Amenhotep II commenced somewhere between 1447 & 1425 BCE Over a six generation period therefore, (concerning which the same information is available to all) what commences as a Forty-Five (45) year discrepancy in the commencement date for Amenhotep I, concludes with a 22 year discrepancy in the application of the data for the reign of Amenhotep II. It is obvious that precise dating is impossible and that one is free to choose the chronological table which best suits one's particular purpose. There is recorded therefore, within the chronological history of the Jews as found in both Biblical and extra-biblical documents, two chronologically distinct Exoduses, and attempts to pass off the Mosaic Exodus as a legend reflecting the Hyksos Exodus are nothing more than 'unscientific' and anti-religious attempts to dissuade people from their trust in the historical accuracy of the Bible, and by that means, to turn them from their religious faith.
Ancient Egypt: The Hyksos: 18th Egyptian Dynasty & Rameses II
KingsCalendar Academic Newsletter No.5 Archaeology and the Bible
In the last newsletter I spoke on three things:
1. The current impossibility of maintaining the accuracy of Biblical Chronology for the period from Uzziah to Hezekiah;
2. The difficulty in interpreting the Saba'a Inscription which does not fit current opinions in relation to the kings of Israel and Judah; - and -
3. The challenge to the Sothic Dating System for the History of Ancient Egypt.
Today I want to continue the discussion on the History of Ancient Egypt.
ANCIENT EGYPT : The 18th Dynasty.
There are a number of difficulties involved in determining an 'accurate' history of Egypt.
As mentioned last time, there is a significant challenge to the current placement of Egyptian Dynasties.
Last time I mentioned Merenptah's 'Israel Stele', which, if it is to be believed, records a victory over the 'nation' of Israel, centuries before Israel was a 'nation' as such. Rohl and James et. al. have been working on providing a more reliable chronology, with James et.al. suggesting that Merenptah's dynasty ought to be shifted to the Eleventh century BCE.
Now you might wonder how such a thing can be contemplated. I don't intend to discuss this issue here, but as an example of how unreliable the data for reconstructing the history of Egypt really is, I would draw your attention to the 18th Dynasty, the one which traditionally (not currently) is designated as that dynasty within which Moses was born and grew up.
[For an easy internet review of the 18th Dynasty go to: Dollinger.A. (2000) An Introduction to the History and Culture of Pharaonic Egypt: The 18th Dynasty.]
If one compares the dates assigned by various authors to the Pharaohs of the 18th dynasty, that there are differing applications of archaeological evidence becomes painfully obvious. In comparing the data for just three Pharaohs for instance, we discover a diversity of opinion, as to when they ruled. For example:
a) Amenhotep I is assigned a reign commencing somewhere between 1560 & 1515 BCE
b) Thotmes II commenced somewhere between 1528 & 1482 BCE
c) Amenhotep II commenced somewhere between 1447 & 1425 BCE
Over a six generation period therefore, (concerning which the same information is available to all) what commences as a Forty-Five (45) year discrepancy in the commencement date for Amenhotep I, concludes with a 22 year discrepancy in the application of the data for the reign of Amenhotep II.
It is obvious that precise dating is impossible and that one is free to choose the chronological table which best suits one's particular purpose.
Whilst Biblical chronology places the Exodus in the 15th century within the 18th Dynasty, recently it has become popular to remove it to the 13th Century B.C.E.
Whilst very definite arguments are provided for the later dating by Miller & Hayes, (1986, p.67) including:
i) Earlier misunderstanding of the term 'Habiru' in the Amarna Letters;
ii) Biblical mention of Pithom and Rameses (Ex 1:11);
iii) Mention that Israel was not a nation as per the 'Israel Stela' of Merneptah,
iv) Lack of corroborating Egyptian Records to support Scripture;
Jagersma (1983, p.37) in arguing the same points, warns us that the archaeological basis is not strong, and conclusions are not based on direct evidence. In short, the 'expert' opinions upon which we often rely, do not always rest on incontrovertible fact. (See Footnotes regarding the article: How long did King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon Reign?)
