“Have historians been looking for Exodus
evidence in the
wrong time frame of Egyptian history?”
The web site:
Geographical Exodus Research
is
on the right track in seeking to determine a more realistic time-frame for the
biblical Exodus.
The Date of the Exodus
Three thousand years ago, the Book of Kings cited the
Exodus as the chronological reference point for the beginning of Solomon’s
temple construction in Jerusalem:
“…In the four hundred and eightieth year after the
children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year
of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which [is] the second month,
that he began to build the house of the LORD.” (1 Kings 6:1 KJV)
It is well established that Solomon’s reign began in
971-970 BC (Kitchen 2001), making 967-966 BC his fourth year. Adding the
480 years gives the date of 1447-6 BC on our calendar. Interestingly, the Greek
Septuagint Bible gives 440 years in this verse. The difference likely being
whether the counting starts from the beginning or end of the 40-year Exodus
event.
Damien Mackey’s comment: It is amusing to me when
biblical writers give firm and fixed dates like the above – and even more so
with reference to Kenneth Kitchen as if that determines it. These figures, as
estimates of the real fixed date of
King Solomon’s 4th year, can be only an approximation, a “sighter’,
at this early stage.
The manner of the date’s mention in the Bible implies
that it was revered as a keystone of Hebrew history and had been carefully
preserved. The way it is written in the Hebrew implies that it is intended to
be a precise figure (see Cassuto (1961, 52)) [1]. The date also correlates
with the length of Israel’s period of Judges (Young and Wood 2008), with
Jephthah’s argument in Judges 11:26 [2], and with the Jewish Sabbatical and
Jubilee calendar (Young 2003).
Damien Mackey’s comment: Of which such eras biblical
commentators and historians have come up with a surprising array of differing numbers.
However, despite its seeming bedrock character, the
1446 BC date has largely been ignored or maligned by the modern theorists. One
reason is the lack of evidence for the Exodus in the supposedly “corresponding”
Egyptian time frame–that of the 18th Dynasty (1550-1352 BC).[3] Figure
1 compares the conventional Egyptian chronology timeline with the
biblical timeline.
The Egyptian history of the 18th Dynasty period does
not harmonize with the biblical depiction of an Egypt crippled by plagues and a
destroyed army. Yet, the biblical date has not changed in three millennia,
while the proposed Egyptian chronology is of relatively recent construction,
and still in a state of flux, with four major downward dating revisions in the
last 100 years (Stewart 1999, 319).
Damien Mackey’s comment: That King Solomon, and not
the Exodus, belongs to the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty era, see my article:
Solomon and Sheba
And this revised era for King Solomon needs to be aligned with the
Hammurabic era of Babylon:
Hammurabi and
Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon
Have historians been looking for Exodus evidence in
the wrong time frame of Egyptian history? Based on the proposition that the
Exodus did not precede the 15th-century, scholars have not tended to look for
clues much earlier than the 18th Dynasty.
More recently, the scene has been changing, due
to the growing realization that there are deep-seated problems with the conventional Egyptian
chronology. A number of investigators (e.g., Courville 1971, Aling 1981, James
1991, Rohl 1995, Stewart 1999, Ashton and Down 2006) have dared to challenge
the “orthodox” view, pointing out that portions of the chronology are
unrealistically expanded, which pushes the preceding Egyptian history further
back in time than is justified.
The most glaring problems lie within, and just prior
to, the Third Intermediate Period (TIP), which consists of Dynasties 21-25,
classically dated 1069-664 BC. In this regard, the Oxford History of Ancient
Egypt, which does not propose a revised chronology, notes that: “No
pharaonic king-lists include the 21st-25th Dynasties…. A sound historical
framework for these centuries has proved more difficult to establish than for
any other major period of Egyptian history.” (Taylor 2002, 330)
Damien Mackey’s comment: Very true.
The TIP of Egyptian history is a nightmare for conventional and revisionist
historians alike.
Straight-forward rectification of the problems
associated with the TIP potentially deletes more than 300 years from the
Egyptian timeline, which causes the prior dynasties to shift forward in time.
Such a change brings the 12th Dynasty into alignment with the 215-year Israelite
sojourn (4) in Egypt. When this frame of reference is used, parallels with the
biblical account can be seen in the historical and archaeological data of the
12th and 13th Dynasties. In particular, the hitherto inexplicable demise of the
powerful 12th Dynasty, and the ruinous hiatus in Egyptian history that
followed, are explained by the plagues, the loss of the slave workforce, demise
of the ruling class, and the destruction of the army.
