Revise or Not Revise ? The Question for my Biblical Chronology

Let's assume that I don't revise.

Then Moses is born when Sesostris III is about to die, so the carbon date c. or from memory 1838 BC (from Sesostris sarcophagus) joins the date of Moses' birth in the Chronology of the Martyrology Reading of Christmas Day, which says Jesus was born 1510 after the Exodus.

If so, the real date for Sesostris' death would be around 1590 BC. Radiocarbon would have needed to be lower than 100 pmC, so that 1590 could date like 1838.

248 extra years imply an atmospheric level of 97.045 pmC.

Meanwhile, if the Exodus was in 1510 BC, that places the fall of Jericho in real year 1470 BC.

I had thought of Kenyon's date as being 1550 and thought it was a carbon date. 80 extra years = 99.037 pmC.

I have found the carbon dating of Jericho undiscussed by Creationist sites (apart from mine).

Here is another site:

Carbon-14 Dates at Jericho and the Destruction Date
https://apxaioc.com/?p=10

When the Bronze Age city of Jericho was destroyed by a fire, the burned grain and wood was carbonized, preserving some of it in the destruction layer (Kenyon, Kathleen. Digging Up Jericho, London, 1957, 261).

And:

The dates were corrected to 3300 +/- 110 BP, (Bowman, G.E., Ambers, J., Leese, M.N. “Re-Evaluation of British Museum Radiocarbon Dates Issued Between 1980 and 1984.” Radiocarbon 32, 1990, 74, BM-1790) which calibrates to approximately 1883-1324 BC, rendering the resulting C-14 date useless for settling the debate between a destruction in ca. 1550 BC or ca. 1400 BC (Using http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/calib.html). Another C-14 sample from this same destruction layer at Jericho gave results of 3300 +/- 7 BP, which calibrates to approximately 1618-1530 BC (Bruins, HJ and van der Plicht, J. “Tell es-Sultan (Jericho): Radiocarbon results of short-lived cereal and multiyear charcoal samples from the end of the Middle Bronze Age.” Radiocarbon Vol. 37 (1995), 213–220).

OK, sounds like I could have Jericho "carbon dated to 1550 BC" but I cannot trust it.

Therefore I cannot completely trust my equation of real 1470 with carbon dated 1550 either. But I'm not obliged to discard it.

Let's assume I revised.

First, it's a major hazzle. The tables I now use, Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy, took me a lot of time to elaborate. I can do it again, but given the work, I'd want some major incentive, such as being sure I was wrong and need to revise.

Second, I don't have that.

I was perfectly willing to revise ... taking Amenhotep II as pharao of the Exodus.

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th? · Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao · Advice, perhaps? · There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

Suppose I were Wrong on Chronological Matches Related to Egypt? · If I Got Douglas Petrovich Right, Sesostris III was Pharao when Joseph Received his Family

Then Douglas Petrovich told me Amenhotep II was reigning a long time after the Exodus and Webensenu was actually not the first born son that died in the tenth plague. That kind of takes away some of the incentive. His reason was, the first born was depicted and was a prince named Thutmose, but not identic to Thutmose IV. That could be resolved with Thutmose IV taking the name Thutmose from Webensenu when he died. But perhaps the depicted first son Thutmose was also not compatible with Webensenu.

Third, if the pharao was in fact Amenhotep II, it would make the 480 years in III Kings 6:1 an exact number, while going through Judges I had come to conclude it was a minimum. Some have argued they are 480 pure years, not counting the ones under oppression. That would argue against Amenhotep II being that pharao whose first born died. And so argue against the revision.

480 Years From Exodus to Temple?

Perhaps the solution could be that 528 years are counted as 480, if the subservience to Chusan Rasathaim (8 years) and to Philistines (40 years) are not counted, like years in which one could not celebrate Pesakh not counting as real years or even not allowing Cohanim to sit down and count another year.

If on the other hand the 480 years are the exact total number, that would mean several timelines in Judges overlap.

