The conventional Egyptian timelines that I've been consulting contain a
range of dates for most of the dynastic periods. In this timeline, I am
using the low (most recent) conventional dates I can find. Usually, these
are the dates listed in David
M. Rohl's book, Pharaohs and Kings, which he attributes to Kenneth
Kitchen's Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (for Dynasties 21 to
26), Kitchen's low chronology in "The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in
Relation to the Bronze Age," in High, Middle, or Low, P. Astrom,
ed. (Gothenburg, 1987) (for Dynasties 11 to 20), and John Baines and Jaromir
Malek's Atlas of Ancient Egypt (Oxford, 1980) (for Dynasties 1 to
10). I haven't been smart enough to spot the 60 year discrepancy that Rohl
says exists near the start of the 11th Dynasty, so I am making no attempt
to adjust for it. The process of resetting all the dates here to match
Rohl's dates is currently in progress. I do not plan to take the additional
step of adjusting the conventional Third Intermediate period dates as Rohl
argues in his book, but I do plan to examine the consequences of making
his suggested adjustment.| LIGHT RED BACKGROUND |
| VIOLET BACKGROUND |
Placing the events in order requires some luck and attention to a lot of detail, but that gives the next most secure piece of information, the relative dates. Relative dates are very useful because if the data include non-overlapping reigns, for example, then their durations can be added to calculate longer time spans. If their durations are not known, longer spans can still be estimated using either an average reign length or an average generation length. Both produce somewhat uncertain numbers, and estimates based on either are necessarily uncertain as well. Still in a few reigns or generations, one would not expect to be off by more than a decade or so and that is often good enough to make the estimated date worth having. But it is not the sort of date one can use in making close calls that require accuracy of a year or so instead of a decade or so.
Events with absolute dates are the most precious items in a chronologists arsenal of logical weapons. They are rare and valuable treasures. Fortunately, it is thought, not a lot of absolute dates will be required if the relative dating is done carefully and accurately.
The last of the valuable weapons in a chronologists tool kit chronologists are synchronisms. These are also rare events (or should I say the evidence for such events is rare) which bring the timelines of different regions into direct contact with each other. In the past these seemed rare even in the face of the logic which suggested that the various empires were in more or less constant contact. As absolute and relative dates have been refined it looks as though there will be more evidence of synchronisms welling up from the data. Furthermore, some synchronisms have been, and others probably still are, hidden in the linguistic differences between the various regions. These might also be discovered with additional effort.
Interestingly, refinements in the chronologies improves the ability of chronologists to identify new synchronisms and that in turn allows them to refine their and our understanding of how different languages are used to express the names of known places and individuals. This means that linguistics (and all its sub-specialties that apply to the study of written language) can be used, in some sense, to verify or refute the chronologies that are being proposed. This is becoming quite an industry. More than ever before, the effective archaeologist or chronologist needs to be conversant in a dozen or more archaic languages in order to stay in the hunt.
Reigns of individual pharaohs and kings, or entire dynasties may overlap, but if the historical record that comes down to us doesn't provide that information then the chronologist is stuck having to guess or argue in favor of an overlap. Otherwise, the sum of his reign lengths is going to add up to more years than a properly constructed chronology can hold. Alternatively, in the absence of a convincing argument demonstrating the overlap, the chronology will overestimate the duration of certain periods. This can artificially extend the apparent duration of events in one region relative to another. This coupled with linguistic difficulties can effectively obscure synchronisms that would, if recognized, have important historical implications. Serious attempts to define where the overlaps occur are not guaranteed success. A proposed chronology that seems to offer the best resolution to the various lines of conflicting information may be demonstrably wrong for some other reason which is not yet included in the available evidence.
Using synchronisms between contemporary events, and a carefully researched, and a fully documented and optimally accurate set of supporting dates, the professional chronologists attempt to create consistent and historically meaningful chronologies. There is little certainty in the construction and no assurance that tomorrow's evidence will not significantly upset it. Thus, it is by increments, using logic and guesswork, that the chronologies viewed here and elsewhere on the web must be understood. They are transitory at their best and misleadingly wrong at their worst.
