There is one thing of which we may be certain, despite some claims to the contrary, nobody has ever proved that the Biblical portrayal of Israelite History is 'fictitious'. What some Academics do claim is that 'their findings' do not support this or that particular matter. What I have demonstrated in the last few weeks is that none of such academic findings are 'irrefutable'; all of their findings are constantly being 'tweaked' and challenged in many different ways by many different people in many different academic fields. Note the importance of matrilineal descent within the 18th dynasty. Not only because it ensured dynastic survival, but because it plays an important role in substantiating Moses' historical existence within this dynastic family structure. The Pharaoh's daughter who pulled Moses from the bull rushes was in fact Hatshepsut.
Exodus and 'The Secret of Qumran' : Kingscalendar.
Note: 12,000 word Collation on: The Hyksos, The Exodus, Moses, The 18th Egyptian Dynasty, 1 Kings 6:1, and Josephus files SEE: Exodus Unabridged.
If the Mosaic Exodus actually occurred, Who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?
Did the Exodus occur in Egypt's 15th Century BCE 18th Dynasty or later in 13th century BCE?
These are just some of the usual questions about this event.
In this article we will discuss some of these issues.
What the King's Calendar demonstrates regarding the Exodus.
Over the course of the last five weeks, I have raised and demonstrated two important points. The first is that it is 'profound blindness' to insist that there are no errors in the Bible. While it might be so shattering to some people's faith that they will not admit to it, at the other end of the spectrum, there are those whose admission of it has tended to 'rob' them of trust in Biblical reliability and value, and in the process, have abandoned their faith at a fundamental level.
Secondly, there is one thing of which we may be certain, despite some claims to the contrary, nobody has ever proved that the Biblical portrayal of Israelite History is 'fictitious'. What some Academics do claim is that 'their findings' do not support this or that particular matter. What I have demonstrated in the last few weeks is that none of such academic findings are 'irrefutable'; all of their findings are constantly being 'tweaked' and challenged in many different ways by many different people in many different academic fields.
Having said that, let me now say, that no matter what someone might like to assert or claim, there is absolutely no evidence currently in existence, nor likely to be forthcoming, that can demonstrate that the chronology offered by the 'King's Calendar' is impossible, untenable or contrary to the 'evidence'. It has equal merit with any currently suggested construction of Israelite History, with one excelling exception. It can demonstrate itself mathematically. There is only one possible justification for rejecting the 'King's Calendar' Chronology, and that would be to demonstrate that its computer generated mathematical foundation is erroneous in that its determination at some point of history can be proven to be incorrect.
The Bottom line is, that the 'King's Calendar', in relying upon and supporting Biblical Chronology, can demonstrate that its' information does in fact fit into the overall claims of Archaeology and Ancient History.
Before moving on to look at some of the things that the 'King's Calendar' has rediscovered about the Exodus, let's first take a look at some events in the Chronological Timetable presented by the 'King's Calendar'.
Some Events in the King's Calendar Chronological Timetable:
Text Version of Chart
586 BCE : The Destruction of the Temple
936 BCE : The Death of King Solomon
974 BCE : The Death of King David
1010 BCE : The Death of King Saul
1038 BCE : Saul becomes King
1412 BCE : The Israelites enter Canaan
1449 BCE : The Exodus
1486 BCE : Moses Flees Pharaoh
1523 BCE : Moses Born
1554 BCE : Hyksos Expelled from Egypt
1582 BCE : Patriarch Joseph dies
1633 BCE : Patriarch Jacob dies
1648 BCE : Egyptian Sojourn commences
1649 BCE : Famine in Egypt commences
1657 BCE : Patriarch Isaac Dies
1683 BCE : Patriarch Joseph Born
1754 BCE : Abraham Dies
1822 BCE : Isaac Born
1915 BCE : Abraham Born.
DISCOVERING THE EXODUS:
From the Fall of Jerusalem
To Discover the exodus, we must start at the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE.
The Babylonian Exile commenced in 586 BCE, contrary to 'the now' current opinion that it occurred in 587 BCE. One of the demonstrations provided by the King's Calendar to prove this point, is that historians have established that the successor to Nebuchadrezzar, Amel-Marduk (the Biblical Evil Merodach) came to the throne in 561 BCE. Wiseman (1985, p.9) relates that Amel Marduk ascended to the Babylonian throne on October 8th 562 BCE. (the 37th year of the captivity of Jehoiachin), commencing his first regnal year in Nisan of 561 BCE.