Damien Mackey’s comment: I, too, would favour Egypt’s
Twelfth Dynasty as the era of Moses. See e.g. my article:
The Bible
Illuminates History & Philosophy. Part Six (ii): Moses Chief Judge and
Vizier
Explaining the Biblical Exodus Date
The 480-year date of 1 Kings 6:1 requires some
computation to translate it into our calendar system. The reign of King Solomon
can be calculated from the biblical king lists and their correlations with the
contemporary Assyrian chronology. The Assyrian chronology is fixed by several
astronomical events, the earliest being an eclipse of the sun in 763 BC (Thiele
1983, 69).
Damien Mackey’s comment: “The Assyrian chronology …
fixed”!
What a brave, yet hopelessly wrong, statement!
Assyro-Babylonian history requires a massive revision along the lines of
Egyptian history.
Any revision that complacently rests upon a supposedly “fixed” neo-Assyrian
history is doomed to be a disastrous failure. See e.g. my article:
Ashurbanipal the
Great
Solomon was the third king of Israel, following Saul
and David. The years of Solomon’s reign were 971-931 BC (Kitchen 2001). The
fourth year, second month of Solomon’s reign mentioned in 1 Kings 6:1 would
coincide with the spring of 967 BC (Young 2003, 601). Adding 479 years (480
years inclusive) to 967 BC yields 1446 BC as the year of the Exodus.
The Exodus was preceded by a 215 year Israelite
sojourn in Egypt, with about the latter half being spent in slavery. Figure
1 compares the biblical timeline with the pertinent dynasties of the
conventional Egyptian chronology. In this scenario, part of the Israelite
sojourn and the Exodus would align with the 18th Dynasty. However, the biblical
and Egyptian histories for this period are not complimentary. For example,
Moses traveled to the Egyptian capital [5] to confront pharaoh on almost a
daily basis. The 18th dynasty capital at Thebes was much too distant, lying
about 350 air-miles south of the Israelite land of Goshen in the Nile Delta.
Revised Egyptian Chronology
Modern Egyptian chronology is based on three main
approaches: 1) relative archaeological dating methods such as
stratigraphic excavation and artifact identification, 2) “absolute”
chronologies based on calendar and astronomical records, and 3) carbon 14
radiometric dating. Each of these categories needs to be considered in any
discussion of chronology revision.
1.
Relative Dating
As mentioned above, there is evidence that the dating of the 20th-25th dynasties has been artificially expanded. This situation was set in motion when 19th-century Egyptologists set up arbitrary dynastic dates based on several faulty assumptions. Key among them were: 1) that Ramesses II of the 19th Dynasty was the Pharaoh of the Israelite oppression, and 2) that Shoshenk I of the 22nd Dynasty was the biblical King Shishak that invaded Jerusalem (1 Kings 14:25) about 925 BC (Rohl 1995, 138). In regard to these two kings, Rohl (1995, chap. 7) makes a good case that Ramesses II was actually Shoshenk, meaning that Ramesses II (traditionally ca 1279-1213) has been dated about 300 years too early under the conventional chronology.
Damien Mackey’s comment: Shouldn’t that actually be
that Rohl considered “that Ramesses II was actually
[Shishak]”? Not “Shoshenq”.
David Rohl is very clever and usually always “makes a
good case”.
But I personally believe that there are better
revisionist systems than Rohl’s, and that, by no means, was pharaoh Ramses II
‘the Great’ the biblical “Shishak”. See e.g. my article:
Slightly Shifting
"Shishak"
As a result of the arbitrary dynastic dates,
Egyptologists invented a 400-year gap, called the Third Intermediate Period
(TIP), between 1069 and 664 BC. The TIP then became a repository for a number
of lesser known rulers and dynasties, whose tenures were capriciously stretched
to fill the available time. Egyptologist Redford (1986, 316), who does not espouse
a revisionist chronology, never-the-less observed that the 23rd Dynasty “has
served as a ‘catch-all’ for otherwise difficult to place kings.” [6] This point
was also cited as significant by James (1991, 234).
However, much archaeological data has now accumulated,
both inside and outside of Egypt (e.g., James 1991, chap. 10), that indicates
that the 405-year TIP should be reduced by some 250 years (James 1991, 257). In
support of this proposition, David Rohl (1995, 137) cited three anomalies that
call the conventional TIP chronology into question:
1) The sequences of Apis bull burials at Serapeum do
not account for the lengthy TIP.
2) Mummies taken from the Royal Cache show that Dynasties 21 and 22 were partly contemporary, which would reduce the traditional calculations for the length of these dynasties.