To begin, there must be some evidence to reasonably pin down at least a few of the important dates. Between those most secure dates it is always necessary to "estimate" the intervening dates using one or more methods, each with its own level of inherent uncertainty. Ideally, this strategy ensures that the estimated dates are pinned down between the more secure dates and that their relative dates are retained within the intervening interval. It does not ensure total accuracy. It would be more useful if instead of dates, we used date ranges, but even estimating the error of a particular date is impossible. If the scientific errors could be calculated, they would probably be so wide that the dates would be meaningless.
To add to these complications, history comes to us in the form of parallel isolated chronologies for separate geographical areas. Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt are sometimes on the same timeline and sometimes on separate timelines. It is not always easy to tell which is which. Obviously, chronologies from Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Macedonia and Hatti are built up from records recovered from the cities in those empires. None of these chronologies stands in isolation. To make the most of all the available evidence, chronologists try to tie the various chronologies together in order to work out the absolute dating for all of them by combining the strengths of each. For this synchronisms must be found between two or more regions that can tie key events to a common moment.
To develop evidence of the synchronisms chronologists want and need, they require data in the form of carved reliefs, written documents, pictorial representations, etc. that can tie two or more individuals or events together at the same moment in time. Frequently, this requires additional analysis on the etymology of the various forms of people and place names that appear in different languages. It is entirely possible, for example, for Egyptian and Assyrian scribes to write contemporary accounts about a mutual war. In the absence of other documentation, it is possible to mistakenly believe that the two accounts are of two different wars because the names of all the people involved and all the places where they fought are likely to be different in the two languages. Sometimes the name differences are easier to analyze than at other times. So there is always some concern that the "current" chronology has some background level of missed synchronisms, phantom (duplicate) events, and misplaced persons or events.
A chronology should not be equated with history, nor should history be confused with the events themselves. History is an intellectual construct based on the available evidence and it is as dynamic as the evidence. New finds can overturn a well recognized history and any chronology derived from it. A chronology depends on the same evidence and on the current history of the times it tries to encompass. New evidence can always undermine it. Reexaminations of the evidence can force a re-write of the history and that will necessitate a revision of the chronology.
I have learned, too, that it is seldom obvious what is "generally accepted" by the community of experts in this field. There is only one truly well accepted date that has wide-ranging significance for constructing chronologies of this region. That is the sack of Thebes in 664 or 671 BCE. All older dates "sit on top" of this one. It is a rather long stretch to extrapolate from this relatively modern date to the third millennium BCE. And the further a date is from this one, the more chances there are for intervening errors to accumulate. 14Carbon dating, dendrochronology and reports of unique astronomical sightings (eclipses, for example) can provide some fixed-time reference points with calculable error limits. Such dates can in turn be used to begin the assault on estimating some of the other uncertainties. I have not yet found any analysis of the type I envision. Though as the evidence accumulates someone is bound to take up that challenge, eventually.
In developing a trans-regional chronology it is essential to discover synchronisms between the sub-regions. Evidence of correspondence between two kings, evidence of a meeting or a battle between two kings, evidence that the daughter of one king married another king are all examples of synchronisms. They serve to tie a point on one relative chronology to a specific point on another relative chronology. The more tightly one chronology is tied to another via mutual synchronisms, the more closely the intervening dates can be correlated to each other. This may allow unrecognized synchronisms to become more apparent.
The Hebrew Bible is potentially an invaluable source of many synchronisms between Canaan and its nearest mighty neighbors; provided that it can be demonstrated to have a considerable basis in fact. I am not convinced, however I am willing to use dates that rely on biblical synchronisms provided there is at least some independent source to back it up to some degree. Such uses have to be studied on a book-by-book and almost on a chapter by chapter basis. The problem with the Bible is that it has been around too long and subjected to too much revision. In the literal sense, archives buried and lost for 3,000 are more valuable to a chronologist because their provenance and provenience are easier to establish. Relative chronologies that rely on biblical stories without independent corroboration have to be considered very preliminary.