The reference to the Thirty-Seventh (37th) year of Jehoiachin's captivity is demonstrably an artificial one, since in solar years it would require that his captivity occurred in either 599 BCE or 598 BCE. Neither of these dates correspond to the two dates assigned to the invasion during Nebuchadrezzar's 7th year, in which the Bible asserts that Jehoiachin was taken captive during his 11th year. Within the 'King's Calendar' perspective, Jehoiachin's release occurs on March 18th 561 BCE., five (5) months after Amel Marduk's accession and just before he commences his first regnal year. The 'King's Calendar' therefore concludes that the Fall of Jerusalem occurred in 586 BCE.
Since Amel-Marduk's accession year of 562 BCE is Nebuchadrezzar's last regnal year, it is not possible that Nebuchadrezzar reigned forty-three (43) years, if his reign is to be synchronised with the reigns of the Judean Kings, as is indicated in the Biblical Narratives. There is no 'absolute' proof that Nebuchadrezzar reigned 43 regnal years. A business contract referring to his 43rd year appears to indicate a 43 year reign, but it was common practice to include the accession year as a regnal year. Current academic opinion however REQUIRES us to accept that the Scriptural references are wrong at this point in history.
The Building of Solomon's Temple
Having established the date for the Fall of Jerusalem as 586 BCE, the scriptural references lead us back to 970 BCE, the fourth year of King Solomon, and the commencement of the building of the Temple at Jerusalem.
Egyptian Exodus and Entrance into Canaan
From 970 BCE and the Building of Solomon's Temple, we can calculate backwards using 1 Kings 6:1 to the Israelite entrance into Canaan in 1412 BCE, and to the Exodus in 1449 BCE. (To view the issues involved in using 1 King's 6:1)
From this point we can calculate the divisions in Moses life:
Born 1523 BCE
Fled to Midian in 1486 BCE
The Exodus occurred in 1449 BCE
Moses died in 1413/1412 BCE
From within this time frame we can see that the events of Moses life take place from within the perspective of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty.
The 18th Egyptian Pharaonic Dynasty
The founder of the 18th Dynasty was Ahmose/Amosis.
Amosis succeeded in expelling the Hyksos 'Shepherd kings' from Egypt,
and he enshrined the precedent that succession to the Egyptian throne would be legitimised by Matrilineal descent (Aldred 1988,p.139).
As it transpired, this formula ensured the survival of that dynasty, for although Ahmose/Amosis was succeeded by his son, it was the husband of his daughter Ahmes who in turn succeeded as Thutmosis I (Grimal 1992, p.27).
When their son Amenemes died prematurely, Thutmosis' son by a minor wife, was legitimised by marriage to his half sister Hatshepsut (Ahmes' daughter / Amosis' granddaughter). He reigned under the name Thutmosis II.
Thutmosis II and Hatshepsut had only one child, a daughter Neferure, who died prematurely (Aldred, 1988, p.140).
Thutmosis II's son by a secondary wife, eventually became Pharaoh Thothmes III,
Thothmes III commenced his reign as a child under the regency of his stepmother Hatshepsut,
Thothmes III later reigned with Hatshepsut,
and finally after Hatshepsut's death, Thothmes reigned in his own right.
Note the importance of matrilineal descent within the 18th dynasty. Not only because it ensured dynastic survival, but because it plays an important role in substantiating Moses' historical existence within this dynastic family structure. The Pharaoh's daughter who pulled Moses from the bull rushes was in fact Hatshepsut.
What was the name of Pharaoh's Daughter?
According to Josephus (Antiquities Book 2 Ch. 9:5 - Whiston, 1993) her name was Thermuthis.
Marston (1935, p.185) saw in Moses' name a correlation with that of 'Thotmes' (Thutmosis).
Hatshepsut's father, husband, and stepson all ruled under that name.
The Biblical record refers to her as 'pharaoh's daughter',
but Josephus, having identified her as the 'King's Daughter',
thereafter several times refers to her as 'Queen'.
The archaeological record itself, despite 'reasonable opinions' as to the actual fact of the matter, informs us that Hatshepsut described herself as her father's co- regent (Grimal, 1992, p.207),
and so Hatshepsut was therefore, 'a most sovereign queen of Egypt!'.
Moses' adoption - 1519 BCE (Born 1523 BCE)
Moses was not immediately adopted by Pharaoh's Daughter. In Antiquities Book Two Chapter Nine (6:230) Josephus tells us that as Moses grew, he was advanced and superior in every way: in beauty, ability and intellectual capacity; so much so, that the impressed Thermuthis/Hatshepsut decided to adopt him.
His age at adoption is not specified, and from a textual viewpoint (Antiquities Book Two Chapter 9:7 ), he could have been anywhere between four and six years of age.
The adoption is stated to have been necessitated by the fact that Thermuthis/Hatshepsut did not have a child of her own to offer as her father's (Thothmes/Thutmosis 1st) successor. From this we may infer either that her father's death was imminent, that she believed herself to be incapable of having children, or for some other reason, feared that she would not bear children.
