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.
End of Days Sale: The king's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran, which has been available to academics at an academic price for 6 years now, has run its course. Before the Merchant Banking contract expires in November 2010, this book is being made available [From August 20th] to 'lay readers' at the all time low price of US$10. This offer only lasts until November 2010. 'PURCHASE NOW'.
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, for a Limited time 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
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.
R.P.BenDedek is from Brisbane Australia and is the author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' at http://www.kingscalendar.com His 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.
He writes photographic 'Stories from China' and social editorial commentaries, both at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing newspaper columnist. He currently teaches Conversational English in China and in addition to his English Lessons at KingsCalendar, he has created specific sites for Students of English.