Because of their professional concern for establishing reliable relative dates, calendar dates are probably more interesting to amateurs than to professionals. Professional archaeologists, egyptologists, etc. understand that the relative dates are closer to their field data. It is the piece of the puzzle for which they are personally and professionally responsible. Relative dating is difficult enough. Absolute dates are always nice to have, but they can be overturned by new data coming from an unexpected source. The relative dates based on good field archaeology are more difficult to refute and provide a more secure legacy for an active career.
14Carbon dating has helped identify the absolute dates in some cases, but it has its own problems; lack of dateable samples, sample contamination, non-linearity in the changing 14Carbon background, statistical uncertainties inherent to the method itself, among others. The biggest problems with C-14 testing include:
Dendrochronology, potentially, offers much more precision, to within a year or two, however it has statistical and correlational problems1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 of its own and it is not always possible to find a piece of wood that fits into a known dendrochronological sequence. Even with the wood in hand and a sequence within which to place it, there is often still some difficulty in determining where it belongs in that sequence. The atmospheric record based on the California bristlecone pine tree-ring record is a notable exception. There the record is complete and relatively clear for almost 8,500 years. Climate changes reflected in the bristlecone dendrochronological record have, for example, been correlated to volcanic eruptions, such as the eruption of Thera, in the Mediterranean Ocean south of Greece, now dated to 1627 BCE, plus or minus one year, based on the correlations between the historically dated eruptions and the bristlecone pine tree-ring record in California (unfortunately, the on-line archive at Nature does not seem to contain a copy of the original article by V. C. LaMarche and Katherine Hirsckboeck, "Frost rings in trees as records of major volcanic eruptions," Nature 307 (12 January, 1984), 121-126). There is still some discussion and disagreement even about this date, however. For another alternative explanation also see Michael G. L. Baillie's abstract for his paper presented at the conference on Natural Catastrophes during Bronze Age Civilisations held in 1997.
BTW: the Cornel University site linked to the beginning of the previous paragraph has links that will take you anywhere you want to go in the world of dendrochronoly on the web. It is a wonderful site which provides a good inside look at what goes on at the forefront of research in this area today.
To add even more confusion to the situation, it appears now that some Christian biblical research groups have already adopted this new dating with open arms. I personally like this date based on the type of study that was done. But there is no reason to enshrine it, yet. Correlations with other events in the region will have to be discovered through careful field research not delivered by prophecy.
This is a collection of the dated events which I've encountered during my research on intertestamental Palestine. To begin the chronology I relied on a few general sources to give the Timeline a broad sweep and to give me some perspective on the relative timing of the events I was reading about. I have since added individual dates encountered casually during reading from a wide variety of on-line and off-line sources. The diversity of sources has resulted in a divergence of dates in many instances. For the moment I am not trying to rationalize the chronology into a single unified whole. (But see the notes above about using Clayton's and Rohl's pharaonic dates.)
This Timeline and the included historical information are indebted to numerous sources. Some of them are listed below.
Josephus, "The Jewish War", G. A. Williamson (trans.), and E. Mary Smallwood (revised with new introduction, notes and appendixes) (Penguin, London 1981).
Geza Vermes, "The Dead Sea Scrolls in English", Revised and Extended Fourth Edition (Penguin, London 1995).
Norman Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Search for the Secret of Qumran (Touchstone, New York 1996).
"An Illustrated Atlas of the Bible" - Terrain Maps, Photographs, City Plans, Diagrams, Time Chart of Bible History, Gazetteer, Harry Thomas Frank (ed.), Roger S. Boraass (consultant for rev. ed.) (Maplewood, NJ: Broadman Press, 1990).
Frank Moore Cross, "The Ancient Library of Qumran", 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995).
Note 2: I've assembled this for my own benefit. I use it like a notepad for questions, comments, and speculations about historical events; many of which need further clarification. All are welcome to look over my shoulder (and make suggestions), but anyone using this timeline should understand that parts of it will always be in transition from one level of understanding on my part to another. This is not likely to become a well unified Timeline any time soon.
