are relatively identical (the list of Berosus was
69 A building time of around 70 years is clearly more realistic rather than only 7 days. In the biblical account Noah was 500 years old
when he became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Genesis 5:32) and 600 years old when the flood of water came upon the earth
(Genesis 7:6). Thus, Noah could start his construction when his sons became adults (around 30 years).
70 The current large cargo ships, designed to carry large volumes safely and stably, have the exact proportions of the biblical ark, a ratio
length/width of 6/1, which is ideal for buoyancy according to specialists in shipbuilding.

71 Pliny the Elder (23-79) was the first to express doubts about the high ages of ancient characters (Natural History VII: 48).
72 J.-J. GLASSNER – Chroniques mésopotamiennes
Paris 2004 Éd. Les Belles Lettres pp. 71-72.

received through several translations73, which have favored variants). In addition, an

ambiguity in the Akkadian numbering system74 had to cause these prodigious ages. Indeed,
the unit (vertical nail) and number 60 (pressed vertical nail) are written in the same way and
were noted by a "finger" in Sumerian (normal or pressed)75. Thus the expression "5 fingers"
read "5x1 in Sumerian" was read "5x60" in Akkadian. This Akkadian reading of the
Sumerian "finger" artificially multiplied by 60 old numbers appearing in the original.
Berosus reign List A reign List C reign
1 Alôros 36000 years Alulim 67200 years Alulim 28800 years
2 Alaparos 10800 years Alalgar 10800 years Alalgar 72000 years
3 Almêlon 46800 years Amme-lu-ana 36000 years [x]kidunnu 72000 years
4 Ammenôn 43200 years En-sipazi-ana 43200 years [x]alima 21600 years
5 Amegalaros 64800 years Dumuzi 28800 years
6 Daônos 36000 years Dumuzi 36000 years Amme-lu-ana 21600 years
7 Euedôrakos 64800 years Enme-dur-anki 6000 years En-sipazi-ana 36000 years
8 Amempsinos 36000 years [-] [-] Enme-dur-ana 72000 years
9 Otiartes 28800 years [-] [-] &uruppak 28000 years
10 Xisuthros 64800 years Ziusudra 36000 years
Deluge 43200 years 38100
If we compare the C list (the only one complete) with the major antediluvian
biblical characters (Genesis 5:3-32, Luke 3:36-38), there is another remarkable parallelism in
both the number of characters (10) as in the duration of their life or their reign:
Genesis 5; Luke 3 Length Character (List C), king of: City Reign/60
1 Adam 930 years Alulim Eridu 480 years
2 Seth 912 years Alalgar Eridu 1200 years
3 Enosh 905 years [x]kidunnu Larsa 1200 years
4 Kenan 910 years [x]alima Larsa 360 years
5 Mahalalel 895 years Dumuzi the pastor Bad-tibira 480 years
6 Jared 962 years Amme-lu-ana Bad-tibira 360 years
7 Enoch 365 years En-sipazi-ana Larak 600 years
8 Methuselah 969 years Enme-dur-ana Sippar 1200 years
9 Lamech 777 years &uruppak son of Ubar-Tutu &uruppak 480 years
10 Noah 600 years Ziusudra son of &uruppak &uruppak 600 years
Deluge Arpakshad 565 years ? ? ?
From the Flood, the two stories, biblical and Sumerian, give a chronology of events
which is verifiable. Joannes note: After the Flood, civilization continued, and Berosus gave the
complete list (which does not reach us) of the eighty-six kings who reigned between Xisuthros and the
destruction of the empire of Akkad by Gutis, over a period which varies depending on the source from
33,091 to 34,090 years. Book II ended with the reign of Nabonasaros (Nabu-nasir), which Berosus says
he would voluntarily destroy the sources prior to his reign to mark it as an absolute origin. The third and
last book listed the dynasties having reigned in Babylon from the Neo-Assyrian kings until the conquest of
Alexander, some passages closely following the Babylonian Chronicles which have survived76. Berosus was
very knowledgeable and his information reliable. Taking into account the multiplicative
factor of 60, the period between the Flood and the end of Akkad by Gutis is reduced to a
length of 560 +/- 8 years. Destruction of Akkad by Gutis can be dated approximately by
73 This list appears in the Chronicle of Eusebius, who quotes the (lost) one of Alexander Polyhistor.
74 R. CAPLICE, D. SNELL – Introduction to Akkadian
Rome 1988 Ed. Biblical Institute Press pp. 94-95.
75 J.M. STEELE – Calendars and Years
Oxford 2007 Ed. Oxbow Books pp. 85-92.

76 F. JOANNÈS – Bérose
in: Dictionnaire de la civilisation mésopotamienne (Robert Laffont 2001) p. 124.

the royal lists, which vary from 92 to 125 years to estimate the total duration of this
dynasty. As the last king of Akkad was &u-Turul the beginning of the dynasty of Kish could
date back around 2630 BCE (= 2070 + 560). Using Sumerian King lists, a total of
approximately 32,400 years (due to many variations) is found between the beginning of the
dynasty of Kish and King Sargon I (2243-2187), which would give a beginning around
2800 BCE (= 2240 + 32400/60).
In order to date the Flood the figures in Chapter 11 of Genesis are used and those
from the Sumerian royal lists. Unfortunately due to the high antiquity of these genealogical
lists many figures were poorly copied. Regarding the Sumerian lists the manuscript G77
seems to be the most reliable and concerning the biblical lists of different traditions
(Jewish, Samaritan, Christian), the text of the Septuagint seems the oldest and the one that
was used by all of the chronographs (Jews and Christians), until at least the end of the first
century of our era (this important point will be discussed in detail later in this article).
Babylonian chronology currently used78 should be lowered 92 years (= 2004 - 1912)
using synchronisms79 from kings of Akkad, Uruk and Lagash. The period 2243-2020 has
little synchronisms which are precisely datable by astronomy, but reigns duration of the
dynasties of Akkad, Uruk IV-V and Ur III is known80, furthermore Sargon of Akkad, I('ar-
Damu (Ebla), and Pepi I (Egypt) were contemporaries81. The chronology of dynasties IX to
XII is locked to the beginning of the XIIth in -1975 and based on the sum of regnal years.
The duration of the dynasties VII and VIII was brief because, according to Manetho, 70
kings would have ruled 70 days each (70x70 days = around 13 years) or a period about 10
years of instability. The set of Assyrian reigns (which are without intercalation before
A((ur-Dan I), combined with the construction length between temples, enable us to date
precisely the death of &am(î-Adad I in 1680 BCE, which fixes the reign of Hammurabi
(1697-1654) and therefore those of Ibbi-Sîn (1936-1912) and Ammisaduqa (1551-1530).
The lunar eclipse at the end of Ibbi-Sîn's reign and at the end of Shulgi's reign, the risings
and settings of Venus dated according to a lunar calendar during Ammisaduqa's reign,
allow to obtain absolute astronomical dating that anchoring Mesopotamian chronology.
Synchronisms between Babylonian and biblical accounts of this period (2000-1500)
are difficult to check because kings are not named or easily identifiable (Chedorlaomer).
Abraham, for example, after arriving in Canaan in 1963 BCE, time of Shulgi (2002-1954),
at 75 years old (Genesis 12:4-5), changed the name of Kiriath-arba “city of four" into
Hebron “joining” (Genesis 13:8; 23:1) and then, 7 years later, found the Egyptian city of
Tanis (Numbers 13:22) which was the first capital of the Hyksos. The settlement of the
Hebrews located in the land of Goshen is also referred as the "field of Tanis" (Genesis
45:10; 47:11; Psalms 78:12,43). Tanis would have been founded by Amenemhat I82 (1975-
1946, time of the famous Prince Sinuhe), but the biblical version might be right because the
name of Tanis (!o‘an) means "moving tents" in Hebrew whereas in Egyptian (da‘an) means
nothing. Babylonian chronology (synchronisms are highlighted)83:
78 G. ROUX - La Mésopotamie
Paris 1995 Éd. Seuil pp. 552-554.

79 F. JOANNÈS - Dictionnaire de la civilisation mésopotamienne
Paris 2001 Éd. Robert Laffont p. 264.


81 P. VERNUS, J. YOYOTTE - Dictionnaire des pharaons
Paris 1998 Éd. Noésis p. 159.

82 N. GRIMAL - Histoire de l'Égypte ancienne
Paris 1988 Éd. Fayard p. 212.

83 Astronomical dating are highlighted in blue sky, underlined dates are adjusted from one year to take account of the absence of
intercalation, framed dates represent exact values deduced from synchronisms and dates in italic represent the average values deduced
from synchronisms.
ASSYRIA Reign BABYLONIA Reign ELAM (A WAN II) Reign

Ur-Nammu 2020-2002 18 [!ie?]-lu 2015-1990 25
&ulgi 2002-1954 48 Kudur-Lagamar 1990-1954 36
Amar-Sîn 1954-1945 9
&u-Sîn 1945-1936 9 ISIN Reign
Ibbi-Sîn 1936-1912 24 I(bi-Erra 1923 - 33
Puzur-A((ur I 1913-1900 14 Collapse of Ur
&alim-ahum 1900-1886 14 -1890
Ilu-(umma 1886-1873 14 &û-ilî(u 1890-1880 10
Êri(u I 1873 - 40 Iddin-Dagân 1880-1859 21
-1834 I(me-Dagân 1859-1839 20
Ikunum 1834 - 14 Lipit-E(tar 1839-1828 11
-1821 Ur-Ninurta 1828-1800 28
Sargon I 1821-1782 40 Sûmû-abum 1799-1785 14 Bûr-Sîn 1800-1779 21
Puzur-A((ur II 1782-1774 8 Sûmû-la-Il 1785 - 36 Lipit-Enlil 1779-1774 5
Naram-Sîn 1774 - 54 Erra-imittî 1774-1767 7
-1749 Enlil-Bâni 1767-1743 24
Sâbium 1749 - 14 Zambîya 1743-1740 [3]
Iter-pi(a 1740-1736 [4]
-1722 -1735 Ur-dukuga 1736-1732 [4]
Êri(u II 1722-1712 10 Apil-Sîn 1735-1717 18 Sîn-mâgir 1732-1721 11
&am(î-Adad I 1712 - 33 Sîn-muballi" 1717-1697 20 Damiq-ilî(u 1721-1698 23
-1680 Hammurabi 1697-1680 17 Isin annexed
I(me-Dagan I 1680-1670 11 1680 - 26
A((ur-dugul 1670-1664 6
A((ur-apla-idi 1664 0
Nâ#ir-Sîn 1664 0
Sîn-namir 1664 0
Ipqi-I(tar 1664 0
Adad-#alûlu 1664 0
Adasi 1664 0
Bêlu-bâni 1664-1654 10 -1654
Libbaya 1654 - 17 Samsu-iluna 1654 - 38 ELAM Reign
-1638 Kutir-Nahhunte I 1645 - 25
&arma-Adad I 1638-1626 12
Puzur-Sîn 1626-1615 12 -1616 -1620
Bazaya 1615-1588 28 Abi-e(u! 1616-1588 28 Temti-Agun II 1620-1595 25
Lullaya 1588-1582 6 Ammiditana 1588 - 37 Kutir-Silhaha 1595-1570 25
&û-Ninûa 1582-1568 14
&arma-Adad II 1568-1565 3
Êri(u III 1565-1553 13 -1551 Kuk-Na(ur II 1570 - 25
&am(î-Adad II 1553-1547 6 Ammi#aduqa 1551 - 21 -1545
I(me-Dagan II 1547-1531 16 -1530 Kudu-zulu( II 1545-1525 20
&am(î-Adad III 1531-1516 16 Samsuditana 1530 - 31 Tan-Uli 1525-1505 20
A((ur-nêrârî I 1516-1491 26 Fall of Babylon -1499 Temti-halki 1505 - 20
Puzur-A((ur III 1491 - 24 Agum II 1503-1487 16 -1485
-1467 Burna-Buria( I 1487-1471 16 Kuk-Na(ur III 1485-1465 20
Enlil-nâ #ir I 1467-1455 13 Ka(tilia( III 1471-1455 16 Kidinu 1465-1450 15
Nûr-ili 1455-1443 12 Ulam-Buria( 1455 - 16 In(u(inak-sunkir- 1450 - 10
A((ur-(adûni 1443-1443 0 -1439 nappipir -1440
A((ur-rabi I 1443-1433 [10] Agum III 1439 - 16 Tan-Ruhuratir II 1440-1435 5
A((ur-nâdin-a$$e I 1433-1424 [10] -1423 &alla 1435-1425 10
Enlil-na #ir II 1424-1418 6 Kada(man-Harbe I 1423 - 16 Tepti-ahar 1425 - 20
A((ur-nêrârî II 1418-1411 7 -1407
A((ur-bêl-ni(e(u 1411-1403 9 Kara-inda( 1407 - 16 -1405
A((ur-rê’im-ni(e(u 1403-1395 8 -1391 Igi-halki 1405 - 20
A((ur-nâdin-a$$e II 1395-1385 10 Kurigalzu I 1391 - 16 -1385
Erîba-Adad I 1385 - 27 -1375 Pahir-i((an 1385-1375 10
-1358 Kada(man-Enlil I 1375-1360 15 Attar-Kittah 1375-1365 10
Mesopotamian chronology can be reconstructed up to Sargon (of Akkad) thanks to

years of reign and the synchronism with Pepi I:
EGYPT length of Reign AKKAD length of Reign
reign URUK IV, UR III reign
Dynasty VI
Teti Seheteptauy 18 2255-2237
Userkare <1 2237-2237
Pepi I Nefersahor 42 2237-2195 Sargon 2243-2187 56
Merenre I 14 2195-2181 Rimu( 2187-2178 9
Pepi II Neferkare 64 2181-2117 Mani(tusu 2178-2163 15
Merenre II Antiemsaf 1 2117-2116 Narâm-Sîn 2163 - 37
Nitocris <1 2116-2116 (insurrections)84 -2126
Dynasties VII-VIII (instability) 2? &ar-kali-(arri 2126 - 25
Dynasty XI (Dynasties IX-X)
Mentuhotep I - 16 2118 -
Antef I Sehertauy - 2102 -2101
Antef II Uahankh 49 2102 - Irgigi/ Imi/ 2101-2098 3
Nanum/ Ilulu
Dudu 2098-2077 21
&u-Turul 2077-2062 15
-2053 Ur-Nigin 2062-2055 7
Antef III Nekhtnetepnefer 8 2053 - Ur-Gigir 2055-2049 6
-2045 Kuda 2049-2043 6
Mentuhotep II Nebhepetre 51 2045 - Puzur-ili 2043-2038 5
Ur-Utu 2038-2032 6
Utu-hegal 2032-2021 7 [11?]
Ur-Nammu 2020-2002 18
-1994 &ulgi 2002 - 48
Mentuhotep III Seankhkare 12 1994-1982
Mentuhotep IV Nebtauyre 7 1982-1975
Dynasty XII -1954
Amenemhat I Sehetepibre 29 1975-1946 Amar-Sîn 1954-1945 9
Sesostris I Kheparkare 45 1946 - &u-Sîn 1945-1936 9
-1901 Ibbi-Sîn 1936-1912 24
Amenemhat II Nebkaure 38 1901-1863 Collapse of Ur
Sesostris II Khakheperre 8 1863-1855
Sesostris III Khakaure 19 1855-1836
The synchronisms obtained by a prosopographical study of the kings of Lagash,

Mari and Ebla85 allow a chronological rebuilding (estimated regnal years are in brackets)86.
Since there are 15 intervals between the first king of Lagash (Ur-Nan(e) and the last one
(Ikun-I(ar), each interval should have a duration of 6 years (= [2320-2234]/15), except the
last ones: I('ar-Damu, king of Ebla, who reigned 35 years and his two viziers: Ibrium who
ruled 15 years and Ibbi-zikir 17 years. Late Uruk I overlapped the beginning of Lagash I
about 80 years because Lugal-kigine-dudu was a contemporary of En-metena. The end of
Kish I overlapped the beginning of Uruk I about 40 years, King Agga having been defeated
by Gilgamesh87, we obtain (synchronisms have been highlighted):
84 According to the curse of Agade, the inordinate expansionism of Naram-Sin had caused uprisings throughout the empire that would
eventually cause the loss (progressive) of his capital Agade.
85 A. ARCHI – Chronologie relative des archives d'Ébla
in: Amurru 1 (1996) pp. 11-28.

86 F. JOANNÈS – Chronologie
in: Dictionnaire de la civilisation mésopotamienne (Robert Laffont 2001) pp. XVI, XVII
D.R. FRAYNE – Presargonic Period (2700-2350 BC)
Toronto 2008 Ed. University Press pp. 13-14,39,42-43,121,125,193,237-241,248,295-297,335-337,359,410
87 E. SOLLBERGER, J.-R. KUPPER – Inscriptions royales sumériennes et akkadiennes
in: Littératures Anciennes du Proche-Orient n°3 (1971, Cerf) pp. 8, 70-71, 84, 282--291.
LAGA&H I MARI EBLA (Vizier) UR I N° period

Ur-Nan(e (18) Ikun-&ama( Abur-Lîm Mesannepada (20) 2340-2320
Akurgal (5<) Aannepada 1 2320-2318
E-anatum (30) Ikun-&amagan Agur-Lîm Meski’agnuna (36?) 2 2318-2312
Ibbi-Damu 3 2312-2306
I(ki-Mari Baga-Damu 4 2306-2300
Elulu (25) 5 2300-2294
Anubu Enar-Damu 6 2294-2288
En-anatum I 7 2288-2282
En-metena (30) Sa’umu I(’ar-Malik 8 2282-2276
Itup-I(ar Kun-Damu Balulu (36) 9 2276-2270
Adub-Damu 10 2270-2264
Iblul-Il Igri(-Halab Darmia 11 2264-2258
12 2258-2252
En-anatum II Nizi Irkab-Damu Tir UR II 13 2252-2246
En-entarzi (5) Enna-Dagan Arrukum 14 2246-2240
Lugal-Anda (7) Ikun-I(ar I(’ar-Damu ASSYRIA AKKAD 2240-2234
Urukagina (11) Hida’ar Ibrium Tudiya Sargon I 2234-2217
I(qi-Mari Ibbi-Zikir Adamu 2217-2200
The synchronism among I('ar-Damu (2235-2200) king of Mari, Ibrium (2237-2220)

vizier of Ebla, Tudiya (2240?-2220?) king of Assyria and Sargon I (2243-2187) king of
Akkad, is confirmed. This chronology can be improved by the following synchronisms88:
! Year 1 of Irkab-damu king of Ebla corresponds to year 1 of Nizi king of Mari.
! Year 7 of Irkab-damu king of Ebla corresponds to year 1 of I('ar-Damu king of Ebla.
! Hida'ar king of Mari was defeated by Ibbi-Zikir in year 32 of I('ar-Damu king of Ebla.
! The destruction of Ebla by Sargon is dated to year 35 of I('ar-Damu king of Mari.
! The destruction of Mari in year ? Sargon89 is dated to year 9 of I(qi-Mari king of Mari.
! Year 1 of Puzur-Estar king of Mari corresponds to year 44 of &ulgi king of Ur.
! The reign of Ur-Nammu king of Ur is included in Apil-Kîn's reign, king of Mari.
LAGA&H I Reign MARI Reign EBLA Reign
Ur-Nan(e 2338-2320 Ikun-&ama( 2340-2318 Abur-Lîm 2340-2318
Akurgal 2320-2318 Ikun-&amagan 2318 - Agur-Lîm 2318-2312
E-anatum 2318 - -2306 Ibbi-Damu 2312-2306
-2288 I(ki-Mari 2306-2294 Baga-Damu 2306-2294
En-anatum I 2288-2282 Anubu 2294-2282 Enar-Damu 2294-2282
En-metena 2282 - Sa’umu 2282-2276 I(’ar-Malik 2282-2276
Itup-I(ar 2276 - Kun-Damu 2276-2270
-2264 Adub-Damu 2270-2264
-2252 Iblul-Il 2272-2252 20? Igri(-Halab 2264-2252 12?
En-anatum II 2252 - Nizi 2252-2249 3 Irkab-Damu 2252 - 7
-2246 Enna-Dagan 2249-2245 4?
AKKAD Ikun-I(ar 2245-2245 - -2245
Sargon 2243 - Hida’ar 2245-2210 35 I(’ar-Damu 2245-2210 35
I(qi-Mari 2210-2200 9 Fall of Ebla
-2187 Fall of Mari 2200 -
Rimu( 2187-2178
Mani(tusu 2178-2163 military governor -2164
Narâm-Sîn 2163-2126 Ididi( 2164 - 60
&ar-kali-(arri 2126-2101 -2104
88 D. CHARPIN – Mari au IIIe millénaire d'après les sources écrites

in: Supplément au dictionnaire de la Bible. Fascicule 77-78 (2008) pp. 222-233.
89 C.H. GORDON, G.A. RENDSBURG – Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language
Indiana 2002 Ed. Eisenbrauns pp. 62-72.

The following reconstitution is confirmed by the similar average of the reigns of

Kish I (15 years), Uruk I (16 years) and Assyria (14 years). With an average of 14 years for
the 9 reigns of Lagash I dynasty its end is fixed in 2200 (= 2340 - 9x14). The name
Kullassina-bel "They are all lords" seems to be an allusion to the beginning of kingship in
Mesopotamia. The indeterminate period after the flood (undocumented in Babylonian
King Lists)90 until the beginning of Kish I (3170-2800) covers the Egyptian period called
Dynasty 0 and Kish I (about -2800) was contemporary with Dynasty I.
LXXborn SUMERIAN KING Length /60 Reign EGYPTIAN KING Reign
in:
Noah 600 -3770 Ziusudra 600
Deluge 0 -3170 ?
Arpakshad 2 -3168 ?
Kainan 135 -3033 ?
Shelah 130 -2903 ?
(Noah's end) (350) -2820 KISH I -2800 DYNASTY I -2800
Gu[-]ur 1200 20 2800-2780
Eber 130 -2773 Kullassina-bel 960 16 2780-2764
Nan-gi(-li(ma 1200? 20 2764-2744
En-dara-ana 420 7 2744-2737
Babum 300 5 2737-2732
Pu’annum 840? 14 2732-2718
Kalibum 960 16 2718-2702
Kalumum 840 14 2702-2688
Zaqaqip 900 15 2688-2674
Atab 600 10 2674-2664
Ma(da 840 14 2664-2650
Arwi’um 720 12 2650-2638
Peleg 134 -2639 Etana 1500 25 2638-2613 URUK / A GADE
Bali$ 400 7* 2613-2606
Enme-nuna 660 11 2606-2595
Melam-Ki( 900 15 2595-2580
Barsal-nuna 1200 20 2580-2560
Samug 140 10* 2560-2550
Tizkar 305 15* 2550-2535
Ilku’u 900 15 2535-2520
Reu 130 -2509 Ilta-(adum 1200 20 2520-2500 URUK I -2500
6* En-me-baragesi 900 15 2500 - Mes-ki’agga(er 2496-2490
7 -2485 En-merkar 2490-2483
20 Agga 625 30* 2485 - Lugal-banda 2483-2463
20* Dumuzi 2463-2461
60* -2455 Gilgamesh 2461 -
(/60) (15) -2401
Serug 132 -2377 Ur-Nungal 30 30 2401-2371
Udul-kalama 15 15 2371-2356
Laba(um 9 9 2356-2347
En-nun-dara-anna 8 8 2347-2339 LAGA&H I -2340
Mes$e 36 36 2339 - Ur-Nan(e 2338-2320
-2303 Akurgal 2320-2318
Melam-ana 6 6 2303-2297 E-anatum 2318-2288
Lugal-kigine-dudu 36 36 2297 - En-anatum I 2288-2282
-2261 En-metena 2282-2252
(16) En-anatum II 2252-2246
En-entarzi 2246-2240
90Inscriptions delivered some names as Uhub, Mesalim, Enna-il, Lugal-TAR-si, Lugal-UD, Urzage, but none of these kings of Kish (city)
appears in King Lists. On the other hand, some kings of other cities are awarded the title "King of Kish (land)".
Synchronisms over the period 2800-2500 are few because Sumerian records (like
the Epic of Gilgamesh) did not yet exist since the invention of cuneiform writing is
attributed to En-merkar (c. -2500), King of Uruk: Because the messenger's mouth was too heavy,
and he could not repeat it. The lord of Kulab (En-merkar) patted some clay and put the words on it as on
a tablet. Before that day, there had been no putting words on clay; But now, when the sun rose on that day
—so it was: The lord of Kulab had put words as on a tablet —so it was!91 Actually, cuneiform
writing replaced pictographic writing (made of ideograms and few phonograms) reserved
for accounting records. During the period 2800-2500 a synchronism can be noticed
because there is only one exceptional event reported: Etana the sheperd, who ascended to heaven
and consolidated all the foreign countries, he reigned 1500 years. Etana had the ancient title "gods
drawn the city"92. The biblical text states that this was in the days of Peleg that the earth
was reorganized after the failure of the Tower of Babel (instigated by Nimrod), a building
that would reach heaven: To Eber were born two sons: the first was called Peleg, because it was in his
time that the earth was divided (Genesis 10:25; 11:1-9). This exceptional event (fortification of
sumerian cities?) is dated around 2640 BCE in both chronologies.
The period 3170-2800 is very poorly documented (the first available data appear
only from -2500)93, the only remarkable event is, according to the Bible, the construction of
the Tower of Babel then its abandonment and the emergence of languages: Now all the earth
continued to be of one language and of one set of words. And it came about that in their journeying
eastward [from Ararat] they eventually discovered a valley plain in the land of Shinar [Sumer], and they
took up dwelling there. And they began to say, each one to the other: “Come on! Let us make bricks and
bake them with a burning process.” So brick served as stone for them, but bitumen served as mortar for
them. They now said: “Come on! Let us build ourselves a city and also a tower with its top in the heavens,
and let us make a celebrated name for ourselves, for fear we may be scattered over all the surface of the
earth.” And Jehovah proceeded to go down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men had built.
After that Jehovah said: “Look! They are one people and there is one language for them all, and this is
what they start to do. Why, now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be unattainable
for them. Come now! Let us go down and there confuse their language that they may not listen to one
another’s language.” Accordingly Jehovah scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth, and
they gradually left off building the city. That is why its name was called Babel, because there Jehovah had
confused the language of all the earth, and Jehovah had scattered them from there over all the surface of the
earth (Genesis 11:1-9). And Kush [Kish?] became father to Nimrod. He made the start in becoming a
mighty one in the earth. He displayed himself a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah. That is why there is
a saying: “Just like Nimrod a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah.” And the beginning of his kingdom
came to be Babel and Erech [Uruk] and Accad [Agade], all in the land of Shinar (Genesis 10:8-11).
Nimrod, whose name means "rebel us" in Hebrew, was the last son of Kush, so he was
probably born just before the beginning of the 3rd generation (3000-2900 BCE).
BIBLICAL FIGURE period EVENT SUMERIAN KING period
Noah 3770-2820 ZI.U.SUD.RA
-3170 Deluge
Arpakshad 1st 3168-2630
Kainan 2nd 3033 - Building of Babel Tower by (AMAR.UTU.[KA]) 3000 -
-2573 Nimrod. Onset of languages. -2900
Shelah 3rd 2903-2470
(Noah's end) -2820 KISH I -2800
91 H.L.J. VANTIPHOUT, J.S. COOPER – Epics of Sumerian Kings
Leiden 2004 Ed. Brill p. 85.
92 R. LABAT – Les religions du Proche-Orient asiatique
Paris 1970 Éd. Fayard Denoël pp. 294-305.