By the time Moses was four years of age, Hatshepsut, if of a similar age to her future husband (Thutmosis II) was only about 20 years old, and her father Thutmosis I, had but five years left to live. Her decision to adopt Moses was advantageous, for we are told that there was no male candidate at this time to succeed her father. One reason for this belief may be substantiated by the fact that her future husband Thutmosis II was apparently deformed and died prematurely in his thirties (Newby, 1980, p.51).
Despite the 'improbability' of a Hebrew slave becoming a Prince in Pharaoh's household, the historical setting does permit it. Is it just co-incidence that the some later generations made up a fanciful story that just happens to fit in nicely with the facts of Ancient History?
In 1514 BCE when Moses was around Nine (9) solar years old (11 artificial years old), Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis II had a daughter. At that time, the future would certainly have seemed secure to Hatshepsut, for her Daughter, through marriage to Moses, would have provided Egypt with a New King. Theoretically the later birth of a half brother in 1511 BCE (Tuthmosis III) would have had no dynastic effect. Unfortunately for Moses, little Neferure died at the age of Eleven years in 1503 BCE.
According to Josephus' record, there are three notable points concerning Moses adoption. These are:
i) That it takes place while Hatshepsut's father (Thotmes I 1539 - 1514 BCE) is still alive. This indicates that Moses was no older than Nine (9) years of age.
ii) The express purpose of the adoption was to make Moses the heir to Thothmes I.
iii) It was Hatshepsut not her father, who appointed Moses the Dynastic successor.
These points are significant, for in them, Josephus indicates what is now known archaeologically, that succession was a Matrilineal occurrence, and that it was Hatshepsut's role to bestow and legitimise the successor's kingship and divinity. Whether he was aware of it or not, Josephus quotes the only formula in operation at this time in Egypt, for the appointment of a new Pharaoh, and it was Hatshepsut's job to provide an heir, either naturally, by adoption, or by marriage.
A fourth point to note is that her father accepted both the child, and the reasoning behind the adoption. Despite pharaoh's acceptance however, Josephus informs us that prophetic word is given against the child. Thermuthis however, protects him, not the least reason for which, as indicated previously, is that there was no one, kin or adopted, for succession to the throne, who was likely to be of such great advantage as this child.
Moses was therefore 'educated with great care'. (Perhaps to ensure negation of any possibility of fulfillling the prophetic word, or of involvement with the Hebrews)
Despite the fact that Josephus' details match what we know of the dynastic situation of the day, he does nevertheless make errors, which, given that three kings in a row had the same name, is not at all unforgivable.
Historically, between Antiquities Book Two Chapters 10:1  & 11:1 , the following events occur.
Moses' Flight to Midian.
According to the 'King's Calendar', at the age of 40 years, Moses fled Egypt at approximately the same time as Hatshepsut's death (1487 BCE). If the animosity that is sometimes assumed to have existed between Hatshepsut and her Stepson Thutmosis III was real, (as is 'apparently' indicated by the desecration of Hatshepsut's monuments), then it seems unlikely, that Moses would have remained in Egypt beyond her death, if Josephus' record of the Egyptian prophecy and resultant threat were accurate.
On the other hand it could be accepted that since Thutmosis had lived his life in an intimate relationship with Hatshepsut and Moses, he had no personal fear or anxiety with regard to Moses' allegiance and faithfulness, until perhaps after the Ethiopian campaign.
In either case, given priestly animosity toward him, Moses' murder of the taskmaster removes him from royal protection, and results in his flight to Midian, to a people, with whom he may have had prior contact via the mines at Serebit. [Marston (1935, pp.203-205) observes that Hatshepsut was the patroness of the monotheistic, Midianite, Semitic, temple at Serabit, and that the whole form and regulation of worship instituted by Moses, follows almost identically to that at Serebit.]
Return to Egypt.
Forty years later, 'when he understood that the pharaoh (Tutmosis III) in whose reign he fled away was dead' (Antiquities Book 2 :13:1), Moses returned to Egypt. The new king of Egypt was Amenhotep II, but he however co-reigned with his father during the latter's final two years. The 'King's Calendar' contention is that it is more than likely that it was not with Amenhotep that Moses had dealings, but with Thothmosis III's Grandvizier Rekhmire.
Since the 'King's Calendar' places the Exodus at 1449 BCE, if Petrie's chronology is correct, then Moses arrived back in Egypt prior to Thutmosis' death, contrary to Josephus' assertion in Antiquities Book 2 Chapter 13:1. This may be because Josephus' has generalised, in asserting that Thutmosis was actually dead when the 'new' king began to rule in Egypt. From an historical perspective however, Moses may have returned in the hope of obtaining the release of his people from the dying pharaoh.