I've relied on expert sources for the backbone, but I've also included surmises which may upon further study turn out to be wrong. The real benefit of such a timeline for me, or any student, comes from assembling and studying it. While this one is available for anyone to consult, the highest purpose it could serve would be to stimulate others to do the same for themselves. The benefits of working through the details are enormous and eventually lead to a much better appreciation of the nature, scope, duration, complexity, and significance of the critical events that shaped the lives, governance, conflicts, economies, and religions of the people of intertestamental Palestine, in particular, and in the Middle East, more generally.
Note 3: If you have a comment, question or suggestion about any part of this timeline, please send me your e-mail. When you do, please "copy and paste" the appropriate section into your e-mail along with your message so that I can find the section(s) to which you refer with more certainty.
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |
The first indigenous civilizations in Egypt have been identified in the south of the country through archaeological excavations. The Badarian culture is the earliest known developed Egyptian civilization based on farming, hunting and mining. Badarians produced fine pottery and carved objects as well as acquiring turquoise and wood through trading.
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |
c. 4500 - 3200 BCE
Her is a map of Egypt with most of the major cities for reference.
|
C
H A L C O L I T H I C P E R I O D |
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |
c. 2360 BCE
2350 - 2075
This may have occurred in two phases. The first, around 2350, may have induced some early problems which were not by themselves so devastating. The second phase, from about 2200 to 2000, may have been much more severe.
|
E
A R L Y B R O N Z E A G E IV |
|||||||||||||||||
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |
c. 2150 BCE
2,000 BCE
|
M
I D D L E B R O N Z E A G E I |
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |
c. 1937 BCE
c. 1759 BCE
|
M
I D D L E B R O N Z E A G E IIA |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |
c. 1728 BCE
Interestingly, studies of tree rings in the Near East also show an event at exactly same time. There the effect of expected increases in cloud cover and soil moisture had the predictable effect of spurring rings of increased thickness due to enhanced growing conditions.
|
M
I D D L E B R O N Z E A G E IIB |
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |
|
M
I D D L E B R O N Z E A G E IIC |
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |
c. 1539 BCE
|
L
A T E B R O N Z E A G E I |
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |
c. 1400 BCE
|
L
A T E B R O N Z E A G E IIA |
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |
c. Thirteenth Century BCE
|
L
A T E B R O N Z E A G E IIB |
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |
c. 1200 BCE
|
I
R O N A G E IA & IB |
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |
|
1,000 BCE
c. 945 BCE
|
I
R O N A G E IC |
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |
c. Around 922 to 918 BCE
900 BCE
c. Ninth - Seventh Centuries BCE
800 BCE Eighth or Seventh Century BCE
c. 725 BCE
718 BCE
c. 712 BCE
700 BCE
676 BCE
Time of Homer or of the celebrity (possibly the first written version) of Homer's works about a war fought 500 years earlier.
Necho crosses the Euphrates in July to join forces with the Assyrians. Thereafter, Egypt controls the entire region all the way to the Euphrates river. (2 Kings 24:7) Judah's brief interlude of independence, between periods of Assyrian and Egyptian control, comes to an end.
Upon gaining control of the Babylonian Empire, Nebuchadnezzar II's first order of business was to attack the last Assyrian monarch Ashur-ubalit. Having been routed from their age old capital of Nineveh and then from Haran, the Assyrians made their final capital city at Carchemish, on the Euphrates, near the modern Turkish-Syrian border. Necho II's troop were also at Carchemish in support of Assyria. The Egyptian army is utterly defeated at the Battle of Carchemish by the Babylonians. Syria and Palestine fall to the Babylonians. Failing to recognize the enormity of this sudden change in the political winds, Judah, still under the leadership of the pro-Egyptian Jehoiakim, sympathizes with Egypt, under the illusion that Egyptian could still project a strong military presence in the region, thereby ensuring future conflict with Babylon. Egypt cannot respond to the pleas of its former allies' requests for aid against the Babylonians.
600 BCE c. 598 BCE
c. 597 BCE
The Territory of Benjamin may also have been taken at this time by Nebuchadnezzar II, although is it also possible that this did not occur until 589/588 BCE. c. 595 BCE
c. 594/593 BCE
c. 592 BCE
c. 590/589 BCE
c. 589/588 BCE
c. 586 BCE
|
I
R O N A G E IIA & IIB |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |
|
c. 586 BCE
The Davidic Dynasty comes to an end.
|
|
|
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |
538 BCE
|
P
E R S I A N P E R I O D or I R O N A G E III |
|||||||||||||||||||
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |
332 BCE
300 BCE 280 BCE
200 BCE
Could the bloodiness of Alexander's conquests account for a suggested drop in the world population between 400 BCE and 200 BCE, or is there some other well known explanation for this effect?
In the epoch of wrath, three hundred and ninety years after he gave them into the power of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, he visited them and caused a root of planting to sprout from Israel and from Aaron to possess His land and to grow rich with the good things of His land. And they came to understand their iniquity and to know that they were guilty men; but they were like blind men or like those who grope for the way twenty years. And God recognized their works, that they sought Him with a whole heart and so raised up for them a Righteous Teacher to make them tread in the way of His heart and to instruct the last generations that which He would do in the last generation against the congregation of the false. (CD 1.5-12) Though F. M. Cross warns us not take the scriptural number "390" (Ezek 4.5) seriously, it is not totally out of the question that it is meant to be a real number. If He visited them, and then let them wander for 20 years, while the Righteous Teacher grew and matured, then 177 BCE would be the earliest year in which he could begin teaching. If Cross is correct that 390 cannot be read arithmetically, then we are forced to fall back to looking for 20 years periods of error and "groping". He suggests the approximately 20 period from the 160s to the 140s BCE when the Hasidim supported the Maccabees. Cross' chronological interpretation is to assume that the break of the Hasidim either with Jonathan late is his career or with Simon early in his career, marks the end of the 20 years of groping. Simon became High Priest in 143/142 BCE.
170 BCE 169 BCE
If Onias' party formed the basis for the Hasidaeans who appear later, then this copy of the temple must eventually have been recognized as a mistake. If the Hasidim were the beginnings of the sectarian group that is supposed to have occupied Qumran, then we have to explain how the bones of sacrificial animals came be buried at Qumran. Cross attributes to Strugnell the idea that the Qumran sect lived their lives on a pattern of the camps in the wilderness, where sacrifice outside the Temple was permissible, under the auspices of a Zadokite priest. That would explain why there was no remote resemblance to the Temple at Qumran like there had been at Leontopolis. Other copies of the Temple have been reported and it is possible that several groups were eventually convinced to leave their fake temples and join the camps in the wilderness movement, if there was one. I like the idea that Onias III was the original inspiration for the Teacher of Righteousness. Though he did not lead anyone into the desert, original writings of such a sect would have provided a place of honor for the last Zadokite High Priest. That would seem to leave Jesus, renamed Jason, as the Wicked Priest. The parallel to the later Jason Maccabaeus must have had a galvanizing effect on such a sect as he removes the last vestiges of hope for a return of the Zadokite high priests to the Temple. The Wicked priest could thus be a composite based on the coincidence of identical names for two hated priests. Jason Maccabaeus enemy, but probably not a second candidate for the Teacher of Righteousness, was Alcimus. The Hasidim supported him at one time, and technically he was the last Zadokite high priest, but he turned on them and killed many. Another good candidate for the Teacher of Righteousness is some unnamed student or descendent of Onias III. 168 BCE
F. M Cross makes a fairly good case for the Hasidim as the Essenes whom it is claimed occupied Qumran. Their later initial support of Alcimus, despite the presence of his Hellenizing Syrian supporters, is a strong suggestion of their dedication to the reinstallation of the Zadokite High Priests. This seems more than a little fanatical given Alcimus willingness to let 60 of the Hasidim be executed by his own supporters. 165 BCE 165 BCE
160 BCE 160 BCE
150 BCE 150/49 BCE
140 BCE 140 BCE
100 BCE 82 BCE
70 BCE 68 BCE
|
H
E L L E N I S T I C P E R I O D |
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |
|
63 BCE
60 BCE 58 BCE
50 BCE 50 BCE
40 BCE 40 BCE
Continuous occupation scenarios appeal to me because I am still playing with the idea that Qumran acted as a point of entry for goods arriving by boat from south and east of the Dead Sea. That might have necessitated some official presence on a more or less continuous basis. Consistent with this and suggested by others, is that it might also have provided a holding area for people who were forbidden to enter Jerusalem. Some think the graves at the site contain the ill and infirm who were not allowed to continue to Jerusalem and had no way to return. The fortified nature of the buildings may have been inadequate for a frontier fortress like those at Masada or Machaerus. It was, however, quite adequate for a small lightly armed staff to keep the peace, guard the boats, and monitor the goods and people seeking to gain access to Jerusalem by boat from beyond the Dead Sea.