93 A. WITTKE, E. O LSHAUSEN, R. SZYDLAK – Brill's New Pauly Historical Atlas of the Ancient World
Leiden 2010Ed. Brill pp. 10-11.

Despite its claim to reconstruct history (sometimes

better than historians), archeology can not do anything prior
2500 BCE. The ancient Sumerian capital Agade, for example,
has still not been recovered and remains of the Tower of
Babel are a square hole 90 meters sides94 (opposite figure).
Archaeologists can only say that the bricks of this ancient
ziggurat were used to build the city of Hille nearby.
According to Mesopotamian literature the ziggurat of
Babylon called É.TEMEN.AN.KI, which means "temple of the
foundation of heaven and earth" in Sumerian, dedicated to
AMAR-UTU-[KA] (which means "bull-calf of the Sun" in
Sumerian), was the first building made after the Flood (the name Amar-utu-[ka] was
gradually transcribed Martuka then Marduk). For example, according to the Enûma Eli( (a
Babylonian creation myth written prior 1100 BCE): When universal law was set up and the gods
allotted their calling, then the Annunnaki, the erstwhile fallen, opened their mouths to speak to Marduk:
Now that you have freed us and remitted our labor how shall we make a return for this? Let us build a
temple and call it The-inn-of-rest-by-night. There we will sleep at the season of the year, at the Great
Festival when we from the Assembly; we will build alters for him, we will build the Sanctuary. When
Marduk heard this his face shone like broad day: Tall Babel Tower, it shall be built as you desire; bricks
shall be set in molds and you shall name the Sanctuary. The Anunnaki gods took up the tools, one whole
year long they set bricks in molds; by the second year they had raised its head Esagila, it towered, the
earthly temple, the symbol of infinite heaven. Inside were lodgings for Marduk and Enlil and Ea.
Majestically he took his seat in the presence of them all, where the head of the ziggurat looked down to the
foot. When that building was finished the Anunnaki built themselves chapels; then all came in together and
Marduk set out the banquet. This is Babylon, "dear city of god" your beloved home! The length and
breadth are ours, posses it, enjoy it, it is your own. When all the gods sat down together there was wine and
feasting and laughter; and after the banquet in beautiful Esagila they performed the liturgy from which the
universe receives its structure, the occult is made plain, and through the universe gods areassigned their places
(Enûma Eli( VI:50-79)95. According to a Sumerian version of this poem: No city built, no
agglomeration had been arranged (...) It was then that Eridu was made, then Esagil built (...) Afterwards,
Babylon was made and Esagil completed! Marduk then, having disposed of the gods, the Anunnaki, into
two equal groups, they agreed to Babylon her sublime destiny of Holy City96.
Many scholars estimate that these mythological texts have no historical value, but
several Sumerian and Babylonian inscriptions have confirmed the antiquity of this ancient
ziggurat and the name of its builder97. The earliest royal inscription from Babylon, dated on
paleography to Early Dynastic II (2500 BCE), reads: Lo[rd] of BA7KI.BA7 son of Ahu-ilum man of
Ilum-beli man of Ur-Kubi builder of the temple of AMAR-UTU set up [this votive]. The name BA7KI.BA7
could be read Bar.bar, Ba.bar or even Bar.ki.bar (the letter r was read r/l). The second royal
inscription, dated 2100 BCE, reads: In the year when !ar-kali-"arri laid [the foundations of the]
temple of Annûnîtum [and of the] temple of Ilaba in KA-DINGIRKI and when he defeated !arlak (early)
king of Gutium. The name of the city KA-DINGIRKI means "Gate of the God" in Sumerian, it
was translated into Akkadian as Bâb-ilim "Gate of the God". The city of Babylon had been
destroyed in 689 BCE by Sennacherib, who claims to have destroyed the Etemenanki. The
city was restored by Nabopolassar and his son Nebuchadnezzar II. It took 88 years to
94 The site is visible on Google earth (32°32'11" N, 44°25'15" E).
95 J.B. PRITCHARD - Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press pp. 68-69.
96 J. BOTTÉRO, S.N. KRAMER – Lorsque les dieux faisaient l'homme. Mythologie mésopotamienne
Paris 1993 Éd. Gallimard pp. 497-499.

97 E.C. C ANCIK-KIRSCHBAUM, M. VAN ESS, J. MARZAHN – Babylon: Wissenskultur in Orient Und Okzident
Berlin 2011 Ed. Walter de Gruyter pp. 71-74.

rebuild the city; its central feature was the temple of Marduk (Esagila), with which the
Etemenanki ziggurat (rebuilt by Nebuchadnezzar II) was associated. The 7-storey ziggurat
(but 4 prior 700 BCE)98 reached a height of 91 meters and contained a temple shrine at the
top, according to a tablet from Uruk and to Herodotus' account (The Histories I:181-183).
In 331 BCE, Alexander the Great captured Babylon and ordered repairs to the
Etemenanki; when he returned to the ancient city in 323 BCE, he noted that no progress
had been made, and ordered his army to demolish the entire building, to prepare a final
rebuilding. His death, however, prevented the reconstruction. The Babylonian Chronicles
and Astronomical Diaries record several attempts to rebuild the Etemenanki, which were
always preceded by removing the last debris of the original ziggurat. The Ruin of Esagila
Chronicle mentions that the Seleucid crown prince Antiochus I decided to finally rebuild it,
sacrificed, stumbled and fell, and angrily ordered his elephant drivers to destroy the last
remains. There are no later references to the Etemenanki from antiquity, except some
mentions of its ruin (Diodorus Siculus II:9:9; Strabo -Geography XVI:1:5).
Sumerian and Babylonian inscriptions confirm three points of the biblical narrative:
1) the Tower of Babel was the first building after the flood, 2) it was made of molded
baked clay bricks, 3) its top had to reach the heavens (the first skyscraper, the word
ziqqurratu means "high building" in Akkadian). We do not know exactly what was the form
of the first ziggurat (there are some attempts at reconstruction based on the writings of the
5th century BCE describing only the tower restored but not the original). It has probably
been used as a model for the following ziggurats as the one of Ur, finalized around 2000
BCE by Ur-Nammu and Shulgi, which remained well preserved99.
The Tower of Babel is linked to a famous event, easier to date: the confusion of
languages: Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words (...) Look! They are
one people and there is one language (...) Come now! Let us go down and there confuse their language that
they may not listen to one another’s language. Accordingly Jehovah scattered them from there over all the
surface of the earth, and they gradually left off building the city. That is why its name was called Babel,
because there Jehovah had confused the language of all the earth, and Jehovah had scattered them from there
over all the surface of the earth (Genesis 11:1-9). The Sumerian account called Enmerkar and the
Lord of Aratta (§§ 1-12; 134-155), composed in the Neo-Sumerian period (ca. -2000),
describes the conflicts between Enmerkar (ca. -2490), king of Unug-Kulaba (Uruk), and an
unnamed king of Aratta (Ararat?): In those days of yore, when the destinies were determined, the great
princes allowed Unug Kulaba's E-ana (Uruk's ziggurat) to lift its head high. Plenty, and carp floods-(fish
aplenty, barley abundance), and the rain which brings forth dappled barley were then increased in Unug
Kulaba (Uruk). Before the land of Dilmun (Bahrain) yet existed, the E-ana of Unug Kulaba was well
founded (...) the incantation of Nudimmud: On that day when there is no snake, when there is no scorpion,
when there is no hyena, when there is no lion, when there is neither dog nor wolf, when there is thus neither
fear nor trembling, man has no rival! At such a time, may the lands of !ubur and "amazi, where there are
so many-tongued Sumer, the great land to divine laws of principality, Akkad, the land possessing all that is
befitting, and the Martu land, resting in security — the whole universe, the well-guarded people —
addressed Enlil together in a single language! For at that time, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious
princes, for the ambitious kings, Enki, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, for the ambitious
kings, for the ambitious lords — Enki, the lord of abundance and of steadfast decisions, the wise and
knowing lord of the Land, the expert of the gods, chosen for wisdom, the lord of Eridu, changed the speech
in their mouths, as many as he had placed there, in the speech of mankind which had been one100.
98 S.N. KRAMER – L'histoire commence à Sumer
Paris 1994 Éd. Flammarion pp. 151-154.
99 As such brick ziggurats required a huge maintenance personnel (20,000 people in Ur) those that have not been regularly restored
gradually disappeared (J.-L. HUOT – Une archéologie des peuples du Proche-Orient. Tome I, Paris 2004, Éd Errance pp. 149-153).
100 A. PARROT – Bible et archéologie. Déluge et Arche de Noé / La Tour de Babel (1970 Éd. Delachaux & Niestlé) pp. 79, 81.
Sumerian stories confirm the biblical version on four key points: 1) a universal
deluge, 2) only one language at the origin (proto-Hebrew), 3) construction of the Tower of
Babel (to be closer to the sky) and 4) a sudden and simultaneous onset of languages. This
precise scenario can be confronted with that proposed by scholars to trace back the family
tree of languages (only in broad terms because the subject is highly controversial)101:
According to the Bible Facts According to linguists
Man and language (proto- There is no trace of language The first language appears
Hebrew) both suddenly appear between 100,000 BCE and between 100,000 BCE and
around 5000 BCE. 10,000 BCE. 10,000 BCE then continues to
evolve.
Languages suddenly appear Sumerian, Egyptian, proto- The first writing appears
around 3000 BCE after the Indian, proto-Elamite, Proto- between 10,000 BCE and 3,000
episode of the Tower of Babel. Semitic suddenly appear around BCE then continues to evolve.
3000 BCE.
Current linguistic theories largely impregnated with evolutionism are mainly refuted
on their assumption of evolution because the facts show conclusively that the oldest listed
languages all appear at the same time in different parts of the world, they have no ancestor,
they are all complex at the origin and all are immediately functional. Historians of writing,
who also traced the family tree of languages, have found that all the ancient languages
(Sumerian, Egyptian, Hittite, Elamite, Chinese, Proto-indian, Cretan) had originally the
same system of pictographic writing (undeciphered) composed of ideograms102 (and
perhaps a few phonograms) and that these systems have suddenly mutated into various
systems becoming fixed logo-syllabic. For example: Sumerians used a cuneiform writing
consisting of ideograms (few) and syllabic phonograms (around 400)103, Akkadians used the
same cuneiform writing but with another syllabic phonograms standard, Egyptians used
hieroglyphs consisting of ideograms and consonant clusters phonograms (around 700
different signs originally), Hittites used hieroglyphs consisting of ideograms (few) and
syllabic phonograms, etc.
Not only the biblical account satisfactorily explains why languages appear
simultaneously in different parts of the world but it also explains some coincidences that
are incomprehensible with current theories, because although ancient civilizations had
different languages some of their techniques and beliefs were identical. For example:
! The first pyramids of Egypt (made of brick and not stone) are similar to the ziggurats of
Mesopotamia. The Pyramid of Djoser (ca. 2600 BCE) was originally a ziggurat 4-storey
brick like the one in Ur (in addition, the religion of the Egyptians was stellar during the
early dynasties before becoming lunisolar)104. In Ancient Elam a ziggurat, also like the
one in Ur, was discovered105 dated around 2300 BCE. In China several ziggurats were
discovered106, the oldest date back to the Hongshan culture (2500-2200).
! The central scene on Narmer's palette (2800 BCE) represents two men tying together
the stretched necks of two fabulous animals. The same scene appears on a cylinder-seal
at Uruk (2500 BCE) and in ancient Elam on cups and vases at Jiroft (2300 BCE).
101 P. ROSS – L'histoire du langage, B. VICTORRI – Débat sur la langue mère, &ALS
in: Les langues du monde (Bibliothèque pour la science, 1999) pp. 28-136.
102 I.-J. GELB – Pour une théorie de l'écriture
Paris 1973 Éd. Flammarion pp. 80-113.

103 L.-J. B ORD, R. MUGNAIONU – L'écriture cunéiforme. Syllabaire sumérien, babylonien, assyrien
Paris 2002 Éd. Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner pp. 39-44.

104 Sumerian word god AN is represented by a 8-pointed star, it reads i"tar in Akkadian and was pronounced in time: aster, esther or ’star.
105 J. PERROT, Y. MADJIDZADEH – Récentes découvertes à Jiroft (Iraan): résultats de la campagne de fouilles 2004
in: Comptes-rendus des scéances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-ettres. 148:3 (2004) pp. 1105-1117.
106 These ziggurats are not accessible, but one can see them with Google maps (34°21'48" N, 108°37'50" E).
All these coincidences are difficult to explain unless one admits that all these
ancient civilizations, despite their very different languages, had been closely associated in
the same place (Sumer) during an early period of history (3000-2900 BCE). What was the
language of the builders of Babylon and what was the purpose of the first ziggurat, is the
biblical explanation (proto-Hebrew and to reach the sky) correct?
According to the Bible, Noah's sons (the first 3 families in 3170 BCE) initially in
Ararat move and settle in the land of Sumer and generate 70 ancestral families. Around
3000 BCE, an eminent man [Ni]-Merod[ak] (?) proposes to his compatriots (about 100,000
people) to build a ziggurat to reach heaven and getting reputation with their descendants,
this place is called Babel. The emergence of language leads to a total confusion among the
builders that disperse and migrate in different regions. Numerous ethnic clans, speaking a
new language, will move into a new
geographic area, most stay there
(Egypt, Ethiopia, Media, Elam,
Assyria, Crete, Ionia, Indus, etc.)
and some will continue to migrate
(nomads like Aram). This change in
language has led to a resetting of
human history. For example, what
was the name the hero of the
Flood, Noah or Ziusudra, the city
of builders, Babel or Ka.dingir?
Berosus (330-260), from his position as a Babylonian priest, had the best means of
knowing the Babylonian traditions, he wrote, according to Alexander Polyhistor (100-50?),
a Greek scholar: After the death of Ardates, his son Xisuthrus reigned 18 sari [18x3600 years]. In his
time happened a great deluge; the history of which is thus described. The deity Cronos appeared to him in a
vision, and warned him that upon the 15th day of the month Dæsius [=Ayyar] there would be a flood, by
which mankind would be destroyed. He therefore enjoined him to write a history of the beginning, procedure,
and conclusion of all things, and to bury it in the city of the Sun at Sippara; and to build a vessel, and take
with him into it his friends and relations; and to convey on board every thing necessary to sustain life,
together with all the different animals, both birds and quadrupeds, and trust himself fearlessly to the deep.
Having asked the Deity whither he was to sail, he was answered, 'To the Gods;' upon which he offered up
a prayer for the good of mankind. He then obeyed the divine admonition, and built a vessel 5 stadia in
length [5x157m], and 2 in breadth [2x157m]. Into this he put everything which he had prepared, and
last of all conveyed into it his wife, his children, and his friends. After the flood had been upon the earth,
and was in time abated, Xisuthrus sent out birds from the vessel; which not finding any food, nor any place
whereupon they might rest their feet, returned to him again. After an interval of some days, he sent them
forth a second time; and they now returned with their feet tinged with mud. He made a trial a third time
with these birds; but they returned to him no more: from whence he judged that the surface of the earth had
appeared above the waters. He therefore made an opening in the vessel, and upon looking out found that it
was stranded upon the side of some mountain; upon which he immediately quitted it with his wife, his
daughter, and the pilot. Xisuthrus then paid his adoration to the earth: and, having constructed an altar,
offered sacrifices to the gods, and, with those who had come out of the vessel with him, disappeared. They,
who remained within, finding that their companions did not return, quitted the vessel with many
lamentations, and called continually on the name of Xisuthrus. Him they saw no more; but they could
distinguish his voice in the air, and could hear him admonish them to pay due regard to religion; and
likewise informed them that it was upon account of his piety that he was translated to live with the gods,
that his wife and daughter and the pilot had obtained the same honour. To this he added that they should
return to Babylonia, and, as it was ordained, search for the writings at Sippara, which they were to make
known to all mankind; moreover, that the place wherein they then were was the land of Armenia. The rest
having heard these words offered sacrifices to the gods, and, taking a circuit, journeyed towards Babylonia.
The vessel being thus stranded in Armenia, some part of it yet remains in the Corcyræan mountains of
Armenia, and the people scrape off the bitumen with which it had been outwardly coated, and make use of
it by way of an alexipharmic and amulet. The story of the flood is relatively well preserved, but
Berosus called Ziusudra (transcribed Xisuthrus in Greek) the Babylonian Noah and did not
use his Babylonian name Utnapishtim. In fact, Ziusudra is not a birth name but a nickname
meaning "life of long days" in Sumerian. Noah, "rest" in Hebrew, was a birth name and
"consolation" his nickname (Genesis 5:29). It makes more sense that the hero of the Flood
has received his birth name before the flood and not after, thus the genuine name had to
be Noah, implying that he and his sons (Genesis 7:32) spoke a kind of Hebrew (Shem
means "Name" in Hebrew, Ham "Hot" and Japhet "May he be open").
Babylon's name is very old but perplexes the grammarians because of its
incompatibility between the well established biblical etymology, which connects this name
with the root "to mix, to confuse" (Genesis 11:9) and the grammatical meaning given by
some archaeological evidences, which is "Gate of God". This name was translated into
Akkadian as Bab-ilu. Afterwards, once the Sumerian language had disappeared, this name
have been read as Bab-ili, or sometimes as Bab-ilani "Gate of [each individual] god". The
expression "Gate of God" was understood as "Gate of Heavens" or "Heavenly Gate", in
agreement with the concepts of this epoch. For example, to express his admiration Jacob
said: How fear-inspiring this place is! This is nothing else but the house of God and this is the gate of the
heavens (Genesis 28:17). The place-name Bab-Ea107 "Gate of Ea" is mentioned in the
inscriptions of a city dated around 2200 BCE. It seems illogical that the builders of a city
would call it "Confusion" especially as the Bible recorded that these builders were
presumptuous (Genesis 11:4). Which language was used to name it? In ancient documents
(from 2100 BCE) the name of the city is written KA.DINGIR(.RA) "Gate of God" (and also
108
KA-DI& "Unity gate", NUN "Prince Land", etc.) , but in the earliest royal inscription (2500
KI
BCE) the name is written BA.BAR/L (vocalized Babiru in Old Persian and Babilu in
Babylonian)109 which means nothing in Sumerian, but is close to the Hebrew name Babel
and goes probably back to a Proto-Euphratic Babil110. The Bible likely kept an exact
transcription of this antique city, however the etymology of the name was modified
because the transcription is Babel (#$$) not Bab’el (#%$$) which would have kept the exact
etymology. The biblical definition is based on a play on words not on a rigorous definition,
like Gilgal "wheel" instead of Galîl "rolling away" (Joshua 5:9). The Babylonians themselves
proceeded in the same way, believing that the same sound is connected to the same sense.
In Hebrew to express "confusion / discomfiture" the word mehumah is used (Deuteronomy
28:20). Thus, the word Babel "Gate of heavens" came to be owing to a wordplay as ba-bîl
(#&$$) "in the confusion", which remains close to the name babêl. The change balal into ba-
bîl is identical with the name Be-#al-’el (Exodus 31:3) which means "in [the] shadow of
God". The word !el "shadow" comes from the verb !alal "to be shaded" in the same way
that the Aramaic passive participle bîl comes from the verb balal "to mix".
The name of these ancestral families being Semitic, the nations which kept their
ethnic name to their new countries (by transcribing it in their new language)111 created a
paradox since the name no longer had any meaning. For example, the Assyrians called their
country, and their national god, A((ur (Genesis 10:22) while the word means nothing in
Assyrian but "step" in Hebrew. Similarly, the Greeks are called Ionian (from Javan) which
107 A.M. MAHDI -Important centre Agadéen (La Babylonie)
in: Dossiers histoire et archéologie n°103 (mars 1986) p. 67.
108 R. LABAT, F. MALBRAN -LABAT – Manuel d'épigraphie akkadienne
Paris 1999 Éd. Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner p. 297.

109 P. LECOQ – Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide
Paris 1997 Éd. Gallimard p. 140.

110 E. LIPINSKI – Semitic Laguages Outline of a Comparative Grammar
in: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 80 (2001) p. 586.

111 The name Elam ('#&() is written ELAM.MA KI in Sumerian, Elamtu in Akkadian, Hallatamti/ Haltamti/ Hatamti in Elamite. The
word ‘elam could mean "young man" in Hebrew.

means nothing in Greek but "clay" in Hebrew. The Egyptians did not give a specific name
to their country but in the Babylonian tablets of Tell el-Amarna (around 1350 BCE) it is
called Mi#ri as in Hebrew: Mi#raim (Genesis 10:6). This name means nothing in Babylonian
but "distresses" in Hebrew (Lamentations 1:3). Armenia is called Uruatri (Ararat) in the
inscriptions of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser I (around -1300). Once again the name
means nothing in Assyrian but "Mountain" in Hebrew112. More surprisingly, in the early
Pyramid Texts (time of Unas), for the ascension into heaven of the pharaoh, Egyptian
priests used formulas of incantation transcribed into Old Hebrew113! For example, several
sentences in Hebrew are found inside Egyptian incantations like: His spell: “Come, come to my
house” (#ab!buhu: ’it$, ’it$ bayt%), His whispering, the uttering of his spell: “God is in me” (’as!suhu,
#awwu #ab!bihu: ala biya [the word ala is written 333 in hieroglyph]). Reading of certain
words is controversial because it is unclear knowing the original pronunciation. The
Egyptian words Aamu (‘3mw) and Retenu (Rtnw), for example, are usually translated as
"Asiatics" and "Syria-Palestine", they fit well to the biblical terms "people of Canaan" and
"Canaan". As the Execration Texts114 transcribe the names Ascalon and Jerusalem by
’Isq3nw (A(qalun) and 3w"3mm ([U]rusalimum), the Egyptian letter 3 being used for sound
r/l (up to -1800), the word ‘3mw, could be read Aramu "those of Aram". The region of
Aram is very ancient, it appears as A-ra-meki in inscriptions of Naram-Sin (around -2200),
but its location seems to have changed over time, from area of Akkad to Syria115. "Aramean
ancestor" is rendered "Syrian" in the Septuagint (Deuteronomy 26:5). The Egyptian word
Setiu (Styw) is also translated as "Asiatics", but refers more specifically to Suteans [of
Moab]. When Idrimi (around -1500) fled to the south of Syria, he met the Sutu [Suteans],
and then lived 7 years with the Habiru [Hebrews] in the country of Ki-in-a-nimki [Canaan]116.
This term Canaan, which is Semitic, does not appear in Egyptian texts, moreover, because
of migration, it has designated different areas: Lebanon at the time of Ebla around -2300
(kù nig-ba dBE(lum) Ga-na-na-im "gift (for) the lord of Canaan"; é dGa-na-na-im "temple of
divine Canaan")117, Upper Mesopotamia at the time of Mari around -1800 (Ki-na-a&-nu)118,
Syria-Palestine at the time of Idrimi (c. -1500), Philistia at the time of Merenptah (c. -1200).
The purpose of the first Egyptian pyramids (ziggurats) was to allow pharaoh joining
the stars, which was also the purpose of Mesopotamian ziggurats119, which are called
"House of the mountain of the Universe" (Assur), "House of the seven guides of heaven
and earth" (Borsippa), "House of the King adviser of fairness" (Ur), "High house of
Zabada and Innina which the head is as high as heaven" (Kish), "House of the mountain"
(Nippur), "House of the link of heaven and earth" (Larsa), "House of foundation of heaven
and earth "(Babylon). Nimrod by building a tower to get to heaven was thus the originator
of a universal belief that is severely condemned: upon her forehead was written a name, a mystery:
Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth (Revelation 17:5).
112 H.W.F. GESENIUS – Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 8:9)
Michigan 1991 Ed. Baker Book House pp. 82, 232.
113 R.C. STEINER – Early Northwest Semitic Serpent Spells in the Pyramid Texts
in: Harvard Semitic Studies 61 pp. 21-58.