The rest of this story you already know. It is history!
Newsletter Series Conclusion:
We live in an 'enlightened' and 'well educated' age, but that doesn't mean we are any the wiser for it. We assumed as we were growing up that all these Bible stories were true – 'word for word'. Then along came a whole host of academic regimens that pulled apart anything and everything, and in their wake we have 'lost' so much of that in which we once believed.
The 'King's Calendar' is not a religious book. It doesn't peddle God or Religion. It doesn't say you must believe this or that. But what it does say, is that some of the people in whom you put your trust, betrayed you. Perhaps not deliberately; perhaps not maliciously, but they did betray you. So many things of which they were once sure were untrue, have since been demonstrated to have been true. Many things of which they were once certain, are now in doubt and many things that they tell you are 'historical fact', are no more than academic opinions, and a lot of reasonable guesses. (See:"The Law, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology" Part 1.)
I'm not knocking the academics for doing their job, for without them I could not have done mine. But I think it is about time that they were a little more open about the flaws in their guesses. There is no part of the chronology of the 'King's Calendar' that does not conform to someone's opinion of events during Israelite history.
All I have done is say, 'Hey you guys, you often guessed correctly, here's the proof. Of course the hard part is getting them to open their eyes. And as for the 'fundamentally' inclined, many of them simply can't get beyond the concept that there are errors in the Bible. Frankly, if all that anyone ever needed to get to heaven, was a Bible, then none of the prophets would ever have been necessary.
Whether you are Jewish or Christian, ultimately, it is not the words of a book that save you, it is your right standing in the presence of the Almighty. But then again, according to one of the boys at Yahoo Religion_Forum, if you aren't reading that Bible which God himself ordained and authorised (the KJV), then you are damned to hell!
The Premise: Between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE (but continuing down to at least 104 BCE), Sectarian redactors transcribed the legitimate 'solar year' chronological records of Israel and Judah, into an artificial form, with listed years as each comprised of 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days, or 336 days per year, thus creating a 13th artificial year where 12 solar years existed.
When the Synchronous Chronological Data provided in the Books of Kings and Chronicles for the Divided Kingdom Period are measured in years of 336 days, the synchronisms actually align. [Refer to Appendix Five to see how it synchronises the Divided Kingdom Period]
General formula for Biblical Data conversion:
The formula for constructing the artificial calendar was:
'X' times 364 equals 'Y' days'Y' days divided by 336 equals 'Z' artificial years.Values are:'X' = any given number of 'real/solar' years364 = perceived days in the sectarian calendar'Y' = number of days calculated336 = number of days in an artificial year'Z' = artificial years = 1.083'X' and represents the original number of the converted years plus 8%.To reverse the process by hand:'Z' years times 336 equals 'Y' divided by 364 equals the Number of 'X' years converted.
To see how effective this method is, SEE:Appendix 5:Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE:
The Principle of Linear Causality
The King's Calendar is a very simple approach to Biblical Chronology. It substitutes a value of 336 days for every year listed in Scripture. As far as the Divided Kingdom is concerned, when you use this 336 day year value, the synchronisms actually work. To see how effective this method is, SEE:Appendix 5: Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE
Because it is a mathematical system, the King's Calendar must abide by certain mathematical rules, the most important of which, is that if you change any date for any day, month, or year every other day, month, or year is effected and must also change. It's like a 'domino effect'. Chronological references cannot be 'forced' to fit, and nor can they simply be ignored or 'compressed' as is the usual case with historians and archaeologists.
If any King's Calendar chronological determination disagrees with anything in the history books, it must argue the case as to why the history books are wrong, or why the evidence for an assertion is untrustworthy. If the King's Calendar successfully defends its' position, then the history books cannot be treated as definitive, and if the King's Calendar is 'proven' wrong, then every other chronological reference it provides is also wrong.
Because of this, the King's Calendar Chronological Reconstruction of Israel's history is unique, in that its' methodology can be scientifically (mathematically) tested and demonstrated to be either true or false. Its' chronological predictions are able to be 'proved' or 'disproved'.
Click "Like" to share this article with your friends.
The Download book does not contain a section on Seder Olam
About the KingsCalendar Publisher
R.P.BenDedek is the owner and Editor of KingsCalendar.com which was originally set up to publicize his research results into the Chronology of Ancient Israel. Those results were published under the title: 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran'.
Whilst there have been many attempts to solve the chronological riddle of the Bible's synchronisms of reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah and their synchronism with other Ancient Near Eastern Nations, no other research is based on a simple mathematical formula which could, if it is incorrect, be disproved easily. To date, no one has been able to dismiss the mathematical results of this research.
Free to air Academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah.