Key dates of the Biblically Inerrant Chronology (BIC), proposed previously, are: the fall of Jerusalem, 590 BC (586 BC Generally Accepted Dates), the construction of the temple, 1023 BC (967 GAD), and the Exodus, 1591 BC (1270 to 1446 BC GAD) [Montgomery, 1998]. BIC dates differ from GAD primarily because they give credence to biblical prophecies such as Jeremiah's prophecy [Jer 25:11] that Nebuchadnezzar's family ruled for 70 years. Such dates remain theological dates if not applied to history, archaeology, and secular chronology. The proposed dates for the Revised Egyptian Chronologies attempt to reconcile Israelite and Egyptian history and archaeology. All dates are BC unless otherwise indicated.
Egyptian historians have followed Manetho division of Egyptian history into 30 dynasties. The first six dynasties, the Old Kingdom, are dated circa 3100-2200 BC. Inter-dynastic wars during dynasties 7 to 11 are called the First Intermediate Period (FIP). About 2050 BC the 11th Dynasty prevailed and started the Middle Kingdom, dynasties 11 to 13, circa 2050-1630 BC. Foreigners called Hyksos (dynasties 15 and 16) ruled Egyptian dynasties 14 and 17 in the Second Intermediate Period (SIP). Ahmose I liberated Egypt and founded the New Kingdom, dynasties 18 to 20, circa 1550-1050 BC. Dynasties 21 through 25, 1050-664 BC, called the Third Intermediate Period (TIP) were dominantly foreigners. The Late Period, Dynasties 26 to 30, ends with conquest of Egypt first by the Persians. Conventional Egyptian dates in this paper follow Grimal [Grimal, 1992].
Early Views on the Pharaoh of the Exodus
Josephus thought the Exodus took place about 1062 years before
the destruction of Jerusalem or 1652. He used 80 years for Solomon
instead of 40, 20 years for Saul instead of 40 and 40 years for
Eli the priest instead of zero [Whiston, Dissertation V]. Corrected
this would be 1592. In his day scholars believed that this was
the beginning of the 18th Dynasty (1570 to 1552 GAD). Josephus
quoted Manetho to the effect that the Hyksos, whom Ahmose I drove
out, were the Israelite "forefathers (who) were delivered
out of Egypt, and came thence and inhabited this country (Judea)
393 years before Danaus came to Argos. "[Josephus, Against
Apion I.16, p 612]. Early Christian fathers such as Africanus,
Clement, Tatian and Theophilus followed Josephus. Eusebius alone
opines that the pharaoh of the Exodus was a late 18th Dynasty
pharaoh named Cencheres. Josephus quotes Manetho that Ahmose I
of the 18th Dynasty attacked the Hyksos stronghold at Avaris and
drove them into Syria where they built Jerusalem. However, a contemporary
inscription from the tomb of Ahmose, an army officer of pharaoh
Ahmose I, says that the Hyksos withdrew to Sharuhen where Ahmose
I besieged them 3 years and took the city [Wilson, 1969c, p. 233].
In the book of Exodus the Pharaoh refused to let the Israelites
go but God compelled him by plagues. When Pharaoh pursued them,
he and his army were drowned [Ex 14; Ps 106:11; Ps 136:15]. Ahmose
I did not drown in the Red Sea. His mummy was discovered in 1881
in the Royal Cache.
THE EXODUS IN EGYPTIAN HISTORY
Two lives give data on the dynasties of the Sojourn and the Exodus, Joseph and Moses. Joseph was sold as a slave to an Egyptian nobleman for 20 shekels, a price typical of the first half of the second millennium. He was later imprisoned. He was brought before Pharaoh to interpret his dreams and was given the position of Vizier, the second highest office in the land. Joseph's wisdom made his pharaoh very rich. In his manipulation of his brothers, he pretends his knowledge comes from "divination" cup. When his family entered Egypt, Joseph warned them not to mention that they were shepherds because shepherds were an abomination to the Egyptians [Gen 46:33]. His Pharaohs became very rich. Storage and distribution of grain in the famine was well planned. His warning to his family tells us that his pharaoh was an Egyptian not a Hyksos. There is a hint that Egypt may have been sparsely populated at the time.
By the birth of Moses, Pharaoh had turned against the Israelites, murdering their children [Ex 1:8]. When Moses murdered an Egyptian to protect an Israelite, he had to flee to Midian for 40 years. Josephus records that after the death of this pharaoh Moses asked his father-in-law for permission to return to Egypt. This suggests that this pharaoh and his successor reigned at least 40 years. Moses returned to declare God's command to let the Israelites go. Ten plagues were imposed on Pharaoh until his land had no herds and no crops left. A final plague caused a decimation of the population. Pharaoh pursued the Israelites and drowned in the Red Sea. When the Israelites departed, Egypt lost a prime source of cheap labour and economic wealth. Such a devastating economic change should be found in history or archaeology.