3) The royal burials at Tanis demonstrate that two different lines of pharaohs, from two different dynasties, 21 and 22, overlap by at least 141 years.
Damien Mackey’s comment: Peter James and David Rohl
have bravely tackled, head-on, the immense problem that is TIP. Much can be
gained from their sterling efforts, although I believe that the solution to the
problem may be even more radical than what they have individually (though
somewhat similarly) proposed.
Using estimates based on the Genealogy of the Royal
Architects found at Wadi Hammamat, Rohl (1995, 141) advocated a new
chronology, shifting the 1270 BC reign of Ramesses II down to 936 BC, a
reduction of 334 years. This adjustment compresses sections of the 20th Dynasty
and the 21st-25th Dynasties of the TIP that exhibit various overlapping chronologies.
Damien Mackey’s comment: Peter James and David Rohl,
caught half-way between the conventional system and the 500-year shift
identified by Dr. Velikovsky, end up in No-Man’s-Land. Ramses II is much closer
to c. 800 BC, than to the “Shishak” era of the late C10th BC.
The removal of this unaccounted time causes all prior
dynasties to shift ahead about 330 years. As a result, the conventional 1773 BC
ending of the 12th Dynasty is brought into rough alignment with the 1446 BC
biblical date for the Exodus. This process is diagrammed in Figure
2.
….
Commensurate with this alignment, Stewart (1999)
surmised that Amenemhat IV was the pharaoh of the Exodus. Amenemhat IV
(conventionally dated 1786-1777) was the last male ruler of the 12th Dynasty.
His 9 year rule ended obscurely. Queen Sobekneferu, his likely wife, or sister,
according to ancient historian Manetho (Callender 2002, 170), was the final
ruler of the 12th Dynasty. Her reign lasted less than four years. The tombs of
Sobekneferu and Amenemhat IV have never been found.
Rohl (1998, 16) names Dudimose, the obscure final
ruler of the 13th Dynasty, as the pharaoh of the Exodus. In the conventional
chronology, the 13th Dynasty is listed as ending after 1650 BC, at least 123
years after the close of the 12th Dynasty. A similar proposition was originally
made by Velikovsky (1952), although many of his ideas have been discredited.
Damien Mackey’s comment: Dudimose (“Tutimaeus”) may
fit better as a ruler at the time of the Hyksos invasion, that is, some time later
than the Exodus.
2.
Absolute Dating
Before any shifting can be considered, the absolute dating that is purported to “anchor” the conventional Egyptian chronology needs to be addressed. There are three main dates:
1) 664 BC: the sacking of Thebes by Assyrian king
Ashurbanipal, marking the close of the 25th Dynasty and the TIP.
2) 1541 BC: the 18th Dynasty Papyrus Ebers’ Sothic
rising in the 9th year of Amenhotep I.
3) 1872 BC: the 12th Dynasty Illahun papyrus’ Sothic
rising in the 7th year of Senusret III.
The 664 BC date for the sacking of Thebes is well
documented (Rohl 1995, 119). It forms a secure late point on the Egyptian
timeline (see Figure 2). It is actually the earliest “proven” date of
Egyptian history using historical texts.
Damien Mackey’s comment: Beware, be very wary, of any
so-called “earliest “proven” date[s]”.
David Rohl has placed great store upon the supposedly fixed date of 664 BC
of neo-Assyrian history and the Fall of Thebes. Refer again to my article, “Ashurbanipal
the Great”.
The Sothic dates refer to the rare coincident rising
of the star Sirius and the sun (termed a heliacal rising) on the first day of
the Egyptian year, which marked the start of the Nile flooding. Because
the Egyptian civil calendar did not use a leap year, the Sothic date fell
behind the stellar (sidereal) year at a rate of about one day each four years.
Theoretically, this cyclical relationship calculates to a heliacal rising of
Sirius once every 1460 years.
The Oxford Ancient History of Egypt, cites the
Sothic dates as “the linchpin of the reconstruction of the
Egyptian calendar…” (Shaw 2002, 10). Furthermore, “two Egyptian textual records
of Sothic risings (dating to the reigns of Senusret III and Amenhotep I) form
the basis of the conventional chronology of Egypt, which, in turn,
influences that of the whole Mediterranean region” (ibid. 11). In other words,
the assumed dates of these two events form the chronology basis established for
all of the ancient Near-Eastern cultures. WOW! What if they are erroneous?
Damien Mackey’s comment: “WOW!” indeed. And, sadly,
they are quite “erroneous”.
Looking more closely, the accepted Sothic dates are
based on a variety of rather tenuous assumptions. Moreover, their dates have
been changed a number of times in the last century, and they are still disputed
(e.g., Ward 1992, 60). Mackey (2003, 73) reviewed the checkered history of the
Sothic dates and observed that “Sothic theory has absolutely bedeviled efforts
to establish proper synchronisms throughout antiquity, especially when it is
considered that the chronology of the other nations is usually assessed with
reference to Egypt.” He concluded that a more acceptable alternative was
needed.
O’mara (2003, 26, n20) suggested that Sirius may have
been “schematic rather than astronomical/observational…that the matter is
controversial and replete with uncertainty.” Given the lack of Egyptian
astronomy sophistication mentioned by Ward (1992, 288), the “belief that the
ancient Egyptians had actually used this Sothic period of 1,460 years as a kind
of long-range calendar is pure supposition” (Mackey 2003, 70). Luft (2003, 203)
called “everyone’s attention to the fact that the Egyptians of the 2nd
Millennium BC did not create a period of any kind that could help in our
searching for the absolute chronology.”
The inherent Sothic difficulties noted by Ward (1992,
63), led him to conclude that “a dependable, accurate, and acceptable absolute
chronology for Egypt during the Bronze Age cannot be achieved with the evidence
currently available.” Similarly, Rohl (1995, 135) listed a number of respected
Egyptologists who have questioned the reliability of the Ebers Sothic date. In
particular, Egyptologist Manfred Bietak noted that the “Sothis-date of the Year
9 of Amenhotep…is insecure and should not be used anymore.” Thus, it seems that
the Sothic dates are anything but absolute.
3.
Radiometric
Dating
A 1989 review in Radiocarbon noted that incompatibility between carbon 14 dates and the archaeological and historical dates of Egypt and Mesopotamia was a significant problem (Weinstein 1989). In Egypt, carbon 14 dates are often too early by one to three centuries, especially prior to the mid second millennium BC (Keenan 2002).
Even if the carbon 14 date appears to be in the
“correct” range, the date is given as a band of years that is usually too broad
to apply meaningfully to narrow chronology questions, such as the construction
date of a building.
Another matter is that of “calibration,” whereby
dendrochronology (tree ring dating) is applied to the carbon 14 data to give a
“corrected” date. This process adds another set of variables, especially if the
tree ring data are tied to climate factors and atmospherics that differed from
the environment of the Egyptian material being tested.
In light of these problems, Rohl (1995, 388) advocated
using “uncalibrated dates in support of a relative, but not an absolute
chronology.” Stewart (1999) found that non-calibrated Egyptian radiocarbon
dates, which were about 300 years younger than the calibrated dates, agreed well
with his revised (lower) Egyptian chronology for dynasties 11-19. Stewart
(1999, 161) cited a 3490 BP [before present] carbon 14 date for the boundary
wall of the Sesostris II pyramid, which translates to about 1540 BC. In the
conventional chronology, Sesostris II (Senusret II) ruled 1877-1870. If the
wall was built during his reign, such dating suggests that the conventional
chronology is about 330 years too old.
This pattern is also seen in the Amarna radiocarbon
dates, where the non-calibrated dates are about 250 years younger than the
calibrated (Rocchi 1998). The mean of the non-calibrated Amarna dates is 1100
BC, which is close to Rohl’s (1995, 199) estimation that the Amarna period was
contemporary with the rise of the Israelite monarchy ca 1000 BC.
Damien Mackey’s comment: Amazing what conventional
and revisionist historians alike can do with numbers. They can argue you blind
with them.
A 1000 BC El Amarna [EA] period is admittedly fairly close to the mark –
far closer, at least, than is the conventional 1300’s BC estimate for EA.
But it is still too early, I believe. See e.g. my:
House of Solomon
and:
Regarding the troubling correlation between calendar
and radiometric dates in Egypt, the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt
dryly observed that the relationship “has been relatively ambivalent over the
years” (Shaw 2002, 2).
CONCLUSIONS
The biblical Exodus date given in 1 Kings 6:1 has not
changed since it was recorded three millennia ago. The 1446 BC rendering of
this date is substantiated by links between Israelite history and the
astronomically-based Assyrian chronology [sic].
Conversely, the conventional Egyptian chronology has
been evolving since its inception. The supposed pillars of this framework,
particularly the astronomical, are based on many tenuous assumptions that are
far from absolute. For the second millennium BC, the calibrated Egyptian
radiometric data seem to have generated as many questions as answers.