Fourth, Jericho's carbon dated items don't decide, as quoted, but today I also found another thing not deciding:

Les inscriptions de Tal Deir Alla
https://via-egeria.com/les-inscriptions-de-tal-deir-alla-jordanie/

If the inscriptions that mention Balaam had been dated to between 1450 and 1410 BC, the carbon date, presumably coinciding with real date, in that case, would have favoured the Amenhotep II theory, and therefore revising. If the inscriptions had instead been dated to between 1590 and 1550 BC, that would have supported not revising, supported that 1550 is "the" carbon date for Jericho. But they date to neither, worse, they date to a clearly different time:

Le texte retrouvé en plusieurs morceaux couvrait manifestement un mur. L’analyse paléographique, ainsi que celle au carbone 14, permettent de dater l’inscription vers 800 av. J.-C.

This means, the inscriptions are centuries after the Biblical Balaam, whether involving a namesake son of the father's namesake ... or making literary use of a long since past figure.

They too are unable to decide.

Meaning, I can still in good conscience, pending further evidence, decide to continue using the dating calibrations already given in Newer Tables.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. James, Apostle
25.VII.2026

Sancti Jacobi Apostoli, qui exstitit beati Joannis Evangelistae frater; et, prope festum Paschae ab Herode Agrippa decollatus, primus ex Apostolis coronam martyiii percepit. Ejus sacra ossa, ab Hierosolymis ad Hispanias hoc die translata, et in ultimis earum finibus apud Gallaeciam recondita, celeberrima illarum gentium veneratione, et frequenti Christianorum conctirsu, religionis et voti causa illuc adeuntium, pie coluntur.

Has the Carbon 14 Level Reached Stability?

In my own work, I say it has:

New blog on the kid: Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près
Wednesday, 28 October 2015 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 13:26
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/examinons-une-hypothese-qui-se-trouve.html

My what-if was, given the carbon 14 level at the Deluge was 3/64 of what it is now (4.6875 pmC, 25 298 extra years, see below calculation A, based on a medium of a ballpark of 20 000 to 50 000 BP*), an evaluation I have changed since, and supposing carbon 14 had risen by always gaining as much as is produced in the corresponding timespans now (4.261 pmC gained each 360 years, while also losing by multiplication with 0.957 each such period, calculations B and C), we would have arrived by 2013 at 45,7 % of the present rate.

But as those 45,7 % would not be taken as 45,7 % of the present rate, given they are the present rate, the 45,7 % would be reinterpreted as 100 %, so 100 pmC.

If we consistently did that, and dated older items accordingly (actual rising C-14, so lower than expected), still using 5730 years as the halflife, we would get into absurdities, like boots from El Alamein dating to the Civil War. But on the other hand, if we corrected for known historic items, we would get halflives, like 2242 to 2832 years.

Against this, a man like Gavin Cox will refer* to a sentence in an article from originally 1979** that says:

Was the ¹⁴C entering and leaving the system at the same rate? In his day, the measurements and calculations, which he knew about, showed that ¹⁴C was entering the system some 12–20% faster than it was leaving.

From 1940 (when ¹⁴C was discovered) to 1979, there were 39 years, let's say 40. This would have given (see calculations E, F, G and H) a very slight increase, not the wildest fluctuation in known calibrations of radiocarbon.

I think my big picture calculation in the article I referred to trumps the small picture calculations that Carl Wieland back then referred to.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St Thomas Aquinas
6—7.III.2026
(after First Vespers)

In monasterio Fossae Novas, prope Tarracinam, in Campania, sancti Thomae Aquinatis, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, ex Ordine Praedicatorum, nobilitate generis, vitae sanctitate et Theologiae scientia illustrissimi; quem Leo Papa Decimus tertius caelestem Scholarum omnium catholicarum Patronum declaravit.