The 11th and 12th Dynasties had rich and powerful pharaohs in the first half of the second millennium. Courville identified Joseph as Vizier Mentuhotep attested under Sesostris I, early in the 12th Dynasty. Mentuhotep had many impressive titles: Vizier, Chief Judge, Overseer of the Double Granary, Chief Treasurer, Governor of the Royal Castle, Wearer of the Royal Seal, Chief of all the Works of the King, Hereditary Prince, Pilot of the People, Giver of Good -Sustaining Alive the People, Count, Sole Companion, Favourite of the King [Courville, 1977, Vol. 1, p.142]. Such titles were unprecedented. Particularly, "Sustaining Alive the People" brings some deed of national salvation to mind. Courville cites the tombstone of Ameni who died in the reign of Sesostris I. Ameni recounts the days in which there had been a famine and how he had distributed the food without favouritism [Courville, 1977. Vol. 1, p. 134]. This suggests storage of food in anticipation of famine. Over 100 years later, in the reign of Sesostris III, Mentuhotep's figure was defaced, so that his memory was dishonoured [Courville, 1977, Vol. 1, p.149]. According to the Turin Canon Sesostris III reigned 38 years and Amenemes III reigned 43 years. All the pyramids and tombs of the 12th Dynasty are accounted for except those of the final two rulers, Amenemes IV and Sobekhotep I, who followed Amenemes III. The Egyptologists admit they know no reason for this sudden change in fortune at the end of the 12th Dynasty.
A papyrus called the Admonitions of Ipuwer describes a catastrophe like the Exodus. The author of Admonitions complains of a lack of authority, justice and social order as if the central authority no longer had the will or power to keep control. He also complains about barbarians and foreigners as if the country has been invaded. Nobody is planting crops because they are not sure what will happen. The southern most districts are paying no taxes. He complains that the Nile has strangely turned to blood and "If one drinks it, one rejects it as human (blood) and thirsts for water." He wrote, "Grain is perished on every side." Gardiner dated its events to the FIP but it is conceded that the language and orthography belong to the Middle Kingdom [Wilson, 1969c, p 442]. Velikovsky noted the obvious similarities with the plagues of the Exodus and pointed out that, contrary to Gardiner, Sethe dated the Ipuwer Papyrus to the SIP [Velikovsky, 1952, p. 48-50]. Van Seters also argues for an SIP date [Van Seters, 1966, p103-120].
To accept the Ipuwer Papyrus as evidence of the Exodus in the SIP requires evidence of Semitic slaves in the Middle Kingdom. Evidence that the Israelites occupied a portion of the Nile delta in the Middle Kingdom prior to the Hyksos has been found at Tell ed-Daba. During their oppression in Egypt the Israelites were forced to build two cities, Ramses and Pithom [Exodus 1:11]. Ramses has been found in the modern district of Fekus near the village of Qantir. In ancient times Fecus was known to the Greeks as Kessan and to the Israelites as Goshen. Bietak continued the excavation of the site as well as nearby Tell ed-Daba in 1966. Below the Ramesside levels he found evidence of Asiatic occupation by a warrior culture (levels D to F). He identified these levels as belonging to the Hyksos and Qantir as the Hyksos capital, Avaris. Prior to the Hyksos there was another Asiatic group discovered (levels A to C) that was highly egyptianized. Between the two groups there was a brief period of abandonment. An analysis of the graves of the egyptianized Asiatics showed that in the later stages there are more adult females than males. Furthermore, the proportion of infants' graves reaches 65% [Rohl, 1995, p. 271]. In addition, in the final stage before abandoning the site, a disaster forced the inhabitants to bury many people in shallow mass graves without the usual grave goods. Such is typical of the response of the ancients to plagues [Rohl, 1995, p. 278]. The invading Hyksos replaced the "Egyptianized Asiatics" (Israelites) in Goshen as though the Egyptians were no longer capable of defending it.
After the Israelites left Egypt they entered Sinai where they complained about the lack of meat. God sent them quail and a plague to go with it [Numbers 11:31-35]. They buried the dead at a place called Kibroth Hattaavah or the "graves of craving". Niebuhr rediscovered these graves in 1761 AD at Sarbut-el-Khadem [Niebuhr, 1761]. The Bedouins call this place "Turbet es Yahoud" or the "Graves of the Jews". Niebuhr noticed the graves had inscriptions in hieroglyphics and in an alphabetic script. Forster published photographs and translations of these in 1862 [Forster, 1862]. These inscriptions mention the dividing of the Red Sea, the drowning of the Egyptians and the plague caused by eating quail. They mention by name, Moses and Miriam. An inscription of Amenemes IV is written next to the "Graves of the Jews".
Vizier Mentuhotep fits the description of Joseph. The Ipuwer papyrus records Exodus-like events; the once-mighty 12th Dynasty of the middle second millennium with its Semitic slaves inexplicably loses power to the marauding Hyksos and sinks into economic chaos. Tell ed-Daba shows an egyptianized Semitic people first oppressed and then replaced by Semitic warriors in Goshen. The final pharaohs are little known and without known burial. Thus I propose that the 12th Dynasty was the one of the Israelite Sojourn. That after the death of Joseph Sesostris III and Amenemes III oppressed the Israelites. After the death of Amenemes III, Moses returned to demand Amenemes IV release the Israelites. Amenemes IV drowned in the Red Sea and was his sister succeeded him.* Moses led the Israelites into the Sinai where inscriptions of the Middle Bronze era record their story in their own words.