114 R. DUSSAUD – Nouveaux textes égyptiens d'exécration contre les peuples syriens
in: Syria 21:2 (1940) pp. 170-182

115 E. LIPINSKI – The Aramaeans. Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion
in: Analecta 100, Peeters 2000, pp. 25-40.

116 P. GARELLI, J.M. DURAND, H. GONNET, C. BRENIQUET - Le Proche-Orient Asiatique
Paris 1997 Éd. P.U.F. pp. 139-140.

117 J.N. TUBB – Peoples of the Past. Canaanites
London 1998 Ed. British Museum p. 15.

A. ARCHI –The Head of Kura-The Head of ’Adabal
in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 64:2 (2005) pp. 81-100.
118 G. DOSSIN – Une mention des Cananéens dans une lettre de Mari
in: Syria n°50 1973, pp. 277-282.

119 A. PARROT – Bible et archéologie. Déluge et Arche de Noé / La Tour de Babel
Paris 1970 Éd. Delachaux & Niestlé pp. 107-108.

Despite these historical evidences the biblical narrative is rejected for the following
reasons: 1) the rapid increase in the population at the origin is considered impractical, 2)
the duration of first events is considered too short and 3) the age of the patriarchs is
deemed impossible. List of the first generations of mankind (Genesi 10:1-32):
Deluge 1st generation 2nd generation 3nd generation 4th generation 5th generation
Japhet Gomer Ashkenaz ?? ??
Riphath ?? ??
Togarmah ?? ??
Magog [6?] ?? ??
Mede [6?] ?? ??
Javan (Ionic Greece) Elishah ?? ??
Tarshish ?? ??
Kittim (Cyprus?) ?? ??
Dodanim ?? ??
Tubal [6?] ?? ??
Meshech [6?] ?? ??
Tiras [6?] ?? ??
Ham Kush (Kish?) Seba ?? ??
Havilah ?? ??
Sabtah ?? ??
Raamah Sheba ??
Dedan ??
Sabteca ?? ??
Nimrod Babel (city) ??
Uruk (city) ??
Agade (city) ??
Mizraim (Egypt) Lud ?? ??
Anam ?? ??
Lehab ?? ??
Naphtuh ?? ??
Pathtros ?? ??
Cusluh ?? ??
Caphtor (Crete) Philistines ??
Put [6?] ?? ??
Canaan Sidon ?? ??
Heth (Hatti) ?? ??
Jebus ?? ??
Amor ?? ??
Girgash ?? ??
Hiv ?? ??
Ark ?? ??
Sin ?? ??
Arvad ?? ??
Zemar ?? ??
Hamath ?? ??
Shem Elam [6?] ?? ??
Asshur (Assyria) [6?] ?? ??
Arpakshad Kainan Shelah Eber Peleg
[5?] ?? ?? ??
Lud [6?] ?? ??
Aram Uz ?? ??
Lul ?? ??
Gether ?? ??
Mash ?? ??
3 16 95 [570] [3420] [20520]
As oldest Mesopotamian kings attested by inscriptions are In-me-baragesi and

Agga, around 2500 BCE, Mesopotanian chronology cannot be checked prior this date. The
biblical text (Genesis 10) gives the partial genealogy of the first generations after the flood
and a genealogy simplified from Arpakshad which allows dating the Deluge in 3170 BCE.
We note that the 3 sons of Noah generated 5 sons (= 16/3) on average, who in
turn generated 6 sons (= 95/16). One can assume that there was an equal number of
daughters (not mentioned). This number of births is high but it follows the biblical
injunction for swarming (Genesis 9:7), moreover, Joktan (6th generation) had still 13 sons
(Genesis 10:25-29). Similarly, the king of Lagash Ur-Nan(e (2338-2320) appears on a bas-
relief with 11 characters: his wife Abda, 7 of his sons (whose his heir and successor
Akurgal) and 3 servants. For many specialists biblical genealogies are legendary, however
they contain many names which existence and antiquity have been demonstrated.
Another way to test the authenticity of this chronology is to reconstruct it assuming
that the first generation gave birth to 6 sons when it reached 30 years old and the other
generations (from the sixth) gave birth to 3 sons when it reached 20 years old. There were
therefore 32 persons (= 16x2) in the first generation (3170-3140), then 190 persons (=
95x2) in the second generation (3140-3110) and so on:
Period 3170-3140 3140-3110 3110-3080 3080-3050 3050-3020 3020-2990
total: 32 190 (1,140) (6,840) (41,040) (246,240)
-30 years- 3020-2990 2990-2960 2960-2930 2930-2900
x6 (246,240) (1,477,440) (8,864,640) (53,187,840)
-20 years- 3020-3000 3000-2980 2980-2960 2960-2940 2940-2920 2920-2900
x3 (123,120) (369,360) (1,108,080) (3,324,240) (9,972,720) (29,918,160)
-20 years- 3020-3000 3000-2980 2980-2960 2960-2940 2940-2920 2920-2900
x2 (82,080) (164,160) (328,320) (656,640) (1,131,280) (2,626,560)
-15 years- 3020-3005 3005-2990 2975-2960 2960-2945 2930-2915 2915-2900
x1.5 (61,560) (92,340) (207,765) (311,648) (701,207) (1,051,810)
We can see that the different scenarios, including the worst with a fertility rate of
only 3 children per woman (3 children = 1.5 boy + 1.5 girl), all predict a population over
10 million in -2800, because these growth curves are exponentials. These figures bring two
questions: 1) is this growth realistic and 2) is it consistent with the population estimates for
this time? Population studies despite scientific methods of evaluation are mainly based on
conjectural estimates and speculative extrapolations due to the exponential rise of
demographic growth. For example, Africa would reach a population of 115,000 billion (!) in
2300 and Europe and North America would disappear if these populations were
extrapolated from the 2000 fertility rate120. In fact, this rate is not constant, it was 5 children
per woman before 1950 then it has gradually decreased to 3.5 in 2000 (due mainly to
contraceptive methods) and could stabilize around 2 toward 2050 (zero growth). A second
factor plays an important role in the curves of population: "the infant mortality rate". For
example, the world population was approximately multiplied by 2 during the period 1800-
1900 with a fertility rate of 5 when it was multiplied by 4 between 1900 and 2000 with a
fertility rate of 3.5. This apparent paradox stems from the improvement of hygiene which
has reduced the mortality rate during the 20th century. Thus the actual fertility rate has to be
adjusted from 5 to 2.5 (1800-1900) and from 3.5 to 3 (1900-2000). Modern studies121
assume a global population (figure hereafter) of 20 million inhabitants in -5000, 60 millions
in -3000 and 6 millions in -10000, but are these figures correct?
120 F. HÉRAN – La population du monde pour les trois siècles à venir: explosion, implosion ou equilibre ?
in: Population & sociétés N° 408 (INED janvier 2005) pp. 1-4.
121 J.-N. BIRABEN – L'évolution du nombre es hommes
in: Population & sociétés N° 394 (INED octobre 2003) pp. 1-4.
In fact, the figures vary widely by source reference (UN, INSEE, INED, etc.)122, for
example, the population is estimated to be between 6 and 60 millions in -5000. In addition,
it is easy to see that part of the curve before -5000 is ideological and only serves to validate
the theory of evolution, assuming the appearance of Homo sapiens around -65000. This
part of the curve is wrong for two reasons: 1) despite wars and epidemics123 the curve is still
exponential during the verifiable period124 from 1 to 2000, so it is impossible to have a
stabilizing (unless Homo sapiens were aware of highly effective methods of contraception);
2) population estimates of the two most ancient civilizations (Egyptian and Sumerian),
based on their records indicating the number of people to feed in temples and livestock
censuses, give figures125 hardly exceeding one million people around -2500.
Date: -400 1 500 1000 1300 1400 1500 1700 1800 1900 2000
Total (million): 152 250 205 257 429 374 458 682 968 1613 6062
As the growth curve is exponential, extrapolation error is itself also exponential.

For example, assuming a growth factor of 4, that between 1900 and 2000, the world
population would appear around 500 and assuming a factor of 2, that between 1800 and
1900, it would appear about -1000. If one uses a growth factor of 24, that between 1000
and 2000 (from 257 to 6,062 million people), humankind would have appeared about -
5000. These different extrapolations show that the calculation method is very approximate
and an onset date for humankind around -3000 is scientifically reasonable, particularly since
it corresponds to the appearance of writing which is the best evidence of human existence.
122 J.-N. BIRABEN – L'évolution du nombre des hommes
in: Population & sociétés N° 394 (INED octobre 2003) pp. 1-4.
123 It may be noted that neither the two world wars in the 20th century, or epidemics (Spanish flu) and famines, have substantially altered
the growth curve of the world population.

124 The population of modern Egypt was (in million): 2.4 (1800), 4.4 (1850), 9.7 (1900), 16.5 (1939), 65 (1997) and will be 157? (2075).
125 D.& M. FRÉMY – Quid 2000
Paris 1999 Éd. Robert Laffont pp. 110-111.

The most recent archaeological research on the prehistory of the Middle East126
trace the presence of man toward -600,000, homo sapiens toward -65,000 then Sumerian
(Kish I) and Egypt (Dynasty I) civilizations simultaneously occurring toward -3000. This
presentation of scientific appearance is actually a clever evolutionary propaganda because
Paleolithic man never existed, the skeletons found only belong to extinct species of
primates. Australopithecus, for example, should be classified in the family of chimpanzee
depending on the shape of his skull and feet (see pictures below).
The analysis of the skeletons127 show that “prehistoric men” most represented are
those having about 15 years (70% of sinanthropes die at the age of 15 years), then
Neanderthal man: 80% die before the age of 30 years, 95% before the age of 40, Cro-
magnon: 62% die before the age of 30 years, 88% before the age of 40, Mesolithic man:
86% die before the age of 30 years, 95% before the age of 40). These lifetimes are
characteristic of different species of monkeys (chimpanzees) or apes (gorillas, etc.).
The prehistorical datings are impressive but meaningless because they are beyond
10 periods of Carbon 14 (10x5730 = years) the residual rate falling below 0.1% which is the
lower limit of measurements. Ages beyond -60,000 only require that the original carbon-14
ratio was close to 0 at this time, which could mean a period before the Flood. In addition,
prehistoric men supposed to be the ancestors of the Sumerians had dolichocephalic skulls
while the Sumerians had, without exception, brachycephalic skulls. There is therefore no
relationship between these two groups of men. Archaeological explanations are misleading.
A global population of 60 million inhabitants is assumed in -3000, but it completely
contradicts the estimates made from contemporary documents. For example, some
Egyptian lists were established to count the cattle coming from plunder128:
Pharaoh period cattle sheep
Narmer -2800 400,000 1,422,000
Snefru -2500 200,000
Sahure -2350 123,400 248,688
These figures are obviously propaganda figures, even when they are accurate129, but
they give indirectly an order of magnitude of the population of Egypt assuming a head of
cattle was used to make live an Egyptian family, or total between 1 to 2 million. According
to Herodotus 100,000 Egyptians have worked together to build the pyramid of Cheops
(around -2500) and were recorded regularly every 3 months (The Histories II:124) which
supposes a total of 400,000 workers (= 4x100,000) and a population of about 2,400,000
inhabitants (= 6x400,000). These figures are very approximate, but can be intersected with
those of the Mesopotamian population at the same time which should be substantially the
126 J.-C. MARGUERON, L. PFIRSCH – Le Proche-Orient et l'Égypte antiques
Paris 2012 Éd. Hachette pp. 41-42, 121-122, 133, 402-408.
127 P.A. JANSSENS -Paleopathology – diseases and injuries of prehistoric man
New York 1970 Ed. Humanities Press.

128 F. JOANNÈS – Les premières civilisations du Proche-Orient
Paris 2006 Éd. Belin pp. 76, 80.

129 J.A. WILSON – The Royal Myth in Ancient Egypt
in: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society N° 100:5 (Oct. 15, 1956) pp. 439-442.
same size as the Egyptian population. For example, a text of King Urukagina (2234-2217)
assigns 36,000 inhabitants in the state of Lagash (and not just one city). This figure
(symbolic?) is in agreement with the one, more safe, of 1200 people at the service of Bawa
temple, as 20 temples are known in Lagash, and assuming equal importance to each of
them, we obtain a population of 24,000 people working in all the temples. As at that time
there was throughout the Middle East about thirty city-state like Lagash this gives a total of
about 1,000,000 inhabitants (= 30x36,000) in the Middle East around -2200. Assuming that
the nomadic tribes (important at that time) had so many people we get a grand total of
2,000,000 (= 2x1,000,000). A second way to check the population of a city comes from the
excavations of the ancient city-state of Ur regarded as the greatest of its time at its zenith
around 2200-2000. This walled city of slightly rectangular shape (1000 meters x 700 meters)
were composed of about 4500 large houses (15 meters x 10 meters on average). Assuming
a family of 7 persons per dwelling we arrive at a total of 31,500 inhabitants (= 4500x7).
Even quadrupling all these figures it is difficult to imagine that the world population was
able to pass 10,000,000 around -2200.
As noted previously, a beginning in -3150 with only 32 people is more than enough
to generate a population of 10 million people in -2200. The most pessimistic reconstruction
is based on a fertility rate of 3 children every 15 years (age of marriage). Are these values
realistic? The demographics of ancient civilizations are virtually nonexistent, however one
can find them again through durations of reigns which are well known. If one list all the
reigns over 40 years during the period 2600-600, there has been no significant change either
in time or in space (Egypt and Mesopotamia). Longevity had to remain substantially
constant otherwise the number and duration of these reigns would have changed. These
figures are consistent with those of the Bible as the longest reign is 55 years (Manasseh).
century EGYPT Reign # MESOPOTAMIA Reign #
26th 1 Snefru 2523-2479 44
23rd 2 Pepi I 2237-2195 42 Sargon of Akkad 2243-2187 56
22nd 3 Pepi II 2181-2117 64 Ididi( 2164-2104 60
21st 4 Antef II 2102-2053 49
21st 5 Mentuhotep II 2045-1994 51 &ulgi 2002-1954 48
20th 7 Sesostris I 1946-1901 45
19th 8 Êri(u I 1873-1834 40
19th 9 Amenemhat III 1836-1791 45 Sargon I 1821-1782 40
18th 10 Naram-Sîn 1774-1722 54
15th 11 Thutmosis III 1472-1418 54
13th 12 Ramses II 1283-1216 67
12th 13 A((ur-dân I 1179-1133 46
11th 14 Psusennes I 1064-1018 46
10th 15 A((ur-rabi II 1013-972 41
9th 16 Osorkon II 909-865 44
9th 17 Shoshenq III 840-800 40
7th 18 Psammetichus I 663-609 54 A((urbanipal 669-627 42
As these kings generally succeeded each other from father to son, it establishes the
following equation130: x + y + z = L (x = age of marriage, y = period between marriage and
the beginning of reign, z = reign's length, L = longevity), because kings ceased of reigning
at their death. If there was a regular succession, usual case, we get: x = z. As the average
length over all reigns is 17 years one can deduce that the average age of marriage should be
17 years. The average duration of these 23 long reigns is 47 years, which implies a life
expectancy of about 64 years (= 17 + 47), assuming that all these kings began to reign very
young and at age to marry. A life expectancy of 60 years is consistent with the ideal age
130 With n = number of King's brothers who succeeded instead of pharaoh's son, the equation becomes: x + y + z/n = L.
(maximum) estimated at 110 years131 by Egyptian scribes of dynasties III-V, the real
longevity being probably half (L = 55 years, thus y = 21 years). A knowledge (partial) of the
number of sons, daughters and wives of the Pharaohs of Dynasties IV-VI132 allows
calculating the fertility rate (F) during this period:
Dynasty IV Reign Son Daughter Total Wife Fertility
1 Snefru 2523-2479 44 years 8 4 12 1 12 5
2 Kheops 2479-2456 23 years 8 4 12 2 6
3 Djedefre 2456-2448 8 years 4 2 6 2 3
4 Khephren 2448-2419 29 years 11 4 15 4 4
5 Mykerinos 2419-2391 28 years 3 - 3 1 3
6 Shepseskaf 2391-2387 4 years - 2 2 1? 2
Dynasty V
1 Userkaf 2385-2378 7 years 2 - 2 1 2 3.5
2 Sahoure 2378-2364 14 years 4 - 4 1 4
3 Neferirkare (Kakaï) 2364-2354 10 years 2 - 2 1 2
Shepseskare 2354-2347 7 years
Neferefre 2347-2345 2 years
4 Niuserre (Ini) 2345-2331 14 years - - 1 1 1
Menkauhor 2331-2323 8 years
5 Djedkare (Isesi) 2323-2285 38 years 4 4 8 1 8
6 Unas 2285-2255 30 years 1 6 7 2 3.5
Dynasty VI
1 Teti 2255-2237 18 years 2 4 6 3 2 1.5
2 Pepi I 2237-2195 42 years 3 2 5 6 1
3 Merenre I 2195-2181 14 years - 1 1 1? 1
4 Pepi II 2181-2117 64 years 5 - 10 5 2
These demographic data regard only pharaohs, are they representative of the rest of
the Egyptian population? One can see that lifespan of Egyptian officials was generally
higher than that of kings as many scribes and viziers were employed under several
pharaohs. Fertility rate seems declining as it passes from 5 (Dynasty IV) to 1.5 (Dynasty
VI), but it is not sure that this decline affected the entire population since Mereruka, the
vizier of Teti, had 4 sons, which corresponds to the average of the previous dynasties.
Using a fertility rate of 4 children, age at marriage of 17 years and a life expectancy
of 55 years, the population doubles every 17 years and is multiplied by 64 every 100 years:
Period -3100 -3050 -3000 -2950 -2900 -2850 -2800 -2750
total: 200 1,600 12,800 102,400 819,200 6,553,600 52,428,800 419,430,400
This increase is not realistic because it assumes a negligible infant mortality rate and
ignores the influence of epidemics and famines that depress the growth of the population
drastically, but it shows that under normal conditions the world's population was able to
increase from 200 people in -3100 to 6,000,000 in -2850. A fertility rate of 4 children was
considered high in -1750: And the sons of Israel became fruitful and began to swarm; and they kept on
multiplying and growing mightier at a very extraordinary rate, so that the land got to be filled with them
(Exodus 1:7). When the Israelites came into Egypt (around 1750 BCE) they were 75 people
(Acts 7:14) and when they came out (around 1500 BCE) were 603,550 men over 20 years
(Numbers 1:46), implying a grand total of 3,621,300 people (= 603,550x[1+1+4]). Using a
fertility rate of 4 children per woman, an age at marriage of 20 years and a life expectancy
of 60 years, the population is multiplied by 2,33 every 20 years:
131 W.K. SIMPSON – The Literature of Ancient Eypt
Paris 2008 Éd. Actes Sud pp. 18, 148.
132 M. DESSOUDEIX – Chronique de l'Égypte ancienne
Paris 2008 Éd. Actes Sud pp. 57-107.

Period -1750 -1730 -1710 -1690 -1670 -1650 -1630

total: 75 175 408 953 2,223 5,187 12,104
-1610 -1590 -1570 -1550 -1530 -1510 -1490
28,242 65,899 153,763 358,781 837,155 1,953,362 4,557,844
Human longevity seems to have remained constant over the entire period from
3100 BCE up to now, which contradicts the biblical data concerning the relatives of
Abraham (prior 1600 BCE) who would have lived much more than 130 years. These
abnormal ages raise two questions: did they involve everyone and are they impossible?
THE AGES OF PATRIARCHS: ARE THEY WRONG?

This difficult question implicitly assumes a definition for historical truth that can
separate the wheat (history) from the chaff (myth). Historians who claim that ancient
history is legendary, or seeking historical truth is a utopia, are liars, because unmasking
myth needs to have criteria of truth, as already understood Herodotus. In fact, believing the
statement "there is no truth" is absurd since it is by definition impossible to prove the
truthfulness of this assertion. For scientists truth has to be measured, its degree of certainty
being related to the precision of its measurements. In history the facts are not directly
measurable, since they are not reproducible in laboratory, but its time (chronology) and its
place (geography) where they occurred are measurable. According to these two criteria of
truth, the existence of Jesus in Judea in the first century is virtually certain. If we want to
increase the accuracy about time and place, the degree of certidude decreases (Heisenberg
uncertainty principle of measurement). And the death of Jesus of Nazareth under governor
Pontius Pilate is highly probable, but the place of residence (Nazareth) and the title of the
governor (procurator or prefect) are more difficult to determine.
For historians (scientific) truth can be established if it meets the following criteria
(necessary and sufficient):
1. Historical records exist and can been used locating place and dating time. According to
this first criterion the disappearance of Atlandide is a fable, but the Trojan War is
history regarding to place (Troy) and period (1184 BCE).
2. Chronological and geographical data have been successfully transmitted. According to
this criterion only some parts of the story from Manetho are historical and Homer's
stories belong more to poetry than history.
3. Chronological and geographical data of the document are not contradicted by another
document more reliable. According to this criterion Themistocles had to meet
Artarxerxes around 475 BCE (Thucydides version), not Xerxes around 465 BCE
(Diodorus of Sicily version).
4. The data mentioned in the document do not violate the laws of physics. This last point
is not as obvious as it sounds as shown in the case of Habib Miyan133 died on 19 August
2008. Indeed, this Indian of Rajasthan claimed to be 138 years old before he died.
Should be this aberrant age rejected? We know that he had retired at 68, according to
him (which seems plausible, but in India, this time, the retirement age was not imposed),
and received his pension since 1938. The official document by the registered retirement
fund dates his birth on May 20, 1878, instead of 1870. Thus this man would have retired
at 58 instead of 68, which would give an age "more realistic" than 130 years. This value,
more than double of the life expectancy at birth in 2000 in India (62.5 years) is however
beyond current statistics (maximum authenticated: 122 years), but it is not impossible
because current scientific knowledge can not certify a limit to human longevity.
133 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habib_Miyan
According to the first criterion, the deluge took place on the earth (since birds
entered into the ark, otherwise they would fly just a few hundred miles if the flood was
local) and in year 600 of Ziusudra, long before Gilgamesh who was king of Uruk around
2400 BCE (Sumerian list), or in year 600 of Noah (biblical text), long before Abraham who
was a leading figure of Ur around 2000 BCE. The second criterion is less well satisfied
because chronological and genealogical data were transmitted with a few changes or errors
(common for older documents). According to the royal lists the Deluge took place around
3000 BCE +/- 200 (depending on variants and corrections) and according to the biblical
text it took place around 3170 BCE (Greek text of the Septuagint) or around 2350 BCE
(Hebrew text from the Masoretes). The disagreement between the biblical document in
Greek (set around 280 BCE) and the one in Hebrew (set around 90 CE) shows that there
was a transmission problem. Howener, a careful examination shows that the figures of the
Septuagint for the Antediluvian Patriarchs were properly transmitted (considered at the end
of this article). Historical records which are apparently aberrant should not be dismissed
without this preliminary review. For example, the Turin Royal Canon gives an aberrant
value of [1]53 years for (at least) 50 kings during the 13th Dynasty, which nevertheless is
accepted134 even if this improbable succession of very short reigns (50x3 years) not yet
received a satisfactory explanation (the succession of the Pharaoh was perhaps carried by
his brothers instead of his sons?). Another example comes from Sumerian royal lists whch
have many reigns with abnormal durations as those of En-me-baragesi (king of Kish for
900 years), Akka (king of Kish for 625 years) and Gilgamesh (king of Uruk for 126 years).
Because of these aberrant durations, all these ancient kings had been dismissed as mythical.
Yet the discovery of inscriptions in their name, dating from the first half of the 3rd
millennium BCE, proved that they had indeed existed. In fact, Sumerian royal lists were
misdirected by Babylonian scribes due to a confusion between units and tens sexagesimal
implying a multiplication by 60. Despite some obvious errors, corrected durations give an
acceptable chronology which is in agreement with the few existing synchronisms. If one
requires an absence of errors it is impossible to reconstruct any chronology of the past.
Biblical chronology has several data considered outliers because they are impossible
according to current statistical data. This review is simplistic because it confuses longevity
(maximum lifespan) and life expectancy (average lifespan) and assumes that these values are
universal constants which is obviously false. Indeed, these "impossible ages" are only
extrapolated values based on current statistics (the mortality rate reaches 100% for an age
of 133 years for men and 138 years for women)135, moreover, they do not explain why
longevity is different 1) between men and women (more than 5 years apart), 2) between
countries (up to a factor 7)136 and 3) increases with time (0.16% per year).
134 N. GRIMAL -Histoire ancienne de l'Égypte

Paris 1988 Éd. Fayard p. 596.
135 N. B LANPLAIN – 15 000 centenaires en 2010 en France, 200 000 en 2060 ?
in: INSEE Première N° 1319 (Oct. 2010) pp. 1-4.