Calculations

A) 5730 * log(0.046875) / log(0.5) = 25 298 extra years.
B) Decay of 360 years = 0.5^(360/5730) = multiply previous amount by 0.9573861063712243
C) Normal production in 360 years = 1 - 0.9573861063712243 = 0.0426138936287757, add 4.621 pmC each such period
D) Decay of 40 years = 0.5^(40/5730) = multiply previous amount by 0.9951729639914483
E) Normal production in 40 years = 1 - 0.9951729639914483 = 0.0048270360085517
F) Observed production lower limit = 1.12 * 0.0048270360085517 = 0.005406280329577904
G) Observed production higher limit = 1.2 * 0.0048270360085517 = 0.00579244321026204
H) Deduced observed rise, higher limit, if there had been no carbon emissions : 1 * 0.9951729639914483 + 0.00579244321026204 = 1.00096540720171034

* Feedback article:

Carbon dating—who is fooling whom?
By Gavin Cox | Published 08 Dec, 2018 | Updated 07 Nov, 2024
https://creation.com/en/articles/carbon-dating-fooling-whom

** Republished, but with caution of it's being outdated:

Carbon-14 dating—explained in everyday terms
By Dr Carl Wieland | [Re-] Published 27 Jan, 2006
https://creation.com/en/articles/carbon-14-dating-explained-in-everyday-terms

What Would 440 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise? Or 600 Before the Flood?

What Would 220 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise? · What Would 440 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise? Or 600 Before the Flood?

0.5^(440/5730) = 0.9481657393132604

0.9481657393132604 * = decay
0.0518342606867396 = normal replacement

A) with 3.611 times as fast production, like on this view the half as long period after the Flood?
B) with same production as now?
C) with ten times slower production than now (as generally pre-Flood)?

3398 BC

x -> pmC

A) x * 0.9481657393132604 + 3.611 * 0.0518342606867396 = 0.016277
x * 0.9481657393132604 = 0.016277 - 3.611 * 0.0518342606867396
x = (0.016277 - 3.611 * 0.0518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = -0.180239 ... (minus value, impossible)

B) x * 0.9481657393132604 + 0.0518342606867396 = 0.016277
x * 0.9481657393132604 = 0.016277 - 0.0518342606867396
x = (0.016277 - 0.0518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = -0.0375 ... (minus value, impossible)

C) x * 0.9481657393132604 + 0.00518342606867396 = 0.016277
x * 0.9481657393132604 = 0.016277 - 0.00518342606867396
x = (0.016277 - 0.00518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = 0.0117

How about taking the final 440 years as rising twice as fast as the medium?

D) x = (0.016277 - 2 * 0.00518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = 0.006233

C) 5730 * log(0.0117) / log(0.5) + 3398 = 40 169 BC
D) 5730 * log(0.006233) / log(0.5) + 3398 = 45 375 BC

What about 600 Before the Flood, when Noah was born?

3557 BC

x -> pmC

0.5^(600/5730) = 0.9299905477435162

0.9299905477435162 * = decay
0.0700094522564838 = normal replacement

0.0700094522564838 / 5 = 0.01400189045129676
0.0700094522564838 / 10 = 0.00700094522564838

A) x * 0.9299905477435162 + 0.01400189045129676 = 0.016277
x * 0.9299905477435162 = 0.016277 - 0.01400189045129676
x = (0.016277 - 0.01400189045129676) / 0.9299905477435162
x = 0.002446379

B) x * 0.9299905477435162 + 0.00700094522564838 = 0.016277
x * 0.9299905477435162 = 0.016277 - 0.00700094522564838
x = (0.016277 - 0.00700094522564838) / 0.9299905477435162
x = 0.0099743538

A) 5730 * log(0.002446379) / log(0.5) + 3557 = 53 266 BC
B) 5730 * log(0.0099743538) / log(0.5) + 3557 = 41 648 BC

Three possible tables. Both are on average 1/5 of the normal replacement. The latter part is, but the former part is 1/10 normal replacement. Both are on average 1/10 normal replacement. Hmm ... may have to think the compromise through, tomorrow ...