Meanwhile, there is growing evidence of serious systemic chronology problems
that demand some reconstruction of the conventional Egyptian framework.
The conundrum is that all of the ancient cultures of
the Mediterranean and Near East are dependent on the Egyptian chronology and
there is a great deal of scholarly inertia to be overcome. Nevertheless,
Egyptologists may need to consider a new building instead of continuing to
merely move furniture within it.
Notes
[1] Cassuto (1961, 52) discovered that Hebrew numbers
written in ascending order (vs. descending) were meant to be precise, not
schematic.
[2] “…Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in
Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that [be] along by the coasts of
Arnn, three hundred years…” (Judges 11:26)
[3] All Egyptian dates are taken from the 2002 Oxford
History of Ancient Egypt, 479-483.
[4] According to the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:17, the
law was given (at Mt. Sinai) 430 years after the covenant was made with
Abraham. Comparison of Old Testament versions and examination of the
genealogies, demonstrates that about half of this time was spent in Egypt.
Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 2.15.2) states, “they left Egypt…four
hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two
hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt.
[5] Stewart (1999, chap. 16) thoroughly argues that
the 12th Dynasty capital, Itjtawy, would have been at Zoan
(Tanis).
References
Aling, Charles. 1981. Egypt and Bible History.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
Ashton, John, and David Down. 2006. Unwrapping the
Pharaohs. USA: Master Books.
Callender, Gae. 2002. The Middle Kingdom. In The
Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, ed. Ian Shaw, 148-183. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Cassuto, Umberto. 1961. The Documentary Hypothesis
and the Composition of the Pentateuch. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Courville, Donovan A. 1971. The Exodus Problem and
its Ramifications. Loma Linda, CA: Challenge Books.
James, Peter. 1991. Centuries of Darkness.
United Kingdom: Jonathan Cape, Ltd.
Keenan, Douglas J. 2002. Why Early-Historical
Radiocarbon Dates Downwind from the Mediterranean are too Early. Radiocarbon
44(1):225-237.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. 2001. How We Know When Solomon
Ruled. Biblical Archaeology Review 27(05) Sept/Oct. Biblical
Archaeological Society Archive CD.
Luft, Ulrich. 2003. Priorities in Absolute Chronology.
In The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in
the Second Millennium B.C. II, ed. Manfred Bietak, 199-204.Wien: Verlag der
Osterreichischein Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Mackey, Damien F. 2003. Fall of the Sothic Theory:
Egyptian Chronology Revisited. Theological Journal 17(3):70-73.
O’Mara, Patrick F. 2003. Censorinus, the Sothic Cycle,
and Calendar Year One in Ancient Egypt: The Epistemological Problem. Journal
of Near Eastern Study 62(1):17-26
Redford, D. B. 1986. Pharaonic King-lists, Annals
and Day-books. Mississauga, Ontario: Benben/Soc. for the Study of
Egyptian Antiquities.
Rocchi, Federico. 1998. IntCal98 Calibration for
Radiocarbon Ages of Samples from Amarna. From
http://www.egyptologyforum.org/EMP/EEFLibrary3.html
Rohl, David M. 1996. A Test of Time. London:
Arrow Books.
Rohl, David M. 1998. Legend: The Genesis of
Civilization. UK: Random House.
Shaw, Ian. 2002. Introduction: Chronologies and
Cultural Change in Egypt. In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt,
1-16. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stewart, Ted T. 1999. Solving the Exodus Mystery.
Lubbock, TX: Biblemart.
Taylor, John. 2002. The Third Intermediate Period.
In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, ed. Ian Shaw, 330-368. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Thiele, Edwin R. 1983. The Mysterious Numbers of
the Hebrew Kings. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Velikovsky, Immanuel. 1952. Ages in Chaos.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Ward, William A. 1992. The Present Status of Egyptian
Chronology. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
288:53-66.
Weinstein, J. 1989. Review: Chronologies in the Near
East. Radiocarbon 33(1):15-21.
Wood, Bryant G. 2005a. The Rise and Fall of the 13th
Century Exodus-Conquest Theory. The Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 48(3): 475-489.
Wood, Bryant G. 2005b. Extra-biblical Evidence for the
Conquest. Bible and Spade 18(4): 98-99.
Young, Roger C. 2003. When Did Solomon Die? Journal
of the Evangelical Theology Society 46:4, 589-603.
Young, Roger C., and Bryant Wood. 2008. A Critical
Analysis of a Late-Date Exodus-Conquest. Journal of the Evangelical
Theology Society 51:2, 225-243.
No comments:
Post a Comment