136 The rate of centenarians in 2007 out of 10 000 people aged 60 in 1967 was 102 in France, 64 in Sweden, 39 in Austria, 15 in Ukraine.
Contrary to the popular

common sense suggests, human limits
are difficult to set by science. Studies on
human longevity are rare, but they
provide amazing data in accordance
with the Bible. A study137 on the
maximum age at death, involving only
two countries (France and Sweden) for
reasons of reliability (check of birth
certificates) gave surprising results: for
unexplained reasons 1) the maximum
age at death (longevity) is not constant
but increases regularly and 2) since
1960, there is an acceleration of the
increase. For example in Sweden, the
maximum age at death was 104 years in
1960 and 108 years in 2000, an increase
of 1 year every 10 years. In France in
1960, the maximum age at death was
104 years and 112 years in 2000, an
increase of 2 years every 10 years.
Extrapolating these results, there should
be a maximum age in France at death of
132 years in 2100 and 152 years in 2200.
The age of Jacob (147 years) is
unlikely in 2000 will become likely in
2200. Another study138 on longevity has
not only confirmed the previous study,
but showed that this increasing
longevity is an old phenomenon that
existed at least since 750 CE. The
continual increase in life is a
phenomenon observed and measured
but the explanation remains an enigma for scientists.
137 J. VALLIN, F. MESLÉ – Vivre au-delà de 100 ans

in: Population et Sociétés n°365, février 2001 pp. 1-4. (dont 170 centenaires sur une population d'environ 3 millions)
138 J.M. LEGAY, A. HEIZMANN, N. GAUTIER, J.L. CHASSE – La longévité des hommes célèbres. Évolution séculaire des hommes
célèbres. in: Natures Sciences Sociétés vol. 9 (2001) Éditions scientifiques et médicales pp. 19-28.
Contrary to what was believed in the past, human longevity seems to have no limit.
One study139 has even established a projection for the next century. Life expectancy at birth
was 23.8 years for men in France in 1750 CE and 75.2 years in 2000 CE, implying an
extrapolated value of 91.3 years in 2100 CE. This increase of 0.16 year per year can be
extrapolated for life expectancy at birth of 155 years in 2500 CE. According to scientists,
the life of Jacob, 147 years, will have become commonplace in 2500 CE! To say that a
maximum age of 150 years was impossible in 2500 BCE one should know the factors that
influence longevity, however, we ignore them. We only know they exist. Some researchers
believe that the enzyme telomerase, present only in germ and cancer cells could repair the
telomeres, which confer to cells capacity of infinite division. Michael Fossel, professor of
medicine at the University of Michigan, concluded that man could live for centuries if
telomerase was activated140. The biblical narrative, with its antediluvian longevity ten times
larger than the current longevity, will no longer be considered abnormal. In fact, the earliest
Mesopotamian royal chronicles have mentioned these unusual longevity141. It seems also
impossible that a man could father at 91, case of Jacob, yet this case was observed. In 1992
Lee Colley, an Australian miner aged 92 (died at 100), had with his second wife a little boy
Oswald. In August 2007, an Indian farmer, Nanu Ram Jogi (village Paanchimli in the state
of Rajasthan) became father to his 21st child at 90. Pliny the Elder (23-79) observed already
in his time these exceptional cases: Woman does not generate after her 50th year and for the most
menstrual flow ceases at her 40th. For men, we know that king Masinissa begot a son at 86 that he called
Methymathnus and Cato the Censor, at 80, had one daughter from Salonius, his client (...) Moreover, it is
usual meeting ordinary people who generate up to 75 (Natural History VII:12).
As evidence regarding extraordinary longevities are usually difficult to verify, and
often exaggerated, they can not be used. The only scientific way to determine the longevity
of a group of people in the past, at a given time, is deducing it from the lifetimes of a
sufficient number of individuals. The first (and oldest) census concerning the age of
Roman citizens (3 million) was performed in 74 CE and according to Pliny the Elder: First
of all, however, it must strike us that the variations which have taken place in this science prove its
uncertainty; and to this consideration may be added the experience of the very last census, which was made
four years ago, under the direction of the Emperors Vespasian, father and son. I shall not search through
the registers; I shall only cite some instances in the middle district that lies between the Apennines and the
river Padus. At Parma, 3 persons declared themselves to be 120 years of age; at Brixellum, 1 was 125; at
Parma, 2 were 130; at Placentia, 1 was 130; at Faventia, 1 woman was 132; at Bononia, L. Terentius,
the son of Marcus, and at Ariminum, M. Aponius, were 140, and Tertulla, 137. In the hills which lie
around Placentia is the town of Veleiacium, in which 6 persons gave in their ages as 110 years, and 4 as
120, while 1 person, M. Mucius, the son of Marcus, surnamed Felix, and of the Galerian tribe, was aged
140. Not, however, to dwell upon what is generally admitted, in the 8th region of Italy, there appeared by
the register, to be 54 persons of 100 years of age, 14 of 110, 2 of 125, 4 of 130, the same number of 135
to 137, and 3 of 140 (Natural History VII:49-50). As the statistical distribution of these
longevities is consistent with current curves (in 2000 CE) one can assume that it reflects
the reality of the time. The analysis of the results raises the same problem like today: the
number of exceptional longevities is very low compared to the general population, only 170
centenarians identified among 3 million people (0.005% of the population) and they are
well above (4x) the average lifespan of the time (around 35 years for men).
139 F. MESLÉ, J. VALLIN – Montée de l'espérance de vie et concentration des âges au décès
Paris 2002 Institut National d'Études Démographiques n°108 pp. 1-6.
140 Aging is a process of great complexity that involves multiple genetic and environmental factors. There are, for example, the complex
relationship between caloric intake, breakdown of sugars and fats in the diet and longevity.
141 J.J. GLASSNER – Chroniques mésopotamiennes
Paris 2004, Éd. Les Belles Lettres pp. 137-153.

An important distinction needs to be kept in mind at this point. There is a

difference between "life expectancy" and "life span." "Life expectancy" refers to "the
probable number of years remaining in the life of an individual or class of persons
determined statistically," and thus life expectancy was relatively short for ancient societies
faced as they were with war, disease and high infant mortality, "Life span," however, refers
to "the longest period over which the life of any organism or species may extend." Thus,
while the average life expectancy of a society may be short, its life span may be longer,
because "life span" presupposes the age one might reasonably achieve barring life-
threatening circumstances. In a work on ancient Greece median age at death is not, of
course, the same as ‘when most people die’. The so-called mortality curve has peaks at
birth, early childhood and early twenties142. For example, infant mortality in Egypt of late
antiquity was very high: nearly 1/3 of all children died before their 1st birthday and more
than 2/5 by the age of 5143. Once a child survived early childhood, however, he or she
could expect to live much longer: life expectancy at age 10 for females of Roman Egypt
was found to be from 34.5 to 37.5 years and at age 15, it was 48, for males, at age 5, life
expectancy would have been 40.6 years144. As we can see it is difficult to connect "life
expectancy" and "life span".
As we can see it is difficult to reliable extrapolate values for longevity (extraordinary
phenomenon) only thanks to some calculated lifetimes from a small group of people.
These values of life being isolated, extrapolation is impossible. The exceptional longevity of
some leading figures in Greece (mainly philosophers) is insufficient to establish an upper
limit with certainty145:
Leading figure Lifetime Leading figure Lifetime
Pittacos 650-569 81 years Isocrate 436-338 98 years
Solon 638-558 80 years Plato 428-348 80 years
Xenophane 570-478 92 years Diogenes 410-327 86 years
Pythagoras 570-490 80 years Xenocrates 400-314 86 years
Sophocles 495-406 90 years Theophrastus 372-287 85 years
Gorgias 487-380 107 years Pyrrho 365-275 90 years
Democritus 460-370 90 years Philemon 361-262 99 years
Hippocrates 466-377 83 years Cleanthes 331-232 99 years
Antisthenes 444-365 80 years Carneades 215-129 86 years
According to these figures the maximum longevity would be 107 years old,
however, Solon (638-558) who was an Athenian statesman, lawmaker, and poet, stated at
his time: Croesus, you ask me about human affairs, and I know that the divine is entirely grudging and
troublesome to us. In a long span of time it is possible to see many things that you do not want to, and to
suffer them, too. I set the limit of a man’s life at 70 years (The Histories I:32). According to
Herodotus himself (around 450 BCE): When they came to Tartessus [South of Spain] they made
friends with the king of the Tartessians, whose name was Arganthonius146 [690-570]; he ruled Tartessus
for 80 years and lived a 120 (The Histories I:163). More surprisingly, Philo (c. -20 to 50) cites
Hippocrates in support of his discussion in the “perfecting power of seven”. In his work
On the Creation, Hippocrates is said to have stated that there are 7 “ages of man” of 7 years
142 R. GARLAND – The Greek Way of Life: From Conception to Old Age
Ithaca 1990 Ed. Cornell University Press p. 246.
143 R.S. BAGNALL – Egypt in Late Antiquity
Princeto 1993 Ed. Princeton University Press p. 182.

144 R.S. BAGNALL, B.W. FRIER – The Demography of Roman Egypt
Cambridge 1994 Ed. Cambridge University Press pp. 83, 90, 102, 120.
145 T. HALAY – Histoire des centenaires et de la longévité
Paris 2007 Éd. L'Harmattan pp. 34-35.

146 Similar names (e.g. Argantoni) appear in inscriptions of the Roman period in or near former Tartessian territory. A similar name or
title Argantoda(nos) is found on silver coinage in Northern Gaul and may have had a meaning akin to "treasurer".
each in the life cycle of a male person: In man's life there are seven seasons which they call ages, little
boy, boy, lad, young man, man, elderly man, old man. He is a little boy until he reaches 7 years, the time of
the shedding of his teeth; a boy until he reaches puberty i.e. up to twice 7 years; a lad until his chin grows
downy, i.e. up to thrice 7 years; a young man until his whole body has grown, till 4 times 7; a man till 49,
till 7 times 7; an elderly man till 56, up to 7 times 8; after that an old man (On the Creation §105).
These quotations show that Greek authors were not interested in longevity but only to
lifetime as confirmed by the translation of the Greek words for different seasons of life:
1) )"*+",- "little boy": 0-7 years, 2) )"./ "boy": 7-14 years, 3) µ0*123*,- "lad": 14-21 years, 4)
-0""43,/ "young man": 21-28 years, 5) #-51 "man": 28-49 years, 6) )1046789/ "elderly man":
49-56 years, 7) :;1<- "old man": 56-x.
Like the Greeks, the Babylonians were interested only in lifetime and not in
longevity. For example, according to a text from the Sultantepe tablets147, dated around 650
BCE: 40 [years mean] prime of life (lalûtum); 50 [years mean] short life (!m! kurûtu); 60 [years mean]
mature age (me'l!tu); 70 [years mean] long life (!m! ark!tu); 80 [years mean] old age ("ib!tu); 90
[years mean] exreme old age (litt!tu). The term "extreme old age" concerned only "normal
lifetime" because Queen Adad-guppi (658-554), the mother of Nabonidus, lived 104 years.
Babylonian chronology is considered one of the most reliable, yet it fits remarkably
well with the biblical chronology (LXX). As the Bible does, it distinguishes three main
periods: the first going from the creation of man to the deluge, the second from the deluge
to the first kingdom and the latest ending with Nabonidus. During these three periods,
human longevity is strongly decreasing.
1. Period from the creation of man to the deluge. According to Sumerian King lists there were 10
kings before the flood who each reigned on average 700 years (list C), the 10th, Ziusudra,
having reigned 600 years. According to the Bible there were 10 characters before the
flood who lived 800 years on average (Genesis 5:1-32), the 10th, Noah, having lived 600
years (Genesis 7:6). This period lasted approximately 2500 years according to the Great
Babylonian Genesis: When the gods made man (...) They did count their years of task: [two
thousand] and five hundred years and more (...) When Enlil had heard their rumor, he addressed the
great gods: The rumor of human beings became too strong, I can no longer sleep with that racket! So cut
them food supplies148. According to the Bible, this first period lasted about 2250 years.
2. Period from the deluge to the first kingdom. Reigns duration over the period 2800-2500 was
multiplied by 60, likely due to the fact that the invention of cuneiform writing (instead
of pictographic writing) is attributed to En-merkar (c. -2500). Babylonian scribes
(deliberately?) mistook the signs for units and tens (base 60), which were identical. This
error was consistent with their knowledge of the past because according to a Sumerian
text (c. -2100): When the flood had swept everything away and caused the ruin of the land, ensured
however, remained permanently men and preserved their offspring: the black-heads [Sumerians] could
resurface from their clay. But when An and Enlil had again called into existence the men, if they
instituted the Government, the Monarchy jewel of cities, they did not set it down here on earth! To the
disappeared crowd of humanity successors they did not put more in place, by (?) Ningirsu, spade or hoe,
or bassinet, or plow, which animate the earth! In those days the, men had for 100 years, and when they
reached their old age, they still had for 100 years! But, unable to perform the work required, their
number was greatly reduced [...] In his time, there was not yet writing (Journal of Cuneiform
Studies XXI p. 279 s.). According to this text, men after the Flood and prior to
Sumerian kingship were all bicentenary. Biblical life spans decreases gradually from 600
years to 300 years over the period 3170-2500.
147 M. ENG – The Days of Ours Years: A Lexical Semantic Study of the Life Cycle in the Biblical Israel
New York 2011 Ed. Bloomsbury Publishing pp. 36-50.
148 J. BOTTÉRO, S.N. KRAMER – Lorsque les dieux faisaient l'homme. Mythologie mésopotamienne
Paris 1993 Éd. Gallimard pp. 520-522, 530-531, 543.

3. Period from the first kingdom to Nabonidus. During this last period the two chronologies
coincide. Babylonian life span is around 65 years and biblical life span decreases
regularly from 300 years to 70 over the period 2500-1500 and then stabilizes.
The agreement between the two chronologies is excellent, the only thing to check
being some abnormal life spans. Lifetime of some biblical characters:
lifespan character (LXX) fathered died reigned reference
3270-2668 Shem 102 years 602 years Genesis 11:5:32; 10-11
3168-2630 Arpakshad 135 years 538 years - Genesis 11:10-13
3033-2573 Kainan 130 years 460 years Genesis 11:13
2903-2470 Shelah 130 years 433 years Genesis 11:14-15
2773-2269 Eber 134 years 504 years Genesis 11:15-17
2639-2300 Peleg 130 years 339 years Genesis 11:16-19
2509-2170 Reu 132 years 339 years Genesis 11:18-21
2377-2047 Serug 130 years 330 years Genesis 11:20-22
2247-2039 Nahor I 79 years 208 years Genesis 11:24-25
2168-1963 Terah 70 years 205 years - Genesis 11:25-26
2038-1863 Abraham 86 years 175 years - Genesis 16:16; 25:7
2028-1901 (Sara) (90 years) 127 years - Genesis 23:1
1952-1815 Ismael ? 137 years - Genesis 16:16; 25:17
1938-1758 Isaac 60 years 180 years - Genesis 25:6; 35:28
1878-1731 Jacob 91 years 147 years - Genesis 47:28
1788-1678 Joseph 37 years 110 years - Genesis 41:46-50; 50:22
[1710-1500] Job ? 210 years - Job 42:12-17
[1683-1550] Qehat ? 133 years Exodus 6:18
[1643-1506] Amram ? 137 years - Exodus 6:20
1616-1493 Aaron ? 123 years - Numbers 33:39
1613-1493 Moïse 40 years 120 years (40 years) Deuteronomy 34:7
1573-1513 [generation lifespan] 20 years 60 years - Numbers 32:11-13
1573-1463 Joshua ? 110 years (30 years) Judges 2:8
1573-1493 [generation longevity] ? 80 years - Psalms 90:1,10
[1406-1306] Ehud ? [100 years] (80 years) Judges 3:26-30
[1280-1211] Jaïr ? [70 years?] (22 years) Judges 10:3-5
1220-1122 Eli ? 98 years (40 years) 1Samuel 4:15,18
[1162-1062] Samuel ? [100 years] - 1Samuel 1:24,25; 25:1
1107-1027 Barzillaï ? 80 years - 2Samuel 19:33-36
1087-1017 David 30 years 70 years 40 years 2Samuel 5:4
1035-977 Salomon 17 years 58 years 40 years 1Kings 11:42; 14:21
1018-960 Roboam ? 58 years 17 years 1Kings 14:21
1010-840 Yehoyada ? 130 years - 2Chronicles 24:15
1007-885 Achaziah ? 23 years 1 year 2Chronicles 22:2
886-839 Joas 22 years 47 years 40 years 2Chronicles 24:1
863-809 Amasiah 38 years 54 years 29 years 2Chronicles 25:1
826-758 Uziah 52 years 68 years 52 years 2Chronicles 26:1
782-741 Jotham 21 years 41 years 16 years 2Chronicles 27:1
762-726 Achaz 11 years 36 years 16 years 2Chronicles 28:1
751-697 Hezekiah 42 years 54 years 29 years 2Chronicles 29:1
708-641 Manasseh 45 years 67 years 55 years 2Chronicles 33:1
633-609 Amon 16 years 24 years 2 years 2Kings 21:19
648-609 Josias 13 years 39 years 31 years 2Chronicles 34:1
623-561 Joiakîn ? 84 years (26 years) 2Kings 23:36; 25:27
[617-537] Daniel ? 80 years - Daniel 1:1; 11:1-12:13
[485-405] Nehemiah ? [80 years?] - Nehemiah 1:1-2:1; 12:22
[ 84 - 1] (Widow) (?) 84 years - Luke 2:36,37
Before examining the authenticity of these exceptional longevities (prior to Moses)

several preliminary issues must be resolved:
! These figures have been they correctly transmitted? It seems so because there is little
difference149 (from Abraham's story) between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint (or
the Samaritan Pentateuch).
! Did the word "year" mean a period of one month prior to Abraham? In this case Terah
would have lived 17 years and would have fathered at 6, which is a new aberration.
! Are these exceptional longevities involved the entire population or only the ancestors of
Moses? According to a prayer attributed to Moses: The span of our life is 70 years — 80 for
those who are strong — but their whole extent is anxiety and trouble, they are over in a moment and we
are gone. (Psalms 90:10). According to the Pentateuch (written by Moses), the Levites had
to start working at 20 and had to retire at 50 (Numbers 8:25). All the generation of
Moses, constitutes by men 20 years old upward, died after staying 40 years in the
wilderness (Numbers 32:11-13). These remarks are consistent: at this time the lifetime
of the population was around 60 years and its longevity was around 80 years. The 120
years of Moses are not representative of a normal longevity. Likewise the longevities of
the predecessors of Moses are different from the rest of the population. For example,
Abraham lived 175 years but Sara (his first wife) lived only 127 years and when she
learned that she would have a child at the age of 90, her husband being 100 years old,
she left in a nervous giggle (Genesis 18:12-14). David aged 70 and Barzillai 80 are
presented as old men (1Kings 1:1, 2Samuel 19:32). In the New Testament old age
begins between 50 and 60 (John 8:57, 1Timothy 5:9). Exceptional durations in the
biblical text are not representative of the whole population, they are in fact limited to
the ancestors of Moses, and many of these durations are presented as miraculous. For
example, Job who lived 210 years (240 years according to the Septuagint)150 received
miraculously an additional151 140 years (Job 42:16). Exceeding the age of 100 years is
presented as being common in the messianic world to come (Isaiah 65:20).
! Genealogies and extraordinary longevities of antediluvian men and patriarchs are they
inspired by Sumerian legends? It is true that the similarities are obvious as can be seen in
the following table:
Genesis 5 Lifespan King List (List C) Lifespan
1 Adam 5426-4496 930 years Alulim 5660-5180 480 years
2 Seth 5196-4284 912 years Alalgar 5450-4250 1200 years
3 Enosh 4991-4086 905 years [x]kidunnu 5240-4040 1200 years
4 Kenan 4801-3891 910 years [x]alima 5030-4670 360 years
5 Mahalalel 4631-3736 895 years Dumuzi the sheper 4820-4340 480 years
6 Jared 4466-3504 962 years Amme-lu-ana 4610-4250 360 years
7 Enoch 4304-3939 365 years En-sipazi-ana 4400-3800 600 years
8 Methuselah 4139-3170 969 years Enme-dur-ana 4190-2990 1200 years
9 Lamech 3952-3175 777 years &uruppak 3980-3500 480 years
10 Noah 3770-(3170) 600 years Ziusudra 3770-(3170) 600 years
Deluge Deluge
Arpakshad 3168-2630 565 years -
Kainan 3033-2573 460 years Amar-utu (Marduk) 3050-2850 200 years
Shelah 2903-2470 433 years Gu[-]ur 2850-2780 60-80 years
Peleg 2639-2300 339 years Etana the sheper 2675-2610 60-70 years
Moses 1613-1493 120 years Hammurabi 1719-1654 60-70 years
[generation in Sinai] 1573-1513 60 years Samsuditana 1564-1499 60-70 years
Uziah 826-758 68 years Tiglath-phalazar III 795-727 68 years
149 Differences with the LXX: 240 years for Job (210), 130 years for Kohath (133), 132 years for Amram (137) and 90 years for Eli (98).
150 Job's friends (Job 2:11) belong to the 5th generation from Abraham (starting around 1750-1700). Job in the Septuagint is identified as
Jobab, a chief of Edom (Genesis 36:9-39). Moses would have written the Book of Job (Talmud Baba Batra 14b) to the end of his life
(Deuteronomy 31:1-9). According to the Seder Olam §3, Job would have lived 210 years (= 140 + 140/2).
151 Solomon lived only 58 years but his does not contradict the text of 1 Kings 3:14 (conditional promise of longevity).
The biblical text can not be copied from Sumerian stories for the following reasons.
Concerning the longevities of the antediluvian biblical text: 1) they are all of the same order
of magnitude about 900 years (except Enoch) which is more logical than the royal lists that
vary randomly by a factor of three (360 to 1200 years); 2) they are all different which is
more logical than the royal lists in which all the values are quoted at least twice; 3) they
have no connection with ones each others which is more logical than the royal lists many
of which are multiples of 60 years. Concerning the flood story: 1) the ark was a huge cube
of side 60 meters according to the Mesopotamian story which is an absurdity for buoyancy
and 2) Ziusudra was eternal and living in Bahrain, which is evident not possible. With the
exception of miracles, presented as such, the Bible contains no information contrary to
modern science, yet most of this scientific information was unknown in the Middle Ages152.
The extraordinary longevities in the Bible can not be dismissed as impossible as scientists
do not know the factors that come into play153 (climate, food, genetics, age of paternity,
etc.). In the present state of our knowledge, the cause of these variations remain a mystery,
they can not be used to disqualify the biblical text as much as all its historical data have a
high coherence between them as, for example, Sumerian and biblical lifespans:
Time, a major preoccupation of European literary tradition, is seldom a central