3557 BC

0.245 pmC, 53 266 BC

3398 BC

0.623 pmC, 45 375 BC

3557 BC

0.997 pmC, 41 648 BC

3398 BC

0.623 pmC, 45 375 BC

3557 BC

0.997 pmC, 41 648 BC

3398 BC

1.17 pmC, 40 169 BC

.... Thinking — could this happen?*

I mean, if the pmC is 0.997 in 3557 BC, could it drop to 0.623 in 3398 BC? Not by decay. In 159 years, the decay is a multiplication by 0.98095. By carbon escaping from somthing which never had carbon 14? Perhaps. So, no, as that is not overlikely in the calm pre-Flood times, probably not. Actually the opposite combination would be more likely:

3557 BC

0.245 pmC, 53 266 BC

3398 BC

1.17 pmC, 40 169 BC

How fast would that have gone?

0.00245 * 0.98095 = 0.0024
0.0024 + 0.01905 = 0.02145 (2.145 pmC)

0.0024 + 0.01905/2 = 0.011925 (1.1925 pmC)

Less than half as fast as modern speed to reach 1.17 pmC. Now, that could happen.

Why am I just speculating, between incompatible scenarii? Because I have no anchor point prior to the Flood, that's why.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Cyril
18.III.2025

Hierosolymis sancti Cyrilli Episcopi, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris; qui, ab Arianis multas pro fidei causa perpessus injurias et ex Ecclesia sua saepe depulsus, tandem, sanctitatis gloria clarus, in pace quievit. Ipsius porro intemeratam fidem prima Constantinopolitana Synodus oecumenica, sancto Damaso Papae scribens, praeclaro testimonio commendavit.

* The middle one, obviously. The other two can.

So, You Think Another Biblical Chronology is Right than Mine? Here is What You Can Do ... for Carbon Dates

In the Catholic Church, there are three different views on how old the Earth was when Jesus was born.

One council, I think II Counc. of Nicaea, 787, says 5500 years were past when Jesus was born.*

The Historia Scholastica and the Roman Martyrology give the dates I use in reverse. Starting with Jesus born 5199th year after Creation.

And, again, some prefer to go by the Vulgate, since Trent makes it the standard text of the Catholic Bible:

10 These are the generations of Sem: Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, two years after the flood.

11 And Sem lived after he begot Arphaxad, five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. 12 And Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Sale. 13 And Arphaxad lived after he begot Sale, three hundred and three years; and begot sons and daughters. 14 Sale also lived thirty years, and begot Heber. 15 And Sale lived after he begot Heber, four hundred and three years; and begot sons and daughters.

16 And Heber lived thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg. 17 And Heber lived after he begot Phaleg, four hundred and thirty years: and begot sons and daughters. 18 Phaleg also lived thirty years, and begot Reu. 19 And Phaleg lived after he begot Reu, two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters.

As we know from Genesis 9, Noah dies 350 after the Flood. Traditionally, one sees Babel as ending when Phaleg (or Peleg) is born. With a LXX without the Second Cainan (the Martyrology), or with a LXX with the Second Cainan (Nicaea II), no problem. With the Vulgate, or King James, both have Hebrew originals with Masoretic chronology in the relevant chapters of Genesis, this would mean Babel ending in 101 after the Flood. That could be problematic.

So, let's count a bit.

Flood 2 Years after Arphaxad born 37 Years after Sale born 67 Years after Heber born

101 Years after Phaleg born 131 Years after Reu born 340 Years after Phaleg dies 350 Years after Noah dies

You can place end of Babel anywhere you want between 101 and 340 after the Flood. Or maybe even 341, if you think Babel ended the anniversary of Phaleg's death, with the Gedenktag. I'm placing it between 350 (Noah's death) and 401 (Phaleg's birth), because I have a LXX chronology. And saying Babel ended when or before Phaleg was born is more traditional (let's say the breaking up took a period of seven year, well, Phaleg could have been born in the seventh of those years).

Now, you match your view of when the Flood was (2348 BC according to Ussher), and your view of when Babel was (Ussher says 2204 BC, so, when Phaleg was 43 or 42 years old) with the data in remains, whether fossil or archaeological or anthropological (I take Neanderthals as a pre-Flood population, so my go to for the Flood is last provenly living Neanderthal, i e last Neanderthal body or body part). And you take your archaeological match for Babel (I take Göbekli Tepe, Petrovich took Ziggurat of Eridu, CMI seems to have basically said the Ice Age Palaeolithic was after Babel).