Peter James et.al.(1991, p.309), citing Hanfmann (1951, pp.355/65) support Jagersma, pointing out that the basis of all chronologies, that of the Egyptian and Mesopotamian, rests heavily on academic guesswork. This in no way demeans or invalidates conclusions reached, but it is necessary to keep in mind, that there is a great deal of difference between 'absolute' and 'perceived' truth.
The Biblical Chronological details concerning Moses and his relationship to Pharaoh, require that Pharaoh reigned a very long time, and the choice of Pharaoh to play this role is limited to two. They are either Thutmoses III of the 18th Dynasty in the 15th Century, or Rameses II of the 19th Dynasty in the 13th Century.
Generally speaking, academics do not believe that 'The Mosaic Exodus' is an historical event, but that it reflects some sort of migration over time of Semites into Palestine. What is ludicrous, is that this alleged 'non-event', should be chronologically placed at all. If it did not happen, then you can't logically argue over which century it did not happen in.
But as for those who see it as an historical event in the 13th century, their reasoning and logic is not substantive. To re-iterate, according to Jagersma (1983, p.37) the archaeological basis for this opinion is not strong, and conclusions are not based on direct evidence.
There is of course evidence of a Semitic exodus from Egypt, and that relates to the Hyksos. Some academics see the Mosaic Exodus as a re-write of the Hyksos expulsion from Egypt. However Josephus,(whose chronologies up to the present have not been able to be understood, but which can through the lens of the 'King's Calendar' be reconstructed), lists chronological information that clearly portrays both the Hyksos and Mosaic Exodus.
The Mosaic Exodus occurred 480 years earlier than the Building of Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 6:1), which by current opinion occurred in the 10th Century. Therefore the Exodus occurred in the 15th Century, but Josephus' most direct chronological reference to the Exodus falls within the 17th Century if measured in Solar years and the 16th Century when measured in artificial 'King's Calendar' years.
He maintains that from the Departure from Egypt to (586 BCE.) the Fall of Jerusalem, 1062.5 years elapse [Antiquities. Book 10:8:5]. In solar years, this reference takes us to the year 1648 BCE, which by no stretch of the imagination can refer to the Mosaic Exodus. In artificial years however, it points to the year 1554 BCE (Line 1048 in the 'King's Calendar') which is 105 Solar years or 113 artificial years earlier than the Mosaic Exodus in 1449 BCE.
Clearly, whatever Josephus thought he had before him, it did not refer to the Mosaic exodus. The reference does however fall within various dates provided by various Academics, for the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt. Such dates range from 1583 BCE (Marston 1935, p 83) until after the commencement of the 18th Dynasty under Ahmose (c. 1570 - 1550 BCE)
While he himself assumed that he was referring to the Mosaic Exodus, if we note the wording of his text, Josephus simply states; 'from the departure out of Egypt'.
There is recorded therefore, within the chronological history of the Jews as found in both Biblical and extra-biblical documents, two chronologically distinct Exoduses, and attempts to pass off the Mosaic Exodus as a legend reflecting the Hyksos Exodus are nothing more than 'unscientific' and anti-religious attempts to dissuade people from their trust in the historical accuracy of the Bible, and by that means, to turn them from their religious faith.
Of course no one will admit to such, for they will all logically argue that they are only presenting the known 'facts', and that their failure to support Biblical stories is not sourced in prejudice. But the reality is, that much of what is now known to be 'historical', was previously considered to have been 'historical fiction'. For example; The cities of Capernaum, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Ninevah (not to mention Troy) as well as the people known as the Hittites - paragraphs Five to Seven. The fact that at this time, there is insufficient evidence to prove some particular historical Biblical claim, is insufficient reason to 'deny' the claim.
The reality is that the very fact that something comes from the Bible, is sufficient reason for some academics to reject its veracity. It is one thing to prove that something is 'incorrect', another thing to opinion that it is incorrect, and yet again, it is a completely different thing to claim that because you have been unable to 'prove' something, that it is 'definitely' not so.
In the Next issue, we will continue this theme by looking at what the 'King's Calendar' has discovered about the Mosaic Exodus.
The Following is the Preamble and the Conclusion to the article entitled: How long did King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon Reign? and has strong bearing on some comments made in the article above. What is often called evidence, is just a jigsaw of opinion.
The Jigsaw Analogy: If you have ever done a jigsaw puzzle then you know that it is possible for a number of pieces to look like they fit, but it is not until you are down to the last few pieces, that you discover that some pieces that originally seemed to fit, were misplaced.