issue in Akkadian litterature. The Babylonian concept of time was linear rather than
cyclical. Time was concrete and calendrical, the sum total of days, months, and years.
Normal time and normal human lifespans were thought to have existed only since the
152 The universe began in a Big Bang (Genesis 1:1) then appeared in order: plants, fish, mammals, and finally men, there is no
spontaneous generation (Genesis 1:25), there is no possible crossing between species (Genesis 1:21), there are as many stars as grains of
sand on the earth (Genesis 22:17); animals are governed by Mendel's law (Genesis 31:8-12); the earth is upon nothing (Job 26:7), we must
bury feces [to prevent cholera] (Deuteronomy 23:13), we must apply the quarantine patients (Leviticus 13:46-59); psychosomatic illnesses
exist (Proverbs 14:30), co-blood marriages are discouraged (Leviticus 18:6), as well as astrology and spiritism (Deuteronomy 18:10-11),
there is a water cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7).
153 Josephus noted already in his time (1st century), most of the Essenes lived beyond 100 years. He assumed that such an unusual
longevity was due to a simple and orderly life (Jewish War II:151).
Flood. Prior to the Flood, the synchronism of biological and calendrical time was
different154. Sumerian and biblical accounts agree with the genealogies of prominent people
prior to the flood and their chronologies. Nothing allows us to say that these exceptional
longevities involved the entire population. It is possible that this feature was linked to a
genetic aspect. One can note also that the decrease in spanlife curves is exponential which
is characteristic of living processes. The exceptional antediluvian longevities would have
therefore quickly disappeared after the Deluge, around 2800 BCE, but only toward 1600
BCE for the offspring of Arpakshad.
Some argue that the Bible carries lots of legendary data that would be incorrect.
This recurrent accusation, often repeated by conformism, is based on texts which are
misunderstood, taken out of context or in opposition to official teaching155. Thus, another
indirect way to test the authenticity of biblical figures is to check if they induce
chronological contradictions (inside the text itself / with absolute dates). First, a critical
edition of the biblical text, free from errors and skilful corrections, is needed.
THE CHRONOLOGICAL VALUES IN THE BIBLE: ARE THEY EXACT?
The transmission of many historical and chronological data (reigns, lifetimes, long
periods, etc.) as well as many proper names, is necessarily flawed, unless one believing in an
(unlikely) scribes infallibility. The biblical text, although it has been exceptionally well
transmitted, is no exception. Certain ancient Near Eastern texts develop over time towards
a reasonably stable state of transmission. However, the development towards a single
‘stabilised’ transmitted form that marks the biblical manuscripts between the 2nd century
BCE and 2nd century CE is often considered to permit the Hebrew bible a unique position
in the ancient Near Eastern textual corpus. A study156 compared the accuracy with which
ancient texts of varying genres and languages were transmitted (texts from the Neo-
Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and Late Babylonian periods that range in date from the late 8th
century BCE to the 3rd century BCE and Torah scrolls from the Dead Sea area that range
in date from the 3rd century BCE to the 2nd century CE). Texts that are preserved in more
than one ancient copy have been compared to determine how much variation occurs
between manuscripts of the same text. The accuracy with which the cuneiform texts were
transmitted has been then compared with the biblical evidence. This study showed that the
most stable texts surveyed are those containing ritual instructions, which have led, for
example, to the exact transmission of the Torah in the late Second Temple period.
154 B.R. FOSTER – Before the Muses. An Anthology of Akkadian Literature
Bethesda 2005 Ed. CDL Press pp. 26-27.
155 Some examples of pseudo contradictions: The hare is classified as ruminants (Deuteronomy 14:7), yet it has only one stomach and according to
modern science a ruminant digests its food in two stages with multiple stomachs. The contradiction exists in relation to the current definition of
biologists but for an observer an animal ruminates if it digests its food twice, usual definition of rumination in dictionaries. François
Bourlière, professor at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Paris V who taught animal ecology at the Faculty of Science, writes:
The habit of 'double digestion', which involves passing food twice by the intestine instead of one, seems to be a common phenomenon in rabbits and hares. In
principle, domestic rabbits eat and swallow without chewing their droppings at night, which form in the morning up to half the volume of the stomach. In the case
of the wild rabbit, double digestion takes place twice a day (...) It is believed that this habit gives the animal a significant contribution in B vitamins that are
produced by the action of bacteria on food in the large intestine (The Natural History of Mammals, 1964, p. 41). The bat is ranked among the birds
(Leviticus 11:19), but it is a mammal according to science. In fact, the Bible class just bats and birds among flying creatures (Leviticus 11:13).
Teeming winged creatures with 4 legs should not be consumed, but the grasshopper (Leviticus 11:20), so that these insects have 6 legs.
Yes, but the next verse says that the grasshopper has 4 legs for walking and 2 for jumping. The sun comes down (Isaiah 38:8), but it is the sun
which revolves around the earth. The fact is presented as a miracle and not a normal phenomenon, again, the sun was down for a terrestrial
observer (in the same way as the sun rises and sets). The Bible does exceptionally reference to an outside observer (God): He extends north
on the empty place, he hangs the earth on nothing (Job 26:7). There is Someone who lives above the circle of the earth (Isaiah 40:22). The earth is placed prior
to the stars (Genesis 1:1,16), but the stars appeared prior to the earth. Indeed but, according to the biblical text, God created the heavens and
(then) the earth or the heavens are composed of the sun, moon and stars (Genesis 2:1). Light is created in the 1st day and then again at the 4th
day (Genesis 1:3,14-16). The sun (greater light) is created at the 1st day (the duration of which is not specified), and is made or completed
(not created) by the 4th day. According to the biblical text, a terrestrial observer could see the succession of night and day from the 1st day
and then, from the 4th day, the two luminaries (the Sun and the Moon) became distinct in the sky.
156 R. HOBSON – The Exact Transmission of the Texts in the First Millenium B.C.E.
Sydney 2009 Ed. University of Sydney (Thesis) pp. 1-538.

The transmission of the biblical text after the First Temple to the late Second
Temple period will be examined here. There are several independent Jewish transmissions,
those of the Septuagint (LXX), Josephus (FJ), the Masoretes (MT), Theophilus of Antioch
(TA) and the Seder Olam (SO). Duplication of historical data157 (first from Abraham)
allows to find errors (highlighted in grey) and corrections (highlighted in orange):
Chronology from: MT LXX FJ TA SO Period reference

Abraham in Ur 75 75 75 75 75 2038-1963 Genesis 12:4-5
Stay in Canaan+Egypt 430* 430 430 430 430* 1963-1533 Exodus 12:40-41
Moses (Exodus) 40 40 40 40 40 1533-1493 Exodus 16:35
Joshua 110 - 80 110 - 80 110 - 80 27 28 1493-1463 Joshua 14:10;24:29
Without Judge [11] [11] 18 - 0 1463-1452 Joshua 24:31
Total of [40 +/- 1]* = [41] [41] [48] [27] [28] 1493-1452 Numbers 32:13
Kushan-Rishataïm 8 8 8 8 0 1452-1444 Judges 3:8
Othniel 40 40/50 40 40 40 1444-1404 Judges 3:11
Eglon 18 18 18 18 18 1404-1386 Judges 3:14
Ehud 80 80 [80] 8 80 1386-1306 Judges 3:30
Madian 7 7 7 7 7 1306-1299 Judges 6:1
Gideon 40 40 40 40 40 1299-1259 Judges 8:28
Abimelech 3 3 3 3 3 1259-1256 Judges 9:22
Tola 23 23 [23] 23 23 1256-1233 Judges 10:2
Jair 22 22 22 22 22 1233-1211 Judges 10:3
Anarchy 18 18 18 18 18 1211-1193 Judges 10:8
Total of 300* = 300 300 307 214 287 1493-1193 Judges 11:26,30
Jephthah 6 6/60 6 6 6 1193-1187 Judges 12:7
Ibzan 7 7 7 7 7 1187-1180 Judges 12:9
Elon 10 10 10 10 10 1180-1170 Judges 12:11
Abdon 8 [8] [8] 8 8 1170-1162 Judges 12:14
[Eli] Philistines 40 20/40 40 40 40 1162-1122 1Samuel 4:18
Samson 20 20 20 20 20 1122-1102 Judges 16:31
Samuel's sons [5] [5] 12 12 10 1102-1097 1Samuel 8:1-3
Saul [40] [40] 20/40 20 3 1097-1057 Acts 13:21
David 40 40 40 40 40 1057-1017 1Kings 2:11
Solomon (year 4) 4 4 4 4 4 1017-1013 1Kings 6:1
Total of 480* = 480 440* 474 467 448 1493-1013 1Kings 6:1
Salomon 40 40 80 40 40 1017 - 977 1Kings 11:42
Roboam 17 17 17 17 17 977-960 1Kings 14:21
Abiyam 3 6 3 7 3 960-957 1Kings 15:2
Asa 41 41 41 41 41 957-916 1Kings 15:10
Josaphat 25 - 2 25 - 2 25 - 2 25 - 2 25 - 2 916-893 1Kings 22:42
Joram 8 10 8 8 8 893-885 2Kings 8:17
[Athaliah] 7-1 7-1 7-1 6 7+1 885-879 2Kings 11:4
Joas 40 40 40 40 40 879-839 2Kings 12:2
Amasiah 29 29 29 39 22 839-810 2Kings 14:2
Uziah 52 52 52 52 52 810-758 2Kings 15:2
Yotham 16 16 16 16 16 758-742 2Kings 15:33
Achaz 16 16 16 17 16 742-726 2Kings 16:2
Hezekiah 29 29 29 29 29 726-697 2Kings 18:2
Manasseh 55 55 55 55 55 697-642 2Kings 21:1
Amon 2 2 2 2 2 642-640 2Kings 21:19
Josiah 31 31 31 31 31 640-609 2Kings 22:1
Joiaqim 11 11 11 11 11 609-598 2Kings 23:36
Zedekiah 11 11 11 11 11 598-587 2Kings 24:18
Total of 390* = 390 190* 390 405 385 977-587 Ezechiel 4:5-6
Babylonian Empire: 70* 70* 70* 70* 70* 609-539 Jeremiah 25:11-12
157 J. HUGHES – Secrets of the Times. Myth and History in Biblical Chronology
in: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 66 (1990) pp. 57, 267-272.
The chronology of Theophilus of Antioch158 is considered of Hebrew origin

because he used several figures closer to the Masoretic text and Seder Olam rather than to
the Greek text of the Septuagint (as 6 years for Joram instead of 8 and 40 years for Eli
instead of 20). There are two ways to check the accuracy of these numbers 1) events dated
in several chronologies, do they give the same date? and 2) the sum of all the intermediate
periods, does it correspond to the value indicated in the biblical text?
Date Event dated in several chronologies Reference
-1954 When Abraham is 84 years old, he killed King of Elam Kudur-Lagamar in his Genesis 14:5,17
14th year of reign corresponding to the 47th year of Shulgi, King of Ur.
-1533 Death of Pharaoh [Seqenenre Taa, year 11]: year 80 of Moses, during a total Psalms 136:15
solar eclipse over the north of the Red Sea (May 10, 1533 BCE). Ezekiel 32:2-8
-1347 Barak killed Sisera the chief of army of Jabin II in his 20th year of reign after Judge 4:2-3, 22-24
the 40 years of Ehud. Sisera is mentioned in the El-Amarna letters just before
the war of Apiru in southern Syria which is dated year 6 of Shuppiluliuma I.
-972 Shoshenq I [year 9] came against Jerusalem in the 5th year of Roboam. 2 Chronicles 12:2
-722 Shalmanazer V, in his 5th year, lay siege against Samaria for 3 years, from the 2 Kings 18:9-10
-720 4th to 6th year of Hezekiah. Samaria is captured in the 2nd year of Sargon II.
-609 Battle of Harran in the 31st and last year of Josiah, 1st year of Nechoh, 17th 2 Kings 22:1, 23:29
year of Nabopolassar, 3rd and last year of Assur-uballit II.
-587 Destruction of the Temple year 11 of Zedekiah, year of 18 Nebuchadnezzar Jeremiah 52:1,12,29
II (but his 19th according to the previous Egyptian reckoning).
-561 Year 1 of Amel-Marduk corresponds to year 37 of Jehoiachin's exile which 2 Kings 25:27
began just after the attack on Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II in the year 7 Jeremiah 52:28
of his reign (in 598 BCE).
-550 Persia and Media, form a double power in the 3rd year of Belshazzar. Daniel 8:1-4,20
-539 Fall of Babylon after 70 years of domination over all the nations in 14th year Jeremiah 25:11-12
of Belshazzar and year 0 of Cyrus the Persian and Darius the Mede (Ugbaru). Daniel 5:30
When one knows the difficulty of establishing a reliable chronology, this agreement
proves that the chronological data transmission has been remarkable. The second checking
means is derived from the comparison between the sum of the intermediate values and the
total value indicated in the text.
! Period of 390 years (Ezekiel 4:4-6) since the 1st year of Roboam to the 11th of Zedekiah. The
Masoretic text has preserved the exact total value159 because the sum of all the reigns is
actually 390 years160 which is not the case of the 190 years indicated in the Septuagint.
This period begins when the 40-year reign of Solomon (1 Kings 11:42) ending by the
schism of his kingdom into two rival entities: Israel and Judea. This rebellion (in 977
BCE) considered as a fault (1Kings 12:19) ended with the destruction of the Temple (in
587 BCE). Otherwise, the 190 years of the Septuagint would begin (?) when the
northern kingdom disappears (at 720 BCE) and would end at the beginning of the
rebuilding of the Temple (in 537 BCE). But in this case the calculation is: 720 - 537 =
183 years and not 190 years. Therefore this duration has been changed in the Greek text
for theological reasons. Similarly, the period from Abiyam to Athaliah which is complex
because of two co-regencies was also recalculated in the Septuagint161. As the text of
Ezekiel was translated into Greek around 190 BCE162 this indicates that the Jews of that
time were already producing chronological changes and not copy errors.
158 THÉOPHILE D'ANTIOCHE – Trois livres à Autolycus
in: Sources chrétiennes 20 (1948 Cerf) pp. 49-53, 154-159.
159 D. BARTHÉLEMY – Critique textuelle de l'Ancien Testament Tome 3
Göttingen 1992 Éd. Universitaires Fribourg pp. 22-23.

160 390 = 17 + 3 + 41 + (25 – 2) + 8 + (7 – 1) + 40 + 29 + 52 + 16 + 16 + 29 + 55 + 2 + 31 + 11 + 11.
161 F. NOLEN JONES – The Chronology of the Old Testament
Green Forest 2007 Ed. Master Books pp. 12-13.

162 M. HARL, G. DORIVAL, O. MUNNICH – La Bible grecque des Septante
Paris 1988 Éd. Cerf p. 111.

! Period of 480 years since the departure from Egypt to the 4th year of Solomon (1Kings 6:1). The
Masoretic text has preserved the exact value because the sum of all the reigns is actually
480 years163 which is not the case of the 440 years indicated in the Septuagint. The value
of Saul's reign in Acts 13:21, which was to appear in 1Samuel 13:1 can be deduced from
the biography of Ishbaal, a son of Saul, who was born at the beginning of the reign of
his father (1 Chronicles 8:33) since he was 40 years after the death of Saul (2 Samuel
2:10). Josephus hesitated between 20 and 40 years (Jewish Antiquities VI:378, X:143)
also in the sum of reigns (Jewish Antiquities VIII:61, XX:230). The Sinai desert
belonged to Egypt because it was located before the Wadi of Egypt, which marked the
border (2 Kings 24:7). The Israelites are definitely out of Egypt when they passed this
wadi and therefore after 40 years in the desert164. According to this scheme, we obtain: y
+ 475 = 480, which gives y = 5 years. The translators of the Septuagint who knew this
period of 480 years, beginning with the departure from Egypt after 40 years in the
desert, subtracted it, instead of adding165, to obtain 440 years (= 480 - 40). According to
the Jerusalem Talmud (Megilla 72cd), the duration of the conquest of Canaan would
have been 7 years and the one of the sanctuary of Shiloh 369 years, which gives: 480 =
7* + 369* + 20 + 40 + 40 + 4 (in fact: 480 = 5 + 366 + 20 + 5 + 40 + 40 + 4)166.
! Period of 300 years since the departure from Egypt to the vow of Jephthah (Judges 11:26,30). The
value of 300 years corresponds actually to the sum of all the reigns167. Caleb and Joshua
were 40 years old at the beginning of the exodus and therefore 80 years afterwards
(Joshua 14:7). As Joshua died at the age of 110 (Joshua 24:29) he stayed 30 years in
Canaan. The period that followed [11] is not specified, but can be estimated. Indeed, the
generation that came into Canaan with Joshua had to take possession of the land
(Judges 2:6-10). But as the previous generation had lasted 40 years (Numbers 32:13), this
suggests that: [40] = 30 + x, x = 10. In fact the exact calculation gives x = 11.
! Period of 430 years for the stay in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan (Exodus 12:40-41).
The last part "and in the land of Canaan" found in the Greek text of the Septuagint is
missing in the Masoretic text. As it is also found in the Samaritan Pentateuch written in
Paleo-hebrew, which is consistent with the context indicating that this period of 430
years is the whole stay of the son of Israel out of the Mosaic covenant (Galatians 3:17),
it had to be in the original text. This period consists of two parts: the first beginning in
Canaan by the Abrahamic covenant quickly followed by the bullying of Ishmael over
Isaac (Genesis 21:9) and ending with the arrival of Jacob in Egypt and a second period
starting with the bondage in Egypt and ending with the Exodus. This chronological
account was known in antiquity, it is quoted by the Jewish chronograph Demetrius (in
220 BCE) who calculated that the stay in Egypt was 215 years (Evangelical Preparation
IX:21). The same value appears in a book written in Hebrew (150-50 BCE) found at
Qumran, called the Testament of Amram168. However according to Josephus (near 95
CE): the residence in Egypt lasted 400 years (Jewish Antiquities I:185), or: 205 years (Jewish
Antiquities II:318). According to the Seder Olam169 (written around 160 CE): the residence
in Egypt lasted 210 years because of the lifetime of Job or maybe 400 years according to Genesis 15:13.
163 480 = 300 + 6 + 7 + 10 + 8 + 40 + 20 + [5] + [40] + 40 + 4.
164 The Israelites who died in the wilderness (Numbers 26:65) had desired repeatedly to die in Egypt (Exodus 14:11; 16:3). This
paradoxical desire has been fulfilled.
165 From the initial output of Egypt (in -1533) to the 4th year of Solomon (in -1013) there are 520 years (= 480 + 40).
166 The duration of the conquest of Canaan is 5 years and the sanctuary of Shiloh is 366 years (= 1488 - 1122) because it is installed just
after the conquest of Canaan (Joshua 18:1), in -1488, and disappeared at the death of the high priest Eli (1 Samuel 4:1-7:1) in -1122.
167 300 = (110 - 80) + [11] + 8 + 40 + 18 + 80 + 7 + 40 + 3 + 23 + 22 + 18.
168 K. BERTHELOT, T. LEGRAND – La bibliothèque de Qumrân 2
Paris 2010 Éd. Cerf pp. 207-209.

169 H.W. GUGGENHEIMER – Seder Olam. The Rabbinic View of Biblical Chronology
Lanham 2005 Ed. Roman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc pp.

As the books of Ezekiel and Kings were translated during the period 190-160
BCE170, the changes of durations in the Septuagint, 390 years (Ezekiel 4:4-6) and 480 years
(1Kings 6:1), show that the Jews of that time were already doing chronological corrections
for theological reasons in order to protect the "right understanding" of the biblical text.
The chronology of the period from the deluge to Abraham is based solely on the 17
verses of Genesis 11:10-26 (not found at Qumran) and has, moreover, only one
synchronism with the Babylonian chronology, hard to date: the deluge (-3200 +/- 200).
The Masoretic text of the Bible is used to establish the scientific chronology of the Bible,
but there are significant differences (highlighted in red) among the various recensions of
the Pentateuch (traditional dates of fixing are in brackets): Septuagint (LXX), Samaritan
Pentateuch (SP), New Testament (NT), Flavius Pentateuch (FJ) and Masoretic Text (MT):
From the Deluge to LXX (-280) PS (-130) NT (65) MT (90) FJ (95) gap MT
Sem fathered 2 2 [2] 2 12 0
Arpakshad fathered 135 135 [135] [-]35 135 100
Kainan fathered 130 - [130] - - 130
Shelah fathered 130 130 [130] [-]30 130 100
Eber fathered 134 134 [134] [-]34 134 100
Peleg fathered 130 130 [130] [-]30 130 100
Reu fathered 132 132 [132] [-]32 132 100
Serug fathered 130 130 [130] [-]30 130 100
Nahor I fathered 79 79 [79] 29 120 50
Terah fathered 70 70 [70] 70 70 0
Nahor II171 fathered (+60) (+60) (+60) (+60)
Abraham. Total: 1132 years 1002 years 352 years 1053 years 780 years
(Date of the deluge): (-3170) (-3040) (-2390) (-3030)
Normally, according to the usual rules of textual criticism, when the Greek text of
the Septuagint and the Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch both agree against the Masoretic text,
this common text has to be retained. This is even more true that there is a third important
witness for weight: the Hebrew Pentateuch of Josephus172. It is obvious that the text of the
Septuagint has kept the original Hebrew version because according to the Masoretic text
the deluge took place towards 2390 BCE implying an absurd consequence: the pharaohs of
Dynasties IV (2523-2385) and V (2385-2255), whose reigns can be dated by astronomy
thanks to the alignment of their pyramids, not only never undergone any flood (if the
Flood took place at that time all the Egyptians should have died!) but not even saw it.
The Masoretic text goes back to a Hebrew original173 (H* written c. 400 BCE) but
was later canonized at the Synod of Yabneh (c. 90 CE). Christian quotes of the Old
Testament are similar (90%) to the text of the Septuagint even when they have important
theological implications174. The Masoretic text did not yet authority at that time (during 50-
100 CE). The biblical manuscripts from Qumran175 (all dated before 70 CE) are composed
of 60% of pre-Masoretic texts, 20% Qumran style, 10% of non-aligned texts, 5% and
171 Abraham was born 60 years after Nahor II (60 + 70 = 205 - 75), because when he left Haran at the age of 75, his father Terah had
just died at the age of 205 years (Genesis 11:32-12:4).

172 E. NODET - Le Pentateuque de Josèphe

173 D.N. FREEDMAN – The Massoretic Text and the Qumran Scrolls. A Study in Orthography
in: Textus 2 (1962) p. 91.

174 As the rank of Qaïnan (Luke 3:36 # Genesis 10:24). This Qaïnan (Kainam) also appears in the Book of Jubilees (Jub. 8:2) and is
different from the other Kenan (Jub. 4:14). There are also angels who pay homage (Hebrews 1:6 Deuteronomy 32:43 #), a body to be
sacrificed (Hebrews 10:5 Psalms 40:6 #), the nations that hope in His name (Matthew 12 : # 21 Isaiah 42:4), etc.. There are also some
cases contrary: my son (Hosea 11:1 = Matthew 2:15), whom they have pierced (Zechariah 12:10 = John 19:37), etc.
175 L.H. SCHIFFMAN – Les manuscrits de la mer Morte et le judaïsme
Paris 2003 Éd. Fides pp. 187-192.

Septuagint texts supporting the 5% based texts the Samaritan Pentateuch176. This statistic
shows that the Masoretic text was the most prevalent (among the Essenes), but prior 70
CE other recensions existed. Masoretic version of chapters 1-11 of Genesis is currently
preferred only because of Methuselah who would die 14 years after the flood, according to
the chronology of the Septuagint, that is obviously absurd177. No Hebrew manuscript of
this part of Genesis was found at Qumran, thus its pre-Masoretic version is not known, but
the chronological reconstruction implies the existence of a Hebrew text (H*) near the
Septuagint. We know that this Hebrew text has been revised very soon178, but it is unclear
whether the corrections made by the auditors have preserved the original or, in contrast,
"canonized" an altered form. This analysis must be performed book by book, because the
Hebrew rolls of Jeremiah (4QJerb) and Samuel (4QSama), for example, and dated around
250-150 BCE, are closer to the text of the Septuagint than the Masoretic text179. It is the
opposite for the Hebrew rolls of Exodus (4QpaléoExm) and Numbers (4QNbb). Textual
criticism180 now favors an anteriority of the Septuagint text Vorlage (H*) on the proto-
Masoretic which comes from an overhaul of this Vorlage, including chronological data from
the text of Genesis181 (Genesis 5:3-31; 8:13-14, 11:10-26).
An essential element currently hampering textual criticism: if errors are detectable
through overlapping it is not the case of corrections. We know that the Jewish copyists
have corrected the Biblical text through Rabbinic lists (but on a list of 15 or 16 referred
"alterations" only 4 or 5 remain in our manuscripts)182. The Jerusalem Talmud (Megilla
71d), for example, reported 13 amendments (including those of Genesis 2:2 and Exodus
12:40) made for King Ptolemy II (to 280 BCE). These verses have been changed in the
Greek version either because they felt potentially offensive183, resulting in a reduction of
meaning to "protect" the text, either because they were too difficult to understand184
(sometimes these verses are explained in the Targums). There were also 18 scribes
corrections185 of the Hebrew text called: tiqqun Sopherim186. What complicates things is that
the process of corrections and copying was spread over several centuries. Although he
preferred the Masoretic text, D. Barthélemy187, a leading scholar of textual criticism, warns:
This is from an anti-apocalyptic, anti-sapiential, but especially anti-Christian controversial that is due the
elimination of a crucial portion at the closing of the tradition in 100 CE, that is to say, a large part of
sapiential and apocalyptic materials. Never a Christian theologian should adopt the Masoretic canon,
because there is a significant break in the continuity which leads to the New Testament. It seems to me that
176 In fact, this statistic artificially lowers the proportion attributed to the Septuagint because only differences being characteristic, the
Masoretic text being used as a reference (strictly speaking one should compare all the texts in relation to an original text restored).
177 R. S. HENDEL – The Text of Genesis.
1998, Oxford Ed. Oxford University Press, pp. 61-80.

178 E. TOV – Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible
Assen 1992 Ed. Fortress Press pp. 11, 32-35, 168, 190-197.
179 F. MÉBARKI, É. PUECH – Les Manuscrits de la mer Morte
Paris 2002 Éd. du Rouergue pp. 178-184.

180 M. RICHELLE – Le testament d'Élisée. Texte massorétique et Septante en 2Rois 13:10-14:16
in: Cahiers de la revue biblique n°76 (2010) pp. 70, 121-125.

Assen 1992 Ed. Fortress Press pp. 337-338.


183 Order not to offend the Greeks certain biblical passages have been changed: "son of God" (Genesis 6:2) becomes "angels", "Jehovah
stood before Abraham" (Genesis 18:22) becomes "Abraham stood before Jehovah", "curse God" becomes "bless God", etc.
184 Thus the text of Genesis 2:2: God concluded the 7th day his work which he had made, and, on the 7th, he rested after all the work he had done (it seems
paradoxical that God stops working at the beginning of the 7th day) has been simplified in the text of the Septuagint: And God ended the 6th
day his work which he had done, and he rested on the 7th day from all his work which he had made.
185 W. EMERY BARNES – A Companion to Biblical Studies
Cambridge 1916 Ed. Cambridge University Press p. 42.

186 Masoretic note on Genesis 18:3 points out the 134 places where the Tetragrammaton YHWH was replaced by its substitute 'DNY
"Lord". 14 theophoric names that includes the name baal "master", as Jerubbaal (2Samuel 11:21), were changed into boshet "shame", etc.
187 D. BARTHÉLEMY – Critique textuelle de l'Ancien Testament
Göttingen 1982 Éd. Universitaires Fribourg pp. 110*-111*.

among the influences that humanism has exerted on the Reformation, one of the most far-reaching was the
confusion that has been established between the Pharisaical reducing of the Canon and the Masoretic
textual tradition in which one returned as a ‘humanist’ source. Gese before Origen had protested against the
project that would, indeed, be one of Jerome (Africanus §4s): « Should we declare that it is time to scrap the
copies in use in the churches and to order the brothers, repealing the copies are in use at home, they get in
coaxing the Jews, that they supply us with copies clean, free of any interpolation? Should we therefore
assume that Providence which has built all the Churches of Christ in the Scriptures did not take care of
those who have been bought at a high price, those for whom Christ died, but he up for us all, so we donate
all things with him! ». This preliminary comment is used to justify the choice of the biblical
Committee: When the Committee of the Alliance Biblique Universelle has specified that it was
responsible for the textual analysis of the Hebrew Old Testament, it intended to leave the door open to a
similar study which could focus on textual analysis of the Greek old Testament (...) It is out of fidelity to
tradition that has dominated since Jerome in the Churches of the West that the Committee focused its efforts
on the Hebrew text. It was indeed to help churches which have, since Jerome, used to translate their Old
Testament from Hebrew. But the Committee felt more clearly the need not to spoil the Septuagint to edit the
Masoretic Text. Thus the biblical Committee privileged (religious) tradition because of
Churches, while recognizing that the text of the Septuagint should be better taken into
account. Tov188, another leading scholar of textual criticism, also recognized that rolls from
Qumran support, in many cases, the text of the Septuagint.
Differences in durations being 100 years they are not errors but (theological)
corrections which are poorly understood189. The explanation usually given is as follows190:
Jewish translators of the Septuagint, influenced by the work of Manetho, would have increased 100 years
the numbers of the Hebrew text to conform their chronology to its prestigious Egyptian rival, but this is
not consistent with the historical context. Indeed, at this time, Hellenism was triumphant
and the initiative of Ptolemy II to enrich his famous library of Alexandria has encouraged
foreign scholars to promote their own history. This is not a coincidence if at this time (280
BCE) the Egyptian priest Manetho, the Babylonian priest Berossus and the Israelite priests
in Alexandria were all seized the opportunity offered to them to write their "national"
history. Berosus accused the Greeks of his time (not the Egyptians) to ignore Babylonian
history (Against Apion I:142). These historians wrote for Greeks not for Egyptians, they
did not need to increase their chronology. The durations in Genesis were not corrected by
the translators of the Septuagint since they existed in ancient Hebrew manuscripts from
this period as evidenced by the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch191 written in paleo-Hebrew
around 150-100 BCE192. So Paul, a converted Jew and Hebrew-speaking (Acts 21:40),
recognizing that some of his former coreligionists distrusted him, mostly cites in his letter
to the Hebrews (written around 60 CE), a text close to the Septuagint (Hebrews 1:6; 10:27,
11:5, 12:13), not the Masoretic text, without arousing criticism from these former Jews.
Genealogies were a sensitive issue for Jews of the first century (1 Timothy 1:4, Titus 3:9).
Now all these recensions are consistent, with the exception of the Masoretic text. Luke and
Josephus insist on the accuracy of their information. Luke specifies: I resolved also, because I
have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent
Theophilus, that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally (Luke
189 M. HARL – Genèse
in: Bible d'Alexandrie I (1986, Cerf) pp. 120-124.

190 G. LARSSON – The Chronology of the Pentateuch a Comparison of the MT and LXX
in: Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 102 (1983) pp. 401-409.

191
Origen points, towards 250 CE, the existence of a Greek version of the Samaritan Pentateuch, but according to E. Tov this
Samariticon would be a translation of a Samaritan revision of the LXX rather than a translation (late) of the Samaritan text.
192 E. TOV & ALS – Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov
Leiden 2003 Ed. Brill p. 239.

1:3-4). However, he cites Qaïnan in his genealogy (Luke 3:36 = LXX Genesis 11:12). How
these two famous writers could they use a different genealogy of the official Hebrew text
without being roundly criticized? This was not the case. The comparison of some verses
illustrates the existence of variants193 of the Hebrew text in the fisrt century, which were
eliminated during later revisions (original in light green, modified in hatching orange). The
Jews therefore revised early few verses for theological reasons (perhaps as early as the
setting of the text by Ezra towards 400 BCE). Order:
1) to revise the text on variants favorable to the Jews (Isaiah 42:1-4 / Matthew 12:18-21):
LXX 4QDtq, 1Qa, 4QExodb NT MT
Jacob is my servant, Look! My servant, Look! My servant Look! My servant,
I will help him: on whom I keep fast hold! whom I chose, on whom I keep fast hold!
Israel my choosen My chosen one, [whom] my beloved, whom My chosen one, [whom]
my soul has accepted him my soul has approved! my soul approved! my soul has approved!
I have put my spirit upon him. I have put my spirit in him. I will put my spirit upon him, I have put my spirit in him.
he shall bring forth judgment Justice to the nations is what and what justice is he will Justice to the nations is what
to the nations. he will bring forth. make clear to the nations. he will bring forth.
He shall not cry, nor lift up He will not cry out or raise He will not wrangle, He will not cry out or raise
his voice, nor shall his voice be [his voice], and in the street nor cry aloud, nor will anyone [his voice], and in the street
heard without. he will not let his voice be hear his voice in the broad he will not let his voice be
A bruised reed shall not heard. No crushed reed will ways. No bruised reed will he heard. No crushed reed will
break, and he break; and as for a dim crush, and no he break; and as for a dim
smoking flax shall he not flaxen wick, he will not smoldering flaxen wick will flaxen wick, he will not
quench; but extinguish it. he extinguish, extinguish it.
he shall bring forth judgment In trueness he will bring forth In trueness he will bring forth
to the truth. He shall shine justice. He will not grow dim justice. He will not grow dim
out, and shall not be nor be crushed nor be crushed
discouraged, until he have set until he sets justice in the until he sends out justice with until he sets justice in the
judgment on the earth; earth itself; success. earth itself;
Indeed, in his name nations and for his law the islands Indeed, in his name nations and for his law the islands
will hope. themselves will keep waiting. will hope. themselves will keep waiting.
2) to prune some verses too favorable to Christians (Deuteronomy 32:43 / Romans 15:10;
Hebrews 1:6) retaining only obscure variants (Psalm 40:6 / Hebrews 10:5):
Rejoice, YOU heavens, with Rejoice, YOU heavens, with
him, him,
and let all the angels of God and let all the angels of God and let all God’s angels do [-]
worship him; worship him; obeisance to him [-]
Rejoice YOU nations, with [-] Be glad, YOU nations, with Be glad, YOU nations, with
his people, [-] his people his people,
and let all the sons of God [-] [-]
strengthen themselves in him; [-] [-]
For he will avenge the blood For he will avenge the blood For he will avenge the blood
of his sons, and he will render of his sons, and he will render of his servants,
vengeance, and recompense vengeance, and recompense And he will pay back
justice to his enemies, justice to his enemies, vengeance to his adversaries
and will reward them that and will reward them that [-]
hate him; hate him; [-]
and the Lord shall purge the and the Lord shall purge the and will indeed make
land of his people. land of his people. atonement for the ground of
his people.
Sacrifice and offering you did Sacrifice and offering you did Sacrifice and offering you did
not want, but you prepared a not want, but you prepared a not delight in; These ears of
body for me. body for me. mine you opened up.
193 H. C OUSIN – La Bible grecque. La Septante
in: Supplément au Cahier Évangiles 74 (1990 Cerf) pp. 24-25, 84-85.
3) to simplify the text or give it a symbolic value (Exodus 1:5 / Acts 7:14):
And Joseph was already in all the souls who issued out of Joseph sent out and called all the souls who issued out of
Egypt. Jacob’s upper thigh came to be Jacob his father and all Jacob’s upper thigh came to be
And all the souls born of 75 souls, but Joseph was his relatives from that place, 70 souls, but Joseph was
Jacob were 75. already in Egypt to the number of 75 souls. already in Egypt
4) to change some verses unfavorable to Judeans (Habakkuk 1:5 / Acts 13:41):

LXX 1QpHab NT MT
Behold it, YOU despisers, Behold it, YOU despisers, Behold it, YOU despisers, See, YOU people, among the
and wonder and wonder at it, and wonder at it, nations, and look on, and stare
marvellously, in amazement at one another.
and vanish, and vanish away, and vanish away, Be amazed;
because I am working because I am working because I am working for there is an activity that one
a work in YOUR days, a work in YOUR days, a work in YOUR days, is carrying on in YOUR days,
a work that YOU people a work that YOU people a work that YOU will by no [which] YOU people will not
will not believe although it will not believe although it means believe even if anyone believe although it is
is related. is related. relates it to YOU in detail. related.
This verse allows to fix the date and the reasons for changes. The translators of the
Bible d'Alexandrie influenced by textual criticism have assumed that the original text should
be Masoretic and it had been misread by the translators of the Septuagint194 but this
contradicts the contextual and historical analysis of this verse195. The immediate context
(Habakkuk 1:4) is clearly against the Judeans that God is going to punish by means of the
Chaldeans (Habakkuk 1:6). This description is consistent with the historical context
(Jeremiah 3:8-20). The meaning of this verse is different depending on whether one reads it
in the Septuagint or in the Masoretic text. In the first case God will punish the Judeans
because they are despisers, while in the other case nations will be spectators of a disaster.
The Hebrew word "despise" is very sharp because it literally means "traitors" (Isaiah 24:16),
exactly translated into Greek by 3"8"=1,-98">. The change of meaning comes from a single
letter read d (?) or ô (@): bogedîm ('&?A$) "traitors" or bagôyim ('&@A$) "among the nations."
Barthélemy assumed that a Greek manuscript of Habakkuk, dated the 1st century was a
recension of the Septuagint from the Masoretic text. But if the recension of Aquila (129
CE) translates "among the nations", the manuscript 8HevXIIgr contains the words:
tr]a[itors be am]azed, because a wo[rk in d]ays of you, that [you would not believe though it] was told.
The Hebrew script used in the recension was therefore the word "traitors" and not "among
the nations." The Pesher of Habakkuk (1QpHab II:1-6), dated the 1st century BCE, is
written in Hebrew and comments on the text of Habakkuk 1:5: [... The explanation of the word
is about] traitors with the man of lie, because they did not [believe to the words of the] Teacher of
Righteousness (coming) from God's mouth, and about trai[tors of the new covenant] bec[ause] they did not
believe in God's covenant [and have profaned] his holy na[me]. And similarly the explanation of the word
[is about tr]aitors of the last days. The fact that the word "traitors", in full writing ('&?A@$), is
repeated three times indicates that the Essene writer focused on it. He explains that the
traitors are the Judeans (of his time). The fact that the destruction of the Temple could be
interpreted as a punishment from God against the Judeans because they had become
traitors will be unbearable for most Jews after 70 CE. The Hebrew text has therefore been
modified to be acceptable. In addition, changing a specific sanction into a dramatic general
194 M. HARL & AL – Les douze prophètes 4 - 9 in: Bible d'Alexandrie
1999 Paris Éd. Cerf pp. 260-263.
195 I. HIMBAZA -Texte massorétique et Septante en Habaquq 1,5a. Réévaluation des témoins textuels en faveur de l'antériorité de la LXX
in: Orbis biblicus et orientalis n°233 (2007) pp. 45-57.

description is more logic than the reverse. Chronological corrections are more difficult to
detect when they are isolated, as in the case of the text of 1 Samuel 2:22; 4:15,18196:
[H*] (-400) 4QSama (-250) LXX (-160) MT (+90)
And Eli was very old, and And Eli was very old, he And Eli was very old And Eli was very old, and
he had heard of all that was 90 years old. And he and he had heard of all he had heard of all that
his sons kept doing to all had heard of all that his that his sons kept doing his sons kept doing to all
Israel and how they would lie sons kept doing to all to all Israel Israel and how they would lie
down with the women that Israel [- -] [- -] down with the women that
were serving at the entrance of were serving at the entrance of
the tent of meeting. the tent of meeting.
Eli was 98 years old, and Eli was 90 years old, and Eli was 90 years old, and Eli was 98 years old, and
his eyes had set so that he his eyes had set so that his eyes were fixed and his eyes had set so that he
was unable to see. he was unable to see. he saw not. was unable to see.
he died, because the man he died, because the he died, because the he died, because the man
was old and heavy; and he man was old and heavy; man was old and heavy; was old and heavy; and he
himself had judged Israel and he himself had and he himself had himself had judged Israel
40 years. judged Israel 20 years. judged Israel 20 years. 40 years.
These variants show that the text of the Septuagint is based on an ancient Hebrew
text (around 250 BCE). Differences compared to the original (H*) are explained by glosses,
simplifications (often without ideological value as the "90 years" of Eli) and pruning.
However, the "40 years" come from a change because with a period of "20 years" the total
would be 460 years instead of 480 years (this value was also changed in 440 in the
Septuagint). This period is confirmed, because after 8 years of judicature of Abdon there is
a period of oppression of the Philistines (Judges 12:13-13:1) during which he acts as judge.
At his death, the ark was captured by the Philistines and the Israelites went back after 7
months (1 Samuel 6:1-21), which marks the end of oppression. Samson is then judge for 20
years (Judges 13:5, 16:31). Eli the high priest has officiated throughout the duration of the
oppression of the Philistines, 40 years, in agreement with the Masoretic text and data from
Flavius Josephus (Jewish Antiquities V:359). As this duration was typically a reign of peace
(David or Solomon) it was halved retrospectively by scribes of that time (Sadducees) in
order to present priesthood in a more favorable way. This example (4QSama) shows two
points: 1) chronological changes in the Hebrew text have started very early (before 250
BCE) but also 2) the original text (H*) is maintained until the end of the 1st century (in the
temple of Jerusalem) because Josephus could see it.
To identify the origin of a text correction one must determine at what epoch it
appears and then to understand "whose the crime benefits". For example the text of
Deuteronomy 27 and translation is inherited by all Jews and Christians (Protestants,
Roman Catholics, and others) in the world. The lone exception is the Samaritans because
their text in 27:4 reads “Mount Gerizim”. For non-Samaritans this passage is problematic.
Why? The Mount of Blessing is the beautiful Mount Gerizim197; there Israel gathers to
bless (Deuteronomy 27:12). But, our text records a very perplexing commandment: to
build the altar on Mount Ebal, the Mountain of Cursing. Did some scribe mistakenly copy
“Ebal” for “Gerizim”? Should we imagine that once the text read “Mount Gerizim.” For
centuries, experts have assumed that the Samaritans changed the text and that “the received
text” is original. There are reasons to doubt these experts; and a recently discovered text
may prove their argument ceases to be persuasive198. Text of Deuterinomy 27:4-5:
196 M. HARL – Premier livre des Règnes 9.1
in: Bible d'Alexandrie (1997 Paris) Éd. Cerf pp. 28-29, 167.
197 The beauty of Mount Gerizim is due to its fertility in contrast with rocky, largely barren Mount Ebal.
198 J. H. CHARLESWORTH – The Discovery of an Unknown Dead Sea Scroll: The Original Text of Deuteronomy 27?
in: Ohio Wesleyan Magazine. Retrieved 29 July 2012.

LXX (-280) PS (-130) Qfrag (-30) MT (+90)

[when YO]U [have [when YO]U [have [when YO]U [have when YOU have crossed
crossed] the Jo[r]dan, crossed] the Jo[r]dan, crossed] the Jo[r]dan, the Jordan, YOU should
YOU shall set up [these YOU shall set up [these YOU shall set up [these set up these stones, just as
stones, about [which I stones, about [which I stones, about [which I I am commanding YOU
charge YOU t]oday, on charge YOU t]oday, on charge YOU t]oday, on today, in Mount Ebal, and
Mount Ebal, and coat Mount Gerizim, and coat Mount Gerizim, and coat you must whitewash them
[them with plaster. (And [them with plaster. (And [them with plaster. (And with lime. You must also
there, you shall build an there, you shall build an there, you shall build an build an altar there to
altar to YHWH your altar to YHWH your altar to YHWH your YHWH your God, an
God, an altar of] st]ones. God, an altar of] st]ones. God, an altar of] st]ones. altar of stones. You must
[You must] not [wie]ld [You must] not [wie]ld [You must] not [wie]ld not wield an iron tool
upon them an iron (tool). upon them an iron (tool). upon them an iron (tool). upon them.
The fragment from Qumran of Deuteronomy 27:4-5 confirms the existence of two
versions of the Pentateuch199. Two other manuscripts agree with this reading: the Old Latin
Bible (Codex 100) has garzin and the Greek manuscript, Papyrus Giessen 19, has en ar(?)
gar[i]sim “on Mount(?) Garizim”. Furthermore it is written: When Jehovah your God has brought
you into the land that you are entering to occupy, you shall set the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse
on Mount Ebal (Deuteronomy 11:29). Thus, it is unthinkable that any text of Deuteronomy
would report that God wanted Israel to build an altar on the Mount of Cursing, Ebal. King
Abimelech (1259-1256), for instance, considered Mount Gerizim as a blessed mount
(Judges 9:6-7) as the Samaritan woman who spoke to Jesus (John 4:19-20). On the other
hand Non-Samaritans follow the Davidic tradition, stressed in Deuteronomy, that only on
Zion is one to worship: Jehovah has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his habitation: This is my resting
place forever; here I will reside, for I have desired it (...) It is like the dew of Hermon, which falls on the
mountains of Zion. For there Jehovah ordained his blessing, life forevermore (Psalms 132:13-14, 133:3).
According to Josephus, Sanballat said to Alexander (332 BCE) that he would build a
temple similar to that in Jerusalem on Mount Gerizim (Jewish Antiquities XI:310-311). In
order to discourage a parallel cult (1Kings 9:3), scribes of the Temple (Sadducees) have
changed the text of Deuteronomy 27 to discredit the legitimacy of Mount Gerizim. The
text of Joshua 8:33 in the Septuagint adds the following comment (to confirm the text of
Deuteronomy 27:4): they erected an altar on Mount Ebal, which is not in the Massoretic text!
The above examples show that textual criticism, which relies only on existing texts,
can not detect theological corrections. This is particularly evident for the Book of Daniel.
Textual criticism200 now considers that the Masoretic text of Daniel dates back around 165
BCE201 and differences with the text of the Septuagint are generally in favor of the Hebrew
text but with some exceptions (can not decide). These findings are generally accepted in the
academic world, but are illogical for two reasons: 1) Daniel is always presented as a real
person (Ezekiel 14:14,20; 28:3) who wrote and finished his account in the 3rd year of Cyrus'
reign (Daniel 10:3), and 2) highly accurate prophecies of Daniel are essential to identify the
Messiah and the end of times (1 Peter 1:21, Matthew 24:15). It is moreover the book of
Daniel, which was used by Jews and Christians in the famous quarrel of Barcelona (1263
CE) to find out who was the Messiah through the debate organized by the King of Spain
between Paul Christiani, Jewish convert to Catholicism, and Rabbi Moses ben Nahman
(Ramban), one of the highest authorities of Spanish Jewry202. The book of Daniel is thus a
199 C. NIHAN – Garizim et Ébal dans le Pentateuque
in: Semitica n°54 (2012) pp. 185-210.
200 D. BARTHÉLEMY – Critique textuelle de l'Ancien Testament Tome 3
Göttingen 1992 Éd. Universitaires Fribourg pp. 435-496.

201 J. MARGAIN – Le Livre de Daniel. Commentaires philologique du texte araméen
Paris 1994 Éd. Beauchesne pp. 7-8.

202 NAHMANIDE - La dispute de Barcelone
in: collection «Les Dix Paroles» 1984 Éd. Verdier pp. 45-47.
key book in the Bible, the prophetic book par excellence, hence the importance of its
accuracy. Several Hebrew manuscripts of Daniel are dated around 100 BCE, however they
are close to the Masoretic text but no identical to it203. The Greek translation of the book
of Daniel (LXX) is not literal and contains errors or corrections (highlighted), but it is
unclear whether it would not be the case of the Hebrew text as well204. The only way to
know is to do a chronological analysis of historical data inside the two texts205:
Old Greek LXX (c. 140 BCE) Theodotion LXX = MT (c. 90 CE) Reference
O King, you made a feast for your friends, and and you have exalted yourself against the Lord Daniel 5:23
you were drinking wine, and the vessels of God of heaven, and the vessels of his house
the house of the living God were brought to they brought before you, and you and your
you, and you were drinking with them, you nobles and your concubines and your consorts were
and your nobles drinking wine with them
Then Baltasar the king clothed Daniel in purple, And Baltasar spoke and they clothed Daniel in Daniel 5:29-30
and he put a gold torque on him, and he gave him purple, and the gold torque they put around his neck,
authority over a 3rd part of his kingdom. and he proclaimed concerning him that he was 3rd in
And the meaning came upon Baltasar the the kingdom.
king, and the rule was taken away from the
Chadeans and was given to the Medes and to In that very night Baltasar the Chaldean king, was
the Persians, and Xerxes who was king of the killed and Darius the Mede received the kingdom,
Medes, received the kingdom. being 62 years old.
(...) and shattered their bones, and Daniel was (...) and pulverized all their bones. Daniel 6:24
appointed over the whole kingdom of Darius.
And King Darius was added to his fathers, and And Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and in Daniel 6:28
Cyrus the Persian received the kingdom the reign of Cyrus the Persian
During the 3rd year, when Baltasar was king, there In the 3rd year of the reign of King Baltasar a vision Daniel 7:1,20
was a vision, which I, Daniel, saw (...) appeared to me —I, Daniel (...)
The ram that you saw, which had the horns, is the The ram that you saw, which had the horns, is the
king of the Medes and Persians. king of the Medes and Persians.
70 weeks have been decided for your people 70 weeks have been cut short for your people Daniel 9:24-27
and for the city, Sion: for sin to be and for the holy city: for sin to be
consummated and to make iniquities scarce consummated and to seal sins and to atone for
and to blot out iniquities and to comprehend iniquities and to bring everlasting
the vision and for everlasting righteousness righteousness and to seal vision and prophet
to be given and for the vision to be and to anoint a holy of holies. And you shall
consummated and to gladden a holy of know and shall understand: from the going forth of the
holies. And you shall understand and will rejoice word to respond to and to rebuild Ierousalem until an
and will discover ordinances to respond, and you anointed [Messiah] leader, there will be 7 weeks and
[Daniel] will build Ierousalem as a city for the Lord. 62 weeks, and it [Ierousalem] will return, and streets
And after 7 and 70 and 62 weeks, an anointing and a wall will be built, and the seasons will be
will be removed and will not be. And a king of emptied out. And after the 62 weeks, an anointing
nations will demolish the city and the sanctuary along will be destroyed, and there is no judgment in it.
with the anointed one [Messiah], and his And it will destroy the city and the sanctuary along
consummation will come with wrath even with the leader who is to come. And they will be cut
until the time of consummation. He will be off by a flood, and there will be annihilations
attacked through war. And the covenant will to the finish of a shortened war. And it will
prevail for many, and it will return again and strengthen a covenant with many, 1 week, and
be rebuilt broad and long and at the by half of the week sacrifice and libation will cease, and
consummation of times and in half of the week the in the temple there will be an abomination of
sacrifice and the libation will cease, and in the temple desolations even until a consummation, and a
there will be an abomination of desolations until the consummation will be given for the
consummation of a season, and a consummation desolation.
will be given for the desolation.
203 J.J. COLLINS, P.W. FLINT, C. VANEPPS – The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, Volume 2
Leiden 2002 Ed. Brill pp. 573-607.
204 S. PACE JEANSONNE - The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7-12
in : The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 19 Washington 1988 pp. 103-133.
205 R.T. MCLAY – Daniel. Old Greek / Theodotion
in : New English Translation of the Septuagint (2007) Ed. Oxford University Press pp. 991-1022.
at a set time. And he will enter into Egypt, At the appointed time he will return and will Daniel 11:29-
and as the first so the last will be. And the Romans come into the south, and as the first even so the 30
will come and will expel him and rebuke him [the last will not be. And the Kitians who go forth will
king of Egypt]. And he will back [and will be come against him [the king of the north], and he will
angered] against the covenant of the holy be humbled, and he will return and will be
one enraged against the holy covenant
From the time that the [perpetual] sacrifice From the time of the removal of the regular Daniel 12:11
was taken away and the abomination of offering and the abomination of desolation
desolation was prepared to be given, there will be given —1290 days.
are 1290 days.
The two Greek translations (LXX) are similar, but the original Hebrew text used
(H*) had to be very close to the Masoretic text (MT). The first translator has corrected the
Hebrew text to match the desecration of the Temple of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV206 that
lasted about 3 years (from 15 Kislev in 167 BCE to 25 Kislev in 164 BCE). The name
Kittim was formerly understood by the Jews as representing the Greeks, from Alexander to
Antiochus IV (1 Maccabees 1:1, 8:5), then from Antichus IV (not before), according to the
Pesher Nahum (4Q169)207, the Kittim were representing the Romans. As one can see the
text of Daniel 9:24-27 is translated differently, several indicators show that the Hebrew text
of reference was indeed the Masoretic text. A Qumran manuscript in Hebrew (11Q13),
dated around 100 BCE, explains the text of Daniel 9:26208: He will proclaim to them the Jubilee,
thereby releasing them from the debt of all their sins. He shall proclaim this decree in the 1st week of the
jubilee period that follows 9 jubilee periods. Then the "Day of Atonement" shall follow after the 10th jubilee
period, when he shall atone for all the Sons of Light, and the people who are predestined to Melchizedek
(...) "The messengers" is the Anointed [Messiah] of the spirit, of whom Daniel spoke; "After the 62
weeks, an Anointed [Messiah] shall be cut off" (Daniel 9:26). The "messenger who brings good news, who
announces Salvation" is the one of whom it is written; "to proclaim the year of YHWH's favor, the day of
the vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn" (Isaiah 61:2). The quoted text is strictly that of
the Masoretic text, while that of the Septuagint is (incomprehensible): And after 7 and 70 and
62 weeks, an anointing will be removed. The word Messiah has disappeared and the durations
have been changed (those of the Masoretic text are logical since the total duration of 70
weeks is equal to the sum of the intermediary durations: 7 + 62 + 1 = 70).
The book of Daniel is little commented in the Qumran manuscripts with two
exceptions: 1) when it is commented the Book of Jubilees serves as a reference and 2) the
"son of man, choosen by God himself, who has to become the king of the coming world"
(Daniel 7:9-14) is widely quoted and commented on the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch XLVI:1-
4, XLVIII:2-7; LXII:6-16). These texts show that most of the first-century Jews were
expecting a messianic king (rather than a messiah for salvation). For example, according to
Tacitus: The majority [of the Jews] were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the
present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to
rule the world. This mysterious prophecy really referred to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people,
true to the selfish ambitions of mankind, thought that this exalted destiny was reserved for them, and not
even their calamities opened their eyes to the truth (Histories 5:13). According to Suetonius: There
had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming
from Judaea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome, as afterwards appeared
206 M. HADAS-LEBEL – La révolte des Maccabées
Clermont-Ferrand 2012 Éd. LEMME edit pp. 41-46.
207 [The interpretation of it concerns Jerusalem, which has become] a dwelling for the wicked ones of the nations. "Where the lion went to enter, the lion's cub [and
no one to disturb". The interpretation of it concern Deme]trius, King of Greece, who sought to enter Jerusalem on the advice of the Seeker-After-Smooth-Things,
[but God did not give Jerusalem] into the power of the kings of Greece from Antiochus until the rise of the rulers of the Kittim; but afterwards [the city] will be
trampled [by the Gentiles ...]
208 M. WISE, M. ABEGG JR, E. C OOK – Les manuscrits de la mer Morte
Pari 2001 Éd. Plon pp. 257-260, 598-600.

from the event, the people of Judaea took to themselves (The Life of Vespasian IV:5). According to
Dio Cassius: This prophecy about the tooth became a reality on the following day; and Nero himself in his
dreams once thought that he had brought the car of Jupiter to Vespasian's house. These portents needed
interpretation; but not so the saying of a Jew named Josephus: he, having earlier been captured by
Vespasian and imprisoned, laughed and said: You may imprison me now [in 68 BCE], but a year from
now, when you have become emperor, you will release me (Roman History LXV:1). According to
Josephus: But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle
that was also found in their sacred writings, how about that time, one from their country should become
governor of the habitable earth. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and
many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the
government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid
fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own
pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking
of their city and their own destruction (Jewish War VI:312-315).
The text of Daniel 7 was well known at that time, but if Josephus was able to apply
the prophecy of the "Son of man" to Vespasian it is because he read and interpreted the
Hebrew text (MT): And it will destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the leader who is to come
[Roman ruler?], rather than the Greek text (LXX): And a king of nations will demolish the city and
the sanctuary along with the anointed one [Messiah]. Despite he was reading the same text as
Christians, Josephus understood it according to Jewish tradition, identifying the "disgusting
thing that causes desolation standing in the holy place" with the armies of Antiochus
Epiphanes209 while Christians identified it with Roman armies (Matthew 24:15; Luke 21:20)
and the "Son of man" with Jesus (Matthew 26:64), not Vespasian. The Jews expected the
coming of a messianic king until the defeat of Bar Kochba in 135 CE.
What proves that the text of Daniel has been written in 535 BCE rather than 165
BCE? In fact, several very precise information inside could only be known prior to -535,
which have been known only from the 19th century through archaeological discoveries:
! Babylonian kings were in the habit of drinking wine with their concubines and their
consorts at royal banquets. Former historians did not know this strange custom.
! The inscriptions of Nabonidus210 show that in his 3rd year of reign (in -553) he entrusted
the kingdom to his eldest son, Belshazzar (Baltasar), and retired to Tema. According to
these indications, the actual king of Babylon in -539 was therefore Belshazzar, (in his
14th year of reign), not Nabonidus. Prior to 1854, Belshazzar had been an enigma for
historians and archeologists who knew nothing of him outside the book of Daniel. Both
Xenophon (Cyropaedia VII:5;28-30) and Herodotus (The Histories I:191) recount the
fall of Babylon to Cyrus the Great, yet neither of these writers give the name of the king
of Babylon. Additionally, both Berossus’ and Ptolemy's king lists have Nabonidus as the
last king of Babylon with no mention of Belshazzar.
209 Daniel was become so illustrious and famous, on account of the opinion men had that he was beloved of God (...) God showed to him that it should fight
against his nation, and take their city by force, and bring the temple worship to confusion, and forbid the sacrifices to be offered for 1296 days. Daniel wrote that
he saw these visions in the Plain of Susa; and he hath informed us that God interpreted the appearance of this vision after the following manner: He said that the
ram signified the kingdoms of the Medes and Persians, and the horns those kings that were to reign in them; and that the last horn signified the last king, and
that he should exceed all the kings in riches and glory: that the he-goat signified that one should come and reign from the Greeks, who should twice fight with the
Persian, and overcome him in battle, and should receive his entire dominion: that by the great horn which sprang out of the forehead of the he-goat was meant the
first king; and that the springing up of four horns upon its falling off, and the conversion of every one of them to the four quarters of the earth, signified the
successors that should arise after the death of the first king, and the partition of the kingdom among them, and that they should be neither his children, nor of his
kindred, that should reign over the habitable earth for many years; and that from among them there should arise a certain king that should overcome our nation
and their laws, and should take away their political government, and should spoil the temple, and forbid the sacrifices to be offered for 3 years' time. And indeed
it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel's vision, and what he wrote many years before they came
to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them. All these things
did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at
the honor wherewith God honored Daniel (Jewish Antiquities X:263-280).
210 J. BRIEND M.J. SEUX Les textes du Proche-Orient ancien et l'histoire d'Israël

! According to Daniel 8:1-6,20 a ram with two horns appeared in the 3rd year of
Belshazzar, in 550 BCE, representing the kings of Media and Persia. Indeed in 550 BCE
Cyrus II became king of Persia and Harpagus, his coregent, was king of Media211.
! According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, Ugbaru (Gobryas) was the governor of Gutium,
the Darius the Mede of Daniel, who actually led Cyrus the Great's army that captured
Babylon on 17/VII/17 of Nabonidus (October 539 BCE), then Cyrus entered Babylon
on 3/VIII/17. Ugbaru, his co-ruler, installed governors in Babylon (as he died on
October 26, 538 BCE he can not be the Gubaru appearing 3 years later in November
535 BCE). According to the timeline of Nabonidus Chronicle the [actual] king of
Babylon was Ugbaru (even if he was not formally enthroned) during the period from
3/VIII/00 to 11/VIII/01 of Cyrus. As Cyrus received the title of "King of Babylon"
only after month X of the 1st year of his reign212 (prior this date, he was only "King of
Lands"), year 1 of Cambyses coincides with year 2 of Cyrus. Cyrus chose Cambyses as
King of Babylon from [-]/X/01, who was enthroned by the Babylonians only from
4/I/02 (Akitu feast) 2 months later. The co-regency between Cyrus (actual King of
Babylon) and Cambyses (official king of Babylon) has begun informally from [-]/X/01
of Cyrus as confirmed by a double dated document (TuM 2-3, 92)213: month XI, day 25,
year 1 of [Cyrus] year of accession of kingship! of Ganzyse! King of Babylon and of Lands. It is
interesting to notice that Ugbaru was likely 62 years old214 in 539 BCE (Daniel 5:31).
The extraordinarily precise historical and chronological data from the Hebrew book
of Daniel (MT) prove its authenticity and reliability. Chronology is essential for testing the
accuracy of a document. First Jewish chronographs215 as Demetrius (c. 220 BCE) and
Eupolemus (c. 160 BCE) have dated all the major biblical events from the creation of
Adam, or by age of the world (AM). However, in the Book of Jubilees216 (c. 160-150) whole
biblical story is dated by jubilees of 49 years instead of 50 (Leviticus 25:10-11). The Book
of Biblical Antiquities217 (LAB), written by a Jew (pseudo-Philo) between 80 BCE and 70
CE (c. 50 CE?), has yet chronological data in agreement with those of the Septuagint.
Finally, the Seder Olam218 (SO) permanently fixed (c. 160 CE) Jewish chronology, in
agreement with the Masoretic text. The Septuagint (LXX), completed around 160-150
BCE, the Masoretic Text (TM), around 90 CE, and the work of Josephus (FJ), to 95 CE,
have very different chronological data219. Those for the period from Adam to Deluge come
from Genesis 5:3-31 and those from Deluge to Abraham in Genesis 11:10-26:
211 The chronology of Median kings comes from Herodotus (The Histories I:101-108) who mentions a total solar eclipse at the end of
Cyaxares reign (dated May 28, 585 BCE according to astronomy). He wrote that Astyages, after a reign of 35 years, was defeated by
Cyrus who thus became the ruler of Persia and Media, Harpagus becoming a coregent (The Histories I:127-130, 162, 177-178) called
"Lieutenant of Cyrus" by Strabo (Geography VI:1) or "Commandant of Cyrus" by Diodorus Siculus (Historical Library IX:31:1). Harpagus is
called Oibaras by Ctesias (Persica §13,36,45). According to Flavius Josephus, Cyrus took Babylon with the help of Darius the Mede, a
"son of Astyages", at the epoch of Belshazzar, in the year 17 of Nabonidus (Jewish Antiquities X:247-249).
212 S. ZAWADZKI - Gubaru: A Governor or a Vassal King of Babylonia?
in: Eos vol. LXXV (1987 Wroclaw) pp.69-86.

213 O. KRÜCKMANN – Neubabylonische Rechts- und Wervaltungstexte
in: Texte und materialien der Frau prof. Hilprecht collection of Babylonian antiquities II-III, Leipzig 1933, N°92.
214 One can suppose that Harpagus (Ugbaru) was at least 20 years old at the birth of Cyrus (The Histories I:108) who began to reign in
559 BCE, when he was probably 20 years old. Under this assumption, Harpagus was born in 599 BCE (= 559 + 20 + 20) and was
around 60 years old at the time of the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE, that agrees with the biblical text.
215 J. FINEGAN - Handbook of Biblical Chronology
Massachusetts 1999 Ed. Hendrickson Publishers pp. 140-145.

216 A. NYLAND – The Book of Jubilees
Uralla 2010 Ed. Smith and Stirling Publishers 5-122.

JAMES C. VANDERKAM -The Book of Jubilees
2001, Sheffield Academic Press pp. 17-21.
217 C. PERROT, P.-M. BOGAERT – Les antiquités bibliques Tome II
Paris 1976 Éd. Cerf pp. 74, 81-92.

218 H.W. GUGGENHEIMER – Seder Olam. The Rabbinic View of Biblical Chronology
Lanham 2005 Ed. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

219 J. H UGHES – Secrets of the Times. Myth and History in Biblical Chronology
in: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 66 (1990) pp. 57, 267-272.
H* LXX Jub. PS LAB TM FJ SO

(-400) (-280) (-160) (-130) (50?) (90) (95) (160)
Adam 230/700 230/700 130/800 130/800 [130]/700 130/800 230/700 130/800
Seth 205/707 205/707 105/[--] 105/807 105/707 105/807 205/707 108/[--]
Enosh 190/715 190/715 [-]90/[--] [-]90/815 180/715 [-]90/815 190/715 [-]90/[--]
Qenan 170/740 170/740 [-]70/[--] [-]70/840 170/730 [-]70/840 170/740 [-]70/[--]
Mahalaleel 165/730 165/730 [-]66/[--] [-]65/830 165/730 [-]65/830 165/730 [-]68/[--]
Yered 162/800 162/800 [-]61/[--] [-]62/785 162/800 162/800 162/800 162/[--]
Henok 165/200 165/200 [-]65/[--] [-]65/300 165/200 [-]65/300 165/200 [-]65/[--]
Mathusalem 187/782 167/802 [-]65/[--] [-]67/653 187/782 187/782 187/782 187/782
Lamek 182/565 188/565 152/[--] [-]53/600 182/585 182/595 [-]82/625 182/[--]
Noah 600/350 600/350 608/342 600/350 300/[--] 600/350 600/350 600/350
Adam-Deluge - - 1308 - 1652 - 1662 1656
[Total] [2256] [2242] [1412] [1307] [1746] [1656] [2156] [1662]
Sem 100/500 100/500 103/[-] 100/500 [-]/[-] 100/500 [100]/[-] 100/500
Deluge-Sem 2 2 2 2 2 12 2
Arpakshad 135/403 135/430 [-]35/[-] 135/303 [-]/[-] [-]35/403 135/[-] [-]35/[-]
Kainan 130/330 130/330 [-]30/[-] - - - -
Shelah 130/303 130/330 57/[-] 130/303 [-]/[-] [-]30/403 130/[-] [-]30/[-]
Eber 134/370 134/370 71/[-] 134/270 [-]/[-] [-]34/430 134/[-] [-]34/[-]
Peleg 130/209 130/209 64/[-] 130/209 [-]/[-] [-]30/209 130/[-] [-]30/[-]
Reu 132/207 132/207 12/[-] 132/207 [-]/119 [-]32/207 132/[-] [-]32/[-]
Serug 130/200 130/200 108/[-] 130/100 29/67 [-]30/200 130/[-] [-]30/[-]
Nahor I 79/129 79/129 57/[-] 79/[-]69 34/200 29/119 120/[-] 29/[-]
Terah 70/135 70/135 62/[-] 70/65 70/[-] 70/135 70/135 70/135
Nahor II (+60) (+60) 70/[-] (+60) (+60) (+60) (+60)
Deluge-Abraham - - - - - 992 -
[Total] [1072] [1072] [568] [942] [292] [993] [292]
H* LXX Dem. Jub. Eup. PS LAB TM FJ SO

(-400) (-280) (-220) (-160) (-158) (-130) (50?) (90) (95) (160)
Deluge (AM) [2256] 2242 2264 1308 [1307] 2146* [1656] 2156* 1656
Abraham (AM) [3328] [3314] 3334 1876 2064 [2309] [2008] [3208] [2008]
Abraham (BCE) [2038] [2038] [2038] 3243 [2038] [2038] [2038] [2038]
Adam (BCE) 5352 5372 4118 5307 4347 4046 5246 4046
According to this reconstruction of chronological data, corrections were performed

in two steps: 1) after the onset of the Book of Jubilees (c. -160) durations in Genesis 5:3-31
are reduced by 100 years and are adopted by a part of the Jews, as Eupolemus, and by the
Samaritans and 2) then, at the Synod of Yabneh (c. 90 CE), durations in Genesis 11:10-26
are also reduced by 100 years and are canonized by the rabbis220 (Pharisees).
Errors (in red) are detectable because: 1) they are random and/or 2) they affect a
total known and/or 3) create inconsistencies in the order of events. Methuselah is a good
example: he would fathered Lamech at the age of 167 and would still lived 802 years, which
generates chronological inconsistency, because in that case he would have survived the
flood 14 years [= 802 - (188 + 600)]. It is indeed an error since Demetrius (c. -220) date the
flood in 2264 AM (year of the world) instead of 2242 AM, 20 years longer than in the text
of the Septuagint. The couple 167/802 therefore comes from a change: (187 - 20)/(782 +
20), Methuselah would be died the year of the flood (782 = 182 + 600). The Samaritan
Pentateuch corrected this error by drawing on the Book of Jubilees making Lamech died at
the time the flood as Methuselah (653 = 53+600, 600 = 565+35, 53 = 88 - 35). Similarly,
as Abraham is mentioned first among the son of Nahor II, the copyists of the Samaritan
Pentateuch assumed he would be the first-born and therefore decreased the age of Nahor
from 135 to 65 (= 135 - 70).
220 There were disagreements between Pharisees and former Sadducees regarding "genuine" holy texts (M. Yadaim 4:6-8).
The first 100 years shifts appeared after the restoration of the Temple (c. -160),
profaned by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, seen as a prophetic fulfillment of Daniel 9221. The
Pentateuch (Temple) was copied by Sadducean scribes while those used in synagogues were
copied by Pharisean scribes. Scribe (Pharisee) at this time had such prestige that it is called
scribe of justice (1Enoch 12:4; 15:1). We note that the paternity greater than 130 years have
all been reduced by 100 years, they have in fact been “Hellenized”, in agreement with the
text of Genesis 18:12 assuming a maximum of 100 years (prodigious age were accepted,
because they corresponded to heroic times of Greek mythology). But in order not changing
the final age of the characters, their remaining lifetime has been increased by 100 years. If
the Jewish scribes of the Septuagint (c. -280) had corrected the text by increasing all ages
100 years, the age of Nahor should be 129 years instead of 79 and the ages of Yered,
Methuselah, Lamech and Noah would have been 100 years higher.
Genesis 5:3-31 H* (-400) LXX (-280) Jub. (-160) PS (-130) TM (90) FJ (95)
Adam 230/700 230/700 130/800 130/800 130/800 230/700
Seth 205/707 205/707 105/[--] 105/807 105/807 205/707
Enosh 190/715 190/715 [-]90/[--] [-]90/815 [-]90/815 190/715
Qenan 170/740 170/740 [-]70/[--] [-]70/840 [-]70/840 170/740
Mahalaleel 165/730 165/730 [-]66/[--] [-]65/830 [-]65/830 165/730
Yered 162/800 162/800 [-]61/[--] [-]62/785 162/800 162/800
Henok 165/200 165/200 [-]65/[--] [-]65/300 [-]65/300 165/200
Mathusalem 187/782 167/802 [-]65/[--] [-]67/653 187/782 187/782
Lamek 182/565 188/565 152/[--] [-]53/600 182/595 [-]82/625
Noah 600/350 600/350 608/342 600/350 600/350 600/350
Adam-Deluge - - 1308 - - 1662
[sum] [2256] [2242] [1412] [1307] [1656] [2156]
The chronology of the Samaritan Pentateuch for the first period, from Adam to the
Flood, is similar to that of the Book of Jubilees since the total is 1307 years in line with the
1308 years indicated in the Book of Jubilees (while the calculated sum is 1412 years!). This
coincidence is not accidental because if the worship in the Temple had been restored
thanks to the heroic sacrifices of the Maccabees, the choice of the high priest however had
led to a disagreement about his legitimacy and various reactions of support or rejection (the
great priest being considered impious) according to religious groups222: Pharisees,
Sadducees, Essenes and Samaritans (Jewish Antiquities XIII:171-172) or political groups:
Hasmoneans, Hellenists and Maccabeans. This split has had a significant impact on the
copy of the biblical text. Indeed, while Ezra the priest had initiated the process copies of
the Law (Ezra 7:6-12), this task was then assigned to the Levites (Nehemiah 13:13).
Although the Samaritans are syncretic, like the Jews of Elephantine, they were not related
to the Gentiles (2Kings 17:24-41). During the Jewish uprising Judah Maccabee used
Samaria as rear base (2Maccabees 15:1) which means support in that region. Similarly, Jews
and Samaritans were both associated because during the repression by the Greeks the
temples of Jerusalem and Gerizim are both desecrated (2 Maccabees 6:2). The period 168-
128 is extremely complex because the reports of different religious groups with the
authorities have fluctuated between support and rejection regarding to the high priest
chosen by the Greek power223. Thus, Antiochus IV deposed the high priest Onias III (185-
175) and replaced it with Jason (175-172) who is also deposed and replaced by Menelaus
(172-164) who was not Sadducee "son of Zadoc," that was a violation of biblical law
221 Josephus, who was a Pharisee, applied Daniel's prophecy to Antiochus IV for proving God's providence (Jewish Antiquities X:276).
222 J.P. MEIER - Un certain juif Jésus Les données de l'histoire III
223 S.C. MIMOUNI – Le judaïsme ancien du VIe siècle avant notre ère au IIIe siècle de notre ère
Paris 2012 Éd. Presses Universitaires de France pp. 298-351, 585-595.

(Ezekiel 40:46). Menelaus then makes murdered Onias III (in -170) what led Jason going
into Egypt (in -168) and Onias IV, the son of Onias III, founding a temple in Leontopolis
(Isaiah 19:19). Antiochus V deposed Menelaus and replaced it with Alcimus (164-161) who
was considered illegitimate and was replaced with Jonathan (161-143) by Judah Maccabee.
Confusion regarding the high priest climaxed in 161 BCE since Jason was accepted
by the Sadducees but considered illegitimate by the Pharisees and Samaritans who only
recognized Jonathan (the Essenes were more radical by rejecting this high priest as impious
because of Onias IV the only high priest belonging to the legitimate branch). During the
period 168-128 appeared a Rabbinic version of the Bible, copied by scribes of the Pharisees
(Mark 2:16), alongside the priestly version copied by Saducees. These two versions differed
only on theological issues such as the role of the temple, the legitimacy of the high priest
and the eschatological chronology224. The rabbinical version appeared at the same time as
the texts of Daniel (in Greek) and Sirach, which now applying the murder of the Messiah in
Daniel 9:25-27 to Onias III225 (1Maccabees 1:54). In addition, the legitimacy of high priests
is no longer respected226 and a new biblical chronology as it appears at the beginning of the
Book of Jubilees227: This is the history of the division of the days of the law and of the testimony, of the
events of the years, of their weeks, of their jubilees throughout all the world's years, which the Lord told
Moses on Mount Sinai when he went up there to receive the tables of the law and the commandment (...)
God said: Listen to everything that I'm going to tell you on this mountain, and write it in a book. This is
so that their generations will know that I have not abandoned them despite all the evil which they do by
disobeying the covenant which I will establish this day on Mount Sinai between you and me for their
generations. So then when all these things happen to them, they will realize that I am more honorable than
they are in all their judgments and their actions, and they will realize that I have been straightforward with
them. Indeed, you are to write down everything I tell you this day. I know their rebellious, stubborn nature.
I will bring them to the land I promised to their ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I said to them: I
am giving a land flowing with milk and honey to your descendants. They will eat and be full, and they will
turn to strange gods, to gods which cannot rescue them from any of their troubles. This will be heard as a
witness against them. They will forget all my commandments. They will forget everything that I commanded
them. They will live like pagans, and be ritually unclean, and disgraceful, and will serve their gods. This
will prove to be an offence, an ordeal, an affliction, and a trap to them. Many will die and many will be
taken captive. Many will fall into the hands of the enemy, because they have abandoned my decrees, my
commandments, the festivals of my covenant, my Sabbaths, and my sacred place which I consecrated for
myself amongst them, and my tabernacle, my sanctuary which I consecrated for myself amongst them (...) I
will send witnesses to them to bear witness against them. However, they will not listen to them, and
furthermore will kill the witnesses too. They will persecute those who seek the law, and they will annul or
change everything in order to do evil in my sight. I will turn my face from them, and I will hand them over
as captives to the pagans, to be made victims, to be devoured. I will remove them from the land. I will scatter
them among the pagans. They will forget all my laws, commandments, and judgments, and will go off the
right path with regard to new moons. Sabbaths, festivals, jubilees, and decrees.
The Pharisees arose from Hasidim "pious" who fought for the survival of the cult.
The Book of Jubilees was used to legitimize their rival religious institution compared to
that one of the Sadducees too closely linked to Greek rulers. According to Josephus: Then a
certain Jonathan, one of Hyrcanus' close friends, belonging to the school of Sadducees, who hold opinions
opposed to those of the Pharisees, said that it had been with the general approval of all the Pharisees that
224 The creation of the world, for example, is dated 2450 years prior to entry into Canaan (Jubilees 50:4), instead of 3604 years (LXX).
225 H. C OUSIN – La Bible grecque. La Septante
in: Supplément au Cahier Évangiles 74 (1990 Cerf) pp. 109-111.
226 S.C. MIMOUNI – Le judaïsme ancien du VIe siècle avant notre ère au IIIe siècle de notre ère
Paris 2012 Éd. Presses Universitaires de France pp. 298-309.

227 A. NYLAND – The Book of Jubilees
Uralla 2010 Ed. Smith and Stirling Publishers 7-8.

Eleazar had made his slanderous statement; and this, he added, would be clear to Hyrcanus if he inquired
of them what punishment Eleazar deserved for what he had said. And so Hyrcanus asked the Pharisees
what penalty they thought he deserved —for, he said, he would be convinced that the slanderous statement
had not been made with their approval if they fixed a penalty commensurate with the crime— , and they
replied that Eleazar deserved stripes and chains; for they did not think it right to sentence a man to death
for calumny, and anyway the Pharisees are naturally lenient in the matter of punishments. At this
Hyrcanus became very angry and began to believe that the fellow had slandered him with their approval.
And Jonathan in particular inflamed his anger, anil so worked upon him that he brought him to join the
Sadducaean party and desert the Pharisees, and to abrogate the regulations which they had established for
the people, and punish those who observed them. Out of this, of course, grew the hatred of the masses for him
and his sons, but of this we shall speak hereafter. For the present I wish merely to explain that the
Pharisees had passed on to the people certain regulations handed down by former generations and not
recorded in the Laws of Moses, for which reason they are rejected by the Sadducaean group, who hold that
only those regulations should be considered valid which were written down (in Scripture), and that those
which had been handed down by former generations need not be observed. And concerning these matters the
two parties came to have controversies and serious differences, the Sadducees having the confidence of the
wealthy alone but no following among the populace, while the Pharisees have the support of the masses
(Jewish Antiquities XIII:293-298). The abundant literature of Maccabean inspiration will be
adopted by Pharisaic tendencies, but also Samaritan and even Essenian. Chronology from
the Book of Jubilees will replace that of chapter 5 of Genesis228. When John Hyrcanus
destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim in 128 BCE (Jewish Antiquities
XIII:254-256) Jews and Samaritans broke up, which freezed the Samaritan Pentateuch.
When Roman armies destroyed the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE, Jews and Judeo-Christians
separated. The rabbis (Pharisees), at the Synod of Yabneh229 (c. 90 CE), harmonized the
chronology of Genesis chapter 8 with that of chapter 5, but for some unknown reasons
three durations are restored: those of Jared, Methuselah and Lamech. Sadducees
disappeared after 70 CE as well as copies of the Bible from the temple. Most biblical texts
found at Qumran are likely to be copies made by scribes who were Pharisees or Essenes.
A historical retrospect shows that many periods have strongly influenced the Jews:
1) Hellenism from 330 BCE, 2) religious nationalism from 160 BCE, 3) anti-Samaritan
feeling from 128 BCE (destruction of the temple of Gerizim), 4) anti-Christian feeling
from 70 CE (destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem), then total rejection after 135 CE
(defeat of Bar Kochba). Chronologies from Jewish chronographs on the period from 220
BCE to 160 CE can track the evolution of biblical chronology:
! Dated around 1500 BCE, administrative documents from Sealand (northern Sumer)
contain the oldest epigraphs in paleo-Hebrew and Midianite/Temanites theophorous
names in Ya(h)u. The name Ali-din-ili-UB-KU-[-], for example, written in cuneiform is
transcribed ’LDN’L GB‘ in paleo-Hebrew230. It is at this time (1500 BCE) that Moses
wrote the Pentateuch. This book should remain in the custody of the high priest and
every future king had to write his own copy (Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:26). According to
the Egyptian priest Manetho (ca. 280 BCE) Exodus took place under Ahmose (1530-
1505) and he states: It was also reported that the priest, who ordained their polity and their laws,
was by birth of Heliopolis, and his name Osarsiph (Aauserre-Apopi), but that when he was gone over
to these people, his name was changed, and he was called Moses (Against Apion I:250).
228 A. LANGE – The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls
in: Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 209 (Vandenhoeck & Ruuprecht, 2012) p. 17.
229 This Synod collected "legal" traditions/ prophecies (Tosefta Eduyot 1:1) and chose "genuine" holy books (M. Yadaim 4:6).
230 L. COLONNA D'ISTRIA – Épigraphes alphabétiques du pays de la Mer §48
in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 3 (2012) pp. 61-63.

S. DALLEY – Babylonian Tablets from the First Sealand Dynasty in the Schøyen Collection
in: Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology Vol. 9 (CDL Press, 2009) pp. 1-4.
! Dated 1050-970 the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon231 contains the oldest known biblical text
(Leviticus 19:13). At that time, the Law of Moses (Pentateuch) was known outside
Jerusalem only by oral teaching carried out by the priests (2 Chronicles 17:9; 34:15).
! In 622 BCE the Pentateuch of Moses is found in the 18th year of King Josiah (2 Kings
22:3-10). Notable coincidence two silver scrolls232 dated to 650-600 BCE (found in
Ketef Hinnom near Jerusalem) contain the text of Numbers 6:24-25.
! Jews in Elephantine (whom cult was syncretic) were given letters in Aramaic233 (dated
419 BCE), which had been sent by the priests of Jerusalem, so they celebrate Easter in
their temple according to the instructions of Exodus 12:18-19.
! In 406 BCE Jerusalem was completed and inaugurated late in the reign of Darius II
(Nehemiah 12:22-43). According to the Mishna: Since the death of Haggai, Zechariah and
Malachi, the last prophets, the Holy Spirit ceased in Israel (Tosephta Sota 13:2-4); when they
deserved, under Ezra, it [the Torah] recovered in "modern Hebrew" (Megillah 71b; Tosephta
Sanhedrin 4:7). The Babylonian Talmud states: Moses wrote his book and the section of Balaam
and Job, Joshua wrote his book and eight verses [completing] the Torah (...) [and finally] Ezra wrote
his book and the genealogies of Chronicles (Baba Batra 14b). Ezra was a skilled copyist who
has initiated a program of annual reading of the Bible (in the Jerusalem Temple) with
explanations and comments, according to Nehemiah 8:1-9.
! From 400 to 330 BCE appear (partial?) Greek translations of the Law as that one of
Theopompus (378-323) and Theodectes (375-334). These translations are disapproved
by Jewish authorities (Letter of Aristeas XII:312-316). The mention of such translations
illustrates the growing diffusion of Greek texts (Hebrew having become a liturgical
language of the priesthood after returning from the Babylonian exile). During this
period appears the technique of qere/ketib consisting in reading (qere) another word
instead of what is written (ketib). For example, due to a formalistic reading of some
verses: Adonay "Lord" is read instead of Yehowah (Exodus 20:7), boshet "shame" is read
instead of Baal "Master" (Hosea 2:16) or Moloch "King" (Exose 23:13) etc. This reading
technique will affect the subsequent copyists.
! In 331 BCE, after the victory of Alexander on Gaza, the Samaritans took advantage
building their own temple on Mount Gerizim (Jewish Antiquities XI:324) without Jews
oppose it, but the scribes of the Temple replaces "Mount Gerizim" by "Mount Ebal"
(Deuteronomy 27:4) in their copies for places of prayer (former synagogues).
! Towards 315-305, Hecataeus of Abdera, a Greek historian, mentions the Law of Moses
(Pentateuch), according to Diodorus Siculus (Historical Library I:28:94, XL:3).
! Around 280 BCE, Ptolemy II promoted historical writings in order to equip his library
of Alexandria. At this time appeared official translation of the Pentateuch into Greek,
known as the Septuagint, heavily influenced by Hellenism (as the text of Exodus 3:14).
The Samaritans continued to use the old version of the Pentateuch in paleo-Hebrew.
! Greek prevailed very early in the synagogues, as proven by one of the earliest (c. 250
BCE) of the dedicatory inscriptions234 from Schedia near Alexandria. The place of
prayer was an elementary synagogue according to the text of Acts 16:13,16.
! Jewish chronograph Demetrius established (c. 220 BCE) a biblical chronology which
agrees only with the text of the Septuagint.
231 E. PUECH –L'Ostracon de Khirbet Qeyafa et les débuts de la royauté en Israël
in: Revue Biblique 117 (2010) pp. 162-184.
232 G. BARKAY – The Priestly Benediction on Silver Plaques From Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem. in: Tel Aviv Vol. 19 n°2 (1992).
R. MARTIN-ACHARD – Remarques sur la bénédiction sacerdotale in: Études Théologiques & Religieuses tome 70 (1995/1) pp. 75-84.
233 P. GRELOT – Documents araméens d'Égypte
in: Littératures Anciennes du Proche-Orient 5 (1972) Éd. Cerf pp. 95-96.

234 W. HORBURY D. NOY - Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt
1992 Ed. Cambridge University Press, Inscription n°22.

! Towards 190-180 BCE, the grandfather of Ben Sirach was reading the Bible in its
traditional Jewish form: Law, Writings and Prophets (Ecclesiasticus prologue; 1:39). The
Old Testament was widely circulated according to Ben Sirach.
! In 160 BCE, Simon Maccabeus inaugurated Hasmonean era after the victory of his
brothers on the Greek forces of occupation which had desecrated the Temple in
Jerusalem. Pharisees advocate religious legalism and Sadducees favor Hellenism. The
Greek translation of the other books of the Bible, such as those of Samuel and Kings, is
performed. The Book of Jubilees (160-150 BCE) appears developing a new chronology
based on jubilees of 49 years commencing at the creation of the world dated 2450 years
prior the entry into Canaan (Jubilees 50:4), instead of 3604 years (LXX).
! Jewish historian Eupolemus sets (c. 160 BCE) a biblical chronology which agrees only
with the text of the Septuagint.
! Jewish writers of the 2nd century BCE considered that the Greek text (LXX) made
exactly the Hebrew text, as explained Aristeas to 160-130 BCE (Letter of Aristeas §310-
§311). Thus, towards 160-150, Scripture quoted by the Jews was in line with the text of
the Septuagint as the text of 1 Maccabees 7:16-17 which quotes Psalm 79:2-3 (LXX).
! During a dispute concerning the temple on Mount Gerizim towards 150-145 (Jewish
Antiquities XIII:72-79) the Jews never accuse the Samaritans having a falsified
Pentateuch (2 Maccabees 6:2) while it keeps a text close to the Septuagint.
! In 128 BCE, John Hyrcanus destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim as well
as Shechem (in 107 BCE) the capital of Samaria (Jewish Antiquities XIII:254-256). Jews
and Samaritans separated (Sirach 50:25-26), that freezed the Samaritan Pentateuch235
which agrees in 1900 places236 with that of the Septuagint against the Masoretic text237.
! Jewish writers, until the end of the 1st century CE, are unanimous in saying that the
Greek text of the Septuagint renders the Hebrew text exactly (from the Temple in
Jerusalem). This is the case, towards 30-50, for Philo of Alexandria (Vita Mosis II:40),
apostle Paul towards 50-60 (New Testament) and Josephus towards 90-100 (Jewish
Antiquities XII:108-109). For all these Jewish authors, the text of the Septuagint
(Pentateuch) was based on an authoritative Hebrew text and the latter was not
considered different from its Greek version (at this time)
! Around 50 CE, according to Rabbi Hiyya ben Abba (190-220): The Targum of the Prophets
was composed by Jonathan ben Uzziel under the guidance of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, and the
land of Israel [thereupon] quaked over an area of 400 parasangs (= 2240 kilometers) by 400
parasangs, and a Bath Kol (voice from heaven) came forth and exclaimed, Who is this that has revealed
My secrets to mankind? Jonathan ben Uzziel thereupon arose and said, It is I who have revealed Thy
secrets to mankind. It is fully known to Thee that I have not done this for my own honour or for the
honour of my father's house, but for Thy honour I have done it, that dissension may not increase in
Israel. He further sought to reveal [by] a targum [the inner meaning] of the Hagiographa (of Daniel),
but a Bath Kol went forth and said, Enough! What was the reason? — Because the date of the
Messiah is foretold in it (B. Megilla 3a).
! From 70 CE (destruction of the Temple and its archives), Rabbinic Judaism begins
unifying and revising the texts of the Old Testament238, written in reaction against the
Judeo-Christians who identified Jesus as the Messiah through the gospel of Matthew
written in Hebrew (towards 41 CE according to Christian tradition).
236 K.-R. Kim counts merely 964, of which 493 are meaningful, and 328 are common harmonization.
237 C.A. EVANS – Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies
Michigan 2005 Ed. Baker Academic pp. 156-158.

238 C. AMPHOUX – Le texte de la Bible
in: Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la Bible (Brepols 1987) pp. 1256-1258.

! Around 90 CE, the Synod of Yabneh led by Gamaliel II, Rabbis set the text of the
Torah using three copies from the Temple. The Jerusalem Talmud states that these
copies had variants in spelling (B. Taanit 68a). According to the Babylonian Talmud (B.
Qiddushin 30a), the Pentateuch (H*?) at the time contained 5888 verses, whereas there
are 5853 according to current count (MT). Rabbis settled the canon of Torah and began
to harmonize the text of the Septuagint on their new textus receptus (MT). This synod is
dated towards 90 CE because Josephus mentions in 94 CE the existence of a canon of
biblical books (Against Apion I:38-41) that did not exist prior this date (morever the
first codex of the Septuagint yet contained Jewish apocrypha next canonized books).
Some corrections have also been used to discourage the calculations of Messianic time
(B. Sanhedrin 97b) made by the Judeo-Christians (Luke 3:1,15; Acts 1:6).
! In 94 CE Josephus published his book Against Apion to defend the historicity of the
biblical text including using its historical data. The Hebrew text he used is often close to
that of the Septuagint, mainly the Pentateuch, but not identical. Josephus in order to
defend Jewish history, through its chronology, wrote: So the exact data of the Scriptures
which will be developed in this paper, each in its place, and I am committed to doing this in this book,
without adding or omitting (Jewish Antiquities I:17,149). He was aware that some of his
readers were hostile to him (most Jews considered him a traitor) and this is why he said:
However, some despicable characters tried to attack my story (...) Archaeology, as I said [in Jewish
Antiquities I:5], is translated from the holy books, because I hold the priesthood from my birth and I
started philosophying [rabbinic interpretation] these books (Against Apion I:53-54). He added: I,
after the fall of my hometown with nothing dearer to me keeping my own misfortunes console, I asked
Titus release a number of prisoners of free birth, and I accepted, by gracious offer of Titus, [a collection
of] holy books (Autobiography §418). The Pentateuch of Josephus had to be made, in his
time (70-90), of Hebrew scrolls239 (written prior 70 CE) in accordance with those in the
Temple. However, this Hebrew text was not identical to that of the Septuagint because
it ignores, for example, Qainan in the Messianic genealogy, and on the other hand it
knows the ancient Ur which is ignored in the Septuagint.
! From 110 CE, Rabbi Akiba (50-132) in person recommends using "corrected" biblical
scrolls: when you teach your son, teach him from a corrected scroll (B. Pesahim 112a). Prior to its
destruction the temple of Jerusalem employed professional240 maggihim "correctors" or
"revisers", whose task was to safeguard precision in the copying of the text: correctors
[maggihim] of books in Jerusalem received their fees from the temple funds (B. Ketuboth 106a; Y.
Sheqalim 4.48a). This description implies that the correcting procedure based on the
master copy in the temple was financed from the temple resources which thus provided
an imprematur. This was the only way to safeguard the proper distribution of precise
copies of Scripture because: Three mistakes (in one column) may be corrected, but if there are four
(in one column), it must be put into the Geniza (B. Menahot 29b). The pilgrims who came to
Jerusalem had their text corrected by the temples scribes: on the middle days of the three
regalim one is not allowed to correct even one single letter, not even from the scroll in the temple court
(M. Moed Qatan 3.4). Another such precise copy was the scroll of the king, which
accompagnied the king everywhere. The Talmud tell us that this scroll was corrected
from the copy in the temple court in accordance with the court of 71 members [the Sanhedrin] (Y.
Sanhedrin 2.20c; Sifre Deuteronomy 160). At the same time "a book that it is not
corrected" which one could not have in his house any longer than 30 days (B. Ketuboth
19b). Prior to 70 CE the temple (Sadducees) provided the imprematur for corrected
239 É. NODET – Le pentateuque de Flavius Josèphe
240 E. TOV – Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible and Qumran
Tübingen 2008 Ed. Mohr Siebeck pp. 179-180.

scrolls but after 70 CE it was only from the Rabbis (Pharisees). If corrections have been
validated by the rabbinical authorities, and are therefore difficult to detect, errors were
noted by the Masoretes241 (from 900 CE) in the margin of biblical manuscripts called the
Masorah "tradition/transmission". Unfortunately, these errors lists themselves have
been copied with errors242 and there are also variants in the Babylonian Masorah itself243.
The present textus receptus (MT) is therefore not true to the original, however it is an
'average text' which reliability in transmission exceeds 98%244. The choice among all the
variants in the remaining 2% (especially for vocalization problems) depends on who is
given his confidence245 (Masoretes, Rabbis, Sopherim, Samaritans, Sadducees, Pharisees,
Christians or Essenes) obtaining a eclectic textus receptus OT (as the one of the NT).
! In 129 CE, Aquila, a Jewish proselyte and former Christian, produced the first revision
of the Septuagint to make it conform to the Masoretic text.
! Masada rebels (131-135) only used scrolls agreeing with the 'authorized text' (MT).
! According to Rabbi Yonathan, after Bar Kochba died (in 135 CE) as Messiah (Y. Taanit
68d): Blasted be the bones of those who calculate the end. For they would say, since the predetermined
time has arrived, and yet he has not come, he will never come (B. Sanhedrin 97b)246.
! Justin, towards 152 CE, criticized the Jews of his time for having removed or modified
some verses in the Hebrew text (Masoretic text instead of the original H*) when they
were favorable to Christians (Dialogue with Trypho §71-§72, §124, §137).
! Around 160 CE the Seder Olam fixed the official Jewish chronology in agreement with
the Masoretic Text and the Book of Jubilees.
! Dated 165-200 CE, Eleazar ben Yacob II (or Simon) criticized the Samaritans for
having falsified their Pentateuch (Y. Sotah 7:3; 21c). As the main disagreement
concerned the legitimacy of Mount Gerizim (John 4:20) this belated criticism reveals so
who was the real forger about this topic.
According to this historical retrospective, the original Hebrew text (Pentateuch)
was considered by the Jews to be the same as the Septuagint, at least until the end of the 1st
century CE, controversies over falsification appearing with Christians and Samaritans after
150 CE. A conclusion seems to impose: the Alexandrian Jews have generally well translated
their Hebrew Pentateuch, then from the Hasmonean era an abundance of wisdom texts
appeared (Apocrypha of the Old Testament). The Hebrew text, including its chronology,
was influenced by this religious literature as evidenced by some differences with the
Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint. At the Synod of Yabneh (90 CE) the canon of
the Old Testament was fixed (MT) by the Rabbis of this time (Pharisees). Afterwards texts
in agreement with the Septuagint were not used anymore by Jewish authorities and were,
from 90 to 135 CE, censored and ostracized247: The Law was written in Greek in the days of King
Ptolemy. And for 3 days darkness came over the world (Megillat Taanit 13); The day the Law was
translated was as hard for Israel as the day they made the golden calf (Masechet Sefer Torah I:8-9).
241 G.R. DRIVER – Introduction to the Old Testament
in: The New English Bible (UK Penguin Books, 1974) p. XVI.
242 M. COHEN – The Idea of the Sanctity of the Biblical Text and the Science of Textual Criticism
Tel-Aviv, 1979 in: HaMikrah V'anachnu (Ed. Uriel Simon, HaMachon L'Yahadut U'Machshava Bat-Z'mananu and Dvir).
243 P. KAHLE – Der Masoretische Text des Alten Testaments nach der Ueberlieferung der Babylonischen Juden
Leipzig, 1902 Ed. Hildesheim, G. Olms pp. 13-18, 79-83.

244 G.STUDENT – On the Text of the Torah 2002 http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_text.html
To compare texts (MT, SP, LXX and Qumran) see B. VAN ELDEREN -The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Text of the Hebrew Bible and
History of Judaism http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/oracleofdelphi/DSS_Bas_afternoon.pdf
245 E. TOV – Book review: The Pentateuch: The Samaritan Version and the Masoretic Version
in: Dead Sea Discoveries 18 (Brill 2011) pp. 385–391.

246 In the same way Pope Leo X in his Constitution Supernae majestatis Praesidio (Session 11 of the Vth Lateran Council, January 1516) has
forbidden Catholic preachers, under pain of excommunication, to pretend to give a fixed date for the advent of the Antechrist and the
end of the world (Cit. ap. Ferraris, Prompta bibl., verbo Prædicare. - Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum collectio, t. XXXII, p. 945-947).
247 D. BODI – Les problèmes de la version grecque du livre d'Ézéchiel
in: Semitica 52-53 (2007) pp. 57-81.

Dating The Deluge PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dating The Deluge PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dating the Deluge

savoyards ? in: Collection EDYTEM Cahiers de Géographie n° 8 (2009) pp. 11-22.

California 2005 Ed. University of California Press.

in: World Archaeology Vol. 33:3 (2002) pp. 391–416.

in: Radiocarbon Vol. 37:1 (1995) pp. 1-6.

Paris 2011 Éd. Ellipses pp. 148, 348, 389, 402.

London 1990 Ed.British Museum Publications. pp. 16-19.

measurements of changes in geomagnetic field. Earth's magnetic field is the magnetic

16 J. EVIN, C. OBERLIN – La méthode de datation par le radiocarbone

in: Living Reviews in Solar Physics Vol. 5 (2008) pp. 3-88.

DATING THE DELUGE BY CARBON 14

(half-life 5730 years)

Nitrogen 14 electron (+ neutrino)

in: Archéologia N°323 (mai 1996) pp. 26-33).

in: Science Vol 300 (11 April 2003) pp. 315-318.

Grand Rapids 1983 Ed. Kregel Publications pp. 98-136.

Austin 1975 University of Texas pp. 52-98.

Paris 1999 Éd. François-Xavier de Guilbert pp. 15-118.

in: Dossiers de l'archéologie n°39 novembre/décembre 1979 pp. 66-67.

in: Antiquity 72 (1998) pp. 173-178.

35 D. HOUBRECHTS, G.N. LAMBERT - Les arbres, témoins du temps qui passe

in: La datation en laboratoire. Paris 2005 Ed. Errances pp. 96-101.

in: Zeitensprünge 8 (1996) 3 pp. 361-389.

in: Ancien Egyptian Chronology (Brill 2006) pp. 327-355.

There is clearly a discrepancy between the astronomical dates from Egyptian

in: Nature Vol. 408 (November 2000) pp. 320-324.

Paris 2009 Éd. Belin pp. 76-81.

King of Egypt Accession according to: Gap Error

Pennsylvania 2004 Ed. MPM8 pp. 147,171,184.

King of Egypt Reign TC Man. cens x1.6 date + TC* Reign

Differences in dates between the chronology deduced from astronomical

3 Nynetjer [24 years] 2663-2639

Buto: Latitude 31°12' North 30°45' East).

in: Discussions in Egyptology 27 (1993) pp. 83-96.

Paris 2008 Éd. Actes Sud pp. 32-33.

Despite measurements of the lengths of first dynasty reigns by calibrated carbon-14

58 J. VERCOUTTER - L'Egypte et la vallée du Nil

in: Origins 21:2 (Geoscience Research Institute, 1994) pp. 66-79.

DATING THE DELUGE BY EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY

vessel eight mouth = boat

Paris 1967 Éd. Cerf p. 261.

Monaco 2004 Éd. du Rocher pp. 38-41.

Paris 1998 Éd. Noêsis pp. 198, 206.

in: Anatolian Studies Vol. 33 (1983) pp. 115-121.

N° Characteristic GENESIS 6-9 GILGAMESH

length/width of 6/1, which is ideal for buoyancy according to specialists in shipbuilding.

Paris 2004 Éd. Les Belles Lettres pp. 71-72.

received through several translations73, which have favored variants). In addition, an

Oxford 2007 Ed. Oxbow Books pp. 85-92.

in: Dictionnaire de la civilisation mésopotamienne (Robert Laffont 2001) p. 124.

Paris 1995 Éd. Seuil pp. 552-554.

Paris 2001 Éd. Robert Laffont p. 264.

Paris 2004 Éd. Les Belles Lettres pp. 137-141.

Paris 1998 Éd. Noésis p. 159.

Paris 1988 Éd. Fayard p. 212.

ASSYRIA Reign BABYLONIA Reign ELAM (A WAN II) Reign

Mesopotamian chronology can be reconstructed up to Sargon (of Akkad) thanks to

The synchronisms obtained by a prosopographical study of the kings of Lagash,

in: Amurru 1 (1996) pp. 11-28.

LAGA&H I MARI EBLA (Vizier) UR I N° period

The synchronism among I('ar-Damu (2235-2200) king of Mari, Ibrium (2237-2220)

88 D. CHARPIN – Mari au IIIe millénaire d'après les sources écrites

Indiana 2002 Ed. Eisenbrauns pp. 62-72.

Göttingen 1982 Éd. Universitaires Fribourg pp. 110-111.