Then you match the real year, according to the Bible, or what you think that real year was, and carbon year, according to your matching material evidence, and you subtract the BC dates of the real year from the BC dates in carbon years, you get the carbon year excess, and from there you calculate the carbon 14 level. Same formula for how old sth is now with remaining carbon 14 in a sample works equally well for how old sth would have seemed in carbon dates, so, for instance, if an item is 500 years old, you calculate how much carbon it should have left (prior to more minute calibrations, like from tree rings or historic data), and the formula is ...

0.5^(500/5730) = 0.9413087854383377 = 94.131 pmC

As 1950 is 75 years ago, the carbon date BP wouldn't be 500, but 425. However, the raw carbon age for 420 BP seems to correspond to 1460 rather than to 1525, according to the fine calibration.**

Meanwhile, I am using Biblical data to calibrate carbon. So would you be. And the gap for carbon age of the Flood and actual Biblical age of it would exceed 10 000 years (34 000 years in my calibration).

0.5^{(10 000/5730)} = 0.2982924364237143 = 29.829 pmC

I don't place that value at the Flood, in fact I place it at between 2673 BC and 2660 BC, when Heber was up to 29 years old. You'd place it elsewhere, and you wouldn't start with it.

And when you then have what I call anchor points, any two of them can connect by interpolation (an anchor point involves Biblical / real date, Carbon date as per well identified item, pmC level derived from the discrepancy) and the way you do it is you decide intermediate carbon levels for the intermediate time divisions.

And from any intermediate point, you calculate the carbon date for the Biblical date from the pmC value. Like I did. The formula is, and I'll reverse the one for 500 years, like this.

5730 * log (0.9413087854383377) / log(0.5) = 500.0000000000001136432
5730 * log (0.2982924364237143) / log(0.5) = 9999.9999999999996080125

Now, to get the calibrated BC date, obviously as said all this time a Biblical calibration rather than a tree ring one, you add the BC year to the correct value of extra years derived from the pmC value.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Reminiscere LD
16.III.2025

* It should be Nicaea II, since it says the Incarnation makes a difference for the licitness of religious imagery.

** page 41 in the pdf from High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC

For my Part, I have a Shorter Ice Age in a Longer St Jerome Chronology

Creation vs. Evolution : CMI has a Long Ice Age in a Shortish Ussher Chronology · For my Part, I have a Shorter Ice Age in a Longer St Jerome Chronology · HGL's F.B. writings :Carbon Dating Debate

In case you missed it when reading previous, I don't think carbon makes Biblical chronology impossible or even highly suspect. I am just dealing with a shorter ice age and its ending earlier on in the Biblical chronology.

Here is my latest table, back in this article:

Refining table Flood to Abraham - and a doubt
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/refining-table-flood-to-abraham-and.html

Citing four highlights, adding an ice age related one:

Flood 2957 BC (directly stated in Christmas proclamation)

Carbon level estimated between 2 and 4 pmc?

[Younger Dryas

= end of ice age, carbon dated 10 600 to 9 600 BC]

Babel begins 2602 BC (my deduction)

42.89 pmc, 9600 BC

Babel ends 2562 BC (my deduction)

48.171 pmc, 8600 BC

Genesis 14, 1935 BC

85.811 pmc, 3200 BC

Carbon dates for Babel are deduced from Babel = Göbekli Tepe.

As per previous article, it should be clear that "42.89 pmc, 9600 BC" is short for "42.89 pmc = 7000 extra years, 2602 BC + 7000 = '9600 BC'."

Actually, parts of the speed for carbon production are higher than what I constructed for implication of CMI's ice age estimate.

But I am avoiding to put Genesis 14 during Ice age, Exodus during Neolithic, Solomon's Temple during beginnings of Sumer, not just by having some more "wiggles in my own curve" than what I made for CMI, but also by ending Ice Age sooner after Flood and taking this as earlier before Abraham than it would have been in an Ussher chronology.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St Silverius
20.VI.2018