This article strives to integrate the content of various individual articles at Kingscalendar on the topic of the Exodus, it's date, and the identity of the Pharaoh of Egypt at that time.
Each Article was originally written in relation to the contents of Chapter 15 of the King's Calendar, which relates to Moses Life. Not all the information contained within those files appears in this article.
The King's Calendar' is a synchronous chronological presentation of the history of Ancient Israel, as principally recorded in the Biblical books of Kings and Chronicles, and sets forth Apologetics for and the results of R.P.BenDedek's discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Books of the Bible, Josephus,the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah.
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 it's computer generated mathematical foundation is erroneous in that its determination at some point of history can be proven to be incorrect.
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'.
Section 1:
18th Dynasty Exodus from Egypt.
How Does the King's Calendar Determine an 18th Egyptian Dynasty Exodus?
Starting with The Babylonian Exile.
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. Furthermore, academic uncertainty surrounding Kandalanu, makes it possible to remove one year from Nebuchadrezzar's reign without consequences. Current academic opinion however REQUIRES us to accept that the Scriptural references are wrong at this point in history. See:
With the Fall of Jerusalem dated to 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.
The King's Calendar assigns a value of 336 days per Biblical Year derived from the Hypothesis that:
The Proto-Essenes or Hasidim, firstly in Babylonia and later in Palestine, altered the true solar year history of Israel.
Counting each year as comprised of 364 days
They divided these 364 days into 7 day periods
And divided these into 4 week months
To create an artificial year of 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days.
The Period of the Divided Kingdom has been set out artificial year by artificial year in Appendix 5. You can also see Josephus' application of data in Appendix 12 in the Chapter Precis Section
1 Kings 6:1
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. The King's Calendar demonstrates that the Septuagint version of 1 Kings 6:1 is the original solar year reference linking the Entry into Canaan to the First year of Solomon - not the building of the temple, and that the Masorete version is the 480 artificial years from Entry into Canaan to the commencement of the Temple.
The 'King's Calendar' proposition is that the Septuagint rendering is an 'original' reference, not yet altered in the accepted text of the mid-third century when the Septuagint was composed. A few examples of this have already been encountered, specifically in relation to the Omrides.
These two different references only 'reasonably agree'. When 480 artificial years are converted into solar years, the result is 443 years, not the 440 years which appear in the Septuagint, and conversely, the number of artificial years to transpire over 440 solar years is 477 years, not the 480 years of the Masorete. There is a three year discrepancy.
It is difficult to reconcile this discrepancy given that the contention of the 'King's Calendar' is that the Septuagint's use of solar years 'must' be the original and true chronological record. The most obvious explanation for the discrepancy is that the original 440 year solar reference involved the time elapsing between entry into Canaan and Solomon's first year, not his fourth year.
While both synchronise their chronologies with Solomon's 4th year, the Septuagint does not exactly read the same as the Authorised. Reference to the fourth year is duplicated in the Septuagint, and is thus redundant. It may be that the original verse indicated firstly that 440 years transpired between entrance into Canaan and the commencement of Solomon's reign, and then indicated that in his fourth (4th) year he commenced building the temple.
In that case, the Masorete containing the artificial years, ignored reference to the commencement of Solomon's reign, but correctly synchronised his Fourth (4th) year with the 480 th year in Canaan. At some later date perhaps, the 440 year Septuagint reference was altered and similarly linked.
The contention of the 'King's Calendar' is that 440 Solar years elapsed between the Israelite entrance into Canaan in 1412 BCE, and the commencement of Solomon's reign, and 480 artificial years between 1412 BCE and Solomon's Fourth (4th) year.
This file, being an extract of one part of another file, is of necessity 'out of context'. The issue of the 440 or 480 years has more significance than at first appears, when considered in tandem with the Book of Judges. (See:Israel's Period of the Judges)
The Book of Judges (and for that matter, the Old Testament as a whole) provides an incomplete list of the judgeships in, and periods of oppression against Israel, and yet still manages to record 450 years worth of seemingly consecutive data.
Whilst there are definite Biblical chronological references for David and Solomon, there are only extra-Biblical records upon which we can rely in determining the time periods for Joshua, Samuel and Saul. These indicate that Joshua was judge for up to 28 years; that Samuel was judge for 30 years; and that Saul reigned up to 22 years. A total of between 60 and 80 years.
This increases the 450 years listed above to between 510 and 530 years.
To this must be added the 40 years for David and the first 4 years of Solomon, to give us a total of between 554 and 574 years to elapse between the Israelite entrance into Canaan and (incl.) the 4th year of Solomon.
Whether one wants to follow the Septuagint or Masorete is irrelevant unless one can first deal with the contradictory nature of 1 Kings 6:1.