After 40 years in the Sinai the Israelites finally entered the land of Canaan and fought their first battle is at Jericho. When its walls fell, the Israelites took the city and burned it completely. Joshua pronounced a curse on anyone who rebuilt its gates and walls [Joshua 6:26] and Jericho remained abandoned until the time of Ahab [I Kings 16:34]. Only the Middle Bronze level IV (MB IV) meets uniquely the requirements for Joshua's Jericho [Wood, 1990]. MB IV was burned to the ground. Its upper walls, which were situated on top of the Early Bronze walls, toppled outward (almost unique in archaeological sites). The fallen bricks provided the attackers with a convenient ramp to enter the city. In its rubble, pots and jars containing charred wheat were found. This is not unusual except for the quantity - six bushels. In a long siege, usually grain would be consumed or, in a short siege, would have been carried off as booty. Except for a brief occupation in the Late Bronze II, the city remained uninhabited until the beginning of the Iron Age era.
An Israelite, Achan, contrary to God's command, stole some of the gold, silver and a beautiful robe from Babylonia [Josh 7:21]. Are there Babylonian artifacts at MB IV Jericho? Rohl reports that among Group II artifacts of MB IV Jericho were Babylonian cylinder seals of the era of Hammurabi [Rohl, 1995, p309]. Although dated to 1750, a recently published chronology of Mesopotamia has advanced the reign of Hammurabi 100 years to 1696-1650 [Gasche et al, 1998]. A reference to a Babylonian robe is not out of place in Joshua's Jericho.
Joshua also defeated King Jabin of northern coalition of Canaanites who ruled from Hazor. He burned Hazor [Joshua 11:10] and hamstrung its horses. The hypothesis that the Exodus took place in the MB can be maintained only if Hazor was burned at the same time as Jericho. Kenyon states, "The remains of the final Middle Bronze Age buildings were covered with a thick layer of burning. A comparison of the pottery suggests that this was contemporary with the destruction of Middle Bronze Age Jericho." [Kenyon, 1973, p. 100] In 1992 AD a tablet in Old Babylonian was discovered in the MB levels. It was addressed to a king Ibni-Addu or Jabin in Hebrew, so that we can say that at least one king of that name ruled in Hazor in the Middle Bronze. This name was also found on a tablet with similar epigraphy in the palace at Mari in the time of Hammurabi.
Bimson compared the fate of MB and Late Bronze (LB) sites [Bimson, Livingstone, 1987, p.46]. He found that the sites mentioned in the book of Joshua existed as walled cities in the MB. In addition, in the MB there is an influx of a new people with a deep religious feeling. Only a few sites such as Ai are problematic. However, in the LB era, many biblical sites were unoccupied or unwalled. Bimson and Livingstone concluded that only in the Middle Bronze does the archaeology of Canaan fully agree with the biblical account of an invasion of the Israelites under Joshua. All the revisionists except Aardsma adopt Bimson's view. The archaeology and history of Joseph, Moses and Joshua can be found in the Middle Bronze era in both Egypt and Canaan.
A Middle Bronze Exodus and secular dating
In 1907-9 and again in 1911, Watzinger and Sellin excavated at Tell es-Sultan, ancient Jericho. They found a third millennium town that had been destroyed followed by a town fortified by a double walls and a sloping glacis that lasted until about 1500. They concluded that this Joshua's Jericho. At the Late Bronze level, there had been no walled city at Jericho. Garstang continued the excavation in the thirties. He redated the double wall to the 15th century (Late Bronze Age) and dated the fall of Jericho to about 1400 BC using Egyptian scarabs and the absence of Mycenaean pottery. When others disputed Garstang's findings, he invited Kenyon to analyse the stratigraphy. Her study dated the fall of Jericho at 1580 after which it was abandoned for 150 years. Kenyon's own excavations confirmed her opinion that Late Bronze I bichrome ware was absent from Jericho, "...there is a complete gap (in the occupation of Jericho) both on the tell and in the tombs between 1580 and 1400." [Kenyon, 1967, p. 198]. This was not popular with biblical conservatives. According to the evidence of the scarabs the latest ruler attested before the fall of Jericho was Sheshi, supposedly the first Hyksos pharaoh, which effectively eliminated MB IV from consideration under both liberal and conservative dates. The problem, however, is one of biblical chronology. Kenyon's ceramic date and BIC are quite compatible.
Wood, Bimson and Livingstone have attempted again to redate the fall of this city to 1400 from its pottery evidence [Wood, 1990; Bimson and Livingstone, 1987]. They were opposed by Bienkowski, Bietak, the excavator of Tell ed-Daba, and Halpern [Bienkowski, 1990; Bietak, 1987, p54; Halpern, 1987]. Bartlett states their main ceramic objection as follows; "The explanation is not simply that Jericho was a backwater in the Jordan valley which bichrome ware ... failed to reach, for that leaves its failure to reach Tell Beit Mirsim unexplained and, in any case, it is not just bichrome ware but a whole range of pottery of that period that is missing from Jericho." [Bartlett, 1982, p. 96] The British Museum laboratory has even revised the one radiocarbon date, quoted by Wood as 1410, to 1630. [Aardsma, 1993, p. 74]. Their case has not been demonstrated.
Bruins and Vander Plicht recently has been published radiocarbon data in Nature [Bruins & Vander Plicht, 1996, p. 213]. They believe that the Exodus is associated with a Middle Bronze volcanic eruption of Santorini. Short-lived materials from Akrotiri (Santorini) averaged 3356±18 uncalibrated years BP while those derived from cereals gathered at Jericho averaged 3311±13 BP. They noted "These averages taken together yield 3356±18, 45 years older than our 14C destruction date for MB IIC Jericho. This time difference is rather striking as it could fit the desert period of 40 years separating the Exodus from the destruction of Jericho, mentioned in ancient Hebrew texts." Because of the "wiggle" in the mid-16th century, the calibrated results are ambiguous. However, if one uses the lower calibrated dates for Jericho and the lower 1993 AD calibrated dates for Akrotiri, one obtains composite intervals of 1551-1535 and 1606-1573 respectively. These come very close to maintaining the 45 years difference of the uncalibrated data. The BIC date for the fall of Jericho, 1551, is in accord with radiocarbon dating.
The evidence also suggests that the12th Dynasty ended at the time of the Exodus. Conventionally, the 13th Dynasty reigned before the Hyksos Dynasty. How is the 13th Dynasty connected to the Exodus? The Turin Royal Canon says in the 13th Dynasty after the second king "-no king for 6 years." This disruption needs an explanation. In Goshen, an inscribed block was found bearing the name of pharaoh Hetepibre in late Middle Kingdom context. His throne name was "Amu, son of Saharnedjheryotef" [Rohl, 1995, p.267]. He is thought to be a king of the Egyptian 13th Dynasty. The Amus were the Asiatic nomads to the East. For an Amu to put his name in a cartouche was the height of presumption and the Egyptians would have put him in his place promptly. Apparently, they were not able. Another example of an Amu pharaoh of the early 13th Dynasty was Amenemhet the Amu. The Hyksos not only occupied the Eastern delta and but also took the throne of the 13th Dynasty as pharaohs themselves. Thus, the 13th and likely the 14th Dynasties were coeval with the Hyksos 15th and 16th Dynasties.
In the Third Intermediate Period the invasion of Pharaoh Shoshenq I, the first Libyan pharaoh, is synchronized with the invasion of the biblical Pharaoh Shishak in the 5th year of Jeroboam I (I Kings 14:25) in 926 GAD. This has led to serious flaws in the chronology of the 1st millennium. The identification of Shishak is based on the similarity of their respective names. In Egyptology this is seldom a good criterion for identifications. A comparison of the two campaigns by James and Rohl shows that Shishak campaigned against Judah and Jerusalem while Shoshenq I campaigned in Samaria and Galilee [James, 1993, p.229-23; Rohl, 1995, p.122-127]. The comparison of the spoils also demonstrates that they are two different campaigns. Shishak received the treasures of Solomon's temple. The boasting of any pharaoh who plundered the treasures of Solomon's Temple would have been great. Shoshenq I's tribute was unspecified. Furthermore, according to BIC, Pharaoh Shishak's invasion in 982 cannot be synchronized with Shoshenq's reign
There are many reasons for shortening the duration of the Libyan 22nd Dynasty. Egyptologists give several pharaohs a much longer reign than Manetho or any inscriptions - for example, Osorkon I, Takelot I and Osorkon IV. Osorkon I was given 36 years. The inscription that supported this proved to be a misreading [Jaquet-Gordon, 1967, pp. 63-68.] Kitchen's reign of 35 years is based primarily on a mummy wearing a token of Osorkon I whose bandage reads years 33 and year 3 of unknown kings [Kitchen, 1986, p 110]. A regnal date with no king's name is insufficient to determine the proper chronology. The highest attested reign year of Osorkon I is 12. Manetho gives him a reign of 15 years. Takelot I has no undisputed inscriptions [Kitchen, 1986, p.310]. Kitchen's assignment of a 14-year reign is based on another inscription with no king's name. Manetho says that after Osorkon I three kings reigned for 25 years. This must include Osorkon II who reigned at least 23 and probably 24 years and Takelot I. The third pharaoh is either Shoshenq II or an unknown. Lastly, pharaoh Osorkon IV is given 3 years even though he is attested by only one undated fragment. The Libyan reigns could be exaggerated by up to 37 years.
Genealogical and historical data both suggest the dynasty ought to be shorter. Manetho (Africanus) recorded that its 9 kings reigned 120 years although the individual reigns summed to 116. The 8 kings of the 23rd Libyan Dynasty ruled 89 according to Manetho although the final reign was shortened. The first 7 kings ruled about 89 years or about 13 years on average. If one uses a 15-year average, the first 8 kings of the 22nd Dynasty would have reigned 120 years in agreement with Manetho. Even, a 20-year average yields only 160 years. Several genealogies, including one by Pasenhor, count nine generations from the first king Shoshenq I to the last generation of Libyans to rule Egypt. This results in 180 years at 20 years per generation.
There are also internal genealogical issues. In the middle of the dynasty there are some genealogical inconsistencies. Hor x was vizier under Osorkon II. Genealogies in this era show his nephew's grandson, Hor viii, was attested in the reign of Osorkon III of the parallel 23rd Dynasty [Kitchen, 1986, p.133]. Using 20 years per generation, Osorkon III (777- 750) should start his reign 40-60 years after Osorkon II (874-851) rather than 97. This suggests the accepted chronology is too long by about 60-40 years. It would place Petubates and his sons who reigned about 40 years in the gap between the death of Osorkon II and the start of the reign of Osorkon III. Kitchen has to admit that this genealogy "would allow the 23rd Dynasty to begin soon after Osorkon II [Kitchen, 1986, p.132]."
Revisionists have attempted to construct a Libyan Chronology. Velikovsky put the Libyans between the end of the el-Amarna correspondence, circa 830, and the invasion of Ethiopian Emperor Piankh, circa 730 or 100 years. This is impossibly short. James and Rohl think that it can be shortened to 160 years. This can be reasonably supported. Rohl synchronizes Shoshenq I with the "saviour" who freed Israel from the oppression of the Arameans during the reigns of Jehoahaz and Jehoash [II Kings 13:1-7], 804 GAD. A campaign directed against the Arameans would be a more reasonable fit to both the description of the campaign and the historic time frame of the Libyans. Rohl reduces the reigns of Osorkon I to 15 years to agree with Manetho and overlaps Shoshenq III and Takelot II on good grounds. His construction also assumes Osorkon III and Osorkon IV are the same person but this extends the rule of the Libyans 50 years into the Ethiopian era. There is no evidence that any Libyan pharaoh reigned after 715. Rohl's difficulties stem from his use of the conventional biblical chronology. BIC would allow 46 years more than GAD in this era, thus removing the need to overlap the Libyans and the Ethiopians.
According to conventional dates, a very awkward problem arises in the career of Prince Osorkon, the High Priest of Amon (HPA). Prince Osorkon, son of Takelot II is attested in years 11-14 and 25 as making votive offerings as HPA. He is still making votive offerings in years 22-28 and year 39 of Shoshenk III - a career of 54 years. Furthermore, there are career gaps of 11 years, 21-year and 11 years in the middle. To ameliorate this gap, Rohl places year 22 of Shoshenq III after year 25 of Takelot II, a 21-year reduction. In my opinion, an even better argument can be made. Both pharaohs experienced a loss of power during the 11-year hiatus in votive offerings at Thebes. During these years both pharaohs disappear from the historical record. In the 23rd Dynasty, a similar hiatus in the records exists after the death of Petubates. Could this mean a civil war between the dynasties? I propose that these gaps represent the same period. Thus, Year 14 to 25 of Takelot II should coincide with Year 28 to 39 of Shoshenq III and both should coincide with the reigns of Petubates' son, Shoshenq IV, and grandson, Iuput I. This results in a 39-year reduction in the GAD and places the 1st year of Shoshenq III (825 GAD) in year 11 of Osorkon II. This implies that Osorkon II began to reign in 835 and Takelot I began to reign in 836. The reign of Shoshenq I began in 872 and his invasion was in his 20th year at 853, which is the accession year of Jehoash (BIC). Table 1 shows dates for Manetho, Kitchen and the proposed dates for the Libyan Dynasties.
The date of Piankh's invasion is adjusted to 730 to account for the 3-year difference with BIC but begins Osorkon IV rule in the same year. Thus the reign of the latter kings of the 22nd Dynasty was 95 years (825 730). The Apis bull stelae confirm the duration of the reigns from Shoshenq III to Shoshenq V. I have assigned 15 years for Osorkon I and 25 years total to Takelot I and Osorkon II in accordance with Manetho's reign for three unnamed kings.
|Takelot I|| 3 kings
There is an interesting consequence of the overlapping reigns of early and late Libyan pharaohs besides eliminating a very unlikely 21-year gap in Prince Osorkon's career. Hariese A, who was the HPA under Osorkon II, is conventionally the grandfather of Hariese B, who was the HPA in the middle of Shoshenq III 's reign A. However, no records attest to this relationship. In this construction they are the same person. Another interesting consequence is that Shoshenq III can now be included with Osorkon II and Takelot I as the third pharaoh whom Manetho said ruled for 25 years after Osorkon I and before Takelot II. A third consequence is that the last three kings of the Dynasty have a combine total of 43 years, close to the 42 mentioned by Manetho (Africanus). Finally, a 73-year reduction in Libyan chronology relocates the start of the Hyksos Dynasty at 1587, which is close to the BIC date for the Exodus.
The 39-year overlap of Shoshenq III with the kings of the early 22nd Dynasty (Option A) is possibly the best but not the only option. Alternately, the temple offerings of Prince Osorkon, HPA, in the reigns of Takelot I and Shoshenq III might have started at the same time. Then year 11 of Takelot II would be the same as year 22 Shoshenq III (Option B). The overlap in this case would be 36 instead of 39 years. The temple offerings under Shoshenq III could have started at the end of Takelot II 's offerings, so that year 14 Takelot II immediately preceded year 22 Shoshenq III (Option C). The overlap would be 32 instead of 39 years. I would consider 7 years as an appropriate error margin. Egyptologist Gardiner uses 714 instead of 716, as the start of Shabaka's reign so there is a minimum 2-year margin of error. Although my preference is for Option A, Option C also has the advantage that Petubates of the 23rd Dynasty would begin to rule in the year Osorkon II died? His death could have been an opportunity for a revolt. We can reasonably claim that dates are unsure by +7/-2 to this point.
The Second Intermediate Period
Several historical sources suggest a long duration for this period. Josephus quotes Manetho that the Hyksos dynasties lasted 511 years [Josephus, Against Apion I.16, p. 611]. Africanus (Manetho) gives 518 years. Eusebius gives only the individual dynastic totals: 453 years for the 13th, 484 years for the 14th, 440 years for the 15th and 16th combined and 103 years for the 17th [Petrie, 1904, p201]. Obviously, these dynasties overlap. The Turin Canon lists the pharaohs from the 1st Dynasty to the 18th Dynasty. For the 13th Dynasty, the Turin Canon has over 55 kings. It agrees closely to the 60 kings given in Africanus and Eusebius versions of Manetho. The six kings of the 15th Dynasty are given a total of 108 years in the Turin Canon while Josephus gives 260, Africanus 284 and Eusebius 250 years. Only a dozen reigns of 13th Dynasty pharaohs have survived, totaling about 80 years, an average of almost 7 years per reign. Projected over the entire dynasty of sixty pharaohs this would yield about 420 years. After this, the 17th dynasty reigned. The average of six years per reign is improbably low. The Turin Canon and the various versions of Manetho disagree on the individual numbers but they generally support an SIP length between 475 and 520 years.
The length of the SIP is also indicated by the archaeology of Shechem. In Judges, the people of Shechem rebelled against Abimelech, Gideon's son. Abimelech attacked the town and burned them alive in the Temple of Baal Berith. The excavation of Shechem uncovered a large walled town that was badly burned. Inside the walls was a huge tower with walls 17 feet thick that had also been burned. Initially, the excavators identified it as Abimelech's Shechem. When the ceramics of this level yielded MB pottery instead of LB, the excavators had to abandon this interpretation. However, in the BIC the Exodus is MB and the destruction at Shechem in 1292 (BIC), 300 years after the Exodus, could also be Middle Bronze. The excavators' initial interpretation is good. The SIP must be at least 300 years long contrary to the conventional view.
The lengthening of the SIP dictates that the Israelites were firmly in control of Canaan at the time of the 18th Dynasty. There should be some evidence of this in Egyptian history. Unfortunately, the Egyptian were rather general about the enemies they conquered and refer to the inhabitants of Canaan simply as Retenu or Shosu. However, there are several indirect indications that Israelites already inhabited Canaan in the time of Amenhotep III and Thutmose III. In the temple of Soleb an inscription from the time of Amenhotep III was found describing a location in Canaan called "Yahweh of the Land of Shosu" [Redford, 1992, p.272]. This is the earliest known reference to the name of Israel's God outside Israel. The 18th Dynasty could hardly use "Yahweh" as a divine name unless the Israelites had not only invaded Canaan but also were firmly in control. An el-Amarna letter (EA 256 line 18) from the same era used the name "Yashuya" [Moran, 1992]. This name is not Canaanite but Israelite. Thutmose III listed cities conquered in Canaan that included Semitic names Joseph-El and Jacob-El [Wilson, 1969a, p. 242]. The towns of Beth Zur and Etam are also mentioned. These Semitic names are listed as clan leaders in biblical genealogies [I Chr 2:45; I Chr 4:3]. Therefore, Israelites seem to be in charge as early as Thutmose III. In el-Amarna letters 74 and 290 the name 'Beth Sulman" is mentioned in relation to Jerusalem [Levy, 1940, p.519]. The mention of the house of Solomon must be placed after Solomon.
REVISED EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY 18th DYNASTY
This means that the 18th Dynasty must start later than 1080, almost 500 years after the GAD. Furthermore, the length of the 18th Dynasty is over 200 years so that it would end near the beginning of the Libyans. The 600-year history of the New Kingdom (including 21st Dynasty) must be shortened 400 years. This requires either a major overlap or a removal of dynasties. The evidence suggests that Manetho's 19th, 20th and 21st Dynasties do not intervene the 18th and the 22nd Dynasties but should be placed elsewhere in Egypt's history [Velikovsky, 1952; 1977; 1978]. Thus the time between the 18th and 22nd Dynasties can be shortened by 378 years by removing the 20th and 21st Dynasties (243 years) and the 19th Dynasty (135 years). It remains to demonstrate that the chronology formed by this construction synchronizes with the biblical events during this chronological era. The beginning of the reign of Shoshenq I was 872. Authorities in Thebes did not recognize his sovereignty at first. In the second year of his reign, Shoshenq I was referred to as the 'Chief of the Ma' not the pharaoh. In year 5, he is referred to as pharaoh [Kitchen, 1986. p.288]. Whom did Thebes recognize as pharaoh in year 2? If the 18th Dynasty preceded the Libyans then this was likely pharaoh Ay, who reigned 4 years. I will assume that Ay had a 4 year overlap with Shoshenq I.
Table 2 shows the most commonly used Egyptian chronology for the 18th dynasty taken from Rohl [Rohl p.241]. For comparison I have included the corresponding years from Gardiner [Gardiner, p. 453] and Grimal [Grimal, 1992 p. 362]. Even for this well documented Dynasty there is considerable disagreement on the length of several pharaohs and co-regencies.
| PHARAOH OF
|Ahmoses I||24||1068 - 1045||25||1092-1067||19||1097-1079|
|Amenhotep I||20||1044 - 1025||22||1067-1044||27||1078-1050|
|Thutmose I||11||1024 - 1014||4||1045-1040||13||1051-1039|
|Thutmose II||1||1013 -1 013||18||1041-1024||14||1038-1025|
|Thutmose III||53||1012 - 960||54||1023-970||54||1024-971|
|Amenhotep II||26||959 - 934||23||969-946||24||970-947|
|Thutmose IV||9||933 - 925||8||946-939||11||946-936|
|Amenhotep III||37||924 - 888||38||938-901||38||935-898|
|Akhenaten||17||898 - 882||11||17||900-882||14||897-884|
|Smenkaure||2||882 - 881||1||3||883-881||2||883-882|
|Tutankhamun||8||880 - 873||8||880-873||9||881-873|
|Ay||4||872 - 869||4||4||872-869||4||872-869|
|Shoshenq I||21||872 - 852||21||872-852||21||872-852|
The Egyptians under "Zerah" invaded Judah in the 15th regnal year of king Asa and were badly defeated. According to BIC this occurred in year 952. In his 9th year, Amenhotep II led an invasion of Palestine. He fought a battle in Southern Judah, a days journey beyond the border of Egypt. He took a small amount of booty and immediately returned to Egypt. According to Table 1 above 951 is the 9th year of Amenhotep II. Only one year needs be added to the REC to agree with the BIC at the invasion of Zerah /Amenhotep II, well within the error margin for the 18th Dynasty. Also, if two years were subtracted from the REC then Option B in the Libyan period (see Part 1), would also fit.
The Egyptians under 'Shishak' invaded Judah in the 5th year of King Rehoboam in 982 (BIC) and won a battle at Megiddo. Rehoboam escaped but surrendered Jerusalem without a fight. Shishak took all the gold and silver from Solomon's Temple. No other contacts with Egypt are mentioned between the invasion of Shishak and the Exodus in 1591. According to the Table 1, 982 is the 31st year of Thutmose III. He conducted many campaigns between his 23rd and 42nd years. In his 23rd year he led an army against Megiddo in Palestine and defeated a coalition of Syrian princes but in the excitement of the victory and looting, the enemy escaped. Thutmose III claimed conquest and tribute from the land. The most important city in his list of conquests was Kadesh (Line 1). In Hebrew 'Kadesh' means 'holy' and the city 'Kadesh' is the 'Holy City' or Jerusalem. The tribute received from Kadesh was proudly displayed on the wall at Karnak. According to Velikovsky, the items displayed at Karnak are of similar quantity and quality to that of Solomon's Temple treasure [Velikovsky, 1952, p.155-163]. No item in the tribute exalts any deity and specifically no Canaanite deity such as Baal, Dagon or Ashtara. To synchronize the invasion of Shishak with the campaign of Thutmose III in his 23rd year requires a 10-year co-regency with his son, Amenhotep II. It is generally acknowledged that some co-regency existed between 1 and 11 years [Wilson, 1969a, p. 245 n 1].
Supposing a 10-year co-regency brings the reign of Thutmose III from 1013 (REC) to 1003. According to Rohl's reign lengths for the first 4 pharaohs, 56 years, Ahmose I would have begun his reign at 1059 (REC). According to Gardiner it was 69 years, which places him at 1071 (REC) and according to Grimal it was 73 years, which places him at 1075 (REC). If one computes the average, he began to reign at 1069 +/- 10 (REC). Adding 511 years (Josephus) or 518 years (Africanus) for the Hyksos Dynasty (SIP) brings us to 1583 +/- 14 (REC), only 4 years from the end of the 12th Dynasty. This is reasonable considering the uncertainty for that era. This demonstrates that one can construct synchronisms between the 18th Dynasty and the Kingdom of Judah using the REC and the BIC chronologies without straying beyond the normal boundaries of error and uncertainty.
CONCLUSIONS PART 1
The 12th Dynasty has been revised 191 years from 1991-1778 GAD to 1800-1587 REC. The pharaoh of the Exodus was Amenemhat IV who reigned 1599-1591 until the beginning of the Hyksos. The last 12th Dynasty pharaoh, Sobekhotep, ruled 4 years 1591-1587. At that time the Hyksos 15th Dynasty (1587-1074) invaded and brought the collapsed empire under its power. The Hyksos reigned over the 13th, 14th and 17th dynasties for about 514 years. The 18th Dynasty (1074 - 872) reigned about 202 years. They drove out the Hyksos, conquered Canaan and Syria until the end of the el-Amarna period. Its demise came at the hands of the Libyans (872-730). The proposed Revised Egyptian Chronology (REC) is shown in Table 3.
|Middle Kingdom||13th, 14th||1778-1646||1587-1083||Moses, Joshua, Judges|
|SIP-Hyksos||15th, 16th,17th||1663-1540||1587-1083||Moses, Joshua, Judges|
|New Kingdom||18th -21st||1552 -945||1083 -872||United Kingdom|
|TIP-Libyan||22nd /23rd||945 - 727||872 -730||Divided Kingdom|
The Middle Bronze level archaeological evidence found at Tell Ed-Daba places the Exodus of the Israelites in the end of the 12th Dynasty and the arrival of Hyksos. After correcting the Libyan Dynasty's chronology, BIC and Egyptian chronology agree. The pharaoh of the Exodus was Amenemhet IV. Manetho's story of the invasion in the time of Timaios shows that the Hyksos put the 13th Dynasty under tribute and ruled Egypt for about 500 years. At Middle Bronze Jericho and Hazor archaeological evidence conforms to the time of Joshua's conquest. Ceramic and radiocarbon dating at Jericho agrees with BIC date of 1551.
There is much evidence to support a reduced Libyan chronology. A reconstructed chronology using reigns nearer inscriptions and historical evidence could reduce its length by 37 years. Generational evidence suggests an overlap in the reigns of between 30 and 60 years. The proposed chronology reduces its length 73 years to 872 with a 7-year margin of error. The new Libyan chronology and BIC make clear that Pharaoh Shishak and Pharaoh Shoshenq I are 100 years apart. The invasion of Shoshenq I of the Libyan Dynasty should synchronize with the end of the Aramean domination of Israel in the 9th century at the beginning of the reign of King Jehoash of Israel.
It has been shown that BIC can accurately synchronize the Exodus at the same time as several coincident secular data in the Middle Bronze. The BIC can no longer be considered just a theological or theoretical chronology. Thus the generally accepted biblical chronology that places the Exodus in the Late Bronze is no longer tenable. In my opinion, the combination of evidence from history, archaeology, ceramics and carbon-14 is beyond coincidence and suggests that the conventional view of Egyptian history ought to be replaced by one in which the Exodus occurs in the Middle Bronze era and the 18th Dynasty occurs in the time of the Israelite kings.
* Thanks to Brad Sparks for his research (unpublished report 1986, private communication, 1992) suggesting that Amenemes IV was indeed the pharaoh of the Exodus.
Exodus Chart from P.J. Ray, 1997, Problems of Middle and Late Bronze Age Chronology: Toward a Solution. Near Eastern Archaeological Bulletin, 42:1-13.
Aardsma, G. 1993. A New approach to the chronology of biblical history from Abraham to Samuel. ICR. San Diego
Bartlett, J. 1982. Jericho. Lutterworth Press. Guildford, Surrey, p96
Bienkowski, P. 1990. Jericho was destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age not the Late Bronze age. Biblical Archaeological Review. Sept/Oct 1990
Bietak, M. 1988. Contra Bimson. Biblical Archaeological Review , July/Aug 1988, p.54
Bimson, J.J. and Livingstone, D.P. 1987. Redating the Exodus. Biblical Archaeological Review, Sept/Oct 1987 pp. 40-53,66
Bimson, J.J. 1981. Redating the Exodus and Conquest. 2nd Ed. The Almond press. Sheffield.
Bruins, H.J. & Vander Plicht, J. 1996. The Exodus enigma. Nature Vol. 382. (July, 1996), p. 213
Clayton, P. 1994. Chronicle of the pharaohs. Thames and Hudson, London.
Courville, D. 1971. The Exodus and its ramifications. Challenge Books, Loma Linda.
Forster, Rev. C. 1862. Sinai photographed. Richard Bentley. London.
Grimal, N. 1992. A history of ancient Egypt. Blackwell. Oxford.
Halpern, B. 1987. Radical Exodus redating fatally flawed. Biblical archaeological review. Nov/Dec 1987.
Jaquet-Gordon, H. 1967. The illusory year 36 of Osorkon I. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. Vol. 53, pp. 63-68.
James, P. et al. 1993. Centuries in darkness. Rutgers University Press, Brunswick, NJ
Josephus. Against Apion. Josephus: Complete works, (Whiston translation), 1960. Kregel. Grand Rapids, MI.
Kenyon, K. 1979. Archaeology in the Holy Land, E. Binn. London. p. 198
Kenyon, K. 1973. Palestine in the Middle Bronze. CAH (3rd Ed.) Cambridge Press Vol. II.1, p.100
Kitchen, K. 1986. The Third Intermediate Period. Aris & Phillips. Warminster.
Kitchen, K. 1995. The patriarchal age: myth or history? Biblical Archaeological Review. Vol. 21, No. 2 (Mar/Apr 95)
Levy, J. 1940. The Sulman Temple in Jerusalem. Journal of Biblical Literature. Vol. 59, p. 519 ff.
Montgomery, A. 1998. Towards a biblically inerrant chronology. Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism. Ed. R. Walsh. Pittsburgh, PA. p. 395-406
Moran, W. 1992. The el-Amarna letters. John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore.
Niebuhr, H. 1761. Biblical Research. Vol. 1, pp 113,114
Petrie, F. 1904. The history of Egypt (4th Ed.). Books for Libraries Press. Freemont, NY Vol. 1, p. 201
Redford, D. B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in ancient times. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ
Rohl, D. 1995. Pharaohs and kings: a biblical quest. Crown Publishers. NY
Van Seters, J. 1966. The Hyksos. Yale University Press. New Haven, CT
Velikovsky, I. 1952. Ages in chaos. Doubleday & Co. Garden City, NY
Velikovsky, I. 1977. Peoples of the sea. Doubleday & Co. Garden City, NY
Velikovsky, I. 1978. Ramses II and his times. Doubleday & Co, Garden City, NY
Wilson, J. A. 1969a. The Asiatic campaigning of Amenhotep II. ANET (3rd Ed.) p. 245. Ed. J. Pritchard. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Wilson, J. A. 1969b. The admonitions of Ipuwer. ANET (3rd Ed.) p. 441. Ed. J. Pritchard. Princeton University Press, Wilson, J. A. 1969c. The expulsion of the Hyksos. ANET (3rd Ed.) p. 233. Ed. J. Pritchard. Princeton University Press, Wilson, J. A. 1969d. List of Asiatic countries under the Egyptian empire. ANET (3rd Ed.). p .242. Ed. J. Pritchard. Princeton University Press
Wood, B. 1990. Did the Israelites conquer Jericho? Biblical Archaeological Review. Vol. 16, Mar/Apr 1990, pp. 44-57.
A CHRONOLOGICAL MODEL FOR THE BIBLE: Part 1. THE EXODUS, JOSHUA AND JUDGES The Stratigraphy of the 19th Dynasty in Asia Minor
April 5, 2001. Updated March 30, 2003. May 8, 2003.
Back to Lambert Dolphin's Library