Josephus, Exodus: Hyksos: Bible Dates: Israelite History: Bible ArchaeologyAddressing two small but connected issues in relation to the Biblical Exodus from Egypt: The Hyksos - and - Pharaoh Rameses II: When you calculate the total of reigns to Rameses (which are provided in both year and months of reigns), there expires a total of 254 years
In an attempt to collate information at King's Calendar that is spread across numerous files in relation to - The Hyksos, The Exodus, Moses, The 18th Egyptian Dynasty, 1 Kings 6:1, and Josephus files, a new file has been created entitled: Exodus Unabridged: Collation of King's Calendar Articles.
It is 12,000 long, and attempts to provide one overall picture of the various difficulties posed by Biblical Chronology, non-canonical material and Archaeology.
Josephus calculates the Time frame between
the Hyksos Expulsion and Rameses II
I have written elsewhere (and in Chapter 20 – Josephus) that when Josephus speaks of the Exodus he speaks merely of the going out from Egypt, and that this refers to the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, (not the Mosaic Exodus), calculated by the King's Calendar at 1554 BCE
(See Appendix 12 : Currently Freely available on line in the Chapter Precis Section.)
In Flavius Josephus Against Apion Book 1 :15 Josephus provides a list of dates of the Egyptian Pharaohs from the time of that expulsion to the time of Rameses II. [From:The Works of Flavius Josephus Translated by William Whiston]
When you calculate the total of reigns to Rameses (which are provided in both year and months of reigns), there expires a total of 254 years.
If one calculates 254 years from 1554 BCE (Hyksos expulsion), one arrives at the year 1300 BCE.
When one searches for the commencement date for Rameses II, a variety of possible dates are provided, ranging from 1328 BCE to 1290 BCE.
Clearly, the archaeological evidence is able to be interpreted in a variety of ways, resulting in different conclusions.
However, the much maligned Josephus determines from extant records, that Rameses II commenced +/- a few months, in 1300 BCE.
Despite the current belief that Josephus' chronological data is incomprehensible, the King's calendar demonstrates that despite his carelessness, it is possible to deconstruct and reconstruct his chronological details.
To assist in your studies, Appendix 12 & 17 are freely available online.
R.P.BenDedek
To see how effective the King's Calendar method of synchronising the Biblical data is, SEE : Appendix 5: Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE
King's Calendar revision and collation of all its articles on Josephus:
The Following is the Preamble 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 Archaeological 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.
Note:
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.
PREFACE
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.
Copyright 2013 is held by the nominated authors on this article page.
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.
Check the Chapter Precis Page to see details of each chapter and to gain access to the Four Free to Air Chapters
R.P. BenDedek also writes social commentaries and photographic 'Stories from China' both at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing columnist at Magic City Morning Star News in Maine USA.
He has been a conversational English Teacher in China since 2003 and is currently (2013) teaching in SuZhou City Jiangsu Province in China.
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'.