However, the King's Calendar artificial calendar demonstrates the opposite. The King's Calendar dates for the Exodus, Entrance into Canaan and Solomon's 4th year are in keeping with every other traditional scholastic source, and yet it fits 480 years into the 440 solar year time frame suggested by the Septuagint version.
As for the inherent incongruence with the data contained in Judges, succinctly, the problem appears to be located in one transcription error and one current day misapplication of the data.
Ehud's judgeship was most probably 18 years not 80 years, and the Oppression listed in Judges Chapter 13 was obviously concurrent with the reign of Samson (including 20 years either side of his judgeship.) However it must be pointed out here, that the remaining balance of data in Solar years, is still excessive.
Using the King's Calendar artificial construct however reduces the overall value of the data, and the period of the Judges does then compactly fit into 480 artificial years, just as the Masoretic version 1 Kings 6:1 actually states.
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 [232]), 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?
Moses Prospects.
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 [238] & 11:1 [256], the following events occur.
1514 BCE - Thutmosis II becomes Pharaoh
1514/13 BCE - Neferure (daughter of Thutmosis II & Hatshepsut) born
1511/10 BCE - Thutmosis III (Son of Isis) born
1503/02 Neferure dies
1501 BCE - Thutmosis III becomes Pharaoh
1501 BCE - Hatshepsut becomes Thutmosis' regent
1487 - Hatshepsut dies
1487/86 - Moses flees to Midian
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.
Moses' 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
Section 2.
Identifying the Pharaoh of the Exodus
The 18th Dynasty Premise
According to traditional Egyptian chronology, Amenhotep II was the new pharaoh who came to the throne of Egypt while Moses was in Midian.
Note that this has nothing to do with theories relating to the Length of Tutmosis III's reign, and Rameses II. This is solely based on the mathematical calculation for the date of the Exodus. But it does raise a question about the death of Pharaoh in the Red Sea.
While by all accounts Amenhotep II was far worse by nature and practice than even the Biblical Narrative indicates, by the measure of Petrie's chronology, the Exodus would have taken place during Amenhotep II's co-regency during the last two years of the reign of Thothmes III.
During these years, and again during his 7th and 9th years, Amenhotep left Egypt to campaign in Asia, leaving the administration of the kingdom in the hands of the Grandvizier.
Irrespective of any discussion on the Exodus, the fact remains, that anyone trying to deal with the Pharaoh of Egypt at that time, had to have dealt with the Grandvisier Rekhmire. The Question is just whether the Biblical Reference to Pharaoh, referred to the Actual Pharaoh or his Stand In.
In this discussion, I am going to draw some attention to some rather odd statements in both the biblical narratives and in the records of Josephus, which may lend support to the hypothesis that it was with Grandvisier Rekhmire that Moses dealt, and not with the literal Pharaoh Amenhotep II.
How, When and Why did Rekhmire die?
James, T. (1984 p.21/p.52) informs us that Rekhmire met perhaps a violent end and 'almost certainly with disgrace', this determined after examination of Rekhmire's tomb.
If we accept that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was actually the Grandvisier, then his final disgrace might be understood within the context of the Exodus event, especially once Pharaoh Amenhotep discovered that Rekhmire had let the Israelites go free.
The young twenty/twenty-two year old Amenhotep would not have been pleased when he returned home to discover that this 'old' and up until that time, very powerful Grandvizier, had allowed such a large number of slaves escape.
The emphatic 'old' is significant in the light of statements in the Tyndale Commentary on Romans, (1992, p.183). While Amenhotep was a very young man at the beginning of his reign, Rekhmire was an old man.
F.F. Bruce, (Tyndale Commentary on Romans, 1992, p.183) in discussing the term 'I have raised you up' (Romans 9:17) points out that the Septuagint renders St. Paul's verb 'Exegeiro' as: 'you were preserved' and comments that 'The reference may be not only to G-d's raising up Pharaoh to be king, but to his patience in preserving him alive for so long, in spite of his disobedience'.
'Preserving Pharaoh for so long' could hardly apply to the 22 year old Amenhotep, but it could however apply to Rekhmire, who as Grandvizier for most of Thutmosis III's 54 years, was about 70 years old. Whatever may be the preferred reading of the Israelite escape through the Red Sea, the result remains the same, disaster! The Israelites escape and the Grandvizier suffers for it.
Is this proposition tenable?
When one begins to carefully examine the Biblical and extra biblical records in relation to the Exodus Event, certain interesting statements stand out. For Instance:
Exodus 13:29-31 informs us that pharaoh, like everyone else, lost his firstborn to the angel of death, subsequent to which he ordered Moses and the Israelites to leave Egypt.
In Exodus 14:5 however, we read that Pharaoh had to be told that the Israelites had fled, as though it was unknown to him.
Furthermore, he appears confused by it, asking 'Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?
In Antiquities 2:15:3 (Whiston, 1993, p.75) Josephus records that pharaoh 'was mightily concerned that this (Exodus) had been procured by the magic arts'.
We must wonder at How Pharaoh could have been unaware of the contest between Egyptian and Hebrew magic?
Is it possible that he had forgotten about his son's death?
Josephus' version of the Biblical account (Antiquities Book 2 Chs.13 & 14 - Whiston, 1993, pp.72/73), records that pharaoh was not moved by the plagues, until after the deaths of the first-born.
Josephus however makes a statement not recorded in the Canonical version, indicating that Pharaoh, in arriving at his decision to let the Hebrews go, was persuaded by 'many Egyptians who lived near the King's palace'.
Once you begin to entertain the idea that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was in fact the Grandvisier Rekhmire, the phrase 'many Egyptians who lived near the King's Palace' seems to take on some significance. The Grandvisier, faced with this obviously difficult decision (difficult because he was not the actual Pharaoh), seems certain to have sought advice from Kingdom Officials (those living near the King's Palace), and undoubtedly finding that they were as eager as he for the Israelites to go, made the final decision.
So the question is asked:
If the Pharaoh of the Exodus was not the GrandVisier Rekhmire, then how can it be that having witnessed firsthand the various plagues, and being advised by court officials to let the Hebrews go, that he would need anyone to explain to him the meaning of the Israelite departure?
Pharaoh at this point in the Narrative appears surprised, shocked and ignorant of the background to the event? Why would he, contrary to all common sense and logic in view of what had transpired, pursue the Israelites?
So the question must also be asked: "Could it be that this pharaoh, and the one who released the Israelites, are two different people?'
If Rekhmire was the 'Pharaoh' who let Israel go, then Amenhotep would not have known about it until after the event, either by messenger or upon his return. The Biblical portrayal of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart may simply reflect the fact that when Amenhotep returned from his campaign and/or learned of the Exodus, that he ordered Rekhmire to have the Israelites returned.
Within this scenario, Rekhmire's apparent disgrace and fall from power, may find explanation in his failure to fulfil his Pharaoh's command.
But did Pharaoh Drown in the Red Sea?
If we wish to hold to the truth of the Biblical Narrative, then we must answer that he did drown in the Red Sea. That there is no record of a Pharaoh drowning, combined with the failure of Rekhmire to ever be buried in his elaborate tomb, may be explained by the simple statement, that the Biblical Pharaoh was the Grandvisier of Egypt, Rekhmire.
To this point we have merely identified the 15th Century 18th Egyptian Dynasty Israelite Exodus from Egypt, and discussed the possibility that the pharaoh with whom Moses dealt, was not Amenhotep II himself, but his grandvizier, Rekhmire. In a later section we will take a look at what Josephus records about the Exodus and Rameses II.
In the meantime there is another issue to discuss. As those with an interest in Egyptian chronology are aware, there are some that seek to shift Egyptian chronology by a couple of centuries. The King's Calendar cannot enter the debate on the veracity of the claims, but it can contribute something to these suggestions.
What if Egyptian Chronology is wrong?
Revising Egyptian Dynastic Chronologies
Today, there are some who challenge the traditional chronology for Ancient Egypt. If Egyptian Chronology is to be revised, then given the exact dating of the King's Calendar for Kings Saul and David, it may be possible to provide a synchronism between Egyptian and Israelite chronology, via data contained in Merenptah's (Merneptah) stele.
King Merenptah (Merneptah) who according to traditional chronology, lived well before the time of King's Saul and David, crushed Israel during his 5th year of reign. (Tour Egypt: Merenptah's Stele)
Peter James and his associates call for a complete revision of the current chronology of the Ancient Near Eastern Nations, pertinent to dates provided relating to the Hittites, Kassites, Mitanni and Egyptians. They base this upon evidence to demonstrate that the Sothic cycle upon which Egyptian Chronology is based, is in great error. (Refer James P. Thorpe.I.J., Kokkinos.N., Morkot.R., Frankish.J. (1991) Centuries of Darkness. Rutgers Uni Press. New Jersey,p.304)
They believe that the 'El'Amarna period' should be reduced from the mid fourteenth century to the eleventh century. This results in a substantial shift in current chronology, some of which is partly absorbed by determining that the twenty-first and twenty-second dynasties of Egypt were concurrent. This 'New Chronology' shifts the commencement of the eighteenth dynasty to around 1300 BCE (James Et. Al. p195 Table 8:3).
[The following links demonstrate where the 19th Dynasty in relation to Merenptah is placed. The proposed "New Chronology" would place the 18th Dynasty in this position, pushing Merenptah closer the reign of King Saul. Links: 19th dynasty 1307 BCE /1196 BCE (Merenptah [Amenephthes] 1224 - 1214) -and-19th Dynasty 1293 BCE / 1185 BCE. (Merneptah 1212 - 1202)]
While the proposed "New chronology" would negate the 'King's Calendar' apologetics for the placement of the Exodus within a 15th Century BCE - 18th Dynasty scenario, the significance for the 'King's Calendar' of the New Chronology is that in relation to Merneptah's Stele, it may now be possible to provide an exact date for this Pharaoh's fifth year.
If James is on the right track with his reduction in the period of the Dark Ages; that Shishak is 'a Rameses'; and that Shoshenq I is more accurately placed around 800 BCE, then the 'King's Calendar' would indicate that his current figures in relation to Rameses II and Merenptah need to be put back about 40 years.
If Merenptah's reference to 'Israel' is to refer to the 'nation' under the Monarchy, (which is implied in James adjusted Chronology), it must place Merneptah's reign somewhere between 1039 and 973 BCE.
The chronology offered by the King's Calendar would be:
Rameses II 1083 - 1016
Merneptah 1016 - 1006
Period of turmoil 1006 - 990
Rameses III 980 - 958
Merenptah's commemorative stela could well be a triumphant boast, that this people who were not a nation, but which had managed to unite under Saul's leadership for some 30 years, were once again without a king.
That 'his seed is not' (Saul's or Israel's), could refer to the death of Saul's and his three sons in the same battle. In Saul's defeat (1 Samuel Ch. 31), not only was Israel defeated (laid waste?) but was left (apparently) without King or Royal heir.
When one combines 2 Samuel 5:5 in which it is recorded that David ruled only over Judah for the first seven and a half years of his reign; with 2 Samuel 5:17 in which it is recorded that the Philistines only mounted fresh attacks after discovering that there was a new 'King' in Israel, one might well imagine that Israel's neighbours were quite confident of Israel's utter defeat; a thought which seems to be suggested in verse six of the same chapter, when it is said that David could be warded off by the 'blind and the lame'.
Remembering however, that Saul's defeat was at the hand of the Philistines and not the Egyptians, is it still possible for this defeat to have been legitimately ascribed to Merneptah?
I believe so! It must be appreciated that the 'philistines' of the era of the Judges down to King David's time were actually Egyptian mercenaries and that Israel's conflict with the Philistines, was in fact, with the lords of the philistines, the Egyptians.
James Et. Al. currently and tentatively aligns Merenptah's reign with that of King David, but it seems more appropriate to align Merenptah's 5th year with the death of King Saul.
Whilst Merenptah's stele only seems to make sense in reference to a Monarchy in Israel, James Et. Al. in proposing a New Egyptian Chronology, do shift the 18th Dynasty away from the 15th Century BCE, where the Bible seems to place it.
Nevertheless, there is nothing currently within the framework of James' Et.Al. 'The Centuries of Darkness', or the personal perspectives of Peter James himself, that negates, contradicts, or affects the 'King's Calendar' chronological placement of the Mosaic Exodus.
More to follow next box
Section 3.
Are the King's Calendar 18th Dynasty Dates Correct?
The King's Calendar computerized mathematical reconstruction of the Chronological History of the Divided Kingdom of Ancient Israel operates on the basis of Linear / lineal Causality, which, put simply, is that one cause has one effect. Change the cause, and the effect changes. The King's Calendar gives a set value to the word YEAR in the Bible. Commencing the calendar on a certain date, every calculation is directly related to the calculation before it.
Unlike archaeologists and historians who can alter the data to suit their theories, the kingscalendar cannot. If some evidence or proof of inaccuracy demands that even one day or year of the King's Calendar projections be moved, then all days and years both before and after it must similarly be moved.
From this perspective then, the King's Calendar reconstruction of chronological history uses a scientific methodology to demonstrate the accuracy of it's determinations. The inherent scientific theory can easily be verified or falsified by any person who takes the time to test it.
Linear: of, relating to, resembling, or having a graph that is a line and especially a straight line : characterized by an emphasis on line : having or being a response or output that is directly proportional to the input : relating to, or based or depending on sequential development. (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/linear)
The King's Calendar uses a scientific (mathematical) model in the reconstruction of Israelite History. Unlike archaeologists who interpret everything according to previously established theories, the King's Calendar approach is scientific in that it tests the chronological records as they stand.
The King's Calendar looks at what is written, and accepting it at face value, applies it's methodology to that data to determine what legitimate results, if any, appear.
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.
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.
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.
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 PrecisSection.
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.
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 (touregypt . net). 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) were all at one time or another, considered to be fiction.
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.
Josephus & The Hyksos Chart.
Line Nos 935/936 are artificially numbered years, and refer to:
The 215th year of the Sojourn in Egypt - and - The 1st year of the Exodus.
Lines 1046 - 1061 are artificially numbered years, that reveal the intent of Josephus' chronological references. Josephus calculated 1062 years to the 'Departure out of Egypt. But the figures he used contain the same 13 overlapping years as found in the Bible. This reduces the Line No to 1048
Line 1048 is the year 1554 BCE - an Academically acceptable year for the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt.
1554 BCE is the 103rd year of the 215 year sojourn in Egypt.
Line 1150 or 1648 BCE is the 1st year of the Sojourn and the 130th year of the Patriarch Jacob.
The Documents that the Bible contains, (in addition to other non-canonical literature) are as worthy of merit and serious consideration as any other ancient documents. The Biblical and non-canonical documents point to a 15th Century 18th Egyptian Dynastic Exodus.
So - Are the King's Calendar dates correct? Using the Biblical Chronological Data within an artificial contruct/calendar, the King's Calendar determines that the Mosaic Exodus took place in the 15th Century BCE. As for the exact dates of the reigns of the pharaohs of that Dynasty in that Century, it is really left to the reader to decide whose chronology to follow or not.
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
4.
Playing with History
B.The King's Calendar.
The Premise of 'The King's Calendar:The Secret of Qumran”, is that the Jubilee Calendar of the Essenes which measured 364 days per year, was the foundation upon which an 'artificial sectarian calendar' was founded.
It artificially divided the 'perceived' 364 days per year into thirteen months (13) of four (4) weeks of seven (7) days, and then 'carried over' the 13th month (so to speak), so that every twelve (12) solar years, an extra year (13th) was created.
By this process, real Jewish history was extended. Biblical Synchronisms from this perspective then, do actually synchronise, and the 'King's Calendar' demonstrates this. King's Calendar – Concise Introduction:
The mere fact that the 'King's Calendar', introduces a mathematical computer generated artificial construct, is enough to earn the scorn of many people, and yet the fact is, that no one has yet determined how the Biblical Chronologies fit together. Many commentators over the Millenia have tried to sort out the problems. Refer: Seder Olam Rabbah, Solomon's Temple, & Zerrubabel.
But the rejection of the 'King's Calendar' concept of the introduction of an artificial calendar into the Hebrew (Masoretic) 'writings' (they were not yet at that time the now famous 'BIBLE'), totally ignores the many historic approaches that Jews took and had (before and after the Canonisation of Scripture), in relation to the Divine workings in history.
For example, in “Parshat Terumah (1 Kings 5:26-6:13) Feb. 12, 2005” in refering to Abrabanel and his reference to Seder Olam Rabbah (Chapter 15), it is stated that; “Abrabanel saw in this verse's manner of expressing time an opportunity to teach about divine providence and history. He felt that God expressed Himself in history by making events happen in symmetrical patterns of time”.
This article goes on to say that: “...the sages put great emphasis on how time is organized and defined. Their search to lend significance to time sent them to Biblical stories for authenticity. By linking the sacred history of the Bible with the continuity of time, every moment became something to cherish”.
Now while this may apply to students of the Bible since it became the Bible, there is sufficient academic suggestion, that prior to the canonisation of the Bible, the same thing was going on.
The following references provide sufficient indication that the 'King's Calendar' is not alone in its contention.
Wise.M., Abegg.M., Cook.J.R., Cook.E. (1996) Dead Sea Scrolls: A comprehensive translation of the controversial ancient scrolls with material never published or translated before now, and including the most recently released texts. Hodder & Stoughton – Aust.
Refer Page 172 on the community's rewriting of scriptural portions
Refer Page 199 clarifying confusing chronology concerning Sinai Refer Pages 119 & 125 on the 'pesher' approach to biblical interpretations.'
Robinson T.H. (1932) A History Of Israel. Vol I From the Exodus to the Fall of Jerusalem, 586 B.C. Clarendon Press.
Refer Page 19, discusses at length the 'fictitious scheme' of Old Testament chronology. His argument is designed to demonstrate the complete untrustworthiness of that chronology. The whole point of the 'King's Calendar' is that this chronology is indeed 'fictitious' in that it is artifically manipulated. This does not mean however that it is WRONG.
Schonfeld.H.J. (1984) The Essene Odyssey : the mystery of the true teacher and the Essene impact on the shaping of human destiny. U.K. Element books.
Refer Page 44 in relation to 'ciphers'. He suggests that the Chasidim may have influenced the Biblical texts more than we might appreciate, and that the Qumran scribes were expert at playing didactic games with ciphers.
4.
Playing with History
C. Josephus
The chronological citations provided by Josephus sometimes defy understanding and so it is easy to write him off as a credible source of information. Cornfeld.G. (1982 Josephus: The Jewish War. Zondervan Publishing House Michigan) makes the following statement:
'Despite all discrepancies, ambiguities, contradictions and plain mistakes, the fact remains that Josephus was a highly reliable witness, not only with respect to events in Palestine and Jerusalem of his own time, but also, though to a somewhat lesser extent, with regard to earlier times, for which he depended on available traditional sources. In sum, despite ambiguities and exaggerations, his is the most comprehensive surviving account in existence...'
Using the artificial calendar however, it is possible to deconstruct and reconstruct Josephus' chronological materials.
That he made mistakes is clear, but what is even more clear is that he did not know that he was quoting from artificially recorded chronologies. He often mixed artificial data with which he had been supplied, with regular solar year data that he calculated himself. This is something that is quite obvious in the King's Calendar examination of his work.
The King's Calendar study of Josephus also determined that he had at his disposal, at least 6 pieces of 'original' [artificially recorded] and currently 'unique' chronological datum.
That Jerusalem was founded 995 years prior to David's reign.
That 'an' Exodus (Hyksos expulsion from Egypt) occurred 589 years prior to David's reign.
That 525 years elapsed between the Exile and Cyrus' kingship in Babylon.
That 995 years elapsed between the commencement of David's reign and Aristobulus in 104 BCE.
That 423 years elapsed between Cyrus' accession as King of the Medes, and the death of Judas Maccabeus.
That 908.5 years elapsed between the Israelite entrance into Canaan under Joshua, and the Babylonian Exile.
You can check this data on the chart in Appendix 12 on the Precis Page and you can readily reference Josephus online at: The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston Edited by Sage Software. Before continuing with a demonstration of Josephus' accuracy (within an error), the following provides readers with some background information on him.
"All of Josephus' four extant works are important sources for Jewish history and tradition. The first to be composed was The Jewish War—an account of the war of the Jews against the Romans. Josephus himself tells us that he wrote two versions of this. The first one was in his own vernacular, i.e. Aramaic, and composed for 'the up-country barbarians', i.e. the Aramaic-speaking Jews of the Parthian kingdom, especially those of Babylon. This edition is lost. The extant Greek version is an adaptation by Josephus himself of the Aramaic work. It was published about A.D. 78, when Josephus was about 40 years old. The next work to be published was The Jewish Antiquities, about sixteen years later (A.D. 94 or so). It appears that soon before the publication of The Antiquities Justus of Tiberias had published his history of the Jewish War, with serious accusation of misconduct during the war in Galilee directed against Josephus. It is possible that Josephus' third and autobiographical work, the Life, was published at the same time as the Antiquities and as a reply to Justus. Some scholars, however, maintain that the Life was published about A.D. 96, and may have appeared together with a second edition of the Antiquities that appeared between A.D. 93/94 and 100. Josephus' final extant work to be published was Against Apion, or to give its original title, On the Antiquity of the Jews.
Jewish historian, born A.D. 37, at Jerusalem; died about 101. He belonged to a distinguished priestly family, whose paternal ancestors he himself traces back five generations; his mother's family claimed descent from the Machabeans. He received a good education, and association with distinguished scholars developed his intellectual gifts, more especially his memory and power of judgment. He also made himself fully acquainted with and tried the leading politico-religious Jewish parties of his age -- the Essenes, Pharisees, and Sadducees.
A Non-erroneous Error.
Josephus' references to Cyrus and Aristobolus.
In Jewish War Book One, Chapter III Josephus records that from Cyrus to Aristobulus (104-103 BCE), 471 years elapse. Later however, in Antiquities 13:11:1, he amended this figure to 481 years.
There are several things to note about this amendment.
1. If we backdate 471 years from the reign of Aristobolus, we arrive at 575 BCE, which is supposed to related to the time of Cyrus the Great. Clearly this is wrong.
2. If we backdate 481 years from the reign of Aristobolus, we arrive at 585 BCE, which is also wrong in relation to Cyrus.
3. Since Josephus has provided incorrect chronology and text, his credibility falls to zero.
Being made of more superior 'stuff', and living in an 'enlightened' era, modern day historians feel justified in writing off Josephus as at best amateurish, and at worst incompetent. One of the most fundamental claims of the King's Calendar however, is that it is the modern day academic who is the amateur. With all the modern technological tools at their disposal, there can be only two reasons why no one has yet figured out Biblical and Non Canonical chronology.
1. Anti-Bilical Bias
2. Arrogance which arises from the belief that we know more than the ancients.
Let me show you HOW Josephus erred.
The Parameters of Josephus' References.
Jewish War Book One, Chapter III Josephus records that
471 years elapse from
Cyrus to Aristobulus 104-103 BCE.
In artificial years, this figure is absolutely correct.
The reference extends from 538 BCE as year 1, to and including 104 BCE as year 471.
Josephus did nothing wrong in quoting this reference. However, he obviously did not understand that the data was recorded in artificial years. At some other time, and possibly without realising that he was providing a duplicate reference, or having forgotten to change the other reference, he did his own calculation.
In Antiquities 13:11:1 Josephus recorded that
481 years elapsed
Between Cyrus and Aristobolus.
The 481 solar years actually extend from 585 BCE as Year 1, to 105 BC as year 481.
Josephus calculated the intervening years between the Babylonian captivity in 586 BCE and 104 BCE when Aristobolus commenced to reign.
In his carelessness, Josephus provided the correct number of solar years to transpire between two events, but quoted the wrong events.
Josephus & the Exodus
The posit that Josephus' material is untrustworthy is only true when one has as little knowledge of the artificial nature of the chronological data as did Josephus. The King's Calendar has been able to determine that the figures provided by Josephus are predominantly correct, and help to demonstrate the King's Calendar hypothesis that the Biblical Data had been altered from Solar years into artificial ones.
Based on the writings of Josephus, Seder Olam Rabbah and Canonical material, we can establish that
Moses was born 33 artificial years or 31 Solar years after the Hyksos expulsion.
1449 BCE 1st year of Exodus [Moses 81st year]
1412 BCE 1st year in Canaan
Because the King's Calendar is a Mathematical construct and not Academic Guesswork, it's projections are either correct or incorrect. Since almost all of it's projections approximately match what historians tell us, it has proven itself a reliable tool.
Seder Olam Rabbah records: All the time that Levi was alive, Israel was enslaved in Egypt as it says (Ex. 1:6): “And Joseph and all brothers died, all that generation.” (Ex. 1:8 ): “There arose new king in Egypt who knew nothing of Joseph.” After that Levi died, the Egyptians started to enslave them. From there they said (Sabbat 105b): “If one of brothers dies, all brothers should worry. If one of a company dies, all members of the company should worry.” (Ex. 1:7): “The children of Israel were fruitful like vermin etc.” (Ex. 1:8 ): “There arose a new king Egypt etc.” It turns out that from the death of Levi to the Exodus were 116 years. The slavery extended not more than that time and not less that 86 years, the age of Miriam at Exodus, since she was named for the bitterness.
a.Chronological Data:
From the Birth of Moses 80 years.
From the Enslavement of the Israelites to Exodus 86 years.
From the Expulsion of the Hyksos to the Exodus 113 years.
From the Death of Levi to the Exodus 116 years.
From this is seen that Levi died just three artificial [2 solar] years before Amosis founded the 18th Dynasty after the Expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt. SeeNo.5 Ancient Egypt
b.The King's Calendar determination for these events are:
Line 895 1412 BCE 1st year in Canaan
Line 935 1449 BCE 1st year of Exodus [81st of Moses]
Line 1015 1523 BCE 1st year of Moses- 80 years before Exodus
Line 1021 1529 BCE 86 years before Exodus - Slavery Commenced.
Line 1048 1554 BCE 113 years to Exodus / 103rd year of 215 year Sojourn in Egypt
Line 1051 1556 BCE 116 years to Exodus – Death of Levi
More to follow next box
Section 5
Did Any Pharaoh Drown During the Exodus Event?
Can the Bible be Trusted?
There are two files at KingsCalendar on this issue.
Something which many people fail to realise is that the bible, in addition to being a religious text, is also an extensive historical document, which, when combined with extra-biblical Ancient Israelite documents, provides far more chronological and historical information, than is provided by other ancient civilizations whose records are more favorably treated as gospel in our ever increasingly anti-God world, than is the Bible. The Bible is a series of historical documents.
The fact that Israelite history in contradistinction to other ancient histories, carefully records many shameful flaws (sins) in the character of the nation, is highly indicative of the integrity of the material contained therein. [Refer to: Starr.C.G. (1991. p.145) & Grant.M. (1984.p.37)]
In referring to a time in history past, when it could just have easily recorded some marvelous pitched battle, Israelite history records that a series of Natural events provided opportunity for the Exodus Escape, and resulted in the overthrew of the pursuing Egyptian Army. Whilst issues pertaining to supernatural events is left here to individual preferences, it remains true that the self effacing history of Israel which records the defeat of an enemy through calamitous interventions, deserves the same treatment as any other recording of catastrophic events.
Two objections to such acceptance arise by virtue of rejection of Divine intervention, (religious prejudice - Miller & Hayes 1986.p.59) and the problems that arise in failing to synchronise the histories of Israel and Egypt. (James et.al.1991 pp 222, 227, 228 & Roy.A. 1982 Review 6, 53-55)
Certainly a lack of evidence in the Egyptian records bears no substance in the light of sufficient examples of Egyptian tampering with their own historical records. One should also remember that "Archaeology is not an exact science, and deals more often in probabilities and possibilities than in irrefutable demonstrations.' (Peet. T.E. 1924.p.75)
Even as to the controversial matter of the Mosaic parting of the Sea, Josephus concludes his discourse on the Exodus (Antiquities Book 2 Chapter 16:5) by stating that he is only reciting the records as they stand, and that in spite of the miraculous element in the crossing of the Red Sea, he acknowledges (as does also Whiston - Footnote 33) that this phenomenon is not entirely unknown.
Although some do claim that physical evidence exists to verify the Parting of the Red Sea Story and subsequent drowning of the Egyptian army, (Pharaoh's Drowned Army) the most frequent objection to the story self justifies on the basis of a lack of evidence. This of course was the same justification for rejection of the Fabled Story of Troy.
When historical documents are entered into evidence, a lack of (Egyptian) documentary evidence, cannot negate the production of (Israelite) documentary Evidence. This is a principle of evidentiary law. See:Articles in the Rules of Evidence Series
As a reasonable representation of true historical events (Documentary Evidence), the Exodus event within the King's Calendar Reconstruction of Israelite History, occurred in the Reign of Pharaoh Amenhotep II.
A Contradiction - Yes? No?
As previously mentioned, if No Pharaoh of Egypt died in the Red Sea whilst pursuing the fleeing Israelites, then we already have a contradiction.
On the other hand, if the Bible says that the Pharaoh drowned, when actually it was the Grandvisier Rekhmire (as the King's Calendar hypothesizes), does this make the Bible incorrect? Is it a contradiction?
From what the bible says of Joseph (Genesis 31:39-46 & 42:6) as Governor and from what Egyptian records demonstrate concerning Rekhmire (James 1984, p.54 & Newby.P.H. 1980), we know that in Egypt there was a second in charge, an appointed person, who stood in Pharaoh's place, and was answerable only to Pharaoh himself.
Given that Amenhotep II left Egypt for protracted periods, there can be no serious objection to the concept that for that period of time, the Grandvizier was Pharaoh.
As the King's Calendar synchronises the Exodus event with a period in time that coincides with the absence of Pharaoh Amenhotep II from Egypt, it seems certainly within the realm of probability, that the historical events surrounding Moses dealings with the Egyptian Pharaoh, were actually with the Grandvisier Rekhmire. It further seems probable, (if Pharaoh drowned in the Red Sea), that upon Amenhotep's return to Egypt and discovery that the Israelites had escaped, that the Grandvisier was commanded to pursue them.
From this perspective then, we can see that the "pharaoh" with whom Moses dealt, who let the Israelites leave Egypt, and who later pursued them, could have drowned in the Red Sea. And it certainly explains Rekhmire's unfortunate end to an otherwise brilliant career.
Section 6
Article Summary
The canonical and non-canonical Israelite documents had their chronologies transcribed from true solar years into an artificial sectarian calendar. (Refer to Chapter 1 The Dead Sea Scrolls.) That artificial construct indicates that there are two exoduses from Egypt, the first being of the Hyksos, and the second that lead by Moses.
The data indicates a 15th Century 18th Egyptian Dynasty Mosaic Exodus at the time of Amenhotep II. In order for the Pharaoh of the Exodus to drown in the Red Sea, the Pharaoh of the Exodus would have been the GrandVizier, and there is some evidence to indicate that this was a possibility.
The Exodus event occurred in 1449 BCE, and 40 artificial years later in 1412 BCE, Joshua lead the people of Israel into Canaan. In 970 BCE, 480 artificial years later, Solomon commenced building the Temple in Jerusalem.
The Bible, Josephus, Seder Olam Rabbah and the Damascus Document, all synchronise these details chronologically. Furthermore, Appendix 5, which sets out the Divided Kingdom Period of Israel year-by-year, demonstrates quite clearly that the synchronous data provided in the books of Kings and Chronicles does in fact synchronise, whilst at the same time providing results consistent with conclusions reached by archaeologists and historians.
Having almost now completed the circle from the Babylonian Exile to the commencement date for Solomon's Temple to the issues of 1 Kings 6:1 and the Exodus, there is provided in the footnote section, subsequent to the Article Conclusion and Bibliography, a chart relating to the period of the Judges, and below that, data in relation to the Patriarchs, Judges and Kings of Israel and Judah.
Section 7
Author's Challenge.
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 remains.
I hope that this article has been of assistance to you.
Without discussion, this section contains a chart that provides a comparison of chronologies for the period of the Judges - since the chronology for the period of the judges is tied to 1 Kings 6:1, the Exodus, and the identification of the Pharaoh of the Exodus. This chart comes from Seder Olam No 4 : Period of the Judges
The chart compares, the Book of Judges, Seder Olam Rabbah, Josephus and the King's Calendar. The Chart has 8 columns:
Book of Judges References
Biblical Detail of Events
The Book of Judges Chronological Data [Marked 'B']
The Seder Olam Rabbah Chronological Data [Marked 'S']
Josephus' Chronological Data [Marked 'J']
The King's Calendar 'artificial' Data [Marked 'KC' – 'Art']
The Solar Year equivalent of the King's Calendar Data [Marked 'KC' – 'Sol']
The Historical dates determined by the King's Calendar [Marked 'KingsCal' Judgeships'
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.