This article is devoted to demonstrating that pieces of the historical jigsaw in relation to Ancient Near Eastern History that were thought to fit the jigsaw, have actually been forced to fit; and many pieces thought by Historians to have been superfluous and which were consequently thrown away, actually do belong.
You will find nothing in this article by way of chronology or narrative, that contradicts the Egyptian, Assyrian or Babylonian Records of events that transpired during the period from 609 BCE to 562 BCE, the period covered in this article.
This article does not in any way dispute the Archaeological Evidence of any of the events listed herein.
The Stated aim of this article is to challenge many false academic assumptions which have been accepted by the general community as academic fact. In short, this article strives to demonstrate where the Academics got it wrong!
We sometimes tend to think that our knowledge of history is based on irrefutable evidence, but as pointed out by Sir Alan Gardiner (1961) [James Et.Al 1991 p.222] in reference to Egyptian History, our knowledge is based in a collection of rags and tatters. That there are probably many errors and circular arguments in relation to ancient history is attested to by many, including Colin Renfrew, Professor of Archaeology, Cambridge University (James Et. Al. 1991 : foreword pages.xiii-xv)
As pointed out by Peet. T.E. (1924. p 75): "Archaeology is not an exact science, and deals more often in probabilities and possibilities than in irrefutable demonstrations.'
Whilst it is understandable therefore that some conclusions might be occasionally incorrect, it remains a fact however that it is sometimes difficult for scholars to admit to errors. (Aharoni 1978, p.183). A good example of this is provided by James et.al. (1991, p.250) in 'Centuries of Darkness', which cites Mazar (1986, pp231/47) in relation to Mazar's preference for accepted dating despite his own evidence to the contrary.
Sir Charles Marston (1935, p.156) made similar comments in relation to prejudiced refutation of evidence in reference to potsherds from Jericho that indicated a 15th century Exodus. His point was that rather than change the then current academic opinion, the system of pottery dating indicating a 15th century Exodus was considered questionable. In short, the evidence itself was disbelieved in preference for current academic opinion.
Unfortunately however, there is a bigger problem than merely losing a little face at having to admit that some conclusion or other was incorrect. Miller and Hayes (1986, p.74 'Taking the Account as It Stands') whilst offering an honest and even-handed approach to their examination of various historical matters, offer us insights into some of the less than scientific approaches that are taken by some academics that lead one to speculate that for some, admitting that the scriptural record of history might be right, may be sufficient incentive to ensure that that Scriptural Record be summarily rejected.
James et.al. (1991, p.162) are quite straightforward in their criticisms of Academic "poor methodology, hypercritical treatment of Scripture, blindness, prejudice and a sectarian like rejection of the Biblical Record".
Such observations lead us to consider that some historians and archaeologists would rather provide us a factually incorrect history, than one which might cause us to give credence to anything recorded in the Bible.
What is hypocritical however is when many of these same Academics, quote the very Scriptures which they consider to be fictional, to support their many and various hypotheses.
In this article, through the use of a computer generated mathematical artificial calendar, (What is the King's Calendar?) I am going to demonstrate, that without any contradiction to any Ancient Historical Record, that the chronological data recorded in the Bible, for the period from 609 BCE to 586 BCE, is correct, and that some of the chronological conclusions reached by historians, are incorrect.
11 : Conclusion
Given that historians can provide no actual evidence for their chronological determinations, there can be no refutation of the King's Calendar chronological determinations, unless it can be proved either that the King's Calendar mathematical process is mathematically incorrect, or that the mathematical hypothesis of the King's Calendar is unjustified.
Needless to say, given that the King's Calendar computer generated Mathematical Synchronisation of the Biblical Chronological Data for the Divided Kingdom generally demonstrates the accuracy of the current academically determined history of Israel, the only way to prove that the King's Calendar mathematical hypothesis is wrong, is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that two specific chronological determinations which are separated by Biblical time, are in fact wrong, thereby demonstrating that the King's Calendar value for Biblical Years is incorrect.
Until that time, the legitimacy of the King's Calendar chronology for King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon and Kings Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah of Judah, remains incontestable.
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'.
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.