30 BCE 30 BCE
20 BCE 20 BCE
10 BCE c. 7 BCE
Beginning of the Common Era 6 CE
10 CE c. 10 CE
20 CE 26 CE
30 CE c. 30 CE
40 CE 40 CE
45 CE c. 45 CE
50 CE 50 CE
55 CE c. 57 CE
60 CE c. 60 CE
65 CE 66 CE
68 CE
70 CE 70 CE - Overview
The earliest post-destruction Jewish writings (the Mishnah) date from 200 CE. Among Christian documents, only Paul's letters and, possibly, the gospel of Mark were written before the destruction. Everything else was later. Even the books of Josephus, which were written shortly after the destruction, introduce the additional complicating factor that they were written for a Roman audience who were not interested in the sectarian questions that interest most of us today. In other words, there is no documentary evidence about sectarian Judaism from the intertestamental period that has not been filtered through the biases of later generations; until we come to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Here for the first time we encounter writings that may come from one or more sects that were not previously part of the "known" cast of conventionally recognized groups. Not surprisingly, most modern scholars have tried to fit these writings onto one of the known groups (Essenes, dissident Saducees, or the Hassidim, for example). They are missing a terrific opportunity to break open the doors to understanding this period by not at least considering other possibilities. More than half of the texts discovered at Qumran were unknown to modern biblical and Jewish scholars prior to their discovery at Qumran. Scholars seem not to have noticed what this implies about the state of intertestamental Judaism prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. It suggests the possibility, if not the likelihood, that among the thousands of books destroyed there were likely to be more thousands of books that we still know nothing about. The diversity of Judaism during that period has still not been fully appreciated, but that does not mean it was not a fact of life at the time. If anything, this brings into even sharper focus that apparent intention of the early Christians to remain Jews, in the fullest sense of that word, for decades after Jesus' death. The differences of opinion between James, called the Brother of Jesus, and Paul seem now to have been dominated by this specific dividing line. Paul wanted to include non-Jews, and to allow modifications to Jewish laws to accommodate them (no circumcision required, for example), while James and his followers still considered themselves Jews, intended for their sect to remain Jewish, and expected their members to all be Jews. One can predict, on the basis that Paul's faction won, that Christian writings have also been purged of this earlier tradition. It also explains why the "Church in Jerusalem" seems to have died out without a whimper. James and Mary and most of the unknown members of that church were literally cut out of the history of Christianity by later Church fathers who purged the Christian literature as surely as the Roman destruction of Jerusalem purged much of the Jewish literature.
75 CE 79 CE
100 CE c. 100 CE
Masoretes at Tiberias compiling Masora (MT), standard Scriptures of Judaism.
200 CE
In Sepphoris at about this time, Judah ha-Nasi compiled the Mishnah. |
O M A N P E R I O D |
After you've had a chance to look around a bit, please visit my Guest Book and Suggestion Box. It takes less than a minute to fill-in the basic form.
Please send any other comments or questions to hoselton@flash.net.
Return to M. A. Hoselton's Dead Sea Scrolls Resources |
| Top of Page |