Here are some of the joyous highlights Bible believers now have based upon recent research from the last ten years:
1. For sure, the RC14 dating for Shishak's invasion in 871 BCE which confirms the 455 BCE 1st of Cyrus chronology!
2. Obviously, the double-dating in the VAT4956 to 511 BCE which first the Bible's reference for that same year for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar.
3. Akhenaten becoming the king that followed the Exodus and his conversion to monotheism, clearly in response to the ten plagues. He dismisses the other gods as "worthless"! Naysayers about the Exodus always challenge there was no great impact ever seen in Egypt for the mass exodus of people, but they are silent when it comes to the religious impact that would have been expected from the ten plagues. In this case, all of Egypt at the time made Yahweh the new official god in the form of Aten, and the Bible not only references this but says that the Egyptians would be inspired to build a new altar to him in the "middle of Egypt, near its boundary", which is precisely where the new city for Aten was built by Akhenaten. This gives us direct reassurance that the ten plagues actually happened and precisely when it should have historically, in 1386 BCE, which the specific dating for the Exodus when 455 BCE is the 1st of Cyrus.
4. We're delighted to note confirmation that Plato was an adult at the time the PPW began via "The Delian Problem." For some reason that reference is in encyclopedias that he was consulted to try to solve a math problem at the beginning of the war in 431-430 BCE, just as plain as day. But Plato wasn't born until 428 BCE BCE!!! When the chronology is corrected and the war reset to 403 BCE, then Plato is 25! So that's been fun. Of course, Xenophon clearly was the revisionist for this period, being connected with editing Thucydides and also putting out his own version of the history of Cyrus. So obviously he was well versed in Persian history and had a focus. The focus, of cousre, was just to provide more Persian propaganda to hide the fact that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king.
5. The change in hand position for Xerxes is certainly a highlight. Per the Bible, Xerxes and Artaxerxes are the same king. The first thing we'd want to do since both are represented in pictures at Persepolis is compare them. But their faces have been hammered off! Interestingly, Artaxerxes became known as "Longimanus" because of the anomaly of a longer right hand which became his trademark. If Xerxes were Artaxerxes it is thought possibly there might be some reference to this longer right hand. Well there is! In one pose, Xerxes, who is co-ruler with Darius is holding onto the back of the throne where Darius is seated. Obviously suggesting he's sharing the throne with Darius. That's pretty fundamental. But that is in a scene over a door jamb. In a scene seen at eye level below a staircase, we find he changes that hand position and turns his hand vertically. This scene is depicted from both his palm side and the back side of his hand! Obviously, this hand was already famous and preserving it for posterity was considered more relevant in this scene than Xerxes merely holding onto the back of the throne. But the single hand position changes goes a very long way in establishing that Xerxes actually was Artaxerxes!! Of course, Artaxers is buried between Darius I and Darius II, another proof Xerxes was the same king as Artaxerxes, but the hand connection is most fun because the faces were destroyed to try to hide the connection. It's hard to explain the change in hand position if Xerxes was not Artaxerxes with the longer right hand. So the evidence is RIGHT THERE, if someone wants to see it.
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/xerxeshand.html (Xerxes hand position)
6. Also fun, obviously, is the anguish of Greek historians who have to deal with the corrected timeline and our discovery that the homosexual relationship (mentor/protogé) between Socrates and Aristotle survives in some writings. But some of this is rather obvious too once you know the facts. The character of "Phaedo" was used to substitute for Aristotle in that relationship with Socrates, for instance. That's because Socrates was moved back in time along with his connection to the Pelopponesian War. This means instead of Socrates dying around the time Phaedo/Aristotle was 18 years old, he dies 14 years before he is born (i.e. 399 BCE vs 366 BCE). Here's a favorite quote about Aristotle in relation to "Phaedo":
Aristotle was an intellectual but not devoid of passion. A story is told of Plato giving a reading of his Phaedo, a purported record of Socrates' last day. The dialogue is moving and solemn. As Plato was reading, however, his audience gradually melted away. In the end, Aristotle alone was left. Probably fictitious, the anecdote was invented to express a truth:
Aristotle was, in fact, spellbound by the Socratic doctrine of immortality as expounded by Plato. It not only interested him intellectually but also absorbed him emotionally.
Meaning that as we know, Xenophon employed Plato to help make these revisions and as well Aristotle, who had to harmonize these revisions. It was their brilliant idea to create the character of Phaedo in place of Aristotle. But here we see they couldn't resist making this loose connection between Phaedo and Aristotle and how focussed Aristotle was on the story of Phaedo. Of course, he IS Phado so that's why he is depicted as remaining spellbound to this story. It's Plato's way of hinting they were the same person without fully giving it away. But once you know Phaedo and Aristotle are the same person, this little "anecdote" about his focus on this story becomes quite transparent. Of course, in the meantime, Aristotle actually references Socrates 80 times in his writings and even quotes from him!! Here's one of my favorites:
Others hold that only what is useful is a friend, the proof being that all men actually do pursue the useful, and discard what is useless even in their own persons (as the old Socrates used to say, instancing spittle, hair and nails), and that we throw away even parts of the body that are of no use, and finally the body itself, when it dies, as a corpse is useless—but people that have a use for it keep it, as in Egypt. (2.74)
Now doesn't this sound like a direct quote? Aristotle indeed would have known Socrates during his last years and so Socrates would have been old to him. If Socrates was just a character who died 14 years before Aristotle was born, his reference would have been more generic. Once we know Aristotle must have known Socrates and, indeed, intimately well, then this simply becomes a minor slip up in hiding the fact that Aristotle knew Socrates in his old age and here is simply quoting from him directly, and authoritatively. This authorative familiarity with what Socrates believed and said shows up in the other quotes and is a bit too strong if we presume this was all taught to Aristotle based upon Socrates' writings!
Or how about this really detailed understanding of Socrates specifics:
And when [b]Socrates[/b], disregarding the physical universe and confining his study to moral questions, sought in this sphere for the universal and was the first to concentrate upon definition, Plato followed him and assumed that the problem of definition is concerned not with any sensible thing but with entities of another kind; for the reason that there can be no general definition of sensible things which are always changing. (1.36)
Doesn't this seem a bit too specific for someone Aristotle allegedly never met? On the other hand, this is perfectly understandable if he actually knew Socrates.
Well, needless to say, these are improved times for the believers as far as being falsely challenged by the academic world.